Sitting of 25 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Lytham Improvement Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Lothians Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Great Western Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill. As amended, considered. Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Newburgh and North File Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting (London) (re-committed) Bill. Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Amendment) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed for this day.

PROVISONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKERlaid 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 which are applicable thereto have been

1023
complied with, viz.:—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time and committed.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy Corporation, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy Corporation," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill; Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill; Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill; Melrose District Water Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Railways (Private Sidings) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, with an Amendment.
Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Tottenham Improvement Bill; London United Tramways Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [Lords]; Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [Lords]; Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable regulations to be made for carrying into effect conventions with respect to the prevention of danger arising to public health from vessels, and the prevention of the conveyance of infection by means of vessels." [Public Health Bill [Lords].

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Alvingham; Bath; Bridgwater; Consett; Donington; Louth; Paulton; Portsmouth; Reston; Sheffield; South Willingham; and Tottington; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the population, valuation, the average assessment levied under The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, for the three years 1900–1 to 1902–3 in each parish, and the total raised from each Local Government district, together with calculations showing the amounts which would be raised from each parish if the total assessment so raised from each Local Government district were imposed as a district rate upon parishes on the basis of (1) valuation alone, and (2) half on valuation and half on population, and calculations showing the amounts which would be raised from each parish if the charge in respect of interest on and repayment of loans were borne by the respective parishes instead of the district as a whole [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COMPANIES (MEDICAL AND DENTAL).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th June; Sir John Tuke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 275.]
  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 330. of Session 1904) as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 276.]
  EAST INDIA.
  Copy presented, of Review of Progress of Education in India, 1897–8 to 1901–2. Vol. I. Fourth Quinquennial Review. Vol. II. Maps and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series. Nos. 3228 to 3235 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 617 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BRIDLINGTON CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Tenth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NEW BILL.
  LEEDS UNIVERSITY BILL.
  "To extend the privileges of the graduates of the University of Leeds," presented by Mr. Barran; supported by Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Hastings Duncan, Mr. Beckett, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Whitley; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Life-Saving Precautions on British Emigrant Ships.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps are taken to ensure British emigrant ships being provided with a sufficiency of lifeboats and life-belts; and will he say whether such vessels are allowed to proceed to sea with more passengers than the ship's boats will accommodate.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The emigration officers of the Board of Trade, before allowing any British emigrant ship to proceed to sea, are required to satisfy themselves that the boats, life-belts, and other life-saving appliances on board are strictly in accordance with the statutory rules made under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which are laid before Parliament before coming into operation. Under these rules the total boat capacity may not be equal in some instances to the number of persons on board, but an approved life-belt is required for each person on board.

  Instruction in Cookery and Household Economy in Highland Schools.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what percentage of the girls in the Highland crofting counties who last year terminated their attendance at public schools had received instruction in cookery and household economy respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. All that I can say is that of the total number of girls above ten years of age in average attendance at schools in the Highland crofting counties about 25 per cent. received instruction in one or other of the subjects named in the year 1902–3.

  Vaccination of Prisoners in Glasgow Prison.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state by whose authority prisoners in Glasgow Prison have

  1027
  recently been vaccinated; and whether they were given the option of refusing to undergo the operation.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) When epidemics of smallpox have broken out in Glasgow, Dr. Chalmers, the medical officer of health, has suggested that prisoners should be vaccinated or revaccinated, and the Prison Commissioners have approved of this being done provided always that the prisoner did not object, and that the prison medical officer considered it necessary. No prisoner is required to be vaccinated or revaccinated without his consent.

  Repair and Guardianship of Ancient Irish Monuments.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, inasmuch as the last Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland deals only with the period ending 31st March, 1903, he will state what ancient monuments have been repaired from the 31st March, 1903, to the 31st March, 1904; what ancient monuments the Commissioners have become guardians of during that period; and what ruins have been brought under the notice of the Commissioners with a view to guardianship in that period.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for 1903–4 will be presented to Parliament very shortly, and will contain a complete list of the ancient monuments repaired during that year. The Commissioners have not become guardians of any ancient monuments during that period. The ruins brought under their notice in the last financial year, with a view to guardianship, are—
  Grianan of Aileach, county Londonderry.
  Bun-a-Margie (Ballycastle), county Antrim.
  Kiltolagh Church, county Clare.

  Supply of Fuel to Public Buildings in County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state who is the officer of the Commissioners of Public Works resident in county
  1028
  Wexford for the purposes of the supplies of fuel to public buildings in the smaller towns; by what Act of Parliament or by what Treasury Minute is the procedure of the Commissioners in the matter of contracts for the supplies to public buildings in Ireland regulated; and if, in advertising for contractors for such supplies for public buildings in county Wexford in future, he will see that the advertisements are inserted in county Wexford newspapers.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The officer of the Commissioners of Public Works who has charge of the district, of which the county Wexford forms part, is one of their assistant surveyors, and resides in the city of Waterford. The procedure of the Commissioners in the matter of contracts for supplies to public buildings is not regulated by Act of Parliament or by Treasury Minute. The practice of inviting tenders for works and supplies by competition has existed for years, and from time to time it has come under review by the Treasury and by Parliamentary Committees. Coal supplies are practically the only supplies obtained locally for buildings in the country, and, therefore, the arrangement indicated in the Answer to the hon. Baronet's Question on the 18th instant† applies only to them. It is not at present proposed to make any other change in the arrangements.

  Gun Sights on His Majesty's Ship "Prince of Wales."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the gun sights of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales" were pronounced unsatisfactory on her gunnery trials; whether since going into commission the ship's artificers under the gunnery lieutenant have been engaged with such material as exists on board in altering the sights of the 6-inch guns; and whether the captain has decided that the 12-inch guns must remain as they are, it being impossible to make them efficient with the means at his disposal.
  (Answered by Mr. Prettyman.) This Question was asked in identical terms by
  † See page 252.

  1029
  the hon. Member for South Tyrone on 27th June, and I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I then gave.†

  Distribution of the Canton Booty Fund.
  MR. SHARPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty are now in a position to distribute the Canton Booty Fund among the survivors and next-of-kin of the seamen and Marines who took part in the China War of 1852; and what sum will be available for distribution.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Of the net proceeds of the sale of the booty taken at Canton when that city was captured in December, 1857, the amount awarded to the Navy was £28,848 2s. 7d. That amount was put into distribution in February, 1861, and payments are still being made to any persons able to substantiate their claims as survivors, or their next-of-kin. In 1902 a Blue-book was published by the Admiralty giving particulars of all prize moneys still unpaid which had been put into distribution between 1st January, 1855, and 31st March 1902, together with the names of the persons interested. The unclaimed shares in the Canton Booty Fund are included in the list; and the amount unpaid is about £1,100.

  Preservation of Historic Walls at Berwick-on-Tweed.
  MR. BRYCE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can now state if any arrangement has been made for the preservation of the Edwardian walls of Berwick-on-Tweed as a historical monument of exceptional antiquity and interest; and, if so, what are the terms of that arrangement.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) Negotiations are in progress between the town council and the Office of Works. It is understood that the committee of the town council is to submit its report in the first week in August; and it is hoped that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the protection and maintenance of these historic remains.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 1236.

  Sunday Duty of Metropolitan Police.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way to place the Metropolitan Police, with regard to Sunday duty, in the same position as the police of rural districts and the City, so that the men in town districts may perform their eight hours duty in one tour, and thus he able to enjoy a longer period of unbroken leisure.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The conditions obtaining on Sunday in the rural districts and in the City of London are entirely different from the conditions under which police work has to be done on that day in the inner divisions of the Metropolitan Police area; and, after careful consideration and consultation with the Commissioners of Police, I am convinced that it would not be desirable in the public interest to alter the existing arrangement in the manner suggested.

  Case of Adolf Beck—Mistaken Identity.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether representations have been made to him to the effect that Adolf Beck, who, in 1896, was sentenced to seven years penal servitude for various frauds, has been the victim of mistaken identity; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The facts of this remarkable case of mistaken identity were brought to my notice by the Metropolitan Police; and, by my instructions, steps were at once taken for the provisional release of Adolf Beck, who was awaiting sentence in another case in which the same mistake as to his identity appears to have occurred. I am now carefully considering all the circumstances of the case, but I am precluded from indicating beforehand how I propose to advise His Majesty the King in the matter.

  Annual Leave of Unestablished Postal Servants.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what is the amount of annual leave granted to the various grades of

  1031
  unestablished employees in the postal, telegraph, and engineering departments of the Post Office.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The annual leave allowed to unestablished officers is, as a rule, twelve working days. Exceptionally, a few unestablished men enjoy the same amount of leave as established men, but it is not now the practice to grant to unestablished officers leave equal in amount to that enjoyed by established officers. Men temporarily employed as gang-hands in the Engineer-in-Chief's Department, and paid under the "Labour Vote," are not granted annual leave.

  Increments of Civil Servants.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether the Order in Council of the 29th November, 1898, respecting the increments of Civil servants, applies to all increments; and whether there are any Departmental regulations which refer particularly to barrier increments as being exempt from the provisions of this Order in Council.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The provisions of the Order in Council of the 29th November 1898 apply to all annual increments in scales of pay so far as the allowance and the deferment of them are concerned; and as regards the adjustment of salaries in respect of increments withheld the Order also applies, but with the following exceptions: (1) Increments withheld prior to the date of the confirmation of an officer's appointment; (2) Age-pay (that is, an increase in pay on attaining 19 years of age) withheld for inefficiency; (3) Efficiency barrier increments withheld for inefficiency; and (4) Deferred increments followed by a reduction of salary. The Departmental rule as regards efficiency bar increments is that if withheld for inefficiency they are not re-adjusted, but if withheld for other causes they can be re-adjusted.

  Learner in Portadown Post Office—Alleged Inefficiency.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the postmaster at Portadown has reported a certain learner as unfitted for his duties; whether this learner was employed in duties usually entrusted to more experienced officers; whether any
  1032
  charges of breach of regulations preferred against him were due to want of training; whether he is aware that the next learner on the list is a nephew of the postmaster; and, if so, whether he will cause strict inquiries to be made into this matter.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Reports of an unsatisfactory character have been received respecting a sorting clerk and telegraphist on probation at Portadown, to whom the Question of the hon. Member apparently refers. He has been employed on such duties as usually devolve upon an officer of his standing and which are necessary to enable him to qualify for the confirmation of his appointment, with the exception that for a portion of his probation, when under eighteen years of age, he was employed on night duty. The officer in question alleges that some of the irregularities were due to want of experience; but it is reported that the number of irregularities committed by him is greatly in excess of those committed by other officers of similar standing. It is true the learner who in ordinary course would be recommended to succeed the officer in question, if his appointment is cancelled, is a nephew of the postmaster. Before such an appointment is made the necessary inquiries will be instituted and the appointment, if made, will be subject to the officer seeking transfer to another office on attaining nineteen years of age if his uncle is still postmaster at Portadown. The whole matter is now under consideration.

  Delay in Transmission of Parcels from Cheltenham to North of Ireland.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can explain the reason of the delay in transmitting parcels from Cheltenham to the North of Ireland; and if he will direct that the public inconvenience thereby caused shall be remedied in the near future.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Preservation of Meat from Decomposition during Transit.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the President of the

  1033
  Local Government Board if he has now any official information showing that the stoppage of decomposition in meat during transit from abroad to the United Kingdom has any injurious effect upon those eating it; and if the Cancer Research Committee has reported on his communication to them in March last.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I have received a communication from the Executive Committee of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, and I find that, they believe the stoppage of decomposition in frozen and chilled meat during transit from abroad to the United Kingdom his no injurious effect whatever upon those eating such food. The Executive Committee further believe that the consumption of such food cannot be held in any degree accountable for the increase in the recorded number of cases of cancer in this country.

  Claims from British Residents in Samoa for Damage sustained by the Bombardment of Apia.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the award of His Majesty King Oscar of Sweden in the claims made by British residents at Samoa against Great Britain and America for losses arising from the bombardment of Apia and neighbourhood has been taken up; and, if so, when the damages awarded will be paid.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The award of the King of Sweden and Norway deals only with the question of principle, Great Britain and the United States being held liable for the consequences of certain military action which was pronounced to be unwarranted. An exchange of views as to the construction to be placed on the award has taken place between the three Governments interested, and a further examination of the claims, to see how far they are covered by the award, is now being made.

  Water-Storage Works for Gujerat and the Deccan.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the recommendation of the Scott-Moncrieff Commission for the multiplication of water-storage works of
  1034
  comparatively small size and cost, what progress has been made with surveys for actual work, more especially for Northern Gujerat and the Deccan, and what definite projects have been prepared and sanctioned; and c an any localities be named where any actual work has been done towards the saving of waste floods during the monsoon which is now prevailing in most of those districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I will communicate with the Government of India, and ascertain whether the information desired by the hon. Member can be supplied.

  Expenditure of the Malta Public Works Department.
  MR. BOLAND:To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total annual expenditure of the Malta Government Department of Public Works; how much is contributed by the Imperial Government, the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Malta Government respectively; what is the estimated capital value and the annual rental value of the realty administered by the Malta Public Works Department; and can he state how much of the expenditure is derived from the revenue raised by taxation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) (a) The annual expenditure of the Public Works Department varies from year to year. In 1903–4 it was £114,093, including salaries. (b) The Imperial Government has agreed to contribute three-sevenths of the cost of the works mentioned in Schedule A, and 25 percent. of the cost of certain of the works mentioned in Schedule B. It also contributes to the cost of new roads which are of special benefit to the military, and to the upkeep of roads which are principally used by them. (c) The realty is not administered by the Public Works Department but by the Receiver-General. The annual rental on 31st March, 1904, was £45,042, which capitalised at 3 per cent. gives a capital of £1,501,400. (d) In the last part of the Question it is assumed that the words "derived from" should be "defrayed out of." It is impossible to say what proportion of the expenditure on public works is defrayed out of

  1035
  revenue raised by taxation, but the expenditure mentioned in (a) was defrayed as follows:—

  £

  Out of General Revenue

  112,597

  Out of General Reserve Fund

  471

  Out of Government Immovable Property Account

  1,025

  £114,093

  Schedule A.

  Share of Malta Government 4s. 7d. or 57.14 per cent.

  Share of Imperial Government 3s. 7d. or 42.86 per cent.

  Total.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Constructing drainage works in Calcara, providing main sewer for Naval Hospital at Bighi, and cutting off sewer contamination of the Grand Harbour in the vicinity.

  3,302

  17

  2

  2,477

  2

  10

  5,780

  0

  0

  Providing an apparatus for flushing by sea water the street sewers and the intercepting sewer in the three cities.

  1,282

  5

  8

  961

  14

  4

  2,244

  0

  0

  Constructing a low level sewer in Valetta for the Manderaggio, Strada Toro, Strada Fontana, Strada S. Giuseppe, and Lower St. Elmo, including a pumping station, engines, pumps, etc., to intercept the flow of sewage into the harbour. Providing main sewer for Fort St. Elmo, and cutting off sewer contamination from Marsamuscetto Harbour.

  1,812

  11

  5

  1,359

  8

  7

  3,172

  0

  0

  Modification of the low level sewer at Senglea and Cospicua, preventing leakage of present sewer and altering the line of pipes so as to facilitate the utilisation of sites at the head of the French Creek belonging to Lords of the Admiralty.

  4,061

  14

  3

  3,046

  5

  9

  7,108

  0

  0

  10,459

  8

  6

  7,844

  11

  6

  18,304

  0

  0

  Schedule B.
  Comprising votes for drainage works passed by the Council of Government of Malta at Sitting No. 43 of 30th April, 1897, contingent on a contribution of 25 per cent. from Imperial Funds.

  £

  £

  (1) Drainage of Hamrun (will divert sewerage from harbour)

  12,177

  (2) Deviation of intercepting sewer at Cospicua (will do away with drainage pump worked off dockyard shafting).

  4,895

  The General Revenue in 1903–4 was £464,501, and the amount raised by taxation was as follows—

  £

  Customs Duties

  274,251

  Stamp Duties

  4,466

  £278,717

  (7) Drainage of Sliema, Misida, and Pietà, including outfall main and pumping station (will divert sewerage from the harbour)

  55,849

  Drainage of St. Julian's

  5,438

  61, 287

  (8) Intercepting sewer for Rabato, Notabile, Lia, and Birchircara (will divert sewerage from the harbour)

  13,500

  Branch to Musta, Naxaro, and Gargur

  5,200

  18,700

  (9) Notabile and Rabato street sewers.

  7,160

  (10) Zebbug street sewers (will divert sewerage from the harbour)

  16,152

  (11) Intercepting sewer for Axiak, Zeitun, Gudia, and Zabbar

  4,585

  (12) Zeitun street sewers

  14,612

  (13) Intercepting sewer for Crendi, Zurrico, Micabiba, Chircop, Safi, Luca, Tarxien, and Paula

  10, 615

  (14) Crendi street sewers

  3,220

  (15) Tarxien street sewers (will divert sewerage from the harbour)

  4,550

  (16) Paula street sewers (will divert sewerage from the harbour)

  7,332

  £200, 311

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Royal Military College, Camberley—Cadets' Shooting.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any representations have been made by the present commandant of the Royal Military College, Camberley, on the indifferent shooting of some among the recent batches of cadets; and, if so, will he state the nature of the representations, and whether he has any official reports attributing indifferent shooting
    1038
    to the standard of vision for candidates being only one-fourth of normal vision with the naked eye instead of normal vision, viz., six-sixths of Snellen's type.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The commandant Royal Military College has reported that the shooting of the 4th Division of Cadets now passing out of Sandhurst was bad, but he did not attribute this to defective eyesight. Last year the question of admission of cadets with defective eyesight to the Royal Military College was rail d by a report from the Principal Medical Officer, First Army Corps, and steps were then taken to ensure that all cadets admitted to the Royal Military College or Royal Military Academy, whose eyesight, though defective, was within the standard laid down by Regulations and remediable by glasses, should be advised at the medical inspection to consult civil occulists to ascertain exactly what glasses they should wear. There are no official reports to the effect stated in the last part of the Question.

    Army Shooting—Vision Tests for Recruits.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee appointed to report on the vision test for recruits has furnished its Report; and, if so, when, and what action it is proposed to take on the Report.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This Committee reported on the 15th February, and the Report has since been receiving very careful consideration. To some of I the recommendations effect is being given, of which the most important are the adoption of a uniform standard and the Snellen types.

    Recruiting—Inspector-General's Recommendations.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any Report has been submitted by the late Inspector-General of Recruiting for the betterment of recruiting; and, if so, whether it will be acted on.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No special Report on the betterment of recruiting

    1039
    was submitted by the late Inspector-General of Recruiting. There are no recommendations in the Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting which have not been acted on, except in regard to legislation to deal with false characters, a Bill for which has passed through the other House, and will, I hope, be passed by this House.

    Transvaal Army Stores Scandal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the remarks of the Chief Justice of the Transvaal in delivering judgment in the case of Hunter v. Wilson and Worthington, in the Transvaal Supreme Court, to the effect that the plaintiff had bought from Colonel Morgan a quantity of chaff for £300, which was the property of the Military, and for which the ratepayers of this country had to pay; that it had never been put up to public auction, but was sold to Hunter underhand; and that on this expenditure of £300 the plaintiff had made £1,800 profit, one-third of which went to Mr. Frank Morgan, who was Colonel Morgan's brother; and whether, having regard to the fact that Colonel Morgan was director of supplies for the whole Army in South Africa during the latter part of the war, what steps, if any, do the War Office authorities intend to take with reference to this transaction.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Colonel Morgan has instituted proceedings against the London newspaper which commented on the remarks made by the Chief Justice of the Transvaal in connection with this matter. No action, therefore, will be taken by the War Office until the case is decided in Court.

    Longford Troops—Complaint of the Rev. Joseph Skelly.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Private Pitt, of the artillery force now stationed at Longford, who on a recent occasion threatened the Rev. Joseph Skelly, P.P., Newtownforbes, with assault, and at the same time used language of an insulting character to him, has since been raised to the rank and pay of a sergeant; and, if so, can he
    1040
    state the grounds upon which this soldier has been raised so suddenly in the ranks after this insult to a Catholic priest.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have no information whatever on the matter alluded to in the Question. I would suggest that the hon. Member refer the matter to the General Officer Commanding the Third Army Corps.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I certainly shall not do that.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May ask, as a matter of order, whether the right hon. Gentleman is not himself responsible for the management of the Army. Can any communication be held between officers of the Army and Members of this House?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not a matter of order. It is not for me to say what are the exact functions of a Minister.
    MR. DELANY: Have we not a right to refer to the right hon. Gentleman for information on these matters?
    MR. SPEAKER: I see nothing irregular in the Answer.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This is important. Have we as Members of Parliament any right whatever to communicate with military officers, and are they under any obligation to communicate with us, while there is a Minister to act as intermediary?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question of order.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is one of taste.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I shall call attention to this on the Army Vote.
    MR. WHITLEY: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Third Army Corps. Is such a Corps existing?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Mr. Brodrick and the Toast of "His Majesty's Forces."
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary for India a Question of which I have given private notice, viz., whether on Saturday last at a public banquet he refused to respond to the toast of "His Majesty's Forces"; whether this was because of his disagreement with the military policy of the Government; and, if so, whether he intends to take any further steps in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I really do not know on what statement the hon. Member has founded his Question; but, whatever it was, the inference which he has drawn is incorrect. What occurred was this: The officer who was expected to reply to the toast was not present, and I was suddenly asked to respond, when I pointed out that, not being Secretary of State for War, probably I was not so well qualified to respond as another gentleman present, who had served his country in the South African War.

    Imperial Fiscal Policy—Suggested Colonial Conference.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the advisability of inviting the Governments of the Colonies to send representatives to an Imperial Conference next spring in London to consider and examine the whole fiscal situation of the British Empire.
    THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): This is a Question which should have been addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury; but, speaking for myself, the advisability of such a conference as the hon. Member refers to is a matter which could not be decided without very careful consideration.

    Transvaal War Contribution.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the 'Secretary of State for the Colonies if any provision is made in the Transvaal Estimates for the year ending 30th June, 1905, for the first instalment of the war contribution loan.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.

    Transvaal Interests at Delagoa Bay.
    THE MASTER or ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to make any statement regarding the attitude of the Portuguese Government in relation to the Netherlands Pier and adjoining land at Loreneco Marques, Delagoa Bay, a valuable asset of the late Transvaal Government.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I hardly think it is necessary for me to say more than that I have every reason to believe that the interests of the Transvaal Government will be fully safeguarded.

    Representative Institutions for the Transvaal.
    MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, His Majesty's Government having decided to give representative institutions to the Transvaal, the representation will be elective from those entitled to vote as in other self-governing Colonies; if not, will he say in what manner the new representative assembly will be elected, and at what approximate date.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am not at present able to add anything to the general statement which I made on the 21st instant. The details can only be settled after full consideration and discussion with the authorities on the spot.

    Chinese Labourers and the Transvaal Liquor Law.
    CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Chinese labourers now employed in the South African mines will come under the provisions of the Transvaal Liquor Licensing Ordinance; and, if not, what arrangements have been made with regard to the sale of intoxicants to these labourers.
    MR. LYTTELTON: These labourers will, I am informed, come under the provisions of the existing liquor law which prohibits the sale or free issue of any intoxicating liquor to coloured persons including Chinese.

    Chinese Riots in the Transvaal.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he has any information to give with reference to the riots taking place among the Chinese in the Transvaal? Are they still going on or have they been brought to a conclusion?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have no information beyond that which appears in the newspapers.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman cabled for information?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Transvaal Government Contracts for Purchase of Repatriation Stores.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the remarks of the Chief Justice of the Transvaal, in delivering judgment in the Supreme Court of the Transvaal on 1st June, in the case of Hunter v. Wilson and Worthington, and the disclosures in that case of loss to the Imperial Government by purloinage, he will direct Lord Milner to publish the text of the contracts entered into between the Transvaal Government and Messrs. Wilson and Worthington for the purchase of repatriation stores.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The text of the contract between the Repatriation Department and Messrs. Wilson and Worthington was laid on the Table of the Inter-colonial Council on June 7th and was published in the Johannesburg Star of the same date.

    Cotton Growing in Africa.
    Sin SEYMOUR KING: On behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he expects to be able to make any announcement before the close of the session as to any steps which it may be possible to take to encourage the growth of cotton in West Africa or in South Africa.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The policy outlined in my speech on the 27th of April is being actively pursued. As there is little to add to what was then stated, I
    1044
    do not think that it will be necessary that I should make a further announcement on the subject this session.

    Chief Justice of New Zealand—Question of Precedence.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the precedence taken away from the Chief Justice of New Zealand was taken away by an Act of the New Zealand Legislature, or at the request of the Prime Minister of that Colony; if taken away at the request of the Prime Minister what reasons were submitted warranting such an alteration in long established precedent.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The alteration in the precedence of the Chief Justice of New Zealand was in accordance with the strongly expressed desire of the Colonial Ministry. The reasons for advising His Majesty to comply with this desire were stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 21st instant †
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Then was it not done by an Act of the Colonial Legislature?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No. Sir.

    Indian Army Representative at the War Office.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state on whose authority the representative of the Indian Army at the War Office has been abolished.
    MR. BRODRICK: The appointment of Assistant Military Secretary for Indian Affairs at the War Office has been abolished under the orders of the Secretary of State for India in Council and with the concurrence of the Army Council.

    Congo Free State—Charges of Maladministration.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that charges of alleged maladministration have from time to time been brought against the
    †See page 769.

    1045
    Government of the Congo Free State by British subjects; whether these charges have been investigated by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, with what result.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,)Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will find, in Mr. Casement's Report and other Papers recently laid before Parliament in connection with that Report, the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to investigate the charges of maladministration in the Congo Free State.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Are not these charges got up by people who are jealous of the progress Belgium is making in the Congo and with a view to capturing the rubber industry in that State?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Congo Free State—Agitation in South Africa.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an organised effort is being made by British subjects in South Africa and elsewhere to bring Belgian rule in the Congo into disrepute by the circulation of stories as to alleged atrocities and acts of maladministration; if so, whether such interference on the part of His Majesty's subjects in the affairs of a friendly State has the sanction of the Government; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take to discourage such action in future.
    EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject beyond what has appeared in the public Press. His Majesty's Government do not consider that they are called upon to interfere with the expression of personal opinions by British subjects.

    Russian Warships and British Vessels.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Russian warship, the "St. Petersburg" has overhauled and
    1046
    searched British vessels in or near the Red Sea; and, if so, can he state whether this is the same vessel, also named the "St. Petersburg," that recently passed through the Bosphorus under the Russian commercial flag; and, if so, whether it is in conformity with international law that the same vessel can at one time fly the commercial flag and at another time assert the authority of a warship; and whether this transformation can take place on the high seas, or whether it is obligatory that a vessel holding a commission as a warship should be commissioned as such in a port of the nation to which she belongs.
    EARL PERCY: There are several Questions on the Paper of the same character addressed to the Prime Minister, and perhaps it would be more convenient if this could be dealt with at the same time.
    GENERAL LAURIE: Then am I to address it to the Prime Minister?
    EARL PERCY: I think my hon. and gallant friend will see from the Answers to be given to the other Questions how far it is possible to answer his.

    Postal Communication with East Africa.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the disabilities which East African settlers and intending settlers suffer through the want of direct communication; and if he will inquire on what terms it could be arranged for the German East African Company to call at an English port on outward and homeward journeys.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The question of establishing direct steamship communication between this country and East Africa is now being considered by an Inter-Departmental Committee; and pending the result of their deliberations. I do not think it advisable to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.

    Portuguese Tariff on Mercerised Goods
    MR. WHITE RIDLEY:I beg to ask the President of the Board of

    1047
    Trade whether he can now state whether the representations made to the Portuguese Government as to the prejudicial effect of their new tariff on the export of our mercerised goods has met with any result; and whether there is any treaty with Portugal in which the principles of the most-favoured-nation clause find a place.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The rate of duty on mercerised cotton goods proposed in the draft tariff now before the Portuguese Cortes is somewhat lower than that contained in the draft Portuguese tariff which was the subject of the representations referred to in my previous reply to my hon. friend. The duty as now proposed, however (like many other duties in the draft tariff), is very largely in excess of that at present charged, and the matter is not being lost sight of. There is no treaty between this country and Portugal containing a most-favoured-nation clause.

