Sitting of 20 June 1904

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—King's College Hospital Bill [Lords]; Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords]; Trafford Park Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Acton Improvement Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Leyton Urban District Council Bill. As amended, considered. Ordered. That Standing Orders Nos. 223 and 243 be

  459
  suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
  Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Swindon Corporation Bill. As amended, considered. Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 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.
  Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  Loch Leven Water Power Bill; Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Amendments to New River Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Urban District Council of Stretford to construct additional Tramways and other works within their district; and to make further and better provision for the good government of the said urban district; and for other purposes." [Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
  Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, in favour lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Assynt, for alteration to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Aldbrough Annan; Barton; Blackburn (two) Bletchley; Boltby; Bondgate; Boughton Brackley; Brandesburton; Bratton Bristol; Brunswick; Carlton Miniott Cleasby; Clifton; Cockerton; Cother stone; Coventry; Croston; Cury; Dar lington (two); Doddington; Eastleigh Exeter (two); Fareham; Faversham Gainford; Grainthorpe; Great Ay ton Great Horton; Greenstreet; Grimsby Ingleby Arncliffe; Hackney; Halberton Hanley; Hargreave; Heaton Park Hebburn on Tyne; Hillam; HuttonRud-by; Kildale; Kington; Kingswinford and Dudley; Kiveton Park; Lee on the Solent; Littlehampton; Liverpool (two); Lynn (three); Mangotsfield; Meltham; Middleton Cheney; Middleton Tyas; Milbury Heath; Moldash; Moor Monk-ton; Neston; North Kelsey; North Summercotes; Nun Monkton; Nun-thorpe; Oare; Palmersville; Piercebridge; Porchester; Portmahon; Reading; Rish-ton;Eonaldkirk; Saltfleetby; Sanquhar; Sarisbury Green; Sheriff Hutton; Skirlaugh; South Gosforth; South Kelsey; Stalbridge; Stockton on Tees; Stoke on Trent; Stourport; Stubbington; Summerhouse; Sutton under Whitestone-cliffe; Swainby; Thirlby; Thirsk; Truro (two); Upsall; Vale of Euchan; Waven-don; Weardale; Westbury; Westerham; Whitehill; Wickham; and Winston; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Maidstone, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Doncaster, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland, for the year 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts)—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 214.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Belfast Re-valuation
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in replying to representations made to him by the Belfast City Council and other public bodies with regard to the re-valuation of Belfast: and whether, in view of the fact that an increase of £16,000, or 25 per cent, of the total, has been made in the valuation of licences as distinct from the structure of public-houses, he will advise the Commissioner of Valuation to remit this portion of the valuation.
  (Answered by Mr. wyndham.) I stated on Monday last t that I had considered the representations to which reference is made in the first part of the Question and that, with the exception of the suggestion relating to the immediate operation of the annual revision, which is now before the Law Officers, I found nothing in them to justify the postponement of the re-valuation. In reply to the second part of the Question, the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation that the licences of public-houses are rateable under the Irish statutes, is in England and Scotland, has been upheld by the Recorder of Belfast. I understand that a further appeal is in contemplation to the Superior Courts. It is not, therefore, practical for me to interfere in the matter, as suggested, even if it were expedient to do so.

  Applications from Evicted Tenants on the Desertmartin portion of the Drapers' Company's Estate.
  MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that applications have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners from Ellen Brien and John Higgins, two evicted tenants on the Desertmartin, county Derry, portion of the Drapers' Company's estate; whether the greater portion of the estate has been sold under the Ashbourne Act, and negotiations are now in course of progress with the Commissioners for the sale of the remainder; and, if so, will steps be taken to make adequate provision for the evicted tenants.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1496.
  462
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The application of the Drapers' Company in respect of this estate has not yet come before the Commissioners to be dealt with. Applications have been received from the two evicted tenants named and will be considered.

  Applications from Evicted Tenants in County Waterford.
  MR. POWER (Waterford, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will furnish the names of those evicted tenants of county Water-who have up to the present time made application to the Estates Commissioners for restoration to their former holdings, as also the titles of the estates with which they had been connected.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Return is in preparation and will be forwarded to the hon. Member.

  Return of Crown Agents' Business.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonics when the Return of Crown Agents' business moved for by Address on the 2nd May will be laid upon the Table and circulated to Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I hope to be able to lay this Return before the end of this month.

  Mortality in South African Mines.
  MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish a monthly or quarterly Return of the mortality in the South African mines, distinguishing between white, yellow, and black labourers, and the causes of death, whether accidental or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I will ask Lord Milner if I can be supplied with such a Return quarterly in a convenient form for publication.
  MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the South African Mines (Mortality) Return, No. 205, he can complete the information ordered in the Return, by stating the mortality among white miners, artisans, and labourers on the Rand, and the nativos in the Rhode-I sian mines; and whether he can issue the

  463
  chief figures obtained in some conveniently tabulated form, so that the rates of mortality may be easily compared.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not yet received the information as to white miners, etc., on the Rand, but figures as to natives in Rhodesian mines are given at page 3. As soon as the statistics are complete the whole will be issued in tabular form.

  White Labour liable to be superseded by-Chinese in South Africa
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the number of the white labourers employed on the mines of the Transvaal who will be liable to be superseded by Chinese labourers on the ground that they are employed on unskilled work of a kind on which Kaffirs have been or are employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not able to make such a statement. The question, under the Ordinance, as to what work is usually performed in mines in the Witwatersrand district by persons belonging to the native races, is one of fact, and in the event of controversy will of course be decided by the Courts of Law.

  Lord Dundonald and the Canadian Government.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Earl of Dundonald has been relieved of his position as General Officer Commanding the Militia in Canada; and, if so, what were the reasons leading to this step; have any representations on the subject been made by His Majesty's Government to the Govenor-General of Canada with the view of preventing action in this matter by the Canadian authorities and whether, in view of previous difficulties between the Canadian Government and General Officers Commanding the Militia in Canada, the mode of appointment of such officers has formed the subject of discussion between the Home and Canadian authorities; whether the Canadian Government have suggested a change in the procedure; and, if so, is it now the intention of the Government to make the changes suggested.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) It is the fact that the Earl of Dundonald has
  464
  been relieved of his position as General Officer Commanding the Militia in Canada by the Canadian Government. The reasons are stated in an Order of the Privy Council of Canada which has appeared in the Press. No representations were made by His Majesty's Government to the Governor-General of Canada in the matter. The matter of the mode of appointment of General Officers Commanding the Militia in Canada has not been a subject of discussion, and no suggestions as to a change in the procedure have been made by the Canadian Government.

  Education of Coolie Children in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state how many children there are of school-going age belonging to the immigrant coolies employed on the tea and other estates in Ceylon; what would be roughly the total cost of providing vernacular education for these children; whether, as in British Guiana, the education of these children will be made a duty of the employers; and whether he will advise the Ceylon Government so to increase the present grants-in-aid that this duty will not press unduly upon the employers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not in possession of the information for which the hon. Member asks in the first part of his Question, and I am unable to make any statement on the subject pending the receipt of the report which I have been for some time awaiting from the Colonial Government, and for which I have again asked by telegram.

  Cost of Police Force in Scotland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the total cost of the police force in Scotland for the year 1902–3, distinguishing the amount paid out of rates from the amount received from Imperial sources.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Inspector of Constabulary [Cd. 2007], where he will obtain all the information available.

  Mail Service between Ullapool and Achiltibuie.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he

  465
  has yet been able to arrange for a daily mail service between Ullapool and Achiltibuie between the months of May and October.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have 'Considered the question of affording a daily service between Ullapool and Achiltibuie during six months in the year, instead of three months, as desired by the hon. Member, but I regret to find that owing to the comparatively high cost of the post already, I should not be justified in incurring the additional expense which would be involved.

  Postal Cash-on-Delivery System.
  MR. EUNCIMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is his intention to initiate a cash-on-delivery Post Office system luring this year or next.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of the introduction of a postal cash-on-delivery system is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to say when circumstances will admit of a decision.