    Graduated Income-Tax.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant a Return showing which British Colonies and foreign countries have established systems of graduated income-tax, or of income-tax levied at different rates on earned and on unearned incomes, or both; with particulars in each case of the rates of tax, the method of assessment and collection, and the degree to which evasion or fraud is estimated to detract from the proper yield of the tax.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I am making inquiry to see to what extent the information for which the hon. Member asks is available. I will communicate the result to him in writing.

    Lurgydonnell River Floods.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the course of the Lurgydonnell River, in the electoral division of Aughaulish, Ballyshannon Union, had been inspected by an engineer from the Con-
    1048
    gested Districts Board, with a view to the stoppage of flooding; whether he is aware that the Board held out hopes to those periodically injured by floods in this district that steps would be taken to have the course of the river widened, and that nothing has been done in pursuance of the promises made; and, if so, will he, in view of the fact that this congested district has been hitherto overlooked by the Board, see that these promises are carried out.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The locality has been visited by two members of the Board, accompanied by one of their engineers, in the ordinary course of inspection; but no promise has been given by the Board that it would undertake drainage works in the districts. The question whether the Board can offer to make a small contribution to the county council towards the cost of any scheme which it may be practicable for the council to undertake in the absence of the establishment of a properly constituted drainage board, will shortly come before the Congested Districts Board for consideration.

    Estates Commissioners' Staff.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the office staff of the Estates Commissioners is entirely unable to deal with the originating applications as they are lodged, and that a period of some weeks must elapse before an application now lodged can be even opened; and whether he will take steps to have the staff augmented.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There has been some delay in dealing with such applications; but the delay has been unavoidable and incidental to the working of a department only recently constituted. The Treasury has sanctioned an augmentation of the staff, both indoor and outdoor, and the work of the Department will now proceed with greater expedition.

    Irish Loan Fund Bill.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from

    1049
    the Irish Members copies of Amendments which they propose to move to the Loan Fund Bill in case that measure is proceeded with this session; has the Irish Government considered those Amendments, and will the suggestions of the Irish Members be accepted; can he inform the House when the Loan Fund Bill will be taken; and can he assure the Irish Members that, if it is proceeded with this session, adequate time will be given for its discussion.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is quite impossible to accept the proposed Amendments, one of which is to the effect that the Treasury should pay to the debenture holders the losses they have sustained by reason of the borrowers having taken advantage of a technicality to avoid payment of the sums lent to them. The Bill is merely designed to remedy the result of an error into which the Loan Fund Societies have fallen, and extends the time for sueing on notes current in March, 1899. It does not deal with the larger question of the reform and reconstruction of the Loan Fund system. Unless the Bill be treated (as the Government think it ought to be) as uncontroversial, time cannot be given this session for its consideration.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will the other suggestions of the Irish Party be accepted by the Government?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are others that cannot be accepted. The Bill, to be passed, must be an uncontroversial measure.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what Amendments he is prepared to accept?
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will communicate with me on behalf of the Irish Party I will tell him what the Government will accept and what they will not.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I shall raise this question again.

    West of Ireland Grazing Farms.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
    1050
    Ireland whether he is aware that new tenancies have been created in the West of Ireland during the past two years by the selling and letting of grazing farms held by landlords to non-resident graziers and others; and whether, as such a practice is calculated to defeat the aim of the Land Act of 1903, in regard to the enlargement of small holdings in congested districts, steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to put an end to it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Estates Commissioners have no power to prevent the creation of new tenancies. Section 53 (1) of the Act of 1903, limits advances in cases of tenancies created after 1st January. 1901, to £500, except in non-congested counties, where a larger advance may be sanctioned, subject however, to the general limitations prescribed in the Land Purchase Acts and without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons in the neighbourhood. Section 53 (2) limits advances in cases of Court lettings to £1,000, or in non-congested counties to £2,000.
    MR. CULLINAN: But have not the Estates Commissioners power to refuse to make any advance under this section where farms are let with this object?
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept that definition of their powers.

    Dundonald Cemetery, Belfast—Burial of Roman Catholics.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 4th inst., the Most Rev. Dr. Henry, Roman Catholic Bishop, addressed a communication to the Local Government Board, asking them to direct an inquiry into the action of the Belfast Corporation in refusing to concede to his demand that before the Roman Catholic dead were allowed burial in Dundonald Cemetery a certificate from a recognised priest must be produced to insure that deceased died in communion with the Roman Catholic Church; and whether, in view of the fact that the Belfast Corporation admit the principle of an allotment for the Roman Catholic dead, he can state on what grounds are they

    1051
    asked to be responsible as to whether deceased died in or out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church; and if the inquiry sought for is to be granted.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The communication referred to has been sent to the corporation, whose observations thereon are awaited by the Local Government Board.
    MR. SLOAN: Was it sent by the Local Government Board?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

    Rev. T. L. Malone's Estate in King's County.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Mall Egan, who occupies Patrick O'Brien's farm, Liskin, Cadamstown, King's county (estate of the Rev. T. L. Malone), is tenant of the holding; and, if so, for how long, and under what terms as to rent and otherwise.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No advance has been made to Egan for the purchase of the holding, nor has the estate in question come before the Estates Commissioners. This being so, I have no information on the matters referred to.

    Millstreet Rural District Council Audit.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the audit of the accounts of the Mill street Rural District, county Cork, on the 9th instant, the auditor, Mr. Bourke, surcharged six of the councillors the sums of 4s. 6d. and 4s. 8d. for the printing and postage of a resolution asking the landlords of the rural district if they were prepared to sell their estates to their tenants under the provisions of the Land Act, 1903; and, if so, whether, seeing that this expenditure was incurred in the public interest, and in the endeavour to bring about a peaceful settlement of the land question, and that Mr. Bourke or other auditors have passed, without comment, the expenditure made by other district councils in the county in respect of similar resolutions, he will remit the surcharges in this case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The auditor's report on his recent audit of the accounts of the district council has not yet been received. If surcharges have been made as stated, it will be open to the councillors concerned to appeal to the Local Government Board in the manner prescribed by law.

    Mount Pottinger Constabulary Barracks.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Head. Constable Ryan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Belfast, at present occupies the married quarters in Mount Pottinger, although he is not stationed in that district; and whether, in view of the fact that his father-in-law lives with him in these quarters, contrary to police regulations, he will consider the advisability of having these quarters occupied by the men at present doing duty in the district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: My attention had not been previously drawn to this matter. The Inspector-General has given directions that the arrangement under which the head constable's father-in-law has been permitted to reside in the barrack shall no longer continue.
    MR. SLOAN: Am I to understand that this head constable occupies quarters in these barracks without being stationed in the district, while others who are so stationed are deprived of quarters?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That point is not raised by the Question. The point is as to the occupation of the barracks by the head constable's father-in-law.
    MR. SLOAN: I asked as to the occupation of the barracks by the head constable himself.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is in the power of the Inspector-General to allocate these quarters, and I do not feel it my duty to interfere with his discretion.
    MR. SLOAN: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot interfere with the head constable occupying the married quarters, though not stationed in the district, while others stationed in the district are deprived of them?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I say I cannot dream of interfering with the discretion of the Inspector-General.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing the hon. Member as Inspector-General of the Orange section of the Belfast police force?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Queen's College, Belfast—Additional Appointments of Professors.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the professor of logic in the Queen's College, Belfast, holds an appointment under the Board of Intermediate Education and an appointment under the Board of Agriculture besides his examinership; whether the professor of chemistry and the professor of pathology derive any fees or remuneration from the Corporation of Belfast or other public body in addition to examinerships; and whether he can state the number of examinerships and lectureships held outside the college by the different professors.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The professor of logic occasionally acts as an engineer for the Board of Intermediate Education. I am not aware whether he performs any duties for the Department of Agriculture, but I am inquiring. The professors of chemistry and pathology occasionally advise the Belfast Corporation on matters affecting the public health; I have no information that they receive fees for doing so. Other professors have been employed as examiners by Universities in Ireland and Great Britain. There is no objection to the employment of the professors in the manner stated, so long as such employment does not interfere with the discharge of their college duties, and provided they obtain the consent of the college council.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Under what authority does he hold these additional appointments.
    MR. WYNDHAM: One can hardly call them appointments.

    Morley Estate, County Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that affirmances of decrees for rent were granted at the recent Cavan Assizes against nine tenants on the Drumlane portion of the Morley Estate; and whether, in view of the fact that part of this estate, viz., Doobally, has been, already sold under an arbitration, and that the arbitrators had publicly explained their inability to deal more expeditiously in the matter, and further that they would proceed with the Drum-lane portion in August coming, he will take steps to secure that these tenants do not suffer through delay in the arbitration due to no fault on the part of these tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This is not a matter in which I have authority to intervene as suggested. I am informed, however, that the agent has agreed not to proceed with the decrees pending the negotiations for sale.

    Longford Agricultural Instructor.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps will be taken by the Department of Agriculture to supply a competent agricultural instructor this year for the county Longford or whether the appointment to this office recently made by the county committee has yet been sanctioned.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department's scheme of instruction in agriculture for the year ending 30th September next, was not adopted by the county committee. Consequently no funds were provided by the Department for the appointment of an instructor. The appointment stated to have been recently made has not been, notified to the Department.

    Peat Production at Inny Junction.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lie u-tenant of Ireland if he will state the total cost of the experimental processes in peat rearing at Inny Junction; whether he is aware that so far no proper machinery for compressing peat

    1055
    has been provided: and what compensation is being paid to the landlord in respect of this bog.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The experiment has only recently been inaugurated, and the cost cannot be ascertained until the 'experiment is completed, when the results, with full details, will be published.

    Galbraith Estate, North Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state whether any application has been made to the Estates Commissioners on behalf of the tenants to purchase under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1903 the Galbraith Estate in North Longford; and, if so, will he state with what result.
    AIR. WYNDHAM: An application has been received from one of the tenants, but no originating application has been received from the owner and no request under Section 7 has been issued.

    Analyses of Cattle Foods in County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the; Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state whether any: complaint has been received as to the, failure of the Board of Education and Technical Instruction in Ireland to supply proper analyses of foodstuffs for cattle sent to them by the chairman of the Longford County Conncil; and, if so, will he say what action is proposed to be taken in this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No such complaint has been received. The duty of undertaking analyses of feeding stuffs devolves upon county and borough councils through the medium of district analysts appointed pursuant to statute.

    Kinvara Pier, County Galway.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the pier at Kinvara, county Galway; and whether immediate steps will be taken
    1056
    to remedy this source of danger to the lives of those who have to use this pier.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; but the Government accepts no responsibility for the condition of the pier, which is private property. The question of making a contribution towards the cost of putting the pier into a proper state of repair, supplemented by grants from the Department of Agriculture, the Congested Districts Board, and county council, is engaging attention. A decision cannot be reached until certain legal points arising out of the contemplated expenditure have been adequately considered and determined.
    MR. JOYCE: Has it come to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman I that a serious accident occurred at this pier lately?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, but that does not affect my Answer.

    Cruelty to Animals, Cases in County Roscommon.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many cases during the last five years sentences of imprisonment without option of fine have been imposed by benches of magistrates in the county Roscommon on charges preferred by the police for alleged cruelty to animals; and who was the resident magistrate chairman at the petty sessions Court where such a sentence was imposed.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There was one such case, details of which were given by me in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for South Roscommon on the. 13th June†. The presiding magistrate on the occasion was Mr. Holmes, resident magistrate.
    † See (4) Debates, exxxv/. 1495.

    Mayo Firearm Outrage.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken Ito bring to justice two men, who discharged firearms on the public road between Turlough and Pontoon, county Mayo, on a recent Sunday evening,
    †See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1495.

    1057
    wounding four or five young girls, one of them seriously; and whether he can state what steps have been taken by the police authorities in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Proceedings have been instituted by the police in this case, which will be heard at petty sessions on Wednesday next.

    Cork Summer Assizes—Challenging of Jurors.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the fact that at the Cork summer assizes, in connection with the trial of a youth, Michael Barry, charged with having placed stones on the Fermoy and Lismore Railway, with intent to upset or overthrow a train, forty-eight jurors of the county were ordered by the Crown officials to stand by; and will he state whether this action was taken on the advice or with the approval of the Law Officers of the Crown.
    I beg at the same time to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland is he aware that at the recent trial of Patrick Fitzgerald, at the Cork summer assizes, charged with a moonlighting offence, twenty-seven jurors were ordered by the Crown Solicitor to stand by; and, if so, can he state how many of the twenty-seven so challenged were Roman Catholics.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr ATKINSON Londonderry, N): In the first case the jury disagreed at the first trial though the evidence was clear. Extensive canvassing of both the Grand and Petty Juries prevailed, and 45 jurors were ordered to stand aside. In the second case canvassing of jurors also took place and 25 jurors were ordered to stand aside. I am unable to say how many of the jurors who served or who were ordered to stand aside were Roman Catholics. The Crown Solicitor reports to me that in both these cases he acted in strict conformity with the directions contained in the Circular to Crown Solicitors, dated 12th February, 1894, believing that if sworn the jurors ordered to stand aside would most probably not deliver an impartial verdict.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first case mentioned
    1058
    the Judge directed the jury to acquit the prisioner and they did so?
    MR. ATKINSON: I am aware that this boy placed stones on the railway track, one weighing 65 lbs. and the other 35 lbs., and it was held that he had no intention to obstruct.
    MR. FLYNN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to re-try the case in Parliament?
    MR. SPEAKER: I think it is the hon. Member who is doing that.
    MR. MACVEAGH: If the jurors were not ordered to stand aside on account of their religion, why were they?
    MR. ATKINSON: Because the Crown Solicitor believed that if they were sworn they would not give an impartial verdict.

    Rush Harbour, County Dublin—Complaints of Disrepair.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the action of the Board of Works, Dublin, in reference to Rush Harbour, county of Dublin, and to its threat of legal proceedings against the Dublin County Council to compel it to put the harbour mentioned in repair; whether he will call upon the Board to give the names of the fishermen who are alleged by the Board to have complained of the condition of the harbour, and to state when the alleged complaints were made; whether the Board has declined to receive a deputation from the county council, which desired to lay before it a statement of its views; and, if so, whether the Government has sanctioned this disregard of local opinion.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the position of the Board of Works in this matter. The Board are advised by their engineer that the harbour works at Rush are in need of repair, and they are reporting the fact to the Lord-Lieutenant in order that His Excellency may determine whether to advise the Treasury to put in force the 11th Section of the Act 16 and 17 Vict. cap. 136, under

    1059
    which, in default of the necessary action of the county council, the repairs may be effected by Government and recovered from the local authorities. The Board are unaware of the names of the fishermen referred to in the Question. They see no advantage in receiving a deputation, as their function is merely to report to the Lord-Lieutenant that the harbour works require repair.
    MR. CLANCY: It having been stated at a public function that the local fishermen had complained surely they must know who they are?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHreplied that the engineer was away on his holidays, but he would ascertain the facts as soon as he returned.

    Rush Harbour—Cause of Silting.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask th Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the action of the Board of Works, Dublin, in the matter of Rush Harbour, whether an opening made by the Board itself in the groyne in the harbour soon after it was built has chiefly caused the silting which takes place there; and, if so, whether the Board will first close this opening before insisting on the harbour being cleaned out at the expense of the ratepayers.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No, Sir, the opening in the groyne does not cause the silting, and it is not proposed to close it.

    Rush Harbour—Cost of Repairs.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the action of the Board of Works in the matter of Rush Harbour, county of Dublin, whether he is aware that the cost of the work of repair which the Dublin County Council has been called upon by the Board to execute has been estimated by the county surveyor at about £1,000, and that one of the reasons given by the county council for not now incurring such an expenditure is the fact that they have actually bound themselves to expend a sum of £in the immediate future on another harbour in the same, district of the county; and whether, the Board having declined to take any
    1060
    account of this fact or of the views of the local authority, he will direct the Board to see, before proceeding to carry out its threat of legal proceedings against the council, whether the ratepayers concerned are willing to undergo the additional liability which compliance with the Board's requirements would involve.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board are not aware of the county surveyor's estimate. They have received from the county council information that it is proposed to spend £1,500 on another harbour; but neither this fact, nor the unwillingness of the ratepayers to keep Rush Harbour in proper repair, can relieve the Board of its duty to report the matter to the Lord-Lieutenant.
    MR. CLANCY: Will the Board keep a lynx eye on the other harbours in the county of Dublin under its own control?

    National Library of Ireland—Case of Mr. Evans.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. T. H. Evans, National Library of Ireland, who was transferred from the Royal Dublin Society and appointed a permanent civil servant in 1878, having received a Civil Service certificate to that effect, was compelled in 1890 to submit to a deduction of 5 per cent. from his pay in order to entitle him to a pension; and that in April, 1904, the Treasury sent a letter to the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) to inform Mr. Evans that he would not for the future have to submit to this deduction; and, if so, whether the Treasury will take steps, under the circumstances, to refund the money deducted from Mr. Evans's pay through some error, having regard to the fact that other attendants appointed on exactly the same conditions were pensioned without deductions from their pay.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The deduction made from Mr. Evans's salary down to April, 1904, was properly made and there is no ground for refunding it. From the 1s April, he was placed on a new scale of salary from which no deduction was required.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On what ground was the deduction made? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other men in exactly the same position as Mr. Evans have had the money refunded.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I under- stand that all the men are in the same position.

    Sunday Pay of Adult Messengers at Belfast.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Post- master-General, whether he can now say why certain adult messengers at Belfast receive extra pay for performing Sunday work while others of the same staff receive no remuneration for Sunday work.
    LORD STANLEY: I have now arranged for all but one of the adult night telegraph messengers at Belfast to be given full duties carrying extra pay for Sunday work. In the case in which exception has been made no alteration is warranted. The difference in treatment to which the hon. Member refers is accounted for by the fact that hitherto some messengers have not performed a full duty and have consequently been paid under an allowance which included remuneration for Sunday work.

    Russian Volunteer Fleet—Captures of British Steamers — Passage through Suez Canal.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government hold themselves bound, under the Suez Convention or otherwise, to allow a British vessel and crew to be forcibly conducted by their captors, against the will of the British owners, captain, and crew, through the Suez Canal.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There are two or three Questions down in the name of my hon. friend, and another Question was asked of the Under - Secretary for Foreign Affairs by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Pembroke. These relate really to questions of a very diverse character. Some of them relate to broad questions of international law; others relate to the particular questions which
    1062
    arise out of the fact that a vessel of the Russian Volunteer Fleet has made certain captures of British merchantmen in the Red Sea. The considerations connected with that question have only an indirect relation to the general questions of international law governing capture at sea. The difficulties — I may say the great difficulties, I do not at all wish to minimise them—arising out of these captures deal with a separate problem, one which has given His Majesty's Government great anxiety, and is still giving them great anxiety, but of which I may say that the signs somewhat portend, do portend, a favourable issue. More than that I think it would be inexpedient to say. As to the Question of my hon. friend with regard to the position of the Suez Canal, which does not touch especially the question of the Volunteer Fleet, I think I may say that in my judgment he has mistaken the purport of the Suez Canal Convention. There was no act of war, so far as I am aware, committed in the Suez Canal, and the Convention expressly provides that a prize shall be treated as a man-of-war, and that men-of-war are to have free passage through the canal. Therefore I do not think any special difficulty arises in connection with that branch of the question, or anything which in any way gives rise to a difficult or complex controversy between the two Powers.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I understand we are bound?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there can he no doubt whatever that we are bound to allow prizes of war to go through the Suez Canal. Indeed, when I say we are bound, I ought perhaps to remind the House and the public that the Suez Canal is under international management, and it is not for us as a single Power to say what the rules binding the Egyptian Government as the guardian of the Suez Canal ought to be. But in our view I may say quite plainly there can be no doubt that a legitimate prize may be taken through the Suez Canal without any breach of international arrangement.

    Rights of Search and Visit by Belligerent Warships.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury have His Majesty's Government consulted the Law

    1063
    Officers of the Crown and come to a decision upon the limits within which the right of search and visit by belligerent warships of neutral merchant ships should be exercised and the limits of the duty of merchantmen to submit to such search and visit. Are British merchant ships required to submit to anything more than search and visit of the ship, and examination of her crew and papers in order to ascertain her nationality, destination, and cargo, and, in case of suspicion arising from such examination to detention and transmission of the ship, in charge of a prize crew, to a Prize Court for adjudication. Are British merchant ships required to submit to the forcible seizure and removal of a portion of their cargo, at the discretion of the captain of the visiting warship, without any authority of, or adjudication by, a Prize Court. And, will His Majesty's Government afford such naval protection along the lines of trade where the right of visit and search is likely to be practised, as will protect British merchant ships from such unauthorised abuses in the exercise of that right as the forcible removal of their cargoes oil the high seas.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps my hon. friend will be content if I say that in the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government the international law is correctly stated, speaking broadly, in the second paragraph of the Question. As regards the third paragraph, I do not believe that it is sanctioned by the practice of international law.

    Russian Cruisers —Passage through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the passage, in recent times, of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles by Russian vessels of war and Russian Volunteer cruisers equipped to act as vessels of war, His Majesty's Government will propose to submit to the Hague tribunal the question whether such passages are. or are not, consistent with the terms of the treaties embodying the public law of Europe with regard to those straits.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question does touch on what I must, at all events at present, regard as forbidden ground. It does raise a controversy which I think
    1064
    will be better settled if the House will, for the moment at all events, content itself with what I have said.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I quite recognise the necessity for that Answer. I think I may forbear from putting the next Question on the Paper—"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Russian volunteer cruiser "Smolensk," after taking by force from the German mail steamboat "Prinz Heinrich" thirty-one sacks of letters and twenty-four sacks and boxes of parcels said to be intended for Japan, subsequently detained by force the British steamship "Persia," and insisted on transferring to her the greater portion of the letters and parcels taken from the "Prinz Heinrich"; and, if so, what steps do His Majesty's Government intend to take in the matter"—unless my right hon. friend desires to say something on it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I do not.
    GENERAL LAURIE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to answer now the two latter inquiries in my Question — namely, "whether it is in conformity with international law that the same vessel can at one time fly the commercial flag and at another time assert the authority of a warship; and whether this transformation can take place on the high seas, or whether it is obligatory that a vessel holding a commission as a warship should be commissioned as such in a port of the nation to which she belongs?"
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR; This is a Question of general law which my hon. and gallant friend asks rue, and I am not sure that anything would be gained by any attempt on my part to reply to it. I would point out to him that in this Question he has travelled a little wide of what is the somewhat narrower question of the relation between the action of the "Smolensk" and the Petersburg" and the Treaty of Paris as modified by the Treaty of London.

    Redistribution.
    MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state whether His Majesty's Government has decided to introduce next

    1065
    ession a measure for the Redistribution of Seats.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I can add anything to my Answer to a similar Question put by another hon. friend of mine.† I do not propose to anticipate the King's Speech for next session.

    Patent Spirit Whisky.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning, paragraph 166, in which they recommend the appointment of a special officer with suitable scientific knowledge, and adequate laboratory assistance, to make authoritative investigation where new risks to health are suspected, and also to advise how work under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act may be run on satisfactory lines; and whether, in view of the increase in lunacy and crime, attributed by the medical profession and medical officers of health to the unrestricted sale of patent spirit as whisky, he will act on the recommendation of the said Commission by the appointment of a suitable officer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board informs me that the recommendations of the Royal Commission are now engaging his careful attention.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any information to give as to the business of the week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We propose to finish the Report stage of the Finance Bill to-night, and to take the Report stage of the Licensing Bill to-morrow and Wednesday. On Thursday we shall take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and on Friday the Third Reading of the Licensing Bill.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is there any legal obligation to press forward the Finance Bill?
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 1010.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Considering that the taxes lapse on August 1st, it will be admitted that it would be highly inconvenient if the Finance Bill were not passed before that date.
  MR. BUCHANAN: But in 1896, when there was a Unionist Government in office, the Finance Bill did not pass until 7th August.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not carry in my mind the circumstances of the taxes of that year, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I do not doubt that he will get a satisfactory Answer.

  NEW WRIT.
  New Writ for the county of Lanark (North Eastern Division) in the room of Sir William Henry Rattigan, knight, deceased.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

FINANCE BILL.
As amended further considered.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he rose to move the following new clause standing in his name on the Paper—
"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 eight hundred thousand pounds, and twenty-six. millions eight hundred thousand ' shall be substituted for twenty-seven' in section 6 (1) of the Finance Act, 1903."
This was, he explained, the clause which was moved by the hon. Member for East Perthshire during the later stages of the proceedings in Committee. It would be remembered that it came under discussion late on Wednesday afternoon, after the settlement had been arrived at which put an end to the long proceedings of that sitting; it was the desire of everybody not to prolong the sitting, and consequently only a short debate took place. He was therefore sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not complain of their seizing that opportunity to again raise this very important question. In 1875 what was called the new Sinking Fund

1067
was established, having for its object the setting aside every year of a certain sum for the annual charge of the National Debt, making that sum larger than the interest, and thus providing a gradually growing balance for paying off the principal of the Debt. In 1876, the first year the new Sinking Fund came into operation, the National Debt was £770,000,000, and provision was made for £28,000,000 per annum for the service of the Debt. Twelve years later the Debt had fallen to a little over £700,000.000, and the annual provision was lowered to £26,000,000. In 1900 the Debt had fallen to £638,000,000. In that year the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol reduced the annual provision to £23,000,000. The generation which might be said to have ended in 1900 had reduced the National Debt to the extent of £132,000,000, and he thought that generation deserved to live in their grateful memories, be-because they had done more for the country than if they had added millions of square miles and millions of unwilling subjects to the Empire. He had never ceased to regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day had taken advantage of the savings of that generation to reduce the provision for the National Debt charges to so low a sum as £23,000,000. Those who were Members of the House at that time would remember the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. He told them that his reason for reducing the provision for the National Debt was that the price of Consols was too high for the investment of the savings of the country. A Nemesis had overtaken the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. They were cheap enough now. What had happened since the right hon. Gentleman thus reduced the Sinking Fund? In 1900 Consols were 114, now they were 892 and the savings of £132,000,000 in the National Debt made by the previous generation had been swept away. In 1 four years they had added £156,000,000 to our principal National Debt, and it now came to this—that, with the National Debt standing at a figure little short of £800,000,000, nearly £33,000,000 higher than when the Sinking Fund was established, they were proposing now, as last ear, to provide for the annual charge
1068
for the Debt, not £28,000,000 but only £27,000,000. That was the system which he was challenging by this clause. On the whole the Fund when steadily applied had been successful in its object. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken credit to I himself for not having suspended it this year. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to that credit, because it was quite clear that if he had not formally abolished it he had done the equivalent.
His reason for attacking the Sinking Fund system was that it had not produced the capital results they had a right to expect from it had it been fairly, honestly and steadily administered. From the last Return of the National Debt it appeared that the regular debt, under the operation of the Sinking Fund system, had been reduced by more than £8,00, 000. That, on the ace of of it, was satisfactory. But, on the other hand, what he called the irregular debt had increased by £4,300,000, leaving a net reduction of £3,700,000. And even that was not the net reduction. While they had reduced the whole debt by less than £4,000,000, he contended that they had reduced the national assets by no less than £5,500,000. He estimated, indeed, that by this process, instead of the capital position of the country being £8,000,000, or even £4,000,000 better, the net result of last year's operations was that they were at least £3,000,000 to the bad. The national cash assets to which he referred were first the unclaimed dividends, which to the extent of £1,000,000 sterling had been appropriated by this Bill in order to pay off part of last year's realised deficiency. Another cash asset was the sum realised by the power given to certain corporations to commute the stamp duty payments in respect of the transfer of their stocks. That was a premium payment derived in anticipation of annual revenue, and to that extent the national asset of the future was reduced. And in the third place there was the money derived by anticipation through the redemption of the land tax. This tax was not a tax at all. It was a burden carried by the land. It had long ceased to be a real tax. It was more like a mortgage. What took place was this.