  Protection of Live Rails on Electric Railways.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent fatal accident to a child at Jesmond, a fatal accident to Joseph Innes at the Manors Station on the 13th instant, an accident to James Hughes on the same date, and an accident to Philip Gilroy at the Newcastle Central Station on the 14th instant, all of them through coming in contact with the live rail on the electric section of the North Eastern Railway and whether he will consider what steps are necessary, and what means can be adopted to protect such rails upon electric railways in existence and which may be constructed in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Board of Trade have received information from the railway company in regard to each of these unfortunate accidents. I may mention that in the last named case the injury appears to have been slight, not necessitating absence from duty. I have ordered an inquiry into the circumstances attending the fatal accident at
  466
  Manors Station, and the report made by the Board's Inspecting Officer will receive careful consideration.

  Income-Tax.
  MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the enactments relating to income-tax in force now which would not have full force and effect with respect to the duty of income-tax proposed to be granted by the Finance Bill if Sub-clause (2) of Clause 6 were omitted from the Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Many of the enactments relating to income-tax are contained in the Acts of 1842 and 1853, which in form are confined to the particular years in which they were passed. If, therefore, Sub-clause 2 of Clause 6 were omitted, such of the enactments in those Acts and in subsequent J Finance Acts as have not been re-enacted in The Taxes Management Act, 1880, would not have full force and effect.

  Liability of Colonial Firms with London Offices for Income-Tax.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if a firm carrying on business in one or more places in South Africa opens an office in London, that firm becomes liable to pay income-tax on all or any part of its profit in addition to the taxes it pays in South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) If the office in London were merely a branch office the firm would have to pay income-tax only on the profits made in this country. But, if the office in I London were the head office and seat of direction of the business, the firm would in that case be chargeable with income-tax on the whole profits of the business.

  Dumdum Bullets for Indian Army.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the troops in the Indian Army or the British Army in India, or any of them, are provided with the Dum-dum bullet which was originally manufactured for the British Army in India, or with any other bullet of an expanding character; and, if the dum-dum bullets and other bullets of an expanding character are no

  467
  longer supplied to the British Army in India, when did the change take place.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) All Dumdum ammunition now in stock in India is issued for practice only under stringent regulations. The general manufacture of this class of ammunition ceased in 1902.

  Salaries of Staff of Ballynadooha Nationa School.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL (Armagh, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in fixing the average income of the staff of the Ballynadooha National School, county Armagh, the Commissioners of National Education included the two years 1898 and 1899, although they had before them evidence that epidemics of scarlatina, measles, and whooping cough were prevalent during those two years; and whether, considering that the income of the principal teacher in the years ending 31st March, 1895, was £131 4s. Id.; 31st March, 1896, £136 11s. 8d.; 31st March, 1897, £134 0s. 2d.; 31st March, 1898, £124 12s. 4d.; 31st March, 1899, £126 1s. 11d.; 31st March, 1900, £132 4s. 6d., he will have the average salaries revised either on the basis of the year 1900 or by substituting the years 1896 and 1897 for the two bad years.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndhum.) I am informed that the income of the principal teacher of Ballynadooha National School for the years ended 31st March, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, was substantially as stated. The average income for the three years ended 31st March, 1900, was taken as the basis in fixing the consolidated salaries of all teachers, and the substitution in the calculation of such average income of any year previous to 1898 was not permissible. Cases, however, in which the rule as to the average income for the three years ended 31st March, 1900, was found to work inequitably, received special consideration. The claims of the principal and assistant teachers of this school for special consideration were very fully investigated by the Commissioners, and it was not deemed equitable to depart from the general practice in their case.

  Alleged Violations of Licensing Laws at Fermoy, County Cork.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  468
  Ireland whether his attention has been called to repeated violations of the licensing laws in Fermoy, county Cork; whether he is aware that John Murphy, the holder of a licence belonging to Messrs. Beamish and Crawford, of Cork, has been repeatedly fined; that he was summoned for an offence that, with two convictions endorsed on the licence, must have forfeited it; that the case was adjourned for six months in order that the licence might be transferred to his wife and the law evaded; that the licence was not transferred, and, on the case being heard, a fine was imposed; that on the 24th April last Murphy was again caught violating the law; that a summons was issued, but the case never heard; and, if so, whether it is proposed to give the police any assistance in their efforts to enforce the law.
  (Answered by Mr. wyndham.) It is the fact that Murphy was twice convicted of offences which were endorsed on his licence, one dated 28th February, 1898, and the other 7th March, 1900. "On the 22nd March, 1902, he was again summoned for an offence under the Act.Had the justices at that time convicted him and endorsed the conviction, his licence would have been forfeited. Owing, however, to his extreme poverty, they adjourned the case till the 4th April, 1903, when they convicted him. But by that time five years had elapsed from the first endorsement, and its effect was thereby nullified. He was again summoned on the 24th April, 1904, but the case was adjourned for two months and is now pending. The Bench at Fermoy is an excellent Bench and gives every aid to the police in the enforcement of the law.

  Uniformed Policemen on Irish Railway Platforms.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if an order has been issued from Dublin Castle to the effect that all uniformed policemen are not to be permitted on any railway platform in Ireland; and, if so, will he state the reason for its issue.
  (Answered by Mr. wyndham.) No such order has been issued. The regulations in force for many years prohibited the attendance of police at railway stations unless they were specially ordered to be

  469
  present by reason of the importance of the station, or some emergency necessitating their attendance. Inquiry showed that these regulations had not been uniformly observed, and on the 10th May the inspector promulgated an order designed to give effect to the intention of the regulations previously in force. This order does not prohibit the attendance of police at railway stations when their presence is required.

  Suspensions in and Discharges from Enfield Small Arms Factory.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of men at the Enfield Small Arms Factory have been suspended during the last month, what number were discharged, what number have been on short time, and what number have received less than £1 per week wages during the same period; what are the numbers at present working in the Big Room, and how many are on short time; what number were working in this room in June, 1903, and June, 1899, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) During the last month eight men have been suspended. There were ninety-one discharges in the same period, of which eighty three were on reduction, the remainder being voluntary, etc.; 721?were on short time, of which 226 (over twenty-one years of age) received less than £1 per week. Assuming that by the "Big Room" large room No. 1 is intended, 293 is the number at present employed therein, of which 234 are on short time; 382 were employed there in June, 1903, and 279 in June, 1899.

  Conspiracy in South Africa—Right to Deport.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that three men have been arrested in the Transvaal on a charge of conspiracy to murder Lord Milner, or any such charge, and that one of them has been already deported by the police; and, if so, can he state whether the one so deported is a British subject, and, if so, upon what grounds and by what law he was deported, and whether it is intended to bring the others to trial.
  470
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no official information on the subject.

  Imports into Transvaal via Delagoa Bay and the Cape.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies 1 what has been the amount in tonnage of imports into the Transvaal via Delagoa Bay and via Cape Colony, respectively, in January and December, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not able to give these figures, but will inquire.

  Shipment of Stores for Central South African Railways.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the greater part of the general stores for the Central South African Railways, obtained through the Crown Agents, is sent through Delagoa Bay rather than through British ports; and what is the reason of this preference given to the Portuguese port.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I understand that this is the fact. The Crown Agents act in such matters in accordance with the instructions of the railway administration which are specially given on every indent. The Crown Agents have not been informed by the railway authorities as to the reasons on which these instructions are based.

  Corporal Punishment in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what explanation, if any, is there of the fact that the birches with which ships of war and naval training ships are, in accordance with the King's Regulations, supplied from the dockyards for the flogging of boys and youths under eighteen, the infliction of twenty-four strokes on the bare flesh being permissible, are 9 ounces in weight; whereas the birches used by the police are only 4½ounces in weight; and whether the Admiralty will assimilate the weight of the birch used in the infliction of floggings in the Royal Navy to the weight of the birch used by the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) I find on inquiry that the Navy birch is actually lighter than that authorised by Civil Power for boys of corresponding ages. There is no intention to make an alteration in the approved pattern.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Proposed Jewish Settlement in East Africa.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any remonstrances from private individuals or resolutions from public meetings in East Africa against the lease, disposition, barter, or grant of lands in East Africa to any syndicate, association, or trust; if there are any reports from Sir Charles Eliot on the subject; and, if so, will he inform the House of their nature.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): The only remonstrance addressed to the Foreign Office of the nature indicated is a telegram dated 2nd September, 1903, from the Planters and Farmers Association of East Africa stating that they protested against the proposed location of alien Jews in their midst. His Majesty's Government are in possession of the views of Sir Charles Eliot. As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Secretary of State does not propose to lay any Papers while the question is still under consideration.
    MR.GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Charles Eliot has resigned his post and is coming home?
    EARL PERCY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that Question.