1069
A person owning land subject to a mortgage paid off that mortgage and thus redeemed the land tax by a payment in cash, thereby avoiding future annual payments. Hence again the national cash assets of the future were reduced. There were other significant items. There were the Suez Canal shares, the value of which as a cash asset was being depleted year by year, as they were drawn off the proceeds of these being also used by statutory authority for the payment of the National Debt. Thus it was clear that instead of being £8,000,000 to the good they were £3,000,000 to the bad on the year's finance.
He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some attention to the land tax. In the financial accounts the land tax appeared in the revenue of the year 1897-8 for £940,000, but only £750,000 was expected to be got last year. That showed that the value of the land tax had been reduced by £190,000 a year. As a matter of fact it yielded only £725,000 last year, yet the right hon. Gentleman had this year budgeted it at £750,000. Why he should, in face of its steady depletion, have anticipated an increase rather than a decrease passed his financial comprehension. The real cause of the unsatisfactory financial condition was the growth of the irregular debt, which was the result of a most admirable financial ideal set up by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1875. He complained of the terminology used in the financial accounts as being very embarrassing to an outsider and to a layman. There were the landed and unfunded debt, and after them came the terminable annuities and other capital liabilities. The growth of the irregular debt was worth a moment's consideration. It was constituted under fifteen Acts of Parliament, and it had grown by £4,000,000 during the last financial year. More serious than that was its growth during the last six or seven years. In 1898 the whole amount of the obligations was under £4,000,000, In 1899 it rose to £7,000,000, next year to £10,000,000, the following year to £14,000,000, then to £20,000,000, in 1903 to £27,000,000, and this year to £32,000,000. Side by side with the National Debt which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pretending to pay off he was allowing to grow up an irregular
1070
and illegitimate National Debt which was steadily rising. He expected that in the course of the next twelve months, owing to the carrying out of naval works, there would be an increase of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I stated it in my speech. I said it was not possible to give the actual figures for the naval and military works, but they would not exceed £10,000,000.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had not intended to use so high a figure, but it was clear that the irregular debt would go up to £40,000,000. It might be suggested that he was somewhat inconsistent when the position he took up in 1895 was considered. But in that year their financial position was such that the necessary works which the Admiralty proposed and the Government approved could not possibly have been provided for out of the revenue of the year, Personally, he was not responsible for the finance of that day. He had only an Admiralty responsibility. And it should be remembered that in that year, too, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth added very largely to the resources of the country. But the principles on which they acted when they initiated this method of providing for naval works had not been acted upon by the present Governments which in many cases had applied it to purposes which, in the opinion of the Opposition at any rate, were never intended to be covered by these loans.
Another growing debt was that represented by the guaranteed loans. In 1898 these contingent liabilities amounted to £68,000,000, and now they amounted to £153,000,000. Here again these so-called contingent liabilities were real liabilities. The indirect or contingent liabilities had increased in the last twelve months from £115,000,000 to £153,000,000 or an increase of nearly £40,000,000. That was not a satisfactory state of things. To carry on this system of borrowing pari passu with a pretended system of reduction of debt was a delusion, a fraud, and a snare. The system ought not to be continued on the present basis if it was to yield

1071
the results anticipated. Possibly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he said on a former occasion, would allege that municipal indebtedness was growing also; but he thought that was an argument on his side, because the same people who bore the municipal indebtedness also bore the national indebtedness. The growth of municipal debt was in no degree a set-off or excuse for the growth of national indebtedness. Even if we were piling up this local debt, that was all the more reason why we should keep a vigilant eye on the growth of the national debt, The main point on which he based his Resolution was that the existing system, part of which was embodied in the provision he was now attacking, was not an honest, plain, straightforward system. He suggested one of two alternatives. Either the Sinking Fund should be abolished, and at the same time these irregular borrowings be put on the Estimates year by year. That would be a plain, true, and accurate system. Or another way would be to add to the amount of the Sinking Fund the entire provision for the service of the Debt so as to increase the amount available for the reduction of the Debt. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
A clause [Amount of permanent annual charge for National Debt]—
"The amount for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt during the current and every subsequent financial year shall be the sum of twenty-six million eight hundred thousand pounds, and 'twenty-six million eight hundred thousand' shall be substituted for 'twenty-seven' in Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1903."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he entirely agreed with all the remarks which the hon. and learned Member had directed against himself, on his own record, in regard to the irregular debt. He had more than once divided the House on this point, because the irregular debt had in the main, been contracted for naval and military works, and had earnestly advised the House, as he now did again, to refuse
1072
its assent to any more Naval or Military Works Acts. So far as he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said that the amount of debt was one thing and the terminable annuities were another, and he added the two together. But really and truly these terminable annuities were the machinery by which the Debt was to be extinguished. They were no more part of the Debt than the extinguisher was part of the candle. They represented permanent engagements. The terminable annuities combined within themselves both sinking fund and interest; they were set up to extinguish a portion of the Debt and therefore they were an alleviation of and not an addition to the Debt. As to the Sinking Funds proper, the hon. Gentleman wished to make out a capital account, and put all the assets on one side and the liabilities of the British Empire on the other. That would be altogether illusory. They could not put the assets in the form of cash. Who could say what was the value of the appanages of the Crown or of the British Empire? But unless you could say that no account of assets and liabilities could be complete, and if not complete it must be illusory and deceptive. That was impossible. In dealing with the depreciation of assets, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Exchequer balances were reduced. He agreed; they were dangerously reduced. But it did not follow that because they were reduced the liabilities of the State were necessarily increased. He could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his list of all the depreciation of assets which he had drawn up—if he could, he thought he could easily show serious errors in it. With regard to unclaimed dividends be entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The only legitimate purpose to which these unclaimed dividends ought to be applied was to extinguish debt. A man who did not claim his dividends permanently to that extent did extinguish the Debt; and to apply them to the purposes of revenue was to rob the Debt.
Now, as to the general proposition which was raised by the new clause moved by the hon. and learned Gentlemen. There were two Sinking Funds. One

1073
was the old Sinking Fund which consisted of the balances of realised income over realised expenditure. He regretted to say that that old Sinking Fund had been assassinated. It no longer existed, and could never be revived, unless the whole financial methods of Chancellors of the Exchequer were radically changed. So long as the present financial system existed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whenever he saw a likelihood of any balances of income that would go to the old Sinking Fund, would not fail to seize these balances for Supplementary Estimates—which they were now told were to be brought in as a matter of course. Originally Supplementary Estimates were rightly considered to be an abuse, and were rarely to be proposed—never, except in cases of unforeseen and unavoidable expenditure arising after the Budget arrangements had been accepted; but now they were brought in as a matter of course, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to resist the temptation to seize and apply the realised balances to his own necessities. Therefore, the old Sinking Fund was lost, vanished, gone for ever. The new Sinking Fund was therefore of all the more importance. The new Sunking Fund was composed of the balance of the fixed charge of £28,000,000 which was settled at a time when the gross liabilities of the State were far less than now, and since not increased with increased liabilities, but improperly reduced to £27,000,000. Out of that fixed charge had to be paid the interest on the funded debt, the interest on the unfunded debt; the terminable annuities which represent partly the interest and partly the extinction of debt; and finally, the cost of the management of the Debt; and whatever remained over, that was the new Sinking Fund. All that would remain over this year from the fixed charge after all these payments had been made, to go to the extinction of the Debt, was £1,900,000, and last year it was less. Leaving aside, then, the debt extinguishing portion of the terminable annuities, which was previously permanently allocated, the only part of the fixed charge that would be applied, this year, to the purchase and extinction of the public debt was £1,900,000. The First Lord of the Treasury in 1899 delivered a speech on the Sinking Fund which
1074
showed that his right hon. friend was under a strange misapprehension regarding it. He assumed that his right hon. friend's knowledge of finance was equal, if not superior, to that of some Chancellors of the Exchequer, who, after all, were only the Second Lords of the Treasury. His right hon. friend intimated that £5,800,000 was going to be spent in the purchase of debt—he lumping together the £4,000,000 or £4,500,000 of terminable annuities and the residue of £1,300,000 the balance or new Sinking Fund employed to purchase and cancel debt, and by some strange process concluded that the country would thereby lose £800,000 because Consols were 10 per cent. above par The whole calculation and statement were illusory. He wished the House to consider how ridiculously small, bow extremely inadequate, the provision for the extinction of the Debt was the £1,900,000 which would be used and would alone be used for the purchase and extinction of the Debt in the present financial year. What proportion was it? It was 5s. per £100 or one four-hundredth part of the Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared rather proud of himself for having achieved that result. It was true he included the terminable annuities, over which he had no control, and which were settled long ago. But the new Sinking Fund was the only real sinking fund provided for in the year, and that amounted to only £1,900,000. The dead weight of the funded debt, without taking in the £32,000,000, of what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite rightly called the irregular debt, was £762,000,000; and they only proposed to pay off six-tenths of a 1d. in the £ per annum. Was there ever a debtor in the County Court appealing to a sympathetic Judge who made such a proposal? It was ludicrous. The provision was altogether inadequate for the payment of the Debt. The fixed charge was now only £27,000,000, or £1,000,000 less than it was when the total liabilities of the country were far less than they were at present. The fixed charge should at once be raised to at least £28,000,000 and, in his opinion, it should be £28,500,000.
He would not enlarge on the great advantages of the Sinking Fund. They had been dwelt upon by able financiers

1075
on both sides—by the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for West Monmouth, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. They had been truly told that the Sinking Fund was the great reserve of the country; that it was the only real financial reserve; and yet it had been brought down to its present inadequate proportions. The old Sinking Fund was gone; it was a corpse; it would never be revived unless there was a great financial revolution, which he should be glad to see. The new Sinking Fund was practically the only sinking fund they now had. As to additions to what was called the capital account—a most ridiculous term —the debt for this, was of a special character, carried its own sinking fund, and was not perpetual, whereas the questions hinging on public debt was perpetual. It was none the less irregular and improper, and he repeated his hope that the House would sanction no more of it. He was filled with apprehension when he thought as, of our present financial position. After all, he was but an earnest student of finance; he did not think any one could be anything more than a student; but he could assure the House he was full of apprehension when he looked at the financial position of the country. They were approaching financial confusion; their expenditure was dictated by extravagance, without producing efficiency; taxation was oppressive; the national accounts were systematically falsified; £20,000,000, representing interceptions and approaches in aid, were left out on both sides for the manifest purpose of misleading the English people into the belief that their expenditure was less than it was; the control of Parliament of the right hon. Gentleman the Member was disappearing; appropriations-in-aid and interceptions all escaped the control of Parliament; votes on account, which were formerly for £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, to cover two months, were now for £21,000,000, and to carry the Government on for six months; taxation which was annual was becoming permanent; and, in fact, in every respect there was a prospect before them which demanded the most serious attention of this House. It certainly demanded the presence of a showed that the Transvaal and Orange Chancellor of the Exchequer who would
1076
be prepared to abandon some of the abuses which had crept in from time to time, who would be prepared to strike again, as Mr. Gladstone did in 1866, the true note of finance, and who would see that the national accounts were true, that the national expenditure was kept in hand, and that taxation was levied in such a manner as to produce the least possible burden. He knew nothing of more moment to the Empire than this, and nothing more worthy the attention of the House of Commons.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that every hon. Member would agree with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The subject of the National Debt, and the various questions hinging on it, were rapidly becoming more grave and more pressing. He was not quite so hopeless about the old Sinking Fund as the hon. Gentleman appeared to be. He believed that in another House of Commons, and under other auspices, it might be restored to its previous vitality. After all, it had been of some use in substantially reducing the Debt; and it was not beyond his anticipation that it might be so used again. He also thought the hon. Gentleman was rather too rigid in trying to exclude altogether the operation of the terminable annuities. That was not financially a fair method of gauging the condition of the country. He should like to urge on the Government the necessity for reconsidering the question of the National Debt on two or three general grounds. One reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to reconsider the whole question was the fact that the basis on which the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was founded was that this country would obtain £30,000,000 from the Transvaal within three years, and that that amount would be applied to the reduction of the National Debt. There was, however, no chance of that money being now forthcoming. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the matter in general language a few days ago; but since then they had had a statement from the Colonial Secretary with reference to finances of the Transvaal, which showed that the Transvaal and Orange River Colony were only just paying their

1077
way. They received £7,500,000 and spent £7,400,000. How could it be anticipated that those Colonies would impose on themselves an additional burden of £30,000,000, involving an annual charge of £1,250.000? It was absurd to imagine that this country would get any such sum from the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. Surely, therefore, the time had arrived for a reconsideration of the whole question.
He thought it was only right to call attention to the lax method in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with borrowed money. The right hon. Gentleman had helped himself to a million of money which was really capital and which should have been used for the extinction of debt, and had used it for revenue; and with regard to the deficit in relation to the year just concluded, the right hon. Gentleman had done the same thing: he had made use of £2,000,000 of loan money for the purposes of revenue. That was an extremely lax method of dealing with public finance. With regard to the irregular debt and the additional capital liability, he drew attention to the fact that it was growing at a very much more rapid rate than the funded debt, our deadweight debt, was being extinguished. It was growing in geometrical ratio. It was growing each year, and the increase every year was a large percentage over the previous year. In 1900 it was £10,000,000, in 1901 £14,500,000, in 1902 £20,500,000, in 1903 £27,500,000, in 1904 £32,000,000, and, as they knew from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, next year it would be £42,000,000. It was not only an increase, but an increase going on at a continuously increasing rate. The right hon. Gentleman had said, and justly said, it was a special debt and there were special reasons for its being extinguished in a limited number of years, but it was an increase of our capital liability and of our debt just as much as any other debt that existed. Not only was there an increase from year to year, but the system as a system was extending and was constantly being used for improper purposes. It had been said that this system was encouraged by the Naval Works Bill of 1895, but that Bill contained a small number of specified items of large magnitude which entailed
1078
a great expenditure over a number of years.
There had been a constant and growing laxity in these matters. There was a growing practice also of employing loan moneys on public buildings, and there had been an increasing laxity in the items charged to loan accounts for years. Under the Military Works Act at the present time there was a large item for Volunteer and other rifle ranges, and there were amounts put down under that heading coming down to as low as £4 and £2. So that this rich country was spreading over a term of thirty years the repayment of small sums not amounting to more than £4. It was ridiculous that they should place upon posterity such a loan as that. There was a brick factory which made bricks for the War Office, and the working capital of that factory was actually supplied by means of loan money. That was surely a very lax method of financial administration. As he had previously reminded the right hon. Gentleman, the Public Accounts Committee had reported very strongly against this practice. They said that for specific large works of a permanent character it was legitimate to borrow money, but for small works such as were now incorporated in these Bills it was highly expedient that we should return to the practice of putting the annual amount of expenditure on the Estimates. Fifty years ago the debt charge was half the annual expenditure of the conntry; but at the present time only one-fifth of the annual expenditure was represented in that way. That was a wholly inadequate sum to set aside for this purpose. He might dwell at some length upon this because it strengthened his contention, because even if £150,000,000 had not been added to the Debt by the war, the money allocated to the payment of the Debt was most inadequate. This matter was urgent, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the financial authority of the country, should reconsider at the earliest possible moment not merely the questions connected with this loan expenditure but also the adequacy or inadequacy of the charge they were setting aside for the diminution of the Debt. It was most important that they should get rid of this

1079
laxity and restore the finances of country to a solid basis
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the question raised by the hon. and learned Member was whether or having regard to the amount of the Debt and the circumstances of the year, the provision made for the redemption of debt was adequate. Hon. Members seemed to have had some difficulty in finding their way through the maze of figures embodied in the Return from which the hon. and learned Member quoted, and the House had probably experienced some difficulty in following the speeches which had been made. One great cause of complaint had been that outside the funded or ordinary debt there was a debt which the hon. and learned Member described as irregular, incurred on account of capital liabilities by various Departments which had been authorised by Parliament to borrow the money. That was put forward as being in itself a prima facie reason for considering that the provision for the sinking fund was inadequate. The House should keep in mind that for all debt of that character there was established a separate sinking fund, altogether outside what was ordinarily spoken of as the Sinking Fund, and that upon the annual Votes of the Departments concerned there was charged an annuity sufficient not only to pay the interest on the money borrowed, but within a period of thirty years to pay off the whole debt. That method of meeting the financial liabilities of the nation was objected to by hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee thought it was sound as long as it was pursued by himself, but that it had since become unsound. The hon. Member for East Perthshire was more consistent and more drastic in his judgment, holding the method to be unsound at any time, though he (the right hon. Gentleman) did not remember his protesting against it when it was first introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. Expenditure of that kind ought certainly to be watched, and he did not wish to see it a part of our annual financial system. But when great capital expenditure had to be incurred upon works of a permanent character, which woul dbe valuable long
1080
after the money had been spent, it was from time to time necessary to have recourse to borrowing for a short period to enable the works to be carried out. When the hon. and learned Member introduced the first of these Bills he repudiated with some warmth the idea that he was making final provision for all that had to be done. He (the right hon. Gentleman), following in the hon. and learned Member's footsteps, had had to explain why the Estimates had been doubled in some cases and increased in others, and why new works had had to be undertaken. But he had no wish to make the matter one of Party controversy. The hon. and learned Member when serving at the Admiralty, had believed the works to be essential for the defence of the country, and that it was reasonable that the cost should be spread over a term of years instead of being placed upon the Estimates of the one year.
The system of charging upon the Estimates each year whatever sum was considered necessary often resulted in uneconomical administration. When a great work of this kind was begun the quicker it was brought to completion the more economical it was as there were likely to be fewer alterations, the cost would be smaller, and the country would remain out of the enjoyment of the result of the expenditure for a shorter period. When the capital expenditure necessary for large works was charged upon the annual Votes it not infrequently happened that the sum provided was not the amount that could be economically and wisely spent in the year but the maximum amount which the necessities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed him to allot for the purpose. Up to a certain point the growth of such debt would naturally be in an increasing ratio year by year, because as the works progressed more money could be spent upon them, until they neared completion when the expenditure again slackened off. Expenditure of this kind was not confined to naval and military purposes. For instance, only the other day the House passed amid loud cheers a Bill authorising the Postmaster-General to expend, and the Treasury to borrow for the purpose of providing him with the money,

1081
£3,000,000 in connection with the telephone service. That was essentially capital expenditure not necessarily to be repaid out of the revenue of a single year.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYasked for how many years the telephone loan was to run.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought it was for less than thirty years, but he did not like to speak from memory. The period was calculated having regard to the life of the different kinds of plant in which the money was to be invested. When the first Naval Works Bill was introduced the hon. and learned Member gave as a justification for it that they were engaged in paying off the borrowings under the Naval Defence Act. But the last two years of the annuities under that Act were paid off by encroaching upon the Sinking Fund a course which he had refrained for pursuing, but for which hon. Members opposite were unwilling to give him any credit.
Another class of liabilities the growth of which hon. Members regarded as dangerous were the contingent liabilities of the State for stocks raised for purposes other than those of the nation. The growth last year was mainly due to the raising of the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan under circumstances with which the House was familiar and for purposes of which the House approved. The rest of the growth was due to borrowing on account of local loans. The borrowing for Irish land purchase, which did not come into last year, would add to the amount, but that also was in pursuance of a policy which had received the approval of the House. As hon. Members were aware he had watched not without anxiety the great growth of local loans and the necessity, when he was doing everything he could to avoid recourse to the money market for the purposes of the Government, to have such recourse on account of local authorities. He thought that while matters were in their present condition the Treasury ought not to be driven to raise local loans stock to the amount which in recent years had been customary. But the main point of the discussion was whether or not reasonable provision for the redemption of debt was being made.
1082
He agreed with the hon. Member for East Perthshire that terminable annuities themselves represented redemption of debt. In many cases Consols had been cancelled and these annuities were set up to pay the interest which would have been earned and to replace to the credit of the fund the amount of the Consols which had been cancelled.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he quite recognised that terminable annuities were partly representative of a sinking fund. What he had contended was that the only amount to be applied in any year, unless there was an old Sinking Fund balance, for the cancelling of debt by buying Consols was the balance of the fixed charge representing the new Sinking Fund, which in the present year would be £1,900,000.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINpointed out that terminable annuities were largely employed for that purpose. The hon. Member who moved this clause was of opinion that the permanent annual charge for the National Debt should be as great at it was before the war. Besides the total net charge he had to consider the efficacy of the sum and not merely its amount. The reduction in the rate of interest increased the efficacy of any given sum of money for the reduction of the Debt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon fixed the amount at 1 per cent. of the whole Debt, and it might have been argued at that time that it would have been wiser to have reduced taxation less and set aside a larger sum for debt, but his right hon. friend and the House decided otherwise. He did not, however, think that those who were inclined to take that view would seriously urge that he should now depart from the arrangement which his predecessor made. There were many right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite who prided themselves upon always having escaped the glamour of the £30,000,000 war contribution and who never expected to see that money paid by the Transvaal. That was not his view, but there were obvious reasons why at the present moment they could not raise that war contribution. He should be very sorry to believe that the Transvaal would not,

1083
in due course, when times were more favourable, make the contribution which his predecessor in office anticipated. In the meantime a sinking fund, amounting to nearly 1 per cent., continued year by year, and this, in his opinion, having regard to all the circumstances, was as much as they could expect. He gathered that hon. Gentlemen were rather anxious that the growth of small borrowings should be closely watched and that they should not be made a permanent annual part of our financial system. In that hope and wish he was very much in accord with the Members opposite, but he was bound to point out that the works already sanctioned by Parliament, and which had been begun, were coming to an end. They had overtaken the arrears out of which they arose, and it would not be necessary to ask Parliament to make provision for them again.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought this proposal had been quite justified by the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. After what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would not trouble the House with more than a few words. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to misapprehend the view of his hon. friend who moved this Amendment, because he did not desire in any sense that all this expenditure should be placed upon the annual Estimates of the year. What he did desire was that there should be some discrimination in regard to this matter. After what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer they had reason to hope that there would be some diminution in these annual borrowings. He was not very sanguine in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that some of these works programmes were coming to an end, but past experience showed that one programme led to another still more expensive proposal. In this connection he might mention the new Army scheme which had been introduced by the Secretary for War which would involve the provision of more barrack accommodation. He was very much afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters of expenditure would
1084
find his hands forced by the spending Departments unless he took up a very strong attitude. So long as these borrowings went on, practically the Sinking Fund was a farce, because they created debt with one hand and paid it off with the other.
His hon. friend drew attention to the whole financial position in regard to the National Debt. Last year in a year of peace and a fairly properous revenue the whole reduction of the National Debt of £800,000,000 was only £1,850,000 and that was not satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said they were making every reasonable provision for the reduction of the Debt, and that during the coming year the sum of £7,120,000, would be devoted to this purpose. He entirely agreed with the view which the right hon. Gentleman took in regard to terminable annuities as applied to reduction of debt. What they had to look to was the balance after deducting cost of administration and cost of annual interest. With regard to that point his hon. friend had put the matter affecting the annual reduction quite fairly. In considering the annual amount that ought to be applied to the reduction of debt they had to look to the grounds on which the permanent charge was reduced five years ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol reduced the amount on the grounds that Consols were so high and that the permanent charge ought to bear a proper proportion to the outstanding Debt. At the present moment in 1904–5 the total Sinking Fund under the old arrangement would have risen to £6,500,000 upon a Debt which would have been reduced to £580,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman proposed this year a Sinking Fund of £7,000,000 upon a net debt of £770,000,000. His point was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol fixed the amount of the permanent debt and the Sinking Fund on the proportion of the then existing Debt, so that each year the Sinking Fund would reduce the Debt by so much. The right hon. Gentleman in taking this year the proposals of his predecessors had fixed the Sinking Fund at £7,000,000 on a net debt of £770,000,000. If it had been

1085
raised, as it ought to have been, to the proper amount, it would have been 1·25 per cent. instead of ·92 per cent. On that basis the right hon. Gentleman agreed that there was a great deficiency in the Sinking Fund. Last year the proposals were unquestionably fixed on the basis that the Transvaal loan would be paid, and that the Chinese indemnity would be brought in. The Sinking Fund last year was fixed on the basis that we would get £14,000,000 from the Transvaal, and £6,000,000 from China—in all £20,000,000, and of that only £4,000,000 had been received. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed the hope that at some future time we might receive this Transvaal contribution. But in reply to a Question across the Table he said that as regarded the Transvaal nothing had been provided in the Estimates for the coming year to meet this charge. It was quite clear that for the next twelve months we should not receive this contribution from the Transvaal. That altogether upset the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon fixed the amount of the Sinking Fund. The interest on this amount had to be met out of the Sinking Fund, and that being so the Sinking Fund was not nearly so effective as if those sums had been received. It might be said that it was difficult to press the right hon. Gentleman, in a year when these sums had not been received, and when he had a realised deficit of £5,500,000, to increase the Sinking Fund. He was not sure but that these two facts were good reasons for increasing the fund. Looking to the great expenditure which was going on year by year, and looking also to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman this year would not obtain the revenue he expected, and that probably there would be a deficit at the close of the financial wear he thought that, under those conditions, his hon. friend was right in moving this Amendment as a protest against the inadequate way in which the National Debt was being diminished at the present moment.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid right hon. Gentlemen had had careful comparison made between the Sinking Fund established by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Sinking Fund established by his predecessor. He did not
1086
think that these comparisons were really of much avail, because the Sinking Fund was non-existent. There was no amount at all. In one portion of the Budget there was an approximate £7,000,000 of apparent Sinking Fund, and in another portion there was a fresh capital liability of £10,000,000 created. Therefore the net result of these two operations was an increase of debt of approximately £3,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that these two sums were not fairly comparable, and he gave as a reason that as against this new creation of debt of £10,000,000 certain annuities were charged against various departmental budgets of future years. That did not appear to him to alter in the least the fact—the disagreeable fact that new debt was being incurred on behalf of the State. Because the Debt was charged upon small fractions it was none the less a State liability. The fact that, in the future budgets of the naval or war Departments, a certain sum was taken for work already performed meant that they had so much less to spend on the necessities of the current year. In 1905 or 1906 they might have an apparent Army expenditure of £28,000,000 of which only £27,000,000 or £26,000,000 would be really effective because £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 was required to meet expenditure already incurred. That appeared to him to be a totally wrong system because the account differed from the reality. Anyone who studied the national accounts ought to be able to get a fair and correct view of the national position without entering into five or six annexes or appendices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward a plea which had some justification, namely, that at the present time it was extremely difficult to increase the burden of taxation on the people. He submitted that they would never arrive at the proper administration of the finances until they went back to the old system of having one account which contained the entire expenditure and receipts of the year. The present system of Loan Bills was nothing more nor less than an extraordinary Budget. The effect of these extraordinary Budgets was undoubtedly to alleviate the financial necessities of the moment. They made the

1087
financial position of the country appear for the moment better than it really was. But a day of reckoning must come, and the present system of finance would be condemned because during these years of peace a vigorous Sinking Fund should have been in operation so that Year by year there should be a diminution rather than an increase of our liabilities. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman next year when he came to make his financial statement would put the whole matter clearly and fairly before the country, and that he would amalgamate all the different accounts into one, and that he would ask the country to show sufficient financial resolution to create a vigorous Sinking Fund in order to make a considerable annual reduction in the Debt after paying for the entire expenditure of the year and not only for a portion of it.
MR. McKENNAsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had founded his case upon the argument that this House had last year agreed to £27,000,000 being the permanent fixed debt charge at a time when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to take off taxation, and that the House ought not now to ask him to go back on that arrangement when he had to impose new taxes. Many hon. Members argued last year that a debt charge of £27,000,000 was quite an insufficient sum, and they pointed out that in fixing it at that amount the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was actually reducing by £500,000 the actual amount which was being set aside for the payment of the Debt. The fixed debt charge then was £23,000,000, and it was increased to £27,000,000, but the actual amount of the debt which was included under the fixed debt charge was increased by close upon £150,000,000, the interest of which amounted to £4,500,000, so that although there was a nominal increase from £23,000,000 to £27,000,000 the actual amount devoted to the payment of the debt was £500,000 less. When they argued on that point last year they were met by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon with various answers. They were told in the first instance as his hon. friend the Member
1088
for Poplar had pointed out, that there would he a considerable payment into the Treasury on account of the repayment of the Transvaal loan, and they were told then, while actually discussing the amount of the fixed debt charge, that it would affect the increase to the extent of £300,000 a year, by the interest which they should save on the first instalment from the Transvaal, and that in the ensuing year—that was the present year—they should have a further £10,000,000, the interest of which, added to the interest of the first £10,000,000, would more than cover the £500,000 by which they proposed to increase the charge. They had not got either of these instalments, and consequently that argument brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had failed. They therefore stood in this position now, that if they left the fixed debt charge at its present amount of £27,000,000 they would be paying on a reduced basis compared with what they were paying before last year. He submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the amount set aside under these circumstances was not adequate. But then there was another argument.
As a matter of fact they had not in this Budget any real provision for the reduction of the debt at all. They were reducing the amount of the Debt on the one hand and increasing it on the other. But that was not all. Not only were they increasing the amount of the Debt by these new loans for permanent works, but, owing to the excess of expenditure last year over income, apart from the new debts for permanent works they had not reduced the total amount of liabilities by a single penny. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was able to make out on his Budget estimate a very fair case for putting his fixed debt charge of £27,000,000, because on his then Budget estimate he was showing a surplus on the year. It was pointed out that that would increase the amount for the reduction of the Debt, but this surplus was not realised. Instead of a surplus the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a deficit of upwards of £5,000,000, and that had gone to swell the Debt. He would put this case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The very fact that they were obliged this year to impose fresh taxation in order to meet