    The Uganda Railway.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table of the House the last Report of Major Pringle on the East Africa Uganda Railway.
    EARL PERCY: Major Pringle's despatch will be laid before Parliament, but it hardly appears worth while to lay the Report itself, which is lengthy and of a highly technical character.

    British and Congo Free State Boundaries.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to-ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that it has been established by the Boundary Commission that territory hitherto supposed to belong to Great Britain is actually in the Congo Free State, the inhabitants of this territory on the States of Mount Ruwenzori and on the Penlihi River pass also under the rule of the Congo Free State; and, if so, will he take adequate means to secure for them their lands and freedom from slavery or outrage.
    EARL PERCY: No steps will be taken to fix the boundary between the Uganda Protectorate and the Congo Free State until His Majesty's Government have received and considered the Report of the Commission which has recently delimited the boundary between that protectorate and German East Africa. Meanwhile it has been arranged with the Congo State that the status quo shall be maintained.

    Cuban and West Indian Sugar.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government have considered the effect of the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Canada, giving a considerable tariff preference to Cuban sugars over others, and have they come to any, and, if so, what conclusion as to its effect upon the export to the United States of sugar from the British West India Colonies have they made any, and, if so, what representations on the subject to the United States Government: and, if so, what were those representations and what their result; and when will the correspondence be laid upon the Table of this House.
    EARL PERCY: The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The tendency of the preference will doubtless be to put British West Indian sugar at a disadvantage as compared with Cuban sugar in the markets of the United States. Representations have been made to the United States Government on the general effect of the Reciprocity Convention on the trade of the United Kingdom. The Convention of Commerce upon which

    473
    these representations were based does not, however, secure most-favoured-nation treatment for the West Indian Colonies, and no reply has been received indicating the prospect of an arrangement more favourable to British trade.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The noble Lord says no reply has been received. Can he say what was the date of the despatch making the representations?
    EARL PERCY: I cannot say at the moment.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then am I to take it as an Answer to my Question that there has been no result, so far, from those negotiations?

    Cholera in Persia.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information of a severe outbreak of cholera at Kerman-shah, and of the infection of the districts Maidasht, Songur, Sarat, and Hamadan, in Persia; and whether he will take care that the quarantine arrangements at Bisitun, and on the Turkish frontier, are not unnecessarily injurious to British trade through Bagdad.
    EARL PERCY: We are aware of the existence of cholera in all the districts except Sarat, as to which no information has been received. His Majesty's Minister at Teheran reports that the measures taken by the Persian authorities do not appear to be in excess of those allowed by the Venice Convention. Sir A. Hardinge asked for the suspension of these measures in the interests of trade when cholera seemed to be dying out at Kermanshah about a month ago; and will no doubt renew his endeavours when circumstances permit. The Turkish authorities at Bagdad have imposed five days quarantine at Khanikin on arrivals from Kermanshah.

    Rules under the County Courts Act, 1903.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether any rules of Court have yet been made under the County Courts Act, 1903; and, if not, can he say when they will be made and published.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): No rules of Court have yet been made under the County Courts Act. The making of such rules rests with the Committee of County Court Judges. The Act does not come into force until the 1st day of January, 1905 and it may be presumed that the rules will not be made before the end of the present session.