1089
current expenditure was not a reason for leaving the fixed debt charge where it was. On the contrary it was a reason for increasing the fixed debt charge. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that when the annual income was very little more than half what it was at the present time this House was content to make annual provision for debt greater than we made at this time. Having regard to the smallness of our revenue and our charges, upon which we could not afford to make a large provision for debt, he thought the House was justified in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make far greater exertions to pay off the permanent debt than he had made under the present Budget. There was every sign that in the future our expenditure would not diminish. We had a permanent liability imposed upon us in respect of our Army and Navy which, notwithstanding any economies that we might practice, we should not be able seriously to reduce. It behoved us, therefore, to make strenuous exertions to diminish the National Debt. By putting the fixed charge at £27,000,000 we had not done as much as we ought to have done. At the very least we should have gone hack to the time of Sir Stafford Northcote when it stood at £28,000,000 a year. If that were done he did not think that the House would be calling upon the taxpayers to make anything more than a reasonable provision for the vast amount of debt that had to be met.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he had always held the idea that we ought to make the same effort as was made by our forefathers to pay off the permanent debt. He was afraid that the present tendency was to increase expenditure. The special point to which he desired to refer was the fact that in the present days we paid off our debts in a much longer period than should be allowed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had fixed thirty years as the period within which to pay off the loan of £3,000,000 for telephones. Surely any sane man looking on the developments made by science would say that thirty years was too lengthy a period over which to extend the repayment of that loan. Before that time was over a great deal of what was now deemed to be necessary would be obsolete and out of date. He ventured to think that ten instead of thirty years would have been ample for the purpose.
1090
No doubt if they made the period of repayment shorter it would make it harder to face at the present time, but he was confident that the safest and best way to reduce expenditure was to arrange to pay our debts in a short period. The fact that we were increasing our expenditure by leaps and bounds should make us more and more careful in granting that expenditure. If we could afford to increase our expenditure, we ought to afford to set aside a very much larger proportion in repayment of our debts. Seeing that our increasing expenditure was one of the most serious questions of the day and that the amount was increasing in enormous proportions, the safest plan was to increase our Sinking Fund. This was not a Party, but a great national question, and he was sure that the only sound method of finance to adopt in the face of rapidly increasing expenditure was to make a far greater effort to increase the Sinking Fund and to pay off in that manlier a much larger portion of our debt.
MR.LLOYD-GEORGEagreed that this was a very grave and urgent matter, and he was glad that such authorities on finance as the hon. Members for Exeter and North Islington bad expressed their views upon it. He was perfectly certain that nothing would be done in the way of cutting down the growth of expenditure until Members of authority in matters of finance criticised and opposed extravagance in the Estimates The Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated this as a year of exceptional pressure, but the Government had no wars or extra expenditure to meet. They had had years of bounding revenue during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had resorted to the Sinking Fund for Budget purposes. A late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for West Bristol, cut it down from £25,000,000 to £23,000,000, and the same system prevailed at the present moment. The war was over, but this was not seized as an opportunity for restarting the Sinking Fund, but for reducing it by another £500,000. We were resorting to the German method of an extraordinary non-recurring expenditure. Germany divided their expenditure into three classes. They had the ordinary recurring expenditure, and the ordinary non-recurring expenditure,

1091
and finding those were not sufficient, they also had the extraordinary non-recurring expenditure. That was what the Government was doing; they had not classified their expenditure in those three stages, but that was practically what they had done. These Loan Bills were not capital expenditure. They ought to be part of the Annual Budget, and be treated as such. The result was that the Sinking Fund was nullified and neutralised by means of these loans. Before these loans were resorted to, these items were treated as the annual expenditure of the year. These were sums of money spent to meet what, after all, was the ordinary expenses of the country, and nothing could prevent them from being annual expenses. These were the expedients always resorted to by every firm when their expenses got out of hand. They always began to treat these expenses as capital expenses. It was a well-known trick—he did not use the word in any offensive way to the right hon. Gentleman—it was what everybody financially pressed resorted to, treating things as capital expenditure which really ought to be treated as current expenditure; and unless somebody had the moral courage to face the matter, and include this expenditure in current expenditure as it ought to be, the firm would have to face bankruptcy sooner or later. This was what we were doing. He was not surprised Consols were falling. Financial experts were sufficiently sensitive to what was going on. They could not be deceived. The taxpayer might be deceived for some time; he might say this was capital expenditure, but it was not so with financial experts. They knew full well. They knew we were increasing our expenditure and neutralising oar Sinking Fund; and the result was that our credit was going down in the market, and, if we wanted to restore our credit, we must treat these things as what they really were — the ordinary expenses of running an Empire.
This financial system, initiated he did not care by whom, was getting worse year after year; and the result was that the shares of this Imperial company were not quoted in the market at what they were. We had got to restore the financial sound-
1092
ness of the country. Nothing would be done until men on both sides of the House who knew what finance meant and knew the danger of running this course, took the matter in hand; and he was sure the House would respond to a call from a Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could appreciate the difficulties of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; they were largely political, and probably he could not face the whole situation as he would like to, though he was sure he understood the position and that he could not be satisfied, and if he were there another year — let them trust the best would happen for the country, whatever it was—he hoped he would have the courage to thoroughly search out the financial situation and tell the House of Commons what it was. This was what they wanted of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. They did not want him to tell the House of Commons, as the Member for West Bristol told them, that they were in a bad way but he was going to allow them to become worse, and then they went on to the next year, and he told them: "You are really going from bad to worse." He really had not the courage to amputate the rotten limb and then to say: This is the medicine you must take." He said: "It is unpleasant, and perhaps I must put it off to another year until you get worse, and then you will be so bad that you will take anything." Was it not time to treat the finances of the Empire as they indicated that municipalities should treat theirs. How did they treat them? They said, "You want to borrow. The first thing you have to consider is; is this a reproductive thing, and, if so, how long will it last? Thirty years. Very well, you must have a sinking fund to cover thirty years, and no more." On the other hand, if they had a scheme, say, for building houses, lasting fifty years, what a trouble they had to induce the Government to extend the sinking fund! Why did not they apply this vigorous financial virtue they insisted upon municipalities exercising to their own finance to begin with. Let them practice the precepts they taught municipalities. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech was strong upon the municipalities. He flung a sort of sneer at the municipalities, saying we were talking about the

1093
great National Debt, but we were overlooking the municipal debts. Everybody knew perfectly well what he meant in the light of recent controversies. Whether he intended it or not, he was perfectly certain it was accepted as a kind of sneer at the municipalities.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid this would be the last thing he should think of.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, proceeding, said let them first of all emulate the municipalities. They did not ask them to improve upon it. Let them take the municipalities and see what they were doing. One per cent was all they asked them to make the Sinking Fund. They were not doing this. No municipalities would be allowed to walk off with a 1 per. cent sinking fund. It was not really a Sinking Fund as it was. Whilst they were taking this position with regard to municipalities it was about time the same thing should be done with the Empire. He agreed with the hon. Member for Monmouth that they could not possibly curtail the annual expenditure. The only question was what they would spend their money upon. There would be some who wanted to spend it on warlike preparations, others on education, and others, again, on housing the poor. What they wanted to see was not only that the expenditure should be productive, but that their debt did not increase whilst nominally they were making provision for reducing it. It was not playing fairly with the people of this country. There was a great appearance of making provision for reducing the Debt every year; for some time the thing was done, and then they flung off the last remnant of reduction, and they were now going on shamelessly increasing their debt, whilst going through the farce every year of reducing it by means of a nominal Sinking Fund. It was not being candid with the people of the country; and people who really understood finance saw the fact, and they had reduced Consols accordingly by something like 15 per cent. It was no use talking of getting £30,000,000 from the Transvaal; it was hopeless to expect it. The only thing they could do was to go on spending, developing the country,
1094
and keeping it going. It was idle, with a colony which at present had a deficiency, to talk about imposing an additional burden. He did not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer really in his heart thought that the thing was feasible for years to come. Why, therefore, should they not wipe out the debt, and then, if it came, it would come as a boon to the ratepayers, and they would know how to make very good use of it. In the meantime, let them wipe it out; it was a real debt and burden, and pay it straightforwardly instead of going on year after year imitating the very worst financial expedients and tricks of their Continental neighbours who were marching towards bankruptcy. After all, the great strength of the country was its great financial reserve; it was so in the great Napoleonic wars. We fought and won not with lead, but with gold. We ought to carefully guard the same reserve, and see that we were in a good financial position so that, if an hour of trial came, Britain might give the same good account of herself as in the past. We were squandering her reserve, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who declined to face the situation courageously was not one taking a patriotic view of his duty to the country.
MR. PERKSsaid the heavy obligations which the municipalities of the country were under to many financial institutions in London and in the provinces was a matter of the utmost gravity, and it should unquestionably be in the minds of any financial advisers of the Government a matter of very serious moment for their consideration. He agreed with his hon. friend that the greatest object of all expenditure, both Imperial and municipal, should be as far as possible to make such expenditure wherever practicable remunerative, and to take great care that money lent out upon depreciating securities, such as electric cables and so forth, should not be, either in the form of terminable annuities or any other form of security, extended over a period far beyond what the trading character of such investments would reasonably justify. He had had a great deal of experience of Continental countries and their finances, and also some of the Republics on the other side

1095
of the Atlantic against whom it was sometimes customary to direct, he supposed in a spirit of British self-congratulation, a little criticism; but he was not sure that some Continental countries would be complimented by his hon. friend's references to them. Certainly, if they compared the fluctuations of the public securities of some of the Continental nations with those of our own, during the last three or four years, the comparison would not be at all creditable to the British Government. In Italy, Hungary, Austria, France, and even Russia—he left out Germany for the moment—he knew he was correct in saying that the depreciation of the securities had not touched anything like the figure which our own had reached. Then another point. It was not usual for several of these Continental countries to charge against capital account certain classes of expenditure as were represented by expenditure in this country on public works. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was much of that expenditure on public works which was of a permanent nature, and which might fairly be charged to capital account. Take the subject of dredging. They knew perfectly well that many hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on dredging, which was of a permanent nature. But when reference was made to some of these foreign communities who were supposed to be such children in matters of finance compared with ourselves, he would remind the critics of foreign finance that a great deal of their expenditure on public works was charged to annual revenue account. He had himself had much to do with a great public work of a foreign Republic in which they had spent £10,000,000 in the last few years on one of their great ports, and of that £8,000,000 had been charged to current account and only £2,000,000 to capital account. The securities of that country had been advancing by leaps and bounds, while our national securities had been depreciating.
He did not agree with the rather pessimistic views as to the commercial and financial condition of the country expressed by the hon. Member for King's
1096
Lynn. While there was the utmost possible necessity for cutting down public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with economy and public safety, he did not think there was the slightest need for us, as a commercial and industrial community, to get into a state of panic and to imagine that we were not perfectly capable of meeting any claims that might come against us either on capital or revenue account. When they remembered that our annual national expenditure only represented what was taken to be one year's savings of the people of the country and that we might pay the whole amount of our annual expenditure if we knocked off the drink bill, they could hardly think there was legitimate ground for fear or panic. When he said that, he did not suggest that we ought not to rigidly cut down our un-remunerative outlay on various branches of the public service. Dealing with the Sinking Fund he thought we ought to make very much larger provision for the extinction of the annual debt than we did. The country was in a perfectly good condition to bear such expenditure and a period of peace was the time to deal with such a subject. He was not going into the reasons for the most embarrassing and alarming fall in our national securities, but one of the reasons for that fall most unquestionably was the very small and inadequate application of the money from the Sinking Fund to the purchase and extinction of Consols. That was, in his opinion, one of the reasons why that security had fallen to its present abnormal standard. He thought it sometimes did pay a Government in times of great depression to purchase at a discount, extinguish its debt, and so try to restore Consols to a higher position in the market. He never believed that it was a wise policy to convert Consols and attempt to save by a small annual economy the amount that we did some years ago. The effect had been to drive the investor in this class of security into hazardous ventures. But, be that as it might, seeing that the effect of a largely increased addition to the Sinking Fund would be to materially raise the price of our national securities in the market, bring all other forms of security to a different level

1097
and prevent Consols being looked upon, as they were now, as a somewhat speculative security which trustees should rather avoid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Dundee who had moved this new clause was perfectly correct in suggesting to the Government that we should apply larger sums than at present in putting ourselves into a stronger financial position in public markets and in the general estimation of the country.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he agreed with the last speaker in thinking that the price of national Consols in the eye of the public would be increased by the passing of this clause now under discussion, and he thought his hon. and learned friend the Member for Dundee had done a very great service to the country by raising this debate. It was quite clear from the course of the discussion that everyone who understood the matter was of opinion that our finances were in an unsatisfactory state—not necessarily that we should not be able to meet our obligations, but because our financial system was so complicated that we could not realise what our obligations really were. One thing had been made quite clear, that our public debt had been increased by £10,000,000 under the Public Works Bills; while the operation of the Sinking Fund would only sweep away something under £2,000,000 of the debt under the Public Works Bill of last year, and for this year about £1,000,000, so that next year there would be a considerable increase in the amount of the debt. That in a time of profound peace was what no Chancellor of the Exchequer or the House ought to tolerate. The whole strength of our Empire, the whole idea of Imperialism, and of our world power, simply and solely rested upon our financial position. If that was gone, our armaments could not compete for a moment with any two Continental Powers. It was the Public Works which were the real factor which complicated our financial system. This question had been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, which this year had unanimously reported that they had very serious doubts as to the financial methods by which the naval and military works were provided for. The procedure
1098
which had been adopted in regard to these works, the Committee said, should be the exception and not the rule; but of recent years it had become a regular part of naval and military works finance. The Committee went on to say that they deprecated the continuance of this practice, and that they believed it would be more in accordance with sound finance if the bulk of these services were included in the annual Estimates. Could anything be a stronger condemnation of the present system? These were not the opinions of men personally interested in this matter, but of a Committee appointed by this House to investigate this very question. He thought this was a most urgent case, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take the reform of this system of accounts seriously in hand.
There was another confusing item in the accounts, referred to by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. That hon. Gentleman said the reducing of the Exchequer balances did not necessarily mean increasing the Debt. That was quite true; but, as he understood, the Exchequer balances had been reduced because Chancellors of the Exchequer had used, in times gone by, the unclaimed dividends on Consols to keep up balances, by reducing the floating debt. Now, that was not the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had used them to meet the deficit on his last year's finances. The right hon. Gentleman had reduced the Exchequer balances without paying off debt in the proper sense of the term. He deprecated these various systems of hiding from the public the very serious increase in the public debt. There was another point which he wished to urge. The floating Debt was kept up to £73,000,000, on which the country paid 3 per cent., whereas on Consols they only paid 2½ to 2¾ per cent. That point ought to be very seriously taken into consideration, because it was a very disastrous thing for our national finances It was time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted some means to simplify the national finances. He hoped there would not be a further increase in the Debt next year, and that the whole of the Debt would be made clear to the public, in order that people might not be led to believe that they were paying off

1099
debt when they were not. It was a bad system that the Debt should continue to increase in peace time.
MR. WHITLEYsaid, although he was very much interested in the question of the Sinking Fund, he had not intended to take part in the debate. A reply which the Colonial Secretary had given him that day was, however, of the greatest importance in relation to this matter. When the present figure was fixed for the Sinking Fund, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol referred again and again to the war contribution which was expected from the Transvaal, and which was to be added to the Sinking Fund. As a matter of fact, it was stated that £30,000,000 would be received in three years, and that it would be devoted to writing off the Debt, and that consequently it was not necessary that the figure then proposed for the Sinking Fund should be larger. He asked the Colonial Secretary that day whether any provision had been made in the Estimates of the Transvaal for the ensuing twelve months for the payment of the first instalment of the war
contribution, due last January, according to the arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was in the negative. He did not know whether the matter was brought to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he thought, before the matter finally passed from the purview of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman ought to state whether he was going to take any steps to recover the first instalment of £10,000,000, or whether he was prepared to allow the whole of the next twelve months to pass without any payment being made. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed the matter to pass without a protest, then this country would probably never see a single shilling of that £30,000,000. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking in the matter the House might be satisfied to allow the figure to remain as it was.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 271.)

AYES.

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

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Joyce, Michael

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Donelan, Captain A.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Doogan, P. C.

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Labouchere, Henry

Barlow, John Emmott

Dunn, Sir William

Lambert, George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Edwards, Frank

Langley, Batty

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Ellice, Capt.E.C.(S.Andr's Bghs.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Bell, Richard

Emmott, Alfred

Leamy, Edmund

Benn, John Williams

Evans, SirFrancis H.(Maidstone

Levy, Maurice

Blake, Edward

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lloyd-George, David

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Lough, Thomas

Broadhurst, Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, W.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Flynn, James Christopher

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Burns, John

Fuller, J. M. F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Burt, Thomas

Grant, Corrie

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

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

M'Kenna, Reginald

Caldwell, James

Hammond, John.

Mappin, Sir Fredick Thorpe

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale

Mooney, John J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harcourt,Rt Hn Sir W(Mon'th)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Causton, Richard Knight

Hardie,J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Murphy, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Harwood, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Clancy, John Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Newnes, Sir George

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

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

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Crombie, John William

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

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

Cullinan, J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Dowd, John

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Partington, Oswald

Delany, William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

Joicey, Sir James

Perks, Robert William

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sheehy, David

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Priestley, Arthur

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Rea, Russell

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Weir, James Galloway

Robson, William Snowdon

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Rose, Charles Day

Sullivan, Donald

Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Tennant, Harold John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Schwann, Charles E.

Tomkinson, James

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Shackleton, David James

Tully, Jasper

Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Ure, Alexander

William M'Arthur.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wallace, Robert

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kennaway, RtHon.SirJohn H.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Davenport, William Bromley

Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Davies,Sir Hortaio D.(Chatham

Kerr, John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Denny, Colonel

Kimber, Sir Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

Dickson, Charles Scott

Knowles, Sir Lees

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Aubrey,Fletcher,RtHon.Sir H.

Dimsdale,Rt.Hon.SirJosephC.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Bagot, Capt. Josecline FitzRoy

Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDixon

Law, Andrew, Bonar (Glasgow)

Bain, Col. James Robert

Dorington,Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

Lawrence, William (Liverpool)

Baird, John George Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.NR

Balcarres, Lord

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham

Baldwin, Alfred

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

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

Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Finch, Rt. Hon. Geogre H.

Llewellyn,Evan Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A.R.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Beckett, Ernest William

FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lowe, Francis William

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Bigwood, James

Flower, Sir Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bingham, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Bond, Edward

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Macdona, John Cumming

Bousfield, William Robert

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W.F.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Butcher, John George

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh,N.)

Campbell, Rt Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

Gretton, John

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Moore, William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Morpeth, Viscount

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Harris,F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Mount, William Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J.(Birm.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray, RtHn.A.Graham(Bute

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Murray,CharlesJ.(Coventry)

Charrington, Spencer

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Clive, Captain Percy, A.

Helder, Augustus

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Henderson,SirA. (Stafford, W.)

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Pease, HerbertPike (Darlington

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Horner, Frederick William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hoult, Joseph

Percy, Earl

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

Pierpoint, Robert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Howard, J. (Mid., Tottenham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S

Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col.Edward

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hunt, Rowland

Purvis, Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Pym, C. Guy

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Rankin, Sir James

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

1102

1103

Reid, James (Greenock)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Webb, Colonel William George

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks)

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

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

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

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Stanley, EdwardsJas.(Somerset)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Thompson, Dr. E. C.(Monaghan)

Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B.Stuart

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Thornton, Percy M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Samuel, Sir HarryS. (Limehouse

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wyndham, Rt.Hon.George

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W.H.

Saunderson, RtHn.Col. Edw.J.

Tuff, Charles

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Seely,Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Vincent,ColSir.CEH(Sheffield

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Shaw-Stewart,SirH. (Renfrew)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR SEYMOUR KINGsaid the new clause he submitted for the acceptance of the House provided for relief from income-tax on insurances with colonial companies. He desired to point out that the relief granted in respect of life insurances or contracts for deferred annuities did not apply to insurances effected in Indian and colonial offices simply because at the time this relief was first granted no such offices were in existence. The object of granting this relief was to encourage thrift, and not to benefit insurance offices, and the change he recommended was needed to redress a glaring anomaly. At present a Civil servant going out to India and insuring his life in an Indian office received an abatement for income-tax in respect of the premium he paid, but when he returned home he found that privilege withdrawn. In India, and also in Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, no difference was made between British and colonial insurance offices. Considerable dissatisfaction had arisen in consequence of differentiation by the English Exchequer, and he felt sure he had only to put it before the House of Commons to secure general support for his proposal. He begged to move.
A clause [Relief from Income-Tax on Insurances with Colonial Companies]—
"Section fifty-four of the Income-Tax Act, 1853 (under which relief is granted in respect of premiums on life insurances or contracts for deferred annuities), shall apply in relation to life insurances or contracts for deferred annuities effected in or with any insurance company legally established in any British possession as it applies in relation to life
1104
insurances or contracts in or with the insurance companies mentioned in that section."—(Sir Seymour King.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid his attention had been called to this matter some time ago. He thought the Amendment would remedy a real grievance, and holding that view he would be glad to accept it. A case had been brought under his notice of an Indian Civil servant who had insured his life in India, and on returning home at the end of his service found himself in a different position to that in which he would have been had he insured his life in one of our home insurance offices. The clause was not in the interest of the companies but of the individual, and he would recommend it to the House.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONintimated that he had looked into the matter carefully, and as he agreed that this clause would remedy a real grievance, he would support it.
MR. LOUGHsaid the words of the clause were extremely wide. They knew how rapidly the Empire was developing, and it was necessary to guard against the more or less suspicious enterprises that came into existence with that development. The clause, to his mind, called for further consideration.
Clause added to the Bill
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the new clause he had to submit was discussed on the Finance Bill of two years before, but on that occasion the principle accepted by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer differed considerably from the present proposal. When the former proposal came before the House it was treated entirely from a non-partisan and a quasi-scientific point of view. He hoped to be able to claim the support of those hon. Members who had favoured the former proposal, and in view of the general consensus of opinion in its favour, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lightly put aside the proposal embodied in this new clause. In the first place it was quite clear that the exemption of alcohol when used for motive power or for lighting, heating, or manufacturing purposes, opened a field for British industries that were at present quite undeveloped. There were at the present moment great possibilities, but the development of new industries, and the discoveries of science, were such as to open up a far wider field in the future. It had often been said that British manufacturers were behindhand in their methods, but this was a case in which they found enterprise hampered by the financial department of the Government. The Treasury had expressed two opinions on this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a few days before admitted that he was prepared to appoint a Committee to consider this matter, whereas some four days earlier it was intimated that it was I not the intention of the Exchequer to give any special facilities for the use of alcohol for industrial purposes. There were many industries dependent on the free use of absolute alcohol, in all of which English manufacturers were handicapped by the German manufacturers having the free use of denatured alcohol. He believed it would be possible in Ireland, if it were not for the Treasury restrictions on the manufacture of this denatured alcohol, to manufacture from damaged grain and diseased potatoes a spirit costing not more than from sixpence to eight-pence per gallon. As petrol cost 1s. 4d. per gallon, and the powers of petrol and free alcohol might be represented by 100 and 110 units respectively, it would be seen that an enormous impetus might be given to an industry in Ireland, with-
1106
out there being any loss of power by the substitution of alcohol for petrol. Moreover, as the supply of petrol was in the hands of about three companies, the output might very easily be limited and the price raised, unless there were some commodity such as alcohol which might be substituted. It was a curious fact that no loss to the Exchequer would be involved in the acceptance of this proposal, because the present taxes were so prohibitive that they had prevented the establishment of any of these possible industries, and thus no revenue accrued to the Exchequer therefrom. By agreeing to the new clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer would acquire great Kudos to himself without the least expense to the Treasury, and also help in the development of very valuable industries. He begged to move.
A clause [Exemption from duty of alcohol used for motive power]—
"On and after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and four, 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 spirit 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 also 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. Charles Hobhouse.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, which was practically identical with one moved in Committee, raised a question of much importance. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire was the author of an Amendment to the Finance Bill, by which it was sought to render possible the use of duty-free spirit in certain cases where it had not hitherto been possible because it could not be denatured, and only denatured spirit was allowed to pass duty free. The question was one of

1107
considerable complexity and difficulty, in which he could not move without making sure of his ground. The possible uses of alcohol for motive power and other purposes had enormously increased during the last few years, and would probably be considerably developed in the future, and he was certainly anxious that the Treasury regulations should be so reconsidered in the light of these facts as to remove, if possible, obstacles from the path of manufacturers or enterprise in this country. But it was necessary at the same time to have regard to the protection of the revenue. Under these circumstances, as he stated in Committee, he thought the fairest and wisest course was to appoint a small Committee to go into the question. Although it would be a Departmental Committee, he did not suggest that it should be composed exclusively of officials serving under Government; he would hope to get other advice and assistance on the Committee, and he thought that from such a body they might get a Report indicating what was necessary and desirable if industries were to be promoted and necessary obstacles removed, and at the same time what reconstructions were essential in the interests of the revenue. By that means, with very little delay, a solution satisfactory to all parties might be arrived at. The proposal when made in Committee was accepted by those interested, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think him unreasonable it he refrained from going further on the present occasion. He thought he ought to have the support of the information which such a Committee would afford before he proceeded to deal with a matter of such complexity and importance. He would, as soon as possible, proceed to the appointment of the Committee, and he would take action on their Report. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this assurance, and would not think it necessary to press the clause to a division.
MR. HALDANEsympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reference to the complexity and difficulty which attended this question. For some years he (Mr. Haldane) had given considerable attention to the subject, and the more he had tudied it the more difficult it seemed
1108
to become. But there were two or-three particular features which had emerged clearly in his mind. This was a question not merely of industries which at present existed, and which might ultimately become important, but also of industries upon which we had scarcely entered. Anybody who studied the exhibits of Germany in the Paris Exhibition of 1900 must have realised to what an enormous extent the industries of that country had grown, not merely by research but by the free use of reagents. Germany's chemical industries had grown with a rapidity which was really alarming. A great deal of that was to be put down to the want of freedom enjoyed by the people of this country. We had splendid scientific ability; he believed that the larger proportion of the very first minds were to be reckoned to this country—he was speaking of quality rather than quantity—but, owing to the restriction which was put upon the application of science to industry, we had not given room for the development which otherwise might have taken place in this country. Alcohol afforded a peculiarly significant illustration. Two years ago the Committee was successful in securing the insertion of a clause in the Finance Bill with regard to the free use of alcohol for certain purposes; but on Report the then Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced an Amendment which rendered the clause almost useless to manufacturers. It was stated on the part of the revenue authorities that the production of alcohol could not be allowed for use in manufactures duty free without some supervision, and that to balance the cost of that supervision a surtax should be put upon the foreigner in order that the English manufacturer should not be put at a disadvantage. The result was that the Inland Revenue authorities fixed the surtax at fivepence, and as the price of pure alcohol from Germany was about tenpence halfpenny per gallon, the duty represented 50 per cent. of the cost. During a visit to a distillery he had been told that the fivepence hardly represented the cost of the supervision, but that there was a little bit of protection in it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol?
MR. HALDANEbelieved the Inland Revenue authorities did it in perfect innocence, but there were so many innocent things done nowadays that one could never be quite sure of one's position. But he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were entitled to say that they were perfectly innocent in this matter. The surtax was fixed by experts, but who were the experts? The surtax of fivepence was more than the cost of the supervision, and this addition of 50 per cent. to the cost meant that the German competitor was able to get his alcohol 50 per cent. cheaper than the British manufacturer, That was a very serious business. He was informed by the manager of one of the great celluloid industries in this country that they were seriously hampered in their competition with foreigners, and that this fivepenny surtax made all the difference in their enterprise. He did not know whether the House realised the enormous growth which had taken place in recent years in the celluloid industry, and how much it formed the foundation of a vast amount of goods in which the foreigner competed with English manufacturers. He was very anxious on this account that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should frame his reference on as wide a basis as possible. Of course he would have to inquire into the amount of the surtax and that would be the most difficult part. If arrangements could be made for relieving the distillers of the heavy charge placed upon them for supervision it was extremely desirable, because unless that could be done they would not be doing any real good to the manufacturer. The task of the right hon. Gentleman was not an easy one. He realised the complications in it for he had seen the evil results in practice, but he felt that in this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to take the opinions of people who were really experts from more sides than one. Therefore, it was necessary that they should bring in the element of the manufacturers very largely. Manufacturers came too little into contact with the Inland Revenue authorities, and in our Government Departments there was none of that constant contact which existed in some parts of the Continent. The Chancellor
1110
of the Exchequer had now an opportunity of making a new departure, and its success would depend largely upon the terms of reference.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had not yet drawn the terms of the reference, but he meant them to be as wide as possible because he thought it was important that they should have a thorough inquiry into the whole question. He should be glad to receive suggestions from anyone who had had such a large experience in these matters as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
COLONEL SADLERsaid he regretted he was not present to move his Motion, but having regard to the fact that the day for which it was set down the House sat for thirty-five hours, he did not suppose anybody regretted his absence. He was quite content to accept the Chancellor's promise to appoint a Committee, and he should like that Committee to be composed not only of men of his own Department, but of men like Mr. Tyler, the ex-President of the Society of Chemical Industry. That gentleman had given an enormous amount of time to the subject, and had delivered several classical papers full of statistics and information upon it. He was quite sure that Mr. Tyler would be of enormous advantage and use to the Chancellor in drawing up his terms of reference to the Committee. There were some points in connection with the question which he desired to allude to because he considered them to be of very great importance. First of all he thought it was a great reproach to British enterprise that we should allow industries of very great national importance to he captured from us without apparently a struggle to keep them. When he told the House that there were over 100 products of various kinds in which alcohol played a prominent part it would be seen what an important thing it was to this country that some change should be made in the present system of the utilisation of alcohol. Dimethylaniline, the base of many colours in this country, cost 2s. 4d. per lb., but in Germany it cost only 3¾d., as industrial alcohol is not taxed there. It was an important product in this country some years ago, but it was not

1111
manufactured at all here at the present moment. He did not see how these industries, with duties ranging from 5d. to 11s. 6d. per gallon, could be recaptured for us. Enormous industries had developed abroad owing to the cheapness of alcohol. In Germany last year there were produced over 100,000,000 gallons of alcohol, and 55,000,000 tons of potatoes were used in its manufacture and kindred products. In France from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 tons of beet were grown and used for the manufacture of alcohol. In Germany almost every farmer had his distillery. There were in the East of Germany alone some 6,000 such distilleries, and when one remembered the vast tracts of land which were used for agricultural products required in the manufacture of alcohol it would be seen how important the matter was. There were scores of thousands of people in Germany and France engaged in industries connected with the manufacture of alcohol. Those industries had grown very rapidly and were still growing, and that was why he was anxious to make the few points he was now making. It was recognised that next to benzol alcohol was one of the most prolific source of products known in the chemical world.
Allusion had been made to the diverse uses to which alcohol could be put. It was not only good for motive power and lighting and heating but also for the manufactures to which he had referred. The attention of learned societies and Chambers of Commerce had been called to the subject and there was a great deal of talk in the country about the production of alcohol and its relation to various trades. He saw the President of the United Chambers of Commerce in his place and he hoped that that hon. Member would tell them what he thought about this question. There was a great opportunity dawning upon the country for the production of alcohol and the advancement of various trades dependent upon it, and the most urgent and promising was connected with motive power. As a substitute for petrol, alcohol had a very great opening. Petrol of late years had deteriorated very seriously in quality, and it was becoming scarcer and dearer owing to the extraordinary demand springing up for it, while alcohol, on the other hand, was a much cheaper
1112
article and could be manufactured at as low as sixpence per gallon. It had a very obvious advantage over petrol because it was sweeter and safer to use. As to its efficiency there was a good deal of dispute but it had a potential efficiency of at least 50 per cent. in excess of petrol. There were other uses such as lighting to which it could be applied. He saw a great future development in regard to alcohol lamps, and it was the most charming and effective light he had ever seen. A thirty candlepower lamp cost one halfpenny per hour. It was an extremely diffusive light. There had been as many as 50,000 of these lamps sold by one Berlin firm between October, and January last. Alcohol promised to be unrivalled for cooking purposes. The manufacturers he had alluded to were seriously crippled in their industries for the want of cheap alcohol. The difficulties about obtaining cheap alcohol were now so great that it actually paid the manufacturers better to pay the duty than to trouble about it in any other way. As the trade does not now exist there would be no loss to the revenue, nor risk in other respects. This aspect of the question had been greatly exaggerated. An ounce of experience was worth a ton of theory. In 1903 n Germany only 84 persons were fined for fraudulent use and only £2,500 was paid in fines, although something like 100,000,000 gallons of alcohol were manufactured. In Switzerland, where there were no duties on alcohole there was less drunkenness than in any other country in the world. A very large number of improvements had recently been made in the denaturing of alcohol. It was on these grounds that he contended that there was pressing urgency for its manufacture and use in this country, for many new industries would arise from it. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to devise some scheme which would enable the manufacturers of this country to have duty-free alcohol. The possibilities of this industry were so great that they could not be overrated. In the first place there would he an enormous area of land which was now uncultivated which would be brought under cultivation in order to produce these various agricultural products which were usual in the manufacture of alcohol.

1113
Perhaps he had said enough to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the subject was one of very great importance, and he trusted that a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the matter without delay.
MR. LYELLexpressed the hope that the reference to the Committee would include the question of the amount that might be sold at any given time. It seemed to him that at the present moment there was a very great chance put into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for founding new industries in the production of alcohol and in all the various processes connected with its use, and also in recovering many of those industries which might be carried on in this country bat which had gone abroad. When he heard the list of trades which his right hon. friend the Member for Haddingtonshire had referred to as having been lost to this country, he began to wonder whether free alcohol was not to be the solution for all our industrial depression. He wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to another point which had already been raised, namely the enormously important question of the possibilities of this new industry in Ireland. They had been assured that alcohol for motive purposes could be produced in that country for an absurdly small sum per gallon compared with the price paid for petrol. This could be done in normal times, but when they considered what might be done in time of famine and failure of the crops which were fit for nothing else the advantage would be very great. This new motor agent could be stored for an indefinite time. He called for the sympathy of all tariff reformers in this matter. Like them he was anxious to see new industries founded, and those already decayed galvanised into life. Like them he viewed in this matter the methods of every other country but our own with admiration. He had seen how in Germany the freest possible hand was given to manufacturers for the production of alcohol and the products of alcohol. He ventured to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give to the finding of the Committee, if favourable, the very fullest effect.
SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDobserved that he would not have intervened in the debate were it not that he had had exceptional opportunities during the last few years of hearing what the opinions of the chambers of commerce of the country were on this important matter, and he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that repeatedly at their meetings, indeed on every suitable occasion, there had been resolutions brought forward dealing with this question, which, after being argued very fully, had received the unanimous assent of the chambers of commerce to which they had been submitted. The reason was, that manufacturers had expressed their views and made it very clear that valuable industries had been repeatedly lost to this country. He had himself come across an instance where a considerable sum of money was expended in the erection of suitable buildings with special machinery, and with several hundred workmen employed there, and, because of the necessity of alcohol to that business and the inability to obtain it at a cheap rate, the buildings had had to be taken down and the machinery transferred. The consequence was that that particular industry, which might by this time have employed several thousand workpeople, had been transferred to the French labour market. Was it not very tantalising to British traders to see a great variety of goods imported into this country which could be very well manufactured here but for the unaccountable hostility of the Government? They had found, particularly during the last twelve months, that public opinion was becoming very sensitive in regard to the taxation of raw materials. Now alcohol was a raw material to the interests concerned, and it had been taxed to the point of prohibition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer need not be in the least alarmed on the score of probable loss of revenue, because if the industries were not at present in existence in this country, as they had already been taxed out of existence, then it was clear there would be no loss of revenue. If the clause were accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his action would be likely to

1115
galvanise into new life many old industries, besides stimulating the establishment in this country of many new ones. He was glad to observe the sympathetic attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped that both in the composition of the new Committee and in the reference to that Committee, those who had the greatest practical knowledge would at any rate be entitled to have a say and a seat on the Committee.
MR. HARWOODasked if it was not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something more than he had offered that day. When did he expect to do something with the Committee? He took it it would be twelve months before it got together and reported. Twelve months was a long time in the history of an industry, and he happened to know that this industry was going ahead very fast both in France and Germany. Was it not possible for the Chancellor to adopt a little bolder policy. They were told on all hands that the present tax was too high—could not some concession be made meanwhile, and then the Committee which had been promised might consider how it might prevent any abuses of that concession? He quite recognised the spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer met that Motion, but he did not think he realised the gravity of the matter and the urgency of something being done. To put them off with a Committee which would take a year to report on a commercial difficulty which was getting worse day after day, was not dealing with them fairly.
MR. LOUGHsaid he would advise those who were deeply interested in this question to ask, before parting with the clause and this opportunity, whether something should not be done now. It was about eight years since he brought this matter before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, his attention having been called to it by a large manufacturer in Yorkshire, who pointed out to him some of the facts which had been stated to the House that day. He got a most sympathetic answer at that time, but nothing practical was done during all the time the right hon. Gentleman was in office. Two years ago the ranks of the
1116
reformers were recruited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddington-shire, who made a most interesting speech on that occasion, when, in fact, the Amendment was at first accepted on the Committee stage. It was afterwards modified and finally, owing to the caution of the Customs authorities, the whole thing had been nullified. Was this a business Assembly or was it not? Were the Gentlemen who spoke in this simple business matter with knowledge and moderation year after year to have their aims constantly frustrated because nothing definite was done? There could not be a more cautious proposal than was put forward in this clause. There were two absolute safeguards in the clause. First, nothing was to be done unless it should be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the alcohol had been suitably denatured and rendered unpotable; secondly, it was to be subject to the regulations of the Commissioners; and thirdly, it must be proved to have been properly denatured before it was allowed in duty free. Why should not the clause be accepted, seeing that it bristled with precautions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had the old difficulty to face. The Com missioners of Customs and Inland Revenue, excellent as they were, raised bogeys which had no real existence. He suggested that the clause should be amended by the insertion of the date, the 1st January, 1905, in place of the 1st August, so as to give the Commissioners time to make their regulations; and on the first day of 1905 give that great facility to the trade of the country which had been so long required. There might be 2d. lost in revenue by this concession, but the profit to the commerce of the country might be millions. Let them take the Irish case. Potatoes were just as cheap in Ireland as in any other country, and if Ireland could be connected with civilisation by means of transit, which was absolutely hopeless under the present condition of things, and a price could be made for them, it would open a market for them to the benefit of the people in that country. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give some definite promise to deal with this matter. The clause seemed to be a

1117
very strict clause, but if the restrictions it contained were not sufficient, let the clause be strengthened. Something should be done in this matter to free the trade of the country from the shackles which were quite unnecessarily placed upon it.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the point he desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this. Was it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman, in order to carry out a good deal of what was required, to wait for legislation next year. He had himself looked at Clause 8 of the Finance Act of two years ago, and he thought if the right hon. Gentleman appointed his Departmental Committee, or even without that, if he saw his way to accepting the spirit of the Amendment under Clause 8 of the Act, he might, on his own initiative, be able to do a great deal to carry out the desire of the House. It was not possible to say how far those powers would extend the clause of his hon. friend as moved, but under Clause 8 there was no doubt a good deal could be done. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would, on receiving the Report of the Committee, on his own initiative accept, so far as he could, their proposals in the direction the House desired, and carry them out without waiting for legislation next year. A delay of a year would be a very serious matter because particular industries were making great strides in the country, and although there was no desire that those industries should be protected, on the other hand there was every desire to see that they were not hampered.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if he found that by a more liberal interpretation of Clause 8 he could go some way towards meeting the very evident desire of both sides of the House on what was a real need of the trade of the country, of course, he should be most happy to do so. Ever since his attention had been first called to this matter he had been trying to ascertain what it was exactly they wished done, and he gathered that Clause 8 was by no means sufficient for the purpose. It was for that reason he had proposed the Committee in order that they might arrive at
1118
a solution which might come to this House with some weight and authority behind it, and he hoped the House would be ready to accept it in the same spirit in which the matter had been discussed that day. The hon. Member for Islington wished him to accept this clause, but in matters such as this he could not move without some certainty as to what would be the result of his action. He did not propose that the object of this Committee should be delay, but to insure that what was done should, be both a safeguard to the revenue and satisfactory to the trade of the country. He hoped the House would accept the proposal for a Committee, and he appealed to thesis not to indulge in a prolonged discussion, seeing that they had attained their object.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not object to a Committee being appointed in a case of this kind; but Committees were as a rule, a means simply to expedite either the putting off of Bills or the passing of Bills for the Government. He did not say the former was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter. They had many Committees sitting on all sorts of subjects at the present moment, not one of which, so far as he could see, was likely to bring forth fruits in legislation either in the present session or for many sessions to come. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about the perplexity of this matter, and said he could not accept the clause on the spur of the moment. He talked as if this was a thing which had been sprung upon the attention of the Treasury during the last few hours, whereas an Amendment had been down in the name of an hon. and gallant Member on the other-side of the House for weeks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have considered the character of that Amendment, and must have made up his mind whether he was prepared to meet the suggestion. He must have made up his mind whether to accept it or reject it or whether he had a Committee proposal to advance. Apparently he was simply going to refer the matter to a Committee. Supposing that Committee reported in the course of the next few days no legislation could be obtained this session; possibly nothing could be

1119
done until August of next year when they might have had a totally different Budget and the Government might have broken up on that Budget. Or they might then have another Chancellor of the Exchequer.
On this subject there was no greater authority than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire, who had made it perfectly clear that the manufacturers of this country were suffering. They all knew how this country was suffering in the matter of electric plant, and once they lost place in a new industry of this kind it would be exceedingly difficult for them to creep up again. Of course the free trade of this country did afford some help in meeting deficiencies of this kind. Here was a chance for the Government to assist a trade without interfering with the fiscal arrangements of the country at all. It might mean a few hundreds a year, but it might make all the difference in the world to a trade which at the present moment was subject to the severest trade competition. All they asked was that special and artificial difficulties should not be placed in the way of an industry of this kind. If this industry got a fair chance there was no place in the world where it would prosper more than in this country. Instead of having a Committee as suggested, let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take this suggestion. The debate would stand adjourned in the next quarter of an hour over the dinner interval. The hon. Member could withdraw his clause if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that during the dinner interval he would consider a new clause. It was not a case of two or three hours to deal with a great fiscal question. If the right hon. Gentleman was not willing to take that suggestion he hoped his hon. friend would press the matter to a division.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORgave an instance in connection with the colour dye industry. A gentleman who he believed was on the Tariff Reform Commission came to him to ask him to use his influence to free this trade alcohol. This gentleman, who was entering into a contract with his (Mr. Taylor's)firm, was in competition with
1120
a German firm, and his chief difficulty was the cost of trade alcohol. The hon. Member said he suggested that this gentleman should hammer away at the Government, but the reply he received was that it was verydifficult to pierce the official shell. This gentleman had assured him that, the price at which he ultimately took the contract represented a loss to him although it was no better price than his (Mr. Taylor's) firm could have got elsewhere, but the contract was given to this gentleman because the firm were determined to give the preference to Englishmen. He had always carried this out in his own business. When he was engaging a chemist he was told that he would have to go to Germany, and he said he would get an Englishman and train him, and he did so. There was a spirit among British manufacturers always to favour their own countrymen; and, as a practical business man, he did beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interests of common sense and in the interests of business—and he was sure it would be appreciated by every section of the business community—to accede to the suggestion of the Member for Bolton and do something in this matter at once. It had really been postponed and postponed until business men affected had got it into their heads that Governments would not do anything at all. If former Governments had not done anything effective, he thought it was not too late for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had had more or less, he supposed, a business training—he was at all events the son of a very distinguished business man—to look at the thing from a business point of view. He did beg him to believe that they did not put this forward in any Party spirit, but simply in the interests of the trade of the country, so that these industries should at once have removed from them a burden which he felt sure nobody wished to impose upon them, and which, if they were once rid of, would enable them to compete with foreign countries.
MR. PIRIEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have an hour and a half for reflection, and he really hoped he would take the matter into his consideration. It was monstrous that the trade of the country should be

1121
hampered by the Government being asleep to the vital interests at stake in a matter of this concern. They asked for a most reasonable concession, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely dealt with the matter by shelving it for a year. He hoped his hon. friend would be backed up—
MT. CHANCELLOROf the EXCHEQUER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes,134. (Division List No. 272.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davenport, William Bromley

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Allhusen,Augustus Henry Eden

Denny, Colonel

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawson, JohnGrant (YorksN.R

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn.SirJoseph C.

Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham

Arnold-Forster,Rt.HnHugh O.

Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dorington, Rt.Hon.SirJohn E.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. HonSir H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Duke, Henry Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam Hart

Long, Col. Charles W(Evesham)

Baird, John George Alexander

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

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

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Baldwin, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowe, Francis William

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Balfour, Rt. Hn GeraldW (Leeds

Fison, Frederick William

Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Macdona, John Cumming

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Flower, Sir Ernest

M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Forster, Henry William

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Beckett, Ernest William

Foster, PhilipS(Warwick,S.W.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Galloway, William Johnson

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gardner, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bigwood, James

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bingham, Lord

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnEldon

Montagu, Hn. J.Scott(Hants.)

Bond, Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moore, William

Bousfield, William Robert

Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Bowles,T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hain, Edward

Mount, William Arthur

Bull, William James

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Butcher, John George

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

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

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

Campbell, J.H.M (Dublin Univ.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicholson, William Graham

Cautley, Henry Strother

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derby-shire

Heaton, John Henniker

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Helder, Augustus

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Wore

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Charrington, Spencer

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pemberton, John S. G.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hope, J.F (Sheffield,Brightside

Percy, Earl

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Horner, Frederick William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hoult, Joseph

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Purvis, Robert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Pym, C. Guy

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rankin, Sir James

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hunt, Rowland

Ratcliff, R. F.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Reid, James (Greenock)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Renwick, George

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybrige)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kerr, John

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Keswick, William

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cust, Henry John C.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dalkeith, Earl of

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Samuel, Sir Harry S(Limehouse

Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n,N

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Thornton, Percy M.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tuff, Charles

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Valentia, Vicsount

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Vincent, ColSirC.E.H.(Sheffield)

Smith,Rt Hn J Parker(Lanarks

Walker, Col. William Hall

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Webb, Colonel William George

Stanley, Rt.Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. JohnLloyd

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Dowd, John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Hammond, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barlow, John Emmott

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Partington, Oswald

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harwood, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hayden, John Patrick

Perks, Robert William

Benn, John Williams

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Rea, Russell

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Rose, Charles Day

Burke, E. Haviland

Jacoby, James Alfred

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Burns, John

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burt, Thomas

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Schwann, Charles E.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Joyce, Michael

Shackleton, David James

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cameron, Robert

Kennedy, Vincent P.(CavanW)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Kilbride, Denis

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Channing, Francis Allston

Labouchere, Henry

Sheehy, David

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, George

Slack, John Bamford

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Langley, Batty

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Crombie, John William

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Cullinan, J.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leamy, Edmund

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Levy, Maurice

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Delany, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Tennant, Harold John

Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lough, Thomas

Tomkinson, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lundon, W.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Donelan, Captain A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tully, Jasper

Doogan, P. C.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ure, Alexander

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.

Dunn, Sir William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Edwards, Frank

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Elibank, Master of

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Ellice,Capt E C(SAndrw'sBghs

M'Kean, John

Weir, James Galloway

Emmott, Alfred

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whiteley, George (York, W. R

Farrell, James Patrick

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Murphy, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Newnes, Sir George

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

Charles Hobhouse and Mr.

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

Pirie.

Question put accordingly, "That the clause be read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes, 128; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 273.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barlow, John Emmott

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Benn, John Williams

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Power, Partick Joseph

Boland, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rea, Russell

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rose, Charles Day

Burke, E. Haviland

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Burns, John

Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burt, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Schwann, Charles E.

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Seely,Maj. J.E.B. (IsleofWight

Cameron, Robert

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Shackleton, David James

Channing, Francis Allston

Kilbride, Denis

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Langley, Batty

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crombie, John William

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

Sheehy, David

Cullinan, J.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Slack, John Bamford

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leamy, Edmund

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Levy, Maurice

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Delany, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Devlin, C. Ramsay (Galway)

Lloyd-George, David

Strachey, Sir Edward

Devlin, J. Kilkenny, N.)

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

London, W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Donelan, Captain A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tennant, Harold John

Doogan, P. C.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N

Dunn, Sir William

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Frank

M'Kean, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tully, Jasper

Ellice,Capt.E.C.(S.Andr'sB'ghs

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Ure, Alexander

Emmott, Alfred

Murphy, John

Walton,John Lawson(Leeds, S

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Farrell, James Patrick

Newnes, Sir George

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Weir, James Galloway

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

O'Dowd, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Hammond, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Harcourt, L. V. (Rossendale)

Partington, Oswald

Harwood, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Hayden, John Patrick

Perks, Robert William

Charles Hobhouse and Mr.

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Lyell.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Cust, Henry John C.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Allhusen,Augustus HenryEden

Bull, William James

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Butcher, John George

Davenport, William Bromley

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Davies,Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.HughO

Campbell,J.H.M. (Dublin Univ

Denny, Colonel

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H

Dickson, Charles Scott

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon.SirH

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir JosephC.

Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.

Duke, Henry Edward

Baird, John George Alexander

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Balcarres, Lord

Charrington, Spencer

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Baldwin, Alfred

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fergusson, R t.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

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

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Balfour, Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

Coates, Edward Feetham

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fison, Frederick William

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

Beckett, Ernest William

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Forster, Henry William

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,SW

Bigwood, James

Craig, Charles Curtis (AntrimS.

Galloway, William Johnson

Bingham, Lord

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gardner, Ernest

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gibbs, Hon. A.G.H.

Bousfield, William Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

1126

1127

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Greene,SirE.W.(B'rySEdm'nds

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Iver,Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles)

Hain, Edward

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W. F.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln).

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Harris, Dr.Fredk R.(Dulwich)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East

Helder, Augustus

Moore, William

Smith,RtHn.J.Parker(Lanarks

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Morrell, George Herbert

Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Mount, William Arthur

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Horner, Frederick William

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hoult, Joseph

Murray,RtHnAGraham(Bute

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Thornton, Percy W.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Nicholson, William Graham

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hunt, Rowland

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Tuff, Charles

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Valentia, Viscount

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H(Sheffield

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Walker, Col. William Hall

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Peel, HnWm.Robert Wellesley

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Kerr, John

Percy, Earl

Webb, Col. William George

Keswick, William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wharton, Rt Hon. John Lloyd

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pym, C. Guy

Wills, Sir Frederick

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rankin, Sir James

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson.

Lawson John Grant(Yorks,NR

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wortley,Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart

Lee,Arthur H (HantsFareham)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Renwick, George

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S.

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Long,Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Alexander Acland-Hood

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Lowe, Francis William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

And, it being after half-past seven of the clock, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid the clause he had placed upon the Paper was a clause to repeal Section 2 of the Finance Act of 1901; the clause which first imposed the sugar duty and the clause under which the sugar duty was imposed in the present Bill. He had
  1128
  a clause standing in his name to limit the sugar duty to a certain portion of the coming year, but he had found that that provision had been moved by the hon. Member for Carnarvon in Committee, and his justification for introducing it now in another form was that no report had appeared with regard to the sugar debate owing to the unconscionable hour at which the question was dealt with. He now asked the House to consider seriously the total repeal of this sugar duty. He based his clause not only on the ground common to all indirect taxes, especially those which had been imposed in recent years, that they extorted an unfair contribution from the poorer classes and inflicted upon them an economic injustice, but also upon two grounds

  1129
  which were peculiar to the sugar tax. In the first place, he objected to this tax and asked for its repeal because it was a tax upon the raw material of most important industries which had a great future before them, and to which it was doing the most deadly injury, and his other ground was that since this tax was imposed in 1901 its incidence had been made more oppressive by the injurious effect of the Sugar Convention. They had to look on the sugar duty not merely as a duty on an article of general consumption, like tea, which, except as regarded the duty, had free access to the country, but as a duty which had been aggravated and intensified in its injurious effects by the Sugar Convention; they had to look at it not as a temporary tax imposed for the purposes of the war, but as one of those permanent taxes which it had become the fashion to impose one after another for the purposes of revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded it as one of his great functions to find some new pockets to draw from or to dip still deeper into the old one. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman had spared sugar on this occasion must have been because it was present to the minds of the Ministry that sugar had suffered exceptionally owing to the complication and further loss induced by the Sugar Convention.
  He did not wish to enter fully into the merits of the Sugar Convention, and perhaps would not be in order in doing so. He only touched upon it because the result of the Convention had been to prejudice the interest of these great industries and had caused this tax to fall more heavily on the consumers. There had been gloomy forecasts that prices would go up and trade would go down. Those forecasts had been repudiated by the President and the Secretary to the Board of Trade. The latter had said that he did not believe for a moment that the price of sugar would be raised by anything like a halfpenny by the abolition of the bounties.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not be in order to discuss the rise of prices or other effects of the Convention.
  MR. CHANNING: That ruling would prevent him from using the full force of
  1130
  the argument from the facts, but he would contend that, whether the Convention had aggravated it or not, the duty alone had had a most prejudicial effect upon these industries, which had hitherto been rapidly growing. There had been an enormous rise in prices. Whatever its cause, there had been a continuous rise in the price of standard 88 per cent. sugar, free on board at Hamburg. The price on 3rd July, 1902, was 5s. 10d., and now it was 9s. 7¼d. In other words, the price of sugar hail risen by 63 per cent. There had also been a steady diminution in the consumption of sugar in this country. Before 1901 the normal increase had been 30,000 to 40,000 tons a year. But in the past three years there had been 1,730,868 tons in 1901, 1,567,184 tons in 1902, and 1,327,118 tons in 1903. There had been a drop during the past two years of 200,000 tons, or 26 per cent. The injury done to those trades which used sugar as a raw material was manifest by the Board of Trade Returns, which upon consultation would show that the export of jams and confectionery had gone down year by year, as had also the exports of biscuits and cakes, pickles and condiments. There had also been a marked diminution in one branch of the sugar industry in this country, to which great importance had been attached in the great city of Birmingham, the manufacture of cocoa and chocolate, the exports of which had diminished in a remarkable degree, from £206,781 in 1900 to £129,431 in 1902, whilst in those countries where sugar as a raw material was free the exports had greatly increased. Switzerland now sending us £350,000 worth of milk chocolates. The effect on these great industries had been most disastrous. They had been told that the different refiners in this country were to be benefited, but it so happened that those engaged in the sugar industries stood in regard to the sugar refiners in the ratio of 50 to 1. They had also been told that this policy was directed to the benefit of the West Indies, but so far the result had been an enormous increase in the last two years of the manufacture of beet sugar in Germany and France and that in those countries it was being consumed in vastly greater quantities than hitherto. At the time of the imposition