    Dublin Postal Officials' Hours.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that officers have been compelled to return to duty in the Dublin sorting office after an interval of but five hours between two days duties; that recently the senior superintendent in Dublin refused to take a fatigue or sick note from an officer who pleaded his inability to attend with such a short interval for rest; and, if so, whether he will inquire into the matter and see that such conduct on the part of the superintendent in question is not repeated.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The matter referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, as to the shortness of interval between certain sorting duties at Dublin, is dealt with in my Answer to-day to another Question of the hon. Member. It appears that on a recent occasion two officers who pleaded fatigue were instructed to take their turn for duty with other officers after an unavoidably short interval. They did not claim exemption on the ground of sickness; and they were not in a worse position as regards the length of their previous attendance than the other officers whose attendance was rendered necessary by the exigencies of the service.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the stringent instructions issued with reference to the nine clear hours at home are continually disregarded in Dublin: that this infringement is most frequent upon the arrival of an American mail, when impromptu arrangements are made for the attendance of the staff; that many officers who perform duty from 5 to 9 a.m. and from 3.30 to 7.30 p.m.

    475
    are on such occasions instructed to resume duty at midnight, and that in consequence they are practically on duty from 5 a.m. one morning till 7.45 on the following morning; and, if so, can he say if definite arrangements will be made to properly deal with the regular arrivals of such mails; and whether he will see that officers are allowed more than a bare five hours interval between two days duty, and that the right of the nine clear hours be extended on all occasions to the staff.
    LORD STANLEY: All the duties in the Dublin office allow of a clear nine hours interval on ordinary occasions. The American mails are, however, irregular in their arrival, and it is not possible to forecast the arrangements necessary for dealing with the correspondence until the steamer touches at Queenstown. Under these circumstances I find that it has been necessary on three occasions since the 29th Match last, the date of the hon. Member's last Question, to call upon certain officers to attend, as described in the Question, some hours in advance of their ordinary morning duty. I may add that it is the practice to excuse such officers from the afternoon attendance of the same day, but that many have preferred to work this attendance as extra duty. I will inquire further whether it is practicable to devise some arrangements to relieve the staff of these duties; but it is evident that the irregular arrival of heavy foreign mails must give rise to variations in the regular arrangements for the attendance of the staff.

    Belfast Sorting Office.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state under what circumstances no cloakroom accommodation has been provided for the supervising staff in the Belfast sorting office; and will he give instructions for the necessary provision.
    LOED STANLEY: I find on inquiry that the cloak-room provided for the supervising staff in the sorting office at Belfast was a few months ago appropriated for another purpose; and it has not yet been practicable to place at the dis-
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 962.
    476
    posal of the supervising officers the room which it was intended they should use in place of that given up; but the new room will be prepared for them as soon as possible.

    Belfast Postmen's Duty
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why two hours per day duty, involving attendance at the Quay, Belfast, is performed by town postmen, in addition to their ordinary duty, at a rate of pay below their ordinary rate; and why the regulation requiring that all extra duty be paid at rate and a quarter is not carried out in this case.
    LOED STANLEY: The duty to which the hon. Member refers and which exists for only four months of the year is provided for under an allowance of 6s. a week, and should, therefore, be assigned to an auxiliary postman. It was so provided for until last year, when some of the established town postmen asked to be allowed to perform it and earn the extra money. This should not, however, have been permitted, and I have given instructions for the irregular arrangement to be discontinued.

    Soldiers and the Post Office Savings Bank.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the discontinuance of military savings banks and the recent increase in the pay of the soldier, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to encourage soldiers to deposit money in tie Savings Banks.
    LOED STANLEY: I consider it most desirable to encourage, by any means in my power, the use of the Post Office Savings Bank for the deposit of money saved by soldiers out of their pay. Some steps have already been taken with this object. The Officer Commanding the 3rd Battalion Coldstream Guards suggested recently that some special facilities might-be afforded, and arrangements were made for the attendance weekly of an officer of the Post Office to receive deposits after they had been collected by the regimental officers. The result has been

    477
    satisfactory, for 135 new accounts have j been opened in eight weeks in that battalion alone. I shall be prepared to make similar special arrangements in other cases where it may be desired; and I hope that any commanding officers who may wish to adopt this plan—on which, I think the House will agree, Colonel Surtees is much to be congratulated—or to be furnished with further information about it will communicate with me or the Controller of the Savings Bank