  1131
  of this duty the Government gave a definite pledge that if they found that these industries were seriously prejudiced they would endeavour to find a means of meeting the injury and mitigating it. What was urged now by these industries was that that pledge could only be made good at the present time by the diminution or abolition of this duty, which pressed so hardly upon them. Mr. Boyd, President of the Manufacturing Confectioners' Association, wrote to him—
  "The results of the Convention are proving even more disastrous than we anticipated. Our trade, consequently feels the duty on sugar even 'more acutely.' The confectionery and similar trades have never been so bad as in the past year. Many failures have occurred and nearly every house in the trade is experiencing a diminished demand for sugar products."
  Turning to the effect upon the workers in these sugar industries, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that two years ago he had information placed in his hands by representatives of the workers in these industries which showed that at that time there had been a loss of £750,000 in wages and a diminution of 20,000 hands in the various factories. He could not vouch for those figures, but he submitted that the facts related to him at the time constituted a legitimate claim on the part of the workers that the Government should insist upon inquiring into the facts with the view of meeting this grievance if possible. The sugar duty had been assumed to be 40 per cent. on the value of the article itself, but that was on the value of the sugar "free on board" at Hamburg, which was the standard measure of the sugar trade, but everybody knew that the result was far greater than that to the consumer. The consumer had also to meet all the intermediate charges for freight, profits, etc., which were not tangible and were therefore difficult to exactly estimate. He dwelt upon these additions in order to show how moderate was their contention in using the figure of the duty alone in calculating the incidence of this tax upon the individual consumer. He had always attacked the sugar tax very strongly because it had seemed to him that its imposition was a part of the definite and persistent policy of the right hon.
  1132
  Member for West Bristol since 1895 of steadily increasing the indirect taxation of the country and extending the area of taxation. He objected to expanding indirect taxation on the same ground that he thought it a pernicious policy to meet the cost of wars or other great emergencies by loans. It concealed from the taxpayer the growth of expenditure and the methods by which their resources were being stealthily transferred to purposes they had not considered. It was absolutely necessary that there should be an adequate and scientific inquiry into the real incidence of taxation.
  He felt some disappointment at the cynical indifference of the Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question he put across the floor of the House inviting him to consent to some form of inquiry into the incidence of all these taxes direct as well as indirect on the various classes of individuals in order to adjust the taxes to the taxable capacity of the individual taxed, said that he did not feel justified in instituting an inquiry because all the facts were to be found in the various manuals which everyone could consult, and from which everybody could form their own opinion. General principles, it was true, were laid down in the manuals, but the facts were not, and what we had to depend upon for arriving at the true consumption and the true incidence of this taxation was the efforts of individuals like Booth, Rowntree, and others. He had always regarded this House as a temple of justice and purity and honour in regard to these matters, and he believed if they had an inquiry into the incidence of taxation there was not a Member of that Assembly who would not do ample justice to this matter. He wished hon. Members to really consider what the incidence of this tax was on the various classes of the community. He would not again lay before the House the results from the large number of family budgets he had obtained and used last year. But he had obtained, partly from the Fiscal Inquiry Blue-book, and from family expenditures supplied to him by friends, an exact calculation of the incidence of this tax upon a series of incomes of various classes. If they took the amount of sugar consumed and calculated the duty on

  1133
  that and then interpreted the duty in the form of income-tax at so many pence in the £, taking the labourers first and the artisans next, the labourers as stated in the Blue-book by that able public servant Mr. Wilson Fox with an average wage of 18s. 6d. a week and the artisans with an average of 30s. a week, also from the Blue-book, they would see that on this sugar tax a labourer earning 18s. 6d. a week paid an income-tax of 2·63d. in the £ and the artisan earning 30s. a week paid 2·166d. in the £. What was the contribution of the comparatively rich man towards the sugar tax? The man with £1,500 a year paid an income-tax on the sugar tax of ·2d.; the man with £3,500 a year ·157d.; and the very rich man with £20,000 a year paid on the sugar duty an income-tax of only ·0328d. in the ·. In other words, the labourer was paying thirteen times as much as the man with £1,500 a year; twenty times as much as the man with £3,500 a year; and nearly eighty times as much as the man with £20,000 a year. He thought that these figures, which were not irrelevant to the discussion before the House, constituted a very strong ground for a full inquiry into the whole incidence of taxation which was raised by this Budget. If the tea duty and the sugar duty were added together, it would be found, on inquiry, that equally astonishing results would be arrived at. He had laid before the House in past years figures based on the calculations of Mr. Chamberlain in 1885, calculations which Mr. Chamberlain had never attempted to withdraw from—and had shown that with the war taxes the general contributions of the average working man ran up to an income-tax of 2s. 6d. in the £ and this year this enormous burden was increased by the additional tea duty. He thought he had made out a substantial case that this sugar duty pressed unduly on industry and imposed on the working classes of the country a greater burden than the richer classes were called upon to bear. He begged to move.
  A clause [Abolition of sugar duty]—
  "Section 2 of The Finance Act, 1901, is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he derived a certain satisfaction from the reflection that in this matter he was not proposing any new departure or any departure of a heretical or suspicious character, from the practice of his predecessors. In the course of the discussion, which had lasted over fourteen days, there was hardly a tax carried or continued by his predecessors which hon. Gentlemen had not proposed to abolish or reduce. They did not stop to inquire how the revenue was to be raised or the service of the country to be carried on. They demanded that debt should be reduced more rapidly, but they attacked every individual tax in turn. The proposal which the hon. Gentleman made was, in a year in which the country was in need of all the financial resources it could command, to abolish a revenue of £6,000,000. If the hon. Gentleman's Party were in office they would not dare to make such a sacrifice in present circumstances. It was impossible and would be ruinous to the financial credit of the country to forego so large a portion of the revenue at a time when the needs were so great. So far from the present distribution as between direct and indirect taxation being unfair, while he did not attach importance to a mathematical division, he maintained that the proportion was more favourable to the indirect taxpayer than at any time when the hon. Gentleman's Party was in power, and that in the estimates in the present year direct and indirect taxation were divided in exactly the same proportions as in the year before the war. He thought the hon. Gentleman's argument was a little enfeebled by the fact that it was based in large part in his own mind on considerations which were not in order in this discussion. He was surprised that any hon. Gentleman on that side should appear to think it necessary or desirable that the industries of this country should be bolstered up by a system of artificial cheapness in regard to their raw material. The sugar duty, so far from depressing industries, was one of the duties which had responded to the anticipations of his predecessor. In looking over the Customs returns of last year under this class of

  1135
  articles he noticed that there was a considerable proportion of increase due almost entirely to an increased importation of cocoa. That hardly bore out that the cocoa industry had suffered from the tax. He lived very near one of the centres of the cocoa industry, and he had received no information that led him to suppose that the industry was not in a prosperous condition. For these and other reasons he declined to accept the Motion.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would give the right hon. Gentleman two good reasons why the Opposition were opposed to the taxes which had been imposed by the Government during the last few years. In the first place they believed that the expenditure of the country was far too great and the only way to reduce that expenditure was by reducing the revenue at the disposal of the Government. In the second place, they believed, as election after election showed, that the Government did not possess the confidence of the country, and therefore they were not disposed to vote these enormous supplies to the Government to keep them in office. The right hon. Gentleman said that he and his predecessor had brought back the equilibrium between direct and indirect taxation which had obtained before the war. He did not believe that at all. During each of the war years there was a very slight addition to the direct taxation, and even if the indirect taxation was increased in the same proportion, yet, when it came to a question of remissions after the war, there was no policy at all in regard to these. Direct taxation was remitted to the extent of £10,500,000 while indirect taxation was relieved only to the extent of £2,500,000 or a balance of £8,000,000 in favour of direct taxation. If this Government remained in office he feared there would not be any opportunity of reducing expenditure. Only that morning a circular had been issued with the Votes pointing out what would be the additional cost of various matter in connection with the Army. They had always understood that in connection with Army reform they were going to have great economies, but now they found that it was proposed during the coming two years to increase the expenditure on the Army by no less a
  1136
  sum than £3,000,000 a year. It was no good for the right hon. Gentleman to say that indirect taxation had had relief in the same proportion as direct taxation. On the contrary the annual amount of indirect taxation imposed on the consumer had been increased by £4,500,000. Every year it was increasing, and would increase as long as the present Government remained in office. It was therefore the duty of the Opposition to oppose every taxation proposal of the present Government on the grounds he had already stated.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman stated that they on that side opposed every tax. He would remind the right hon. Gentlemen that it would be out of order for them to propose new taxation; and, therefore, it was only open to them to attack taxation as it was brought forward. That was the only way to bring home to the country how hardly this taxation pressed on various classes of the community. The right hon. Gentleman also said that if they on that side were responsible for the Government of the country they would not propose a reduction in taxation. He agreed that there was a great deal of reason in that; but if they had a Government they could trust they should know that it proposed taxation only because it was necessary; that it was pledged to economy; and that it desired, as far as possible, to lessen the indirect taxation which was put on at the time of the war. They could not, however, trust right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If suggestions were wanted he would say that if they had a Government they could trust, there would be no such Licensing Bill as had been brought forward this session; and something more would probably be got out of licences. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not attach much importance to the question of direct as against indirect taxation. He did not know in what sense the right hon. Gentleman used that phrase. The right hon. Gentleman, however, agreed with his right hon. relative, who wanted to increase indirect taxation. He said so in a very remarkable speech only on Saturday last. He did not understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. He did not understand why the right hon Gentleman was where he was. He did

  1137
  not understand why the right hon. Gentleman was not out of the Cabinet backing up his right hon. friend; but that was a question for himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that Members of the Opposition, did not thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon for striking off the corn tax. The reason why the Budget of last year was not more bitterly opposed was undoubtedly because the corn duty was got rid of; and, although they objected very strongly to the large amount of direct taxation which was struck off in comparison with the small amount of indirect taxation, still, they were so thankful to have got rid of the corn tax that they did not oppose the Budget as they might have opposed it under other circumstances.
  As to the question whether the sugar duty combined with the Convention, had seriously interfered with the consumption of sugar in this country, he fully admitted that the figures up to the present were not such as could be relied on with any great confidence. It was very difficult to draw conclusions from them. If hon. Members, however, would look at the figures from 1888 in triennial periods up to the present they would find that in the period 1888–1890 the consumption per head was 73·8 lbs., and that it gradually increased until it was 86–7 lbs. in the period 1900–2. In 1903 the consumption was only 74 lbs., which was smaller than in any one year since 1890, when it was 73–2 lbs. It was perfectly certain that the steady progress in the consumption of sugar had stopped; and it was now abundantly proved that sugar in this country was dearer than it was; while it was cheaper than it had been before in other countries. That was a great relative disadvantage to the poorest of the poor in this country. But sugar was not only food; it was also a great raw material. They had heard a great deal of lamentation in the autumn about the enormous injury which was done to the working classes because fewer people were engaged in the refining industry; but if all the sugar consumed in the country were refined in the country, it would only mean employment for 6,000 people; whereas, the great trades which depended on sugar for their raw material did employ at least 120,000.
  1138
  Therefore, not only were the poorest of the poor hard hit by the sugar duty but many new industries were also hard hit by it. He spoke on this question rather strongly, because, as a so-called fanatical free trader, he did not care for the system under which sugar came into this country artificially cheap. But when he looked at the results which followed from the duty and the Convention—
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion simply refers to the effect of the tax on sugar, not to the effect of the Convention.
  MR. EMMOTTapologised and said it was almost impossible to separate one cause from the other. He would conclude by pointing out that the price of sugar had risen materially as a result of this duty; and, although he fully admitted that in the present state of the finances of the country it was necessary to raise this money, still he maintained that they were perfectly right in calling attention to the great harm which the tax would inflict on the poorer classes, and on many industries in the country.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid it was a curious spectacle to see the present Chancellor of the Exchequer defending the sugar tax. The right hon. Gentleman was the political product of the free breakfast table; he was steeped in democratic finance at the beginning of his political career; and he should have thought that he would have favoured the doctrine of taking ransom from the rich and of keeping the unholy hand of the tax-gatherer off the necessaries of life. Yet, to-night the right hon. Gentleman was defending the tax on sugar. He should like to know the private opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the matter. He did not think that the right hon Gentleman would support, as a private individual, what he was bound to support as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol justified the tax on the ground that it was in the true interests of peace and economy that the labouring classes, as well as other classes, should bear the burden of the cost of the war and the preparation for the war. Were they now

  1139
  bearing the burden of war or of preparation for war? All the reasons given as a justification for the tax by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had disappeared; and they were entitled to ask that it should be removed. He objected to the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. He did not believe that the poorer people of the country declared war. Parliament was not sitting when war was declared; and the poorer people were necessarily ignorant of what went on, and could not give a vote on the issue. He should certainly vote with the greatest possible pleasure with his hon. friend.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to say a few words from the point of view of the trade. He had in his constituency the most progressive and flourishing industry among the new industries of the district and it depended for its raw material on cheap sugar. This tax,together with the increase brought about by the Sugar Convention, had had a most serious effect upon that industry. They were told that the policy of the Government did not include a tax on raw material and yet here was a tax which was distinctly a tax on raw material. He thought they were justified from that point of view alone in calling attention to the matter. When members of the Government talked about increasing employment it was their duty to show that the Government were decreasing employment in existing trades. He hoped other Members whose constituencies were affected in the same Way would continue to point out how the policy of the sugar tax and the Sugar Convention had not only made dearer the raw material at home but cheapened the raw material abroad. It was an unique example of the effect of endeavouring to introduce scientific taxation.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he found himself in a difficulty in trying to follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that they were not sufficiently grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol for removing the corn tax, because they criticised his Budget. Surely, it was unreasonable to suggest that because there was one good thing in a Budget
  1140
  they should keep their mouths closed about the bad things in it. Then, the right hon.Gentleman said that as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol put on the sugar tax, and as he was a free-trader and a favourite of theirs, therefore they ought not to criticise the sugar tax. Really because the late Chancellor happened to be a free-trader it did not follow that he never made a mistake and that therefore they were to swallow everything that he proposed and never criticise his proposals. They would surely be in a most ridiculous position if they did. There was another point. While they were justified in fighting every point, some severe criticism had been passed as to the position of the Opposition in prolonging the discussion. The general point was this, that the Opposition said the Government was spending too much; that expenditure had increased, was increasing, and must be diminished, and the only means of showing that was when each tax arose to apply the case and show how hardly the tax pressed upon the people. It was not an answer to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer required £6,000,000. His hon. friend the Member for Halifax had referred to the trade point of view of the sugar tax. He knew they were not allowed on the clause to discuss the Sugar Convention, but it was acknowledged in the discussion on the Convention that products made from sugar, if they came from a country which had joined the Convention, were admitted duty-free even though they were made from bounty-fed sugar. That was to say that their own manufacturers were handicapped compared with the manufacturers of other countries. He mentioned this to show how the case was aggravated by the sugar tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the garden city near his home built on the profits of past years and he supposed that was intended to be an argument that trade was going on swimmingly. The fact remained that in the cocoa trade the increase had been stopped. The first sign of injury showed by a business was not that it diminished, but that it ceased to increase, and that was the phenomenon they had to face in that case. Year by year the trade was increasing in a certain ratio, but the Government took certain

  1141
  steps with the result that that increase had disappeared.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member in saying "the Government took certain steps" is apparently referring to the Convention, and that is not before the House.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he was referring to this particular tax, and showing that it operated as a burden upon a particular trade to such an extent that all increase had been stopped. It was really hard that when the Government required more money they should go to the two articles—tea and sugar—which were the most necessary to the poor. It was possible to pay too much for one's whistle, and the whistle of Empire might be bought at too dear a price. If the Government could not bear the expense except by placing these burdens upon the poor, he recommended them to try another policy and see whether they could not retrench and manage matters more economically.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, were it not for coming into conflict with the Chair, it would be perfectly possible to suggest alternatives. As it was once said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, it was not for the physician to prescribe until he had been called in, and the Opposition were not bound to disclose their remedies until they were in a position to diagnose the complaint. The patient was suffering not from too little taxation, but from too much expenditure, and the cure was to cut down expenditure, and that was the point that would have to be considered when the time came. But each tax had to be considered upon its merits. It was only by resisting the imposition of new taxes that the House of Commons could exercise any real control over expenditure. The only way in which Governments could be forced to face the alternative of reducing expenditure was by the House of Commons declaring that an undue burden was being placed upon the people, and demanding that the expenditure should
  1142
  be cut down. That was really the position the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take up, and if he did not the House of Commons would have to do it for him. When the Estimates of the year were presented to him by the different Departments, Lord Randolph Churchill, instead of looking round for new taxes, took the rational but more difficult course of turning to the spending Departments and saying that they and not the taxpayers would have to find the remedy. The House of Commons could never cut down Estimates in Committee of Supply. In other countries there were Budget Committees, by whom the Estimates were examined, but since such a Committee did not exist here, all the House of Commons could do was to say, "We will not impose additional burdens upon the people, the necessities of the Empire do not justify them, therefore, you must find some other remedy by getting the heads of the spending Departments to cut down their estimates." Chancellors of the Exchequer were, after all, very human. They simply took the line of least resistance. They had to face, on the one hand, insistent colleagues, each clamoring for additional expenditure, and on the other hand, the House of Commons, Where they had their majority, who would vote for any mortal thing the Whips told them to. The only thing such Members cared about was to stave off a dissolution; they feared their constituents more than the taxation; hence the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew he would get his proposals through the House of Commons without much difficulty. The old tradition of Chancellors of the Exchequer was to reduce taxation; the line of new Chancellors of the Exchequer was to say, "Look at my term of office! My predecessor put on £5,000,000; I will put on £15,000,000. My little finger shall be thicker than his loin!" That was their claim to immortality.
  During the last three or four years indirect taxation had been increased by £15,000,000. Why had there been these increases in the burdens of the people? Because, instead of bona fide discussions on the Budget such as there used to be, there had been only perfunctory debates, and even they had been discouraged by the majority Discussion should be encouraged so as to

  1143
  make it difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose new taxation without thoroughly sifting the matter. The right hon. Gentleman probably did not really wrestle with his colleagues on the question of expenditure before deciding to continue this tax. It was necessary to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer —in a Parliamentary sense —by the throat, and, by refusing to continue these burdens, to force him to reduce expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol justified the imposition solely on the ground of "adequate public necessity," and purely as a war tax. The war was over; where then was the "adequate public necessity" for keeping on the tax? It was simply the extravagance of the Government. Estimates were supervised in the most reckless fashion; in fact, they were not supervised at all. The Government had no time to look after their proper business; it took them all their time to keep together, and as long as that went on there would be no proper management of the business of the country. What was the good of the Government talking about the Empire unless they could manage its finances? Taxation of this kind was most insidious in its character, The people did not realise that they were paying it. The average consumption of sugar per family of the population was about 8 lbs. per week, so that the tax meant about 4d. per week. What was
  4d. per week? When it was a question of school fees, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham declared that 3d. per week was a great deal for a working man to pay; that it meant 3d. from the necessaries of life, and that he would rather cut off his right arm than be a party to imposing such a burden. But here was the right hon. Gentleman's relative, not merely not cutting off his right arm to prevent taxation, but using both arms to keep it on. Fourpence a week was a serious item to a man with a small wage and a large family. The primary functions of the House of Commons were to examine the finances of the country and to redress grievances, but those were the last two duties the House was under present circumstances permitted to discharge. It was time the House of Commons reasserted its prerogative, and carefully scrutinised all these burdens upon the people of the land.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLquoted from a speech by Mr. Disraeli, in which he said that sugar was an article of colonial produce which had been embarrassing to many Governments and had sometimes caused political disaster.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 201. (Division List No. 274.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Harwood, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bell, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Benn, John Williams

  Duncan, J. Hastings

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

  Boland, John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Edwards, Frank

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Brigg, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ellice, Capt.E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Burt, Thomas

  Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Joyce, Michael

  Caldwell, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kilbride, Denis

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lambert, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Langley, Batty

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Cullinan, J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Hammond, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Lloyd-George, David

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Priestley, Arthur

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Kean, John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Murphy, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isleof Wight

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Malley, William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Partington, Oswald

  Sheehy, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Perks, Robert William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  William N'Arthur.

  Pixie, Duncan V.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

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

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

  Bigwood, James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bingham, Lord

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fernianagh,N.)

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

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William

  Brown, Sir Alex. H.(Shropsh.)

  Hain, Edward

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bull, William James

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Butcher, John George

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Percy, Earl

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kerr, John

  Pym, C. Guy

  Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  1146

  1147

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Renwick, George

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Smith,RtHn J.Parker(Lanarks

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

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

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tuff, Charles

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos. Myles

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid the Amendment he had to submit proposed to restore the duty on tea to the figure at which it stood in the Finance Bill of last year, namely, 6d. per lb. This was one of the most important questions that could be discussed on the Finance Bill. They could not too carefully scrutinise the expenditure of the country, and a better example could not be given of the extravagance of expenditure and the hardship inflicted by that extravagance than the particular tax which was the subject of this Amendment. It was very hard upon the consumers of tea that in a time of peace an article of universal consumption which was already taxed to the extent of 100 per cent. should have that tax increased by another 25 per cent. Such an increase was absolutely unjustifiable. This extra taxation fell heavily upon the working classes, who were the greatest consumers of tea. The late Mr. Bright once said that "The nation lives in the cottage," and he was sure that any hon. Member who had performed the disagreeable duty of canvassing a constituency would have a good idea of how and where the people lived and what were the kind of taxes which pressed upon them with the greatest severity. If they would only recall those experiences they would come to the conclusion that a tax of this nature was a grievous burden upon the poorest people in this country. In the case of tea and sugar this Government had imposed £10,000,000 a year of additional taxation. Reference had been made to the advisability of having a Budget Committee, and when he made that suggestion in 1895 the First Lord of the Treasury loudly applauded it. He only wished
  1148
  that they could have a Committee to inquire into the incidence of taxation on the various classes of the inhabitants of this country. The enormous amount of revenue levied by way of Customs and Excise, amounting to between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000 a year, were paid almost entirely by the working classes of this country, and now they were placing the duty on tea at a higher figure than it had ever reached in the course of the last fourteen years. They were constantly told to think Imperially. He wished to know why they should leave out of account those great dependencies of India and Ceylon. India was the poorest country in the world, and the average income of its inhabitants had been computed at a sum between three farthings and a penny farthing per head. If there was any country which ought to benefit from an Imperial tariff scheme it was India. In India and Ceylon £30,000,000 were invested in the tea industry, and yet by this addition to the tea tax we were dealing a heavy blow at that industry. A blow was also being dealt at the working classes of the United Kingdom by the imposition of this enormous tax on tea—a tax which was enough to make fiscal reformers of the past turn in their graves. Why had the Chancellor of the Exchequer selected tea for the whole of this additional taxation? Why had he not apportioned the amount he proposed to raise from tea in such a way as to let coffee and cocoa bear part of the taxation. These were commodities imported from foreign countries. He moved the Amendment in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether the tax should be retained at 6d. as at present.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words 'in lieu of.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, rising after a short pause, expressed the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not going to treat the House with contempt on this matter. The tea duty was one which pressed very heavily on the working people of this country. It meant 130 per cent. on a commodity of universal consumption by every class of the community. He ventured to say that in the very worst days of high tariffs there was nothing so bad as this, and it was a Government that desired to give trade advantages to our Colonies that maintained this heavy impost on an article of colonial produce. Up to the time the increase in taxation was imposed on tea there had been an annual increase in the consumption, but the moment the tax was increased there was an arrest in the consumption as far as the colonial product was concerned, but the consumption of the foreign product increased. That was a peculiar result in the case of a Government whose policy it was to protect the colonial as against the foreign producer. If there was any part of His Majesty's dominions that deserved indulgent treatment it was India and Ceylon. In Ceylon they had had exactly the same state of things as in the West Indies. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Sheffield to sneer.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I did not sneer.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not know that was the hon. Member's method of cheering arguments for preferential trade. He appealed to him to give more articulate expression to his opinions. The hon. Member was never tired of talking about the Colonies, and he ought to encourage Members of this House who were putting in a word for them.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was better. That was a word of encouragement to one who was pleading his gospel. The hon. Member had always held out against his own Party in regard to this doctrine. Now, was his chance. Let him say a word for the Colonies, who were hard hit by this increased taxation in favour of the foreign producer. There was a gathering in the City the other day of gentlemen interested in India and Ceylon, and it was there stated that this increase in the tax would hit the tea industry in India and Ceylon very hard. When the West Indian planters found that sugar did not pay they came whining and asked for £400,000 a year, but the Indian planters, when coffee failed, set to work to produce tea and gained a position of prosperity. What was their reward? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the protector of the Colonies, actually put a tax of 130 per cent. on their produce. Surely that was a very curious way of encouraging the Colonies. This tea tax hit not only the colonial producer, but our own people. What happened with regard to Lancashire? Lancashire had a great trade with Ceylon and India in cotton goods. These goods were not paid for in silver and gold. They were paid for mostly in tea. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to say that if he increased the duty on the pound of tea it would not discourage colonial tea, and did he mean to say that it would not affect the cotton trade in Lancashire? The duty had materially injured the cotton business of Lancashire, and if they were going to put on an extra 2d. it would be still harder hit. This was a tax which had not been imposed for forty years. It was in 1865 that the tea duty was at the figure to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed to raise it. It had actually been as low as 4d., and this Imperial Government increased it to 6d., and now to 8d. That was the way they were going to help the Colonies, and especially Ceylon. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the last man to discourage the people of Ceylon, who during the late war did all

  1151
  they could to assist the Imperial Government. They did not complain of the additional 2d. as their contribution towards the conducting of the war, but they naturally expected that they would share in the reduction of taxation the moment warlike expenditure came to an end. Their reward was to have another 2d. added to the tea duty.
  He was not so sure that this had not something to do with an ulterior purpose. What was it? Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer select tea in order to increase the duty? It was perfectly obvious that it was part of a scheme by which at some future time the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to go to the country and say, "The tax on tea is 8d.; take it off in order to put it on corn." The scheme had been advocated in the country. There had never been any concealment about it. He ventured to say that this was playing into the hands of that scheme. It was not a bona fide effort to meet by taxation the current expenditure of the year. It was part and parcel of a political intrigue. He would be very much surprised if hon. Memberssitting on the Government Benches could repudiate it. He must say that they had always been very frank. They had not been working underground. He ventured to say there was not a speech they had made in the country in which they had not pointed out the possibility of reducing the taxation on tea with the view of imposing it on something else. The House ought not to play into the hands of that conspiracy. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that there were some men in every intrigue who were indiscreet enough to reveal the secrets of the rest, and that was why they had get it out. There were many things going on in connection with the Treasury which were underground. It was just part and parcel of a scheme, to put this enormously increased portion of the taxes on the food of the people, and seeing that at the present moment there was no great demand or prime necessity for so doing it was an outrage to propose it. His special objection to this tax was that it called upon the poorest classes of the community to bear an unfair share of the burden. The income-tax was borne in proportion to a man's income; the greater the income, the greater was the contribu-
  1152
  tion a man was called upon to make, but the better was he able to bear it. That, however, was not the case with the tea tax. The average income of a working man with a family, ranged from £75 to £90 a year, and taking a family man with an income of twenty times that amount, it would be found that not more than four times the amount of tea would be consumed than in the former case. That put an unfair burden on the poorest classes of the community. The same objection applied in the case of the sugar tax, and it was because of this method of unfair taxation between high and low, and rich and poor, that he supported the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that as many of the objections which had been urged against the tax had been submitted at recent sittings the replies he then gave would be a sufficient answer, but some fresh objections had been raised. The hon. Member for Flint Boroughs had asked why, having increased the tea duty, he had not increased the duty on cocoa and coffee, and thus spread the taxation over those and similar articles. He put the taxation on tea because he thought that from tea the best response could be obtained; hilst coffee and cocoa would only yield a very small sum. He had been taxed with bringing too minute a mind to bear in raising these duties, but if he had accepted the suggestions made with regard to coffee and cocoa he would have laid himself open to further criticisms in that direction. Another objection he had to meet was that this tax pressed unduly upon India and Ceylon. He confessed that he adopted it with reluctance, but he did not anticipate such unfortunate results would follow as had been anticipated by the hon. Gentleman. The tea industry in India and Ceylon, and in Ceylon in particular, was in a better condition at the present time than it was when the last duty was imposed. He feared the tax fell very heavily upon Ceylon, but had the result of the last increase been so disastrous as that imposed in 1902? Everyone interested in the industry in Ceylon had admitted that there had been an over-increase in the production, and that new markets had had to be found for the surplus tea in place of sending it to England at unremunerative

  1153
  prices. Looking at the decrease in the total imports, and at the amount of tea shipped direct to Australia and other places instead of through this country, he, naturally, would have been glad from our own point of view to see every pound of tea consigned through this country, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that it was advantageous to consign it as directly as possible. Hon. Members had just divided the House upon the sugar duty, but tea was not open to the same objections and it seemed to him that, having to raise a share of taxation from indirect sources, tea was the article that could best bear the burden put upon it.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid each tax had its special objection. In sugar it took the form of objecting to a duty on raw material; in tobacco an unequal burden was imposed, and with respect to tea, they objected on the ground that the tax injured the Indian and Ceylon producers. He denied that there was any inconsistency in objecting to the additional duty on the score of injury to the producer in India and Ceylon. If they had said at one moment that the consumer paid the tax, and the next that the producer paid. it then would be obvious inconsistency, but nobody on that side of the House had said that. What they had said was that the consumer would pay it and would be injured by having to pay more for his tea and that the effect would be to stop the natural increase of consumption, and even possibly to diminish the rate of consumption, and in that way the growers in India and Ceylon would be injured as well as the consumers. But there were certain arguments which were common to all these taxes which led them to object to them all. They considered the expenditure of the country was too high, and wished to reduce taxation as a means of reducing expenditure. They beli eved the present Administration had no claim to the confidence of the country, and used this ancient constitutional means of objecting to their presence on the Treasury Bench. And beyond this, those who had examined the question of the comparative incidence of taxation on the various classes of the population were convinced that the present system was in itself unjust and was
  1154
  continually becoming more unjust. He wished to see the tax reduced, because it imposed an unfair burden upon the poorest classes of the community. This tax, of course, did not stand alone. The Government had added £6,000,000 a year to the taxation of sugar, £4,000,000 to tea, £2,000,000 to tobacco, and £2,700,000 to beer and spirits—all since 1900. They had added £14,700,000 to those taxes which fell upon the working classes of the country. It was true that the corn-tax had been taken off, and they had been taken to task by the Chancellor of the Exchequer because they gave scant thanks for that fact. He did not see why they ought to thank a Minister who had been compelled largely by the efforts of the Opposition to repeal a tax which his Administration had imposed. These taxes on commodities of general consumption were essentially evil because they were in the nature of poll taxes. A working class family consumed as much tea and sugar as a wealthier family, and probably about as much tobacco and alcohol. There were about 9,000,000 families in the United Kingdom, and these new taxes worked out at an average sum of 32s. 8d per family—practically one week's wages for every working-class family in the community. When hon. Members opposite went to their constituents and told them the many blessings which had been conferred upon them by the Tory Administration he trusted they would make it plain that among those blessings was to be included indirect taxation to the extent of one week's wages for each family in the country. These new taxes, of course, came on the top of a very large number of other burdens. Excluding wine and coal, there were about £65,000,000 a year raised in indirect taxation,or£7 5s. per family, which amounted to an income-tax of 1s. 7d. in the £ on the average wage of a working-class family. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had again and again refused to hold an inquiry into the question of the incidence of taxation on the various classes of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman told them that there was no injustice to complain of, but they pressed for an inquiry because they did not accept his opinion and wished to have it checked by other financial authorities. He felt sure

  1155
  that critics of this Budget would not cease from protesting against any proposal to increase or even to maintain the present level of indirect taxation until an impartial expert inquiry had proved their arguments to be void of foundation.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he had listened in the hope of being told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by whom this tax was to be paid. It was disappointing that when the right hon. Gentleman proposed an import duty on tea he could not assure the House that that duty would not be paid by the consumers but by the producers. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed that it would be paid by the consumers why did he not inform a deluded electorate that the tax he was proposing to impose would fall upon them. There could not be a shadow of doubt, looking at the tea markets of the last month or two, that this tax would fall upon the British consumer. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer the courage to tell the House that the effect of this duty would be to tax foreigners. He dared not do it, and he begged the right hon. Gentleman out, of regard to his reputation as a financier and a courageous and consistent politician, not to say outside that House what he would not say inside it. The additional twopence upon this tax would cause an additional twopence to be placed on the price of tea. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that in opposing this tax they wished to eat their cake and keep it, but they contended that it was not their cake at all. It was the right hon. Gentleman's fiscal cake, and as the price was raised the trade in that article would diminish. The right hon. Gentleman not only made the British people pay more for their tea, but put an impediment in the way of the colonial producers. It was a curious thing that the defence of our colonial trade had been undertaken exclusively by free traders. In opposing that tax they recorded their solemn protest against its continuance at the present rate. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to frame his Budget next year he would be met with the most strenuous opposition from that side of the House if he continued this impost. They were bound to resist his proposals to the utmost. The tax was unfair in its incidence on the poor, and
  1156
  holding that view as strongly as he did he should do his utmost to resist it.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that he did not sufficiently recognise the direct bearing the duty had upon the commerce of India. He would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a direct question. Had any representation been made to him by the Government of India? Upon the only occasion when they were permitted to discuss Indian matters, upon the Indian Budget, there was a consensus of opinion expressed that it was of the greatest importance to encourage its internal resources, and undoubtedly the tea industry was an important one, one which ought to be further developed, and one which they could not allow to be prejudiced without making a strong protest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was in favour of this proposal because the tax produced the best results, and he went on to defend his action from the standpoint of the Indian planters, by saying that since the last increase in the duty the condition of the Indian tea trade had improved. It seemed a somewhat unfortunate apology to make for the imposition of this tax. The Indian planters had built up their industry by gigantic efforts, and the first step towards that improvement was an additional tax. Not only from the Indian standpoint, but also from the standpoint of policy, he wished to press this home upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The final ground upon which he would oppose the additional tax was this. He was not at all sure that in the long run it would produce the increased revenue expected. There was a limit, after all, to human endurance in the matter of tea-drinking, and he thought it was very unfortunate that it should be necessary to adopt a policy in regard to the taxation of tea which would have the effect of discouraging tea-drinking. They all knew that the problem of drink was receiving the consideration of the country, and he regretted that at this time, and especially under the conditions of the country, it should be necessary to place a barrier in the way of the consumption of tea. He therefore desired to support the Amendment.
  MR. HARWOODsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the first duty on tea operated hardly on tea growers: that, when another 2d. was put upon it, it hit them very hard: but that, when a further 2d. was put upon it, it did not seem to have done them any harm. He thought the House should notice the peculiar explanation he gave of that. He said they were sending their tea direct; which meant that this House was sanctioning a system of taxation which would divert trade from this country. Was it an advantage to this country that the tea of the Colonies should be sent, not through this country, but, by reason of our system, direct to the foreigner? This was an obvious drawback. The Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted his hon. friends that they had got a newfound zeal for the Colonies; and he said that, because they did not go in for preferential trade, he doubted their zeal. He tried to sneer at that zeal, because they chose to defend the natural trade of the Colonies; but he should like to ask him if he knew any article in which we traded with the foreigner on which we had put a duty of 125 per cent. They were asking not for preferential trade with the Colonies, but for decent, fair treatment. Surely we ought to treat our Colonies as we treated other people; and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could name an article in which we traded with the foreigner on which we put such a duty as we did upon this product of the Colonies. He had talked with a good many of the planters of Ceylon and India, and they told him that it would be exceedingly difficult for them to carry on their business, if the duty were raised 4d. It was obvious that a duty of 4d. on an article worth 6d. was very high indeed. They must take the percentage on the value of that article. They had made it 8d., raising the price from 10d. to 14d., and they had doubled the proportion of duty to that increase of cost. Any Member who was engaged in business and had the article he produced raised 50 per cent., and that 50 per cent. consisted of an added duty, would feel he was extremely badly dealt with. Ceylon was on the point of ruin when a capital of £30,000,000 was put into its tea trade on the moral understanding that the trade should not be
  1158
  seriously altered. What did they do now? They doubled the duty, and he said they were treating those planters unfairly. He was inclined to think that the Government were either Germans or Frenchmen in disguise from their experiences of that day. They refused to consider a proposal about alcohol, in which we were heavily handicapped; they had made sugar dear to Englishmen and cheap to the foreigner; and now they come with a proposal to damage the one product of our Colonies in which they had been most successful, almost irretrievably.
  But there was another point of view, besides that of the cotton industry point of view, he wished to put to the House as one which should not be lost sight of. The Lancashire operators consisted largely of women, to five out of six of whom tea had become the chief article of diet. They depended upon it chiefly for their sustenance, and it had done very well for temperance. This House should, therefore, be very careful before it touched a thing of this kind. They were touching the wages of people who had to depend upon from 12s. to 16s. a week, and they were hitting them very hard. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cambridge University, in justifying the tax that these people supported the war, and they should pay far it. That was a cruel way of putting the question. The people did not begin the war. All they did was to back up their leaders when they found the country at war. It was Tommy Atkins' war not the officers', and now the Government proposed to tax Tommy's brother and sister. In common justice to the poor people and to our Colonies he asked the House not to sanction the placing of additional burdens upon them.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid the last Chancellor of the Exchequer but one told them, in 1900, that the tax was a purely exceptional one, levied for the purposes of the war; and now that the war was over that the tax should be increased was absolutely contradictory of this. In 1902 the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to increase it because, as he said, it was

  1159
  already taxing a necessary of life to the extent of 75 per cent. of its value. The Member for Bolton had just reminded them that it was now taxed over 100 per cent. of its value, and, if this tax were imposed at not so much per pound but if it were proposed to make it 120 per cent. ad valorem, nobody would vote for it. It was a strange thing that it should be acceptable in one shape and not in another, and strange, too, that it should be reserved to a Government supported by a Party strongly in favour of binding the Empire together by preferential taxes within the Empire to increase a tax on a commodity, a necessary of life, which came mainly from the poorest part of the Empire. They knew that the people of India were the poorest members of our Empire. If there was any part of the Empire which should be excused from having any further impediment put in the way of its trade, surely it was the country for the government of which this country was responsible and which could make no retaliation. They maintained that any tax whatever on any article, and in any country whatsoever, which increased the cost of an article to the consumer must to some extent restrict the amount consumed, and such a tax must be injurious to the producer as well as to the consumer. In the interests of the Indian people, who were very much apt to be forgotten, and in the interests of our fellow-Britishers, whose capital was invested there, he asked the House to pause before further increasing the tea duty. Twopence ought to be taken off instead of 2d. being put on. Everybody admitted that a tax on tea was practically a tax on a necessary of life to the poorest part of the community, and, if this were so, it was a tax on poverty and a tax on existence to which he strongly objected. They would have to do something in these days of diminishing rate of increase of population to relieve taxes on existence. They could not go so far as it was carried out in Canada, where, in the province of Quebec, families of twelve were exempt from taxation; but this country, along with other countries would have to face a diminishing rate of increase of population, involving a diminution of importance and of power; and therefore they ought to pause, from this point of view, which was really Imperial,
  1160
  national, and patriotic, before they added to the burdens of existence. He was one of those who absolutely believed in a "free breakfast-table." He believed it was not to the interests of any class of the community to make existence expensive.
  It would not pass the wit of man to devise forms of taxation that would not bear heavily upon the poor. For instance, the income-tax limit might be lowered. He had no objection to people with incomes of £100 a year bearing taxation. The one thing he cared for more than anything else was the lot of the poor people who were only just above the Poor Law line, and who with a little more taxation would be depressed below that line. He was sure it would be easy for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise the means of taxing, say, four-fifths of the community, leaving out those classes of the population who were quite poor and had a very great struggle for existence. The hon. Member for Bolton had told them that he and his competitors were devising kitchens for tea. In the business of which he (the hon. Member) was the head, they had three places where they made tea for their employees. The industrial population of Lancashire and Yorkshire took tea three times a day—personally, he admitted it was a mistake, and he wished they did not—and this tax fell very heavily upon them. It also fell upon the population of Lancashire in an indirect way, because, if they restricted the exports of India, they restricted the imports of India, and India was Lancashire's best customer. He was quite sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were so minded, he could exempt these poor sections of the community from this class of taxation. He could never forget the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal as to how the poor people in the West of Ireland would feel this tax. If it came home to hon. Members at the same rate as to these poor peasants, he was sure that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would be more alive to the injustice of the tax to the consumers in Ireland and in Lancashire and Yorkshire and to the producers of the tea in India. and Ceylon.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that to increase the tea duty was one of the worst proposals that should have been suggested in the interest of our Colonies, when they were all advocating a closer connection with them. He was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, in his first Budget, have made a proposal to strike a very severe blow at two of the British colonies which had no self-government. He joined his views with those of the last two speakers representing Lancashire constituencies in pleading for that particular class of their population who would be hit by this increased duty. They, and the working people of Yorkshire, would be more severely oppressed by this tax than any other section of the community. Tea was almost a constant article of their diet—one of their prime necessaries of life. His hon. friend said that in Lancashire and Yorkshire the workpeople took tea three times a day. He thought that was below the mark, and that the Lancashire workmen, their wives and children, went to the factories with their cans, with their tea and sugar, and these cans were constantly filled up the whole day long. It might be that that practice was injurious to the constitutions of these people, but it was their constant practice. He would like an inquiry into the Budget proposals generally so as to arrive at the high-water mark of taxation. There were two cardinal taxes which were being imposed—the income-tax and the tea duty. The one fell on the rich and the other on the poor; but the increase in the income-tax was only 20 per. cent higher than that before the war, while the increase on the tea tax was from 33 to 40 per cent. more than during the war. He contended that that was an inequitable rate of taxation. He was aware that the Government were in difficulties in regard to their vanishing revenue, and that they were at their wits' end to get a good Budget. But they might have left the tax alone. It was not for the Opposition to say how the Government might have arrived at a different scheme. The Government had dissipated its resources from the moment they crossed the floor of the House. They had been depleting the resources of the working classes of the country in order to benefit other
  1162
  sections of the community by means of the Agricultural Rating Act and other Acts. He ventured to think that this tea duty was the last straw, and he hoped the people of this country would take to heart the lesson which the present Government was teaching.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid that it was hardly fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should be left alone on the Treasury Bench to defend this unpopular tax. There seemed to be a conspiracy of silence on the other side of the House, and he thought it would be interesting to have some arguments by which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could support this tax. He wished to speak on behalf of the cotton operatives in Lancashire, upon whom this additional duty would bear very hardly. The House was very well aware that for nearly twelve months they had been fighting a battle along with their employers against the cotton corners in Liverpool and New York which had caused a serious reduction in their wages. He thought the Prime Minister as a Lancashire Member might have used-his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have introduced another tax which would not have affected the Lancashire operatives in the way that this tea tax would do. Each family earning 22s. a week would have to pay 35s. a year in taxation from tea alone when the tax was increased to 8d. per lb. There ought to be an increased taxation derived from the land, and taxes on tea and sugar should be only put on as a last resort. It was said that the people who shouted for the war should pay for it; but those who did shout for the war did so out of pure patriotism; and very few knew the rights or the wrongs of the question. There was, therefore, nothing in that argument. He contended that this was a most unfair tax, and would press heavily on poor people and widows with families. He trusted that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the opportunity of drifting another Budget he would take off the duty on tea and sugar.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmoved that the Question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the debate is nearly at the end.
  MR. PIRIEsubmitted that even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's complaint was well founded that the same arguments as had been used on former occasions were being employed again, the Opposition were justified in repeating those arguments now that they had an opportunity of doing so at a reasonable hour. As representing a poor working-class constituency, he maintained that the first duty of the House of Commons should be to protect the weak, but of recent years there had been a growing tendency to use the great strength of the House of Commons to impose additional burdens upon those who were least able to bear them. For that reason he emphatically protested against the tax. Another ground for objecting to the tax was that it dealt a serious blow to the Ceylon tea-planting
  industry. After unprecedented struggles the planters of Ceylon had succeeded in establishing a prosperous tea industry, and it was very cruel that advantage should be taken of their success to handicap them in this way. There were no less than half a million acres under tea in Ceylon, and he thought the planters were justified in protesting against the tax and in organising a representative body in London, so that when next their interests were attacked they might have somebody in the House to speak on their behalf. The least the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a member of a Government claiming to represent Imperialist feeling, could have done was to have consulted the Government of Ceylon as to the imposition of this tax. He should strongly support the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 275.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Henderson,Sir A. (Stafford,W.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Arkwirght, John Stanhope

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hope, J. F(Shetheld,Brightside

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. H. O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Howard,John(Kent Faversham

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Denny, Colonel

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir JosephC.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Disraeli, Conningsby, Ralph

  Jeffreys, Rt, Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Balfour.Rt.A J.(Manch'r

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Balfour.RtHn.Gerald W(Leeds

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kerr, John

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Keswick, William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fergusson,Rt HnSir J(Manc'r.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bigwood, James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Law,Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bingham, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence,Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bowles.Lt.-Col.H F (Middlesex

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lawson,John Grant(Yorks N.R

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

  Fitzroy,Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lee,Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bull, William James

  Forster, Henry William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Butcher, John George

  Foster, Philip S(Warwick,S.W.

  Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S.

  Campbell, J H M(Dublin Univ.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long,Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Chamberlain,RtHn J A (Worc.

  Greene, SirEW(BryS Edmunds

  Lowe, Francis William

  Charring ton, Spencer

  Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gretton, John

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Harris,Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Heath,James (Statfords., N.W.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W. F.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Renwick, George

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Ridley,Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ridley,S.Forde (Bethnal Green

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Moore, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morgan,David J.(Walthamstow

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tuff, Charles

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Round, Rt. Hon.fames

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Vincent,Col SirC E H(Sheffield

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Saunderson,Rt Hn ColEdw. J.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Peel,HnWm Robert Wellesley

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Percy, Earl

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith,RtHn J.Parker (Lanarks

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Spear, John Ward

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  and Mr.Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Harcourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hardie,J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harwood, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Priestley, Arthur

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hobhouse,C E H (Bristol, E.)

  Rea, Russell

  Bell, Richard

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Benn, John Williams

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Boland, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones,David Brymnor(Swansea

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose Charles Day

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kennedy,Vincent P (Cavan,W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Cullinan, J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lloyd-George, David

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thompson,Dr.E.C(Monagh'nN

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Ure, Alexander

  Ellice,CaptEC(S Andrw'sBghs.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts).

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Norman, Henry

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Gladstone,Rt Hn Herbert John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  Herbert Lewis and Mr.

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Shackleton.

  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the effect of the Amendment which he wished to move was to exempt Ireland altogether from the tea tax. He would not have
  1166
  addressed the House at that late hour if he had not felt it to be his absolute and imperative duty to protest in the strongest possible manner against robbing the poor

  1167
  because they were poor, for that was what he considered to be the gist of this tax. The plea that Ireland should be excluded from this tax was not an unreasonable one. The Irish poor constituted a much larger proportion of the population than was the case in this country. Mr. Bright once said that he would like everyone to agitate for a free breakfast table, by which he meant that the remaining duties upon tea and sugar should be taken off altogether. That was in 1868, and now, after nearly forty years had elapsed since Mr. Bright used those words, instead of the tea duty being sixpence they were discussing a proposal to put on an additional tax of twopence. When Mr. Bright used those words the consumption of tea per head of the population was two-and-a-half pounds, but now it was six pounds per head in this country, and in Ireland it was eight-and-a-half pounds. In Ireland tea was the food of the people as clearly and definitely as bread was the staff of life. He sometimes saw hon. Members shrug their shoulders and ask why Ireland should be treated differently to Yorkshire or Wiltshire. He would remind the hon. Members representing those counties that they had never had a separate Parliament like Ireland had once, and when Ireland was incorporated with this country it was on the condition that she should be taxed according to her relative capacity to pay.
  He wished to say a word or two to those English Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House who might be inclined to think that his proposal was an unreasonable one. He would point out to them that this tax, rightly or wrongly, had been passed by a majority of the House of Commons against the wishes of a majority of hon. Members representing Ireland. In regard to this duty a majority of the Irish Members would go into the Division Lobby urging that Ireland should be exempt from this tea tax altogether. A majority of one in an Irish Parliament would have abolished this tea tax altogether. This tax had no moral power whatever in Ireland, and he would say what he had said before, that if Ireland had the opportunity she would be more than morally justified in resisting this tax by armed force. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was
  1168
  wrong in what he said as to the way in which this tax would affect Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman stated the addition to the tax would affect Ireland to the extent of between £230,000 and £250,000. It was computed by experts on whose calculations he could rely that Ireland would be affected to the tune of £300,000. When the tax on tea was 6d. the amount extracted from Ireland was £900,000, so that, assuming the consumption to remain the same, the amount would now be £1,200,000. When Ireland had a Parliament of her own up to 1798 the whole burden of taxation for the government of the country was only about £1,000,000. it rarely reached £1,500,000; but now the people of the country were to be taxed as much as that on one article which was largely used by the very poorest. Out of the whole population of Ireland there were 2,500,000 belonging to families whose weekly budgets per family were not 35s. as in the case of English operatives, but 6s., 7s., and 8s. He asked the House to consider what 2d. per pound additional on the price of tea meant to these families. Some time ago he examined the annual budget of a well-to-do farmer in Ireland. It amounted to £23, and out of that £5 10s. went for tea. In another case the budget amounted to £12 and out of that £3 went for tea. These people did not drink, but this taxation was making tea dearer to them than whiskey would be. The effect of adding 2d. to the tax meant for the poor who bought in small quantities an addition of 4d. per pound, because tea which they bought at 1d. an ounce would cost 1¼d. Tea would now be the only commodity taxed to the extent of double the cost of its production. This tea tax was a graduated tax on the poor, but it was graduated the wrong way. If there was an ad valorem duty of 100 per cent. it would not be so much felt by the poor. The tax would then fall more on the rich. In 1896, before the additional taxes consequent on the war, Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a year, according to the Report of the Financial Relations Commission. He would like some of the gentlemen who talked about thinking Imperially to go to some of the southern constituencies of Ireland and speak of the benefits of

  1169
  Empire, and then go into some of the cottages and see the tea stewed and watered until the whole of the tannin was extracted from it. That was what was got by thinking Imperially, and of the "illimitable veldt." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking outside the House, had made a pioneer speech on the fiscal question. The proposal to add to the tea tax was the pioneer of dear food so far as Ireland was concerned. The Budget, and especially the tea tax, bore the impress of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He might apply to it the words of Dryden—
  "We gaze delighted as we trace
  The parents' mien in its fair face."
  Having regard to the infamous rule of the English towards Ireland, and especially to the Irish poor, and having regard to the fact that this Budget was the outcome of corruption from that English rule—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The observations of the hon. Gentleman have no relevance to the tea duty.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would content himself with pointing out that in the time of the old Irish Parliament, although tea was then a much dearer commodity, the tax upon it was much less than it was under this Budget.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words or Ireland."'—(Mr. MacNeil:)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he understood that the only question before the House was why this tea tax having been levied in other portions of the United Kingdom should not be (levied in Ireland. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was not calculated to convince the House of the strength of his arguments as to the merits
  of the case, because those arguments were equally applicable to the poor of this country as to the poor of Ireland. Tea had become a practical necessity in every household and he could not accept a proposal to exempt any part of the United Kingdom from the tax upon it.
  MR. LOUGHpointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had added a penny to the income-tax, which put on £2,250,000 of direct taxation, and the right hon. Gentleman wanted to balance that with indirect taxation upon tea and tobacco. That desire was in accordance with the recognised principles adopted by that House. But why did not the right hon. Gentleman act fairly towards Ireland? There never was a more unfair proposal to Ireland than that then before the House. Then they had a right to complain of the want of accurate statistics of the result of the tax in Ireland. They did not know exactly how the pressure of this taxation was falling upon that country. The pressure obtained there as it did in England, and there was no doubt that it dealt a serious blow to Ireland, which was a country rapidly diminishing in population.
  DR. MACNAMARAthought Ireland had a good ground for objecting to being taxed at all under this Budget. When the tax was raised on a former occasion the then Chancellor of the Exchequer justified the imposition by the war expenditure. The mandate to bring the war to a successful issue was given by the English people, but the Irish people almost unanimously declared against the war, and surely they ought not to be taxed in order to meet the expenditure upon it. He would vote with his hon. friend if he went to a division on the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 170; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 276.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn.Hugh O.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn Sir H.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Greene,SirE W(B'rySEdnfds

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balfour,RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Parkes, Ebenzer

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gretton, John

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Peel,Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, F Leverton (Tynem'th

  Percy, Earl

  Bigwood, James

  Harris Dr Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bingham, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Heath James (Staffords, N.W)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope.J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bull, William James

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Butcher, John George

  Hozier,hon James HenryCecil

  Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Campbell,J H M(Dublin Univ.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavendish,V C W.(Derbyshire

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cecil, Ford Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain,RtHnJ A (Worc.

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T (Denbigh)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kerr, John

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Keswick, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Saunderson,Rt Hn.Col. Edw.J

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawrence, WM. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawson,John Grant(YorksN.R

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lee,Arthur H(Hants, Fareham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S.

  Smith,Rt.HnJ.Parker(Lanarks)

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Lockwood, Lieut,-Col. A. R.

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

  Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Spear, John Ward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long,Rt Hn Walter (Bristol,S

  Stanley,Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Dimsdale,Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir WilliamHart

  Lyttelton, Rt. hon. Alfred

  Tuff, Charles

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fergusson,Rt HnSir J.(Manc'r.

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col, William Hall

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W F.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Webb, Colonel William George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Mitchell,Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Fitzroy,Hon. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moore, William

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. Geogre

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Murray,Rt HnA. Graham(Bute

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham,William (Cork, N.E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Law,Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hammond, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Benn, John Williams

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Boland, John

  Hardie,J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lloyd-George David

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  Lough, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joicey, Sir James

  Mansfield, Horace Reynall

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

  Murphy, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyce, Michael

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy,Vincent P (Cavan,W.

  Norman, Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Delany, William

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  O'Malley, William

  1172

  1173

  O'Shee, James John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tomkinson, James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)

  Shackleton, David James

  Ure, Alexander

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Sheehy, David

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Riekett, J. Compton

  Slack, John Bamford

  Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Sullivan, Donal

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N.

  MacNeill and Mr. Flavin.

  Question put, and agreed to

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'was on the high seas consigned to a port of the United Kingdom,' and insert the words to have been in an importing vessel consigned to a port in Great Britain or Ireland.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINproposed to leave out of Clause 4, page 2, line 36 "August" and insert "July." He said that in deference to a wish expressed on both sides of the House he had consented to substitute July for August.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 4, page 2, line 36, to leave out the word 'August,' and insert the word 'July.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 6, page 3, line 16, at end, to insert the words The rate of charge on the delivery of spirits from an Excise warehouse under The Customs and Excise Warehousing Act, 1869, shall be reduced from five shillings to two shillings and six pence.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not understand the object.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had accepted the suggestion to reduce the warehouse charge on imported goods by one-half, and, having done that,
  1174
  they must treat the Excise warehouse in the same way, in order to put their own people on the same footing.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 6, page 3, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'The last paragraph but one of the Schedule to The Customs Tariff Act. 1876, beginning 'There shall be charged upon the delivery of the following goods,' and ending with the words 'under bond or not,' is hereby repealed.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELproposed "to leave out in Clause 7, page 3, line 21 one shilling' and insert 'eleven pence.'" He did so in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not supply a Return showing the systems of graduated income-tax in force in other countries and in the Colonies. He trusted, if the information were not available at the Treasury, he would get it through the Foreign and Colonial Offices, and give-them the Return as soon as possible.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 7, page 3, line 21, to leave out the words 'one shilling' and insert the words eleven pence.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was making inquiries to see what in-

  1175
  formation they had and what Return they could make.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to make a difference in the tax on incomes derived from trades and professions and those derived from investments. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee on the income-tax would, by the terms of reference, be in a position to consider this question without prejudice.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In Clause 7, page 3, line 21, after the word '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 four pence per pound.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would not come within the reference to the Committee on the income-tax. The hon. Gentleman was doubtless aware that a Committee of this House a great many years ago considered this subject, and reported very fully against it.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that in the circumstances he had no alternative but to withdraw his Amendment. He would raise the question in another form.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which was to remove a hardship felt by friendly
  1176
  societies. He did not see why, on the principle of justice, exemption should not be extended to all limited liability companies and friendly societies, registered or unregistered, whose income did not exceed £160 a year. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  In Clause 8, page 4, line 6, after the word 'societies,' to insert the words or limited liability companies.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not accept the Amendment. A limited liability company did make profit, or was supposed to make profit, and there was no reason to exempt the shareholders from paying income-tax on the dividends. which they obtained from the company.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he was not at all satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, but he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the first time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 281.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON)(RE-COMMITED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS.]
  Read a second time, and committed for this day.
  Adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) a Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Barnet District Gas and Water Bill; Thames River Steamboat Service Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TORQUAY TRAMWAYS BILL.
Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I have an Amendment which I shall ask your Lordships to insert in this Bill, and I am afraid it will require some few words of explanation. The history of the matter is this. The Corporation of Torquay, being desirous of having tramways in their town, and objecting on the score of amenity to the system of overhead wires, sought for some other system, and, among others, the system of the Dolter Traction Company was brought before them. This appeared to meet the requirements of the case, and a Bill was therefore promoted, with the consent—which, as your Lordships will remember, is an absolute necessity—of the corporation, and one of the terms upon which this consent was given was that the clause which I now move should be inserted in the Bill, the object of it being to protect from electric action the water and gas pipes of which
1002
the corporation are the owners. The original clause as first inserted in the Bill had reference only to the water and gas pipes belonging to the corporation, but when the Bill came before the other House the Committee of that House thought it only right and proper—and I must confess that their action appears to embody substantial justice—that if the pipes belonging to the authority in the town were protected by the clause, the pipes belonging to the gas company should be also protected; and on this understanding, which, as far as I can make out, was mutually agreed to by all parties, the clause was inserted in the other House.
When the Bill came before the Committee of your Lordships' House the matter was again discussed; and finally the chairman of that Committee, my noble friend Lord Hawkesbury, in giving the decision of the Committee, said they were agreed, under the special circumstances of the case, without making it a precedent, to allow this clause, and that he would, on behalf of the Committee, report accordingly to the Lord Chairman. My noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees—and I do not wish for one moment to say a word against the propriety or even the justice of the action he has taken—struck out the clause from the Bill, and the Bill was reported and now comes to be read a third time without the clause in it which was agreed upon by the two Committees. I do not intend in the least to disguise from your Lordships the fact that I have against me some very weighty authority, although I have every confidence that I shall be able to show to your Lordships that there is a difference in this case. The first authority against me is the Committee of the two Houses which sat in 1893 under the presidency of my noble friend opposite, Viscount Cross, and of whose decision I am bound to say I speak with the greatest respect, not only on account of the fact that the noble Viscount was Chairman of the Committee, but also, perhaps, because I was one of the members of it myself. The decision of this Committee was to this effect. They considered that it would be against public policy, inasmuch as it would hamper invention and hamper enterprise in electric tramway undertakings if the

1003
promoters were to be subject to any other liability except that of complying with the regulations from time to time laid down and embodied in the model clauses by the Board of Trade.
I feel bound to point out to your Lordships in what way this particular case does not come under the clause which was arranged by that Joint Committee. The important point in this particular case is that the method adopted by the Dolter Company, their method of electric traction, is one which has never yet been tried in this country. It is a new method, and on that account I contend that the Corporation of Torquay were fully justified in asking of the company that they should give a guarantee to them against loss other than that required by the regulations of the Board of Trade, which were not suited to, and not drawn up for, that particular method of traction. It was a natural precaution on their part, and it did not contravene the object that particular method of traction. It was a natural precaution on their part, and it did not contravene the object which the Joint Committee had, because it did not prevent the Dolter Company from continuing the promotion of their undertaking, and, therefore, the agreement which was then made was no bar to electric enterprise. It did not in the least interfere with their promoting that tramway in the town of Torquay. I have already mentioned that the corporation had the full power of stopping any action at all, of preventing the promotion of the Bill had they so thought fit, and that this safeguard which they insisted upon being put in was one of the very prominent reasons which induced them to give their consent to the undertaking being started at all. I have, I know, another very weighty authority against me. I refer to the action of your Lordships' House in the case of the Beckenham Bill. In-that Bill your Lordships were asked to insert a similar clause in protection, I think it was, of the Crystal Palace Gas Company, and in that case, on the advice of the Chairman of Committees, the Earl of Morley, the House came to the conclusion that the clause had better not be inserted. But in that instance the system which it was proposed to work the tramways on was a very well-known one. It was an over head system, and one that had been before the Board of Trade, and to which
1004
the Board of Trade regulations specially referred; and therefore all the arguments which were adduced before the Joint Committee of 1893, and which had led to their recommendation, had full and ample force.
But in this case as I have pointed out, the system was and entirely new one. There was no evidence that the regulations of the Board of Trade dealt specially with it, and I contend that the Corporation of Torquay were quite justified in making it a condition of their agreement that this clause should be inserted. I have said that I think the action of my noble friend the Acting Chairman of Committees was quite right and proper. As precedents are rather dangerous things, and as in the words of Lord Hawkesbury, which I have quoted, it was evidently the wish of the Committee—in fact, the wish of both Committees—that this should in no way form a precedent for future Bills, it was very right that the decision as to the insertion of this clause should be left to your Lordships' House. I hope, my Lords, that I have successfully demonstrated that the case is one quite different from the cases which have gone before, and that the insertion of this clause need in no way form a precedent for the future. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will see your way to insert the clause which I now move.
Moved, "to insert as a new clause:—'If at any time it be proved that any injury or damage to any mains, pipes, or apparatus of the corporation or of the Torquay Gas Company shall have resulted from the use of electric current on any of the tramways authorised by this Act, nothing in this Act shall relieve the company from liability to make compensation for such injury or damage."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD HAWKESBURY: My Lords, as chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred I should like to say one or two words as to the reasons why we allowed this clause to stand. As my noble friend has explained, it was one of the conditions made by the Corporation of Torquay—who were evidently most anxious to preserve the beauties of that place—when they gave their consent to this Bill being promoted by the Dolter Company, that this clause should be inserted in the Bill,

1005
because, as my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh has so well explained, the Dolter system of surface traction is an entirely new one, and has not hitherto been tried in this country. The invention was made long after the Joint Committee over which the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, presided eleven year ago sat, and therefore there was some doubt as to whether the clauses upon which the Board of Trade regulations were founded would meet the case and provide compensation in the event of damage by electrolysis. That being the case, the Committee entirely agreed with the opinion formed by the Committee of the Lower House, and decided that the clause should stand. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh explained that it was when the Bill was before the Commons Committee that the addition was made to protect the mains of the gas company in the same way that the gas and water mains which were the property of the corporation were protected. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside felt very strongly that though reluctant to go behind formulated clauses, this was an entirely new departure in underground traction, something entirely new in this country, and, therefore, with the expression which now stands in black and white that it should not be considered a precedent, they decided to pass the clause as it stood. I hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will accept the Amendment and reinstate the clause in the Bill.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I am obliged to advise the House not to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord opposite. I am bound to confess that the Amendment has been placed before the House in a most temperate and reasonable way, but I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that to insert this clause would he destructive of the precedents which have governed this matter for about eleven years, and that my action in refusing to allow the Bill to be read a third time with the clause in it was the only one I could take in conformity with the almost universal course which this House has adopted in regard to the clause in
1006
past Bills. The question is no new one, and the practice has been regarded up to now as pretty well established. The whole question of the injurious affection of the electrolytic action upon gas and water pipes was fully considered by the Joint Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Cross in 1893, and the result of the labours of that Committee was the model clause which appears in this Bill. The question now is whether this company are merely to be obliged to obey the Board of Trade regulations, or whether they are to give an absolute indemnity against this electrolytic action to two specific owners of gas and water pipes. As far as I understand it, the effect of this electrolytic action is the fusion, and consequently the destruction of metal by the escape of electricity which has travelled out of its proper channel.
The first objection I have to the proposal is that it will put these two bodies—the corporation and the gas company—in a specially favoured position. The clause which the noble Lord opposite is now moving to insert has been put into several Bills in past sessions by Committees of the House of Commons. In the last session of Parliament it was called in question in this House in the case of the Beckenham Bill by my noble friend Lord Stanhope, who I do not see in his place to-day, and it was then struck out on the Third Reading of the Bill by the House as a whole. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley, not only concurred in that action, but advised the House, in conjunction with Lord Stanhope, to take it; and he said—I have referred to the speech which he made on that occasion—that he regarded this as a question of some importance, and as a matter of principle. There is no evidence whatever that the regulations made by the Board of Trade for the protection of people who might be injured by electrolytic action are in any way ineffectual and if there was, it is in the power of the Board of Trade to alter these regulations and bring them up to date without any Act of Parliament. The matter has been committed to that Board, and they can take action at once the moment any suspicion of damage is brought to their notice. I am assured by representatives of the Board of Trade whom I have consulted that no such case can be made

1007
out, and I have every reason to suppose that the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade in this House will confirm that statement.
Last year the clause was actually rejected by the House, or taken out of a Bill in which it had been inserted. I think your Lordships will agree with me that in those circumstances I should have been taking a wrong view of my duty if I had not supported the decision of the House and told the promoters and those who had agreed with them that this clause, whether it was an agreed clause or not, must be inserted in the House itself, and that no Committee, and certainly no Chairman of Committees acting alone, would be entitled to allow the clause, however much agreed, to be put into the Bill. As I have said, it is really for the House itself to decide whether it will overrule and make of no effect the decision which it came to last year in the Beckenham case. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that that precedent has been acted upon in several Bills during the present session, some of which have received the Royal Assent, and I venture to suggest to the House, with all respect, that if, therefore, at this late period of the session it goes back upon the decision which it came to last year, it will by inference inflict considerable hardship upon many of those who, believing the matter to be settled, have accepted Bills for driving tramway cars by electric action without this clause As I have said, the Board of Trade regard their regulations as sufficient, and if necessary they can be altered from time to time.
That brings me, to one point which I admit does differentiate this case from some of the others which have gone before it. This system which is to be applied in Torquay is, I understand, to be a new system called the Dolter Company's system, but there is no evidence brought forward that it is in any way different in this matter from other systems. As I understand it, it is a mere matter of inference and of dread, and I venture to suggest that that is not a sufficient reason for breaking all the precedents which have governed this subject heretofore and thereby of putting the whole matter again into confusion. It is all very well to say this
1008
will not be a precedent. It may not be a precedent for every system of traction, but it will certainly be claimed by those who come to use the Dolter system as a precedent in their case. If you put this clause in in the case of one particular system of traction, you will give that particular system a great advantage over all others, and I think that would be a most unfair and unreasonable thing to do.
It is no use pleading the agreement which has been made between the parties. The agents and those who advised them knew perfectly well—or I am entitled to presume they knew perfectly well—that this clause was contrary to Parliamentary practice, and they ought to have advised their clients that it was not by any means likely that the authorities of the House would allow it to be inserted unless the House itself gave the order. I say that if the House in its wisdom chooses to reverse the decision it came to last year it is acting quite within its right, but if you do that in this case you may just as well abolish the mode clause altogether. The Board of Trade may give Provisional Orders for the working of electric tramways, but they will not insert this or any other similar clause in any of their Orders. Therefore you will have two codes running side by side, one the code which is established when Parliamentary powers, are sought, and the other the code of the Board of Trade under the Provisional Order system. The model clause which is in this Bill is general in its application. It applies to anybody who owns pipes or wires underground near those which are used for electric traction. It may be the case that in Torquay it may comprise all owners of pipes and wires, but, as a matter of fact, it is a protective clause for special petitioners; and on that ground, as well as the other grounds that I have stated, I hope the House will not go back on the decision of last year.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Board of Trade I am anxious to associate myself with the remarks that have just fallen from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. There are two forms of procedure in your Lordships' House. Promoters can either proceed by a Private Bill as in this case, which is subject to the authority of the Chairman, of Committees, or they may proceed by

1009
Provisional Order, which is subject to the consent of the Board of Trade. If this scheme had been by Provisional Order, I should have adopted the same arguments that have been so well and forcibly used by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. In order to assure the House, I may inform your Lordships that I have received a letter from the electrical adviser of the Board of Trade to the effect that he is familiar with the Dolter system, and is of opinion that the usual protective regulations of the Board of Trade are quite applicable and will be effective, as they are in regard to a similar system which has been for some time in use at Wolverhampton, and the electric conditions of which resemble those of the Dolter system. I therefore hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, as chairman of the Joint Committee who had to consider this matter, I may say that we went very carefully into the whole question, and with considerable difficulty framed the model clause which has been more than once alluded to in the course of the discussion this evening. We believed that that clause, as drawn, would afford ample protection to all concerned, and I trust your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as it has not infrequently happened to me that in my capacity as Chairman of Private Bill Committees I have had to decide this question, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two in support of the course proposed by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. Nothing is more common, when Bills of this kind are being considered by a Committee, than for the representatives of gas companies to appear, and in heartbroken accents and with tears in their eyes, to point out that unless they get special protection against what is called electrolysis, serious consequences might ensue, though I never knew anybody who could explain exactly what electrolysis was, or the precise injury which it could inflict. The Corporation of Torquay, I presume, have found themselves in the fortunate position of being able to squeeze the promoters of this Bill, and to obtain this particular clause, and the gas company of Torquay, naturally
1010
wishing to obtain the same advantages, went before the Committee, and the Committee, out of generous sympathy for them, gave them the same privilege. Well, in my own case I have always resisted these appeals, because, as has been pointed out, this creates an entirely new precedent, and because it is fairly obvious that gas companies have complete protection from the Board of Trade. I would only venture to add that in my humble opinion it is extremely desirable that in questions of this kind there should be uniformity of procedure on the part of Private Bill Committees. I confess that I have not sufficient confidence in my own judgment to assume that I should be invariably correct in any decision I might give, and I therefore prefer to be guided by a model clause such as in this Bill. I hope this view will commend itself to the House generally.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I only rise for the purpose of an explanation. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said there was no evidence adduced with regard to this particular system. I wish to point out that that was naturally so because the clause came up as one which was agreed. The corporation had a doubt as to what danger they were running, and the promoters agreed to insure them against any such danger. While bowing to the opinion of the House as to the inadvisability of not following a fixed plan, I can only respectfully submit that this case was one which was somewhat different from all the others, and that the Corporation of Torquay were justified in endeavouring to protect themselves against a danger which was very possible, if not absolutely certain.
On Question, Amendment disagreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LEEDS CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Return, showing the population, valuation, the average assessment levied under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, for the three years, 1900–1901 to 1902–1903, in each parish, and the total raised from each local government district, together with calculations showing the amounts which would be raised from each parish if the total assessment so raised from each local government district were imposed as a district rate upon parishes on the basis of (1) valuation alone, and (2) half on valuation and half on population; and calculations showing the amounts which would be raised from each parish if the charge in respect of interest on and repayment of loans were borne by the respective parishes instead of the district as a whole.
  TRADE REPORTS
    I. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
    No. 617. Railway Systems of Brazil.

    II. ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 3230. France (Marseilles).
    No. 3231. China (Pakhoi).
    No. 3232. Russia (Odessa).
    No. 3233. Austria-Hungary (Trieste and Lissa).
    No. 3234. Spain (Canary Islands).
    No. 3235. Turkey (Bagdad).
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PILOTAGE.
    Abstract of Returns relating to pilots and pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 33, of session 1904), as furnished by the various pilotage authorities. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    THE DECORATION OF THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
    LORD STANMORErose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House, and their approaches.
    1012
    He said: My Lords, at this period of the session, and in the absence of many of those who would have supported my Motion but who have already left London, I may as well at once say that should the Government oppose the appointment of the Committee for which I am now moving, as I fear they will do, it is not my intention to put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing. On the other hand, should the Government agree to the Motion I fear that even in that case there could be no practical result, because no Committee could sit with any effect during the short remainder of the session.
    As I do not intend to press the Motion to a division, and as I feel that even if it were allowed by the Government there would be no practical result this session, I may very naturally be asked, Why do you bring it forward at all? Well, I do so for two reasons—first, because I wish to keep this question alive, to bring it again to the notice of the Government and of your Lordships' House; and, secondly, because until I hear to the contrary I am, of course, bound to hope that the Government will be convinced by what I consider the convincing arguments which I can bring forward. I shall, therefore, briefly move my Motion I do not know why the Government should oppose the appointment of a. Select Committee. By doing so they seem to imply that to grant the Motion for a Committee would be equivalent to giving a species of sanction to some large outlay of expenditure. Not at all. You cannot tell what the Report of that Committee may be. The Government would have a large share in the appointment of the Committee, and its Report might not recommend any expenditure at all.
    But there is a question which, I think, does require some consideration, and upon which a Committee could very properly give advice to your Lordships and to the Government. The original scheme of decoration which was intended by the architect of this great Palace, the original scheme for the internal decoration, was an architectural one. That was subsequently overruled, and, after much deliberation, it was determined that the internal decoration of this Palace should not be of an architectural character, but of a pictorial character, and should consist chiefly of paintings and mosaics.

    1013
    That second course was pursued for a considerable number of years. It was pursued with less vigour after the death of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, but it was still pursued for some years, until a most unfortunate clamour was raised with regard to what was, I think, the last of any large works going on in this House. I refer to the most unfair, most unjust, and utterly unfounded accusation which was brought against the then Chief Commissioner of Works, Sir Henry Layard, that he was interested in the mosaic works ordered here, a charge utterly baseless, but which made some disturbance at the time.
    Sir Henry Layard was succeeded in the office of Chief Commissioner by a gentleman who, whatever other merits distinguished him, certainly was not distinguished by any knowledge or love of art; he rather had a contempt and absolute dislike for it. Under his rule, works were suspended, and from that time very little was done in the way of the prosecution of that second scheme. We have got so accustomed to what we see daily that the actual state of things does not very forcibly present itself to our minds. That state of things is this, that the second scheme for the completion of the Palace has been practically suspended, though not put all end to, and the question arises whether that second scheme is, however slowly and with whatever intervals, to be still pursued, or whether it is to be altogether abandoned, and, if abandoned, whether we should return to the original scheme of architectural decoration for the interior of the Palace, or abandon any attempt to go further, and leave things in the state which may now be called provisional, but which then would become permanent.
    I know the objections that will probably be urged against the appointment of this Committee. First of all, there will be objections on the assumption that the Committee are going to recommend large works to be undertaken. There will be the statement that these great decorative works are things which may be undertaken by a powerful despotic Government, but are not in harmony with the democratic tendencies of the day. To that assumption I would give a most unqualified denial, and anyone
    1014
    who has been at Washington and knows the sums that have bean expended on the adornment of the Capitol will agree with me. Canada, too, has a self governing and democratic Parliament, and yet the Government buildings there are the finest gothic edifices to be found in North America. Then we may be told that this is a matter which this House must not undertake, and that the House of Commons must be consulted. That is perfectly true when you come to a scheme dealing with the whole of the Palace, but this House is fully entitled to consider by way of a Committee what should be done with the rooms appropriated to its own service, and it has a common right with the House of Commons with regard to the approaches.
    I quite admit, supposing the Committee were to recommend any considerable expenditure, and the House and the Government were to adopt the views of the Committee, that it would then probably be desirable to move for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the matter further. But all I am now asking the House and the Government to do is to appoint a Committee to consider first of all the actual condition in which the buildings, has been left for many years past, with manifestly provisional arrangements everywhere; and, secondly, whether the provisional arrangements, which, I confess, seem to me to constitute somewhat of a scandal, should be allowed to continue for ever as permanent arrangements, whether we should proceed with the scheme which was devised some years ago, or revert to the original scheme of the architect. That is the scope which I should propose for this Committee, and that is what I am desirous of pressing on His Majesty's Government, whether a Committee is appointed or not.
    The greatest reason that will be brought against the appointment of this Committee will be the assumption that expense will be recommended, and that the great expense which would be involved in finishing all the decoration of the Palace of Westminster, as intended under the scheme of the Royal Commission, is too vast to be entertained. Now, I think that is really more of a bugbear than a reality. It is quite true that if anyone were to ask that the whole of

    1015
    the decoration of the Palace should be undertaken at once the expense would be enormous and not to be looked at under the present circumstances. But that is not what I am asking. That is not what the Royal Commission originally intended. The course that I am asking His Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of pursuing is this—that they should go on as before, gently, slowly, but consistently and permanently, with the carrying out of the scheme of decoration which is already laid down in the Report of the Royal Commission, and which they will have little difficulty in following.
    I do not think we fully appreciate, seeing it every day as we do, how the building looks to a stranger. It has been my fate not infrequently to conduct foreigners over this building, and I have seen them much puzzled and surprised over what they have seen. I am not going to take your Lordships on a pilgrimage through the House, but I will mention one or two instances where wonder is excited. After the visitors have admired Westminster Hall to the full, they come between two empty niches reserved forty years ago for he statues of Marlborough and Wellington, but which are still vacant. They then enter St. Stephen's Hall, and they see there a large number of panels of paper—paper encased in heavy, massive, elaborate, mouldings of stone. A more grotesque conjunction could hardly be imagined. They naturally ask what this means, and are told that these are places for pictures which have never been put there. And in connection with those panels I must tell your Lordships what has been the result of my humble efforts to get them attended to. My noble friend the Chief Commissioner of Works was kind enough to accompany me last year on a pilgrimage to St. Stephen's Hall. We looked at the paper—the dark red paper that then filled these panels; and I pointed out to him the cracks, of which he took most sympathetic notice and the deep abysses of darkness full of cobwebs which were behind them knowing the noble Lord's excellent judgment and taste in all matters of art, I felt rejoiced, and I saw from his evident sympathy that the First Commissioner would do something. I anticipated that
    1016
    we should see the beginning of mosaic work. But, alas! for the vanity of human wishes and hopes! A few months later I passed through that hall again, and I saw a number of workmen employed busily replacing that red flock paper, that dirty red flock paper, by a clean green one: that was all. As regards its being clean instead of dirty, it is a decided improvement; but as regards anything else, it is, in my view, decidedly the reverse, because it seems to show that the idea of a paper panel is now stereotyped as a thing intended to continue there for ever.
    The foreigners whom I am conducting over the building go through the Central Hall into the hall out of which the great staircase ascends to the upper regions. Now, in that hall there is a very fine fireplace and chimneypiece. Those are the sort of things that the architect of this Palace did perhaps better than anything else; and it is a fine bit of architecture, But what do we find? We find this fine chimneypiece, or half of it, hidden from the world by a refreshment buffet covered with sandwiches and ginger beer bottles. On ascending the stairs we find ourselves in the hall which was called when it was built the Hall of Poets, and my friends look amazed when they see the name of Shakespeare in large gold letters on the wall, and below them a rather dingy sheet of red paper. They ask in their wonder, "How does this red sheet represent Shakespeare?" Then they see the names of Scott, Byron, and others with similar sheets of paper underneath, and they inquire how these pieces of paper typify these poets. Then it is explained that behind those sheets of paper are entombed frescoes which once adorned these walls, and which contain painted scenes out of the celebrated English poets from Chaucer down to Scott and Byron.
    The noble Lord, the First Commissioner of Works, was kind enough to have these screens removed, and I saw the disentombed frescoes. All of them, with two exceptions, are utterly destroyed. About one, the Shakespeare one, there is a difference of opinion. In my opinion, I must say it appeared to be reparable; that is to say, all except one head was fresh and clear and vivid. One head was gone, but I believe that the head

    1017
    could be restored by cutting out the fresco and putting in fresh material. But whether that be so or not, what I protest against is the retrogade movement here displayed. If you cannot go on with the work, however slowly, at least do not go back. Do not in a hall which you have already devoted t works of art change those works of art for mere upholstery, and upholstery of a mean and poor description. If these works of art have perished they should have been replaced by other works of art, and other artists, if those who painted them are dead, should have been commissioned to paint scenes from the poets which that hall was intended to commemorate and honour. With the exception of this Chamber and the library, there is no part of the House which is finished. There are great vacant places everywhere, and I cannot see myself that any large sum of money would be necessary to resume the carrying on of the second scheme of decoration. A sum of £1,000 or £2,000 per annum would be enough, proceeding slowly year after year.
    I cannot but again call the attention of the Government to the example set them by the City of London. The cloister of the Royal Exchange, like St. Stephen's Hall, is fitted with panels meant for paintings. They proceed just on the slow process that I am recommending, and every year you see another picture added to those in the cloister of the Royal Exchange. Some of them an indifferent some are good, and there are two or three which are really excellent pictures. They go on in that slow way every year, and the Royal Exchange will be finished, I am afraid, long before even the Central Hall of this Palace has its remaining mosaics put up. Why the nation cannot do for the Palace in which its Legislature assembles that which the merchants of the City of London do for their meeting place, the Royal Exchange, I own I cannot see. I do think this subject is one that merits more attention than it has received. We should not merely go on as we have done because we are accustomed to see the unfinished state of things around us, but consider whether the Palace is to be left permanently unfininshed, to be finished in the way intended in the second scheme, or in the way first intended by its architect.
    Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report with respect to the unfinished condition of the rooms in the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the service of this House, and their approaches.—(Lord Stanmore.)
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give a reply to the noble Lord on the Cross Benches essentially different from that which I gave at the close of last session on a somewhat similar Motion. I hope the noble Lord will not think that I do not sympathise with a very great deal of what we has said on the subject of the decoration of the Palace of Westminster. It would no doubt be extremely desirable if we could cover the walls of our chief public buildings, where so designed to be covered, with splendid mural paintings and appropriate decorations; but very large sums of money are now being spent upon Government buildings and necessary works, and the necessity for economy in our public expenditure is so well known to the House and to the noble Lord that I do not feel able to press upon the Treasury at this particular time the importance of taking up works which have unfortunately come to a standstill, and which, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, must necessarily involve a considerable expenditure of money.
    LORD STANMORE: Annual.
    LORD WINDSOR: Yes, I know the noble Lord suggests that the annual expenditure need not be a very large one, and that it might in the process of time enable us to complete to a considerable extent the decorations. With regard to the Motion which the noble Lord has moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, at this period of the session it is impossible for such a Committee to get to work, and in the circumstances I do not think the Government would feel inclined to consent to the proposal, especially when there was little probability of their being able to support the Committee by recommending that the suggestions which they might make should be carried out. Personally, I hope that there may be an opportunity of taking this matter up again, but I cannot tell

    1019
    the noble Lord that at this moment the Government are in a position to consent to such a Committee being appointed. The noble Lord has made some reference to the cleaning operations which have taken place in the Palace during the past year. I would remind him that they were merely in the nature of ordinary cleaning operations, and the substitution of the green paper in St. Stephen's Hall for the very dirty and cracked red paper which was there before was not intended in any way to set a permanent seal of approval upon that as the form of decoration which was ultimately to remain there.
    The noble Lord referred to the refreshment bar at the bottom of the main staircase. I should very much like to see more convenient and more appropriate places for the refreshment bars throughout both Houses than are to be found at this moment, but I very much fear that the number of people who come to the Houses of Parliament has now so much increased that the accommodation which the building provides is really inadequate to enable proper provision to be made for many of these services. I am afraid I can hold out no hope to the noble Lord that that refreshment bar can be accommodated elsewhere. I wish it could. One word as regards the frescoes upstairs. Professor Church, who was called in to advise the Office of Works and the Government on the subject, has repotted that the condition of these frescoes is really so bad that it would be useless to think of spending money in restoring them. I fear that unless this fresco work, this pictorial wall decoration, can be started afresh, it is no use thinking that the frescoes can any longer see the light of day. I regret that I am unable to give a more satisfactory answer to my noble friend. I certainly do not blame him in any way for having brought the subject before the House, and I sincerely trust that at some future time we may see our way to proceed with the decoration of the Palace.
    EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to say a few words on this subject. I always feel great sympathy with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches when he brings this matter forward, and I do not wish him to suppose that he is alone in this House in feeling strongly on this
    1020
    matter. I have often thought that the way in which matters connected with pictures and art generally are dealt with in this country is a great reproach. It is only quite lately, although it has been pressed on successive Governments for many years, that an attempt has been made to find a building adequate for the magnificent collection at South Kensington, in which are comprised as fine works of art as are to be found in any museum in the country. In regard to the Palace of Westminster, it does seem a great misfortune that we cannot annually spend a small sum in endeavouring to carry out the pictorial decoration of this House as originally intended. Surely this great country ought to be able to afford some outlay in encouraging art of the best kind in its public buildings, just as much as corporations do in their municipal buildings. At the same time I quite understand that it is impossible at this late period of the session to grant this Committee, and I therefore readily appreciate what was said by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works in that respect. I would suggest to my noble friend that if a Committee is to inquire into this subject it ought to be a Joint Committee of both Houses rather than a Committee of your Lordships' House alone. Lord Stanmore referred to the frescoes of the poets, and the First Commissioner of Works, in replying, stated that the best authorities held that they could not be restored. I quite agree with the noble Lord that instead of being obliterated hey should be repainted. I cannot believe that art has so deteriorated in England at the present day that some material cannot be found on which frescoes can be painted. I have ventured to say these few words in sympathy with the noble Lord, whom I do not like to see always alone in pressing these matters before the attention of your Lordships; and I trust that at an earlier period of next session the Government may themselves possibly see their way to take some action in this matter.
    LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I do not intend to press my Motion to a division, but I wish to thank my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said in support of the Motion,

    1021
    and to ask leave to mention to the House one detail which I omitted, and which is, I think, rather instructive. Of the frescoes in the Hall of Poets one, and one only, has survived. It is not one of the best, as by the irony of fate is usually the case, but it might as well have disappeared with the others, for the Office of Works, or whoever is responsible in the matter, has thought fit to put up in front of it a huge and hideous erection, something like a sentry box and something like a sedan chair, which is meant for a telephone station. There is a place for everything, but I submit that the place for a telephone station is not in front of the only surviving fresco that remains in the Hall of Poets. I am sure my noble friend (Lord Windsor) whose taste is excellent will agree with me when I say that it is easy to conceive, if You look at that hall, how a telephone station might be so arranged as to be not only not a disfigurement but an ornament to the place.
    On Question, resolved in the negative.

    DEAN FOREST BILL.
    The Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

    SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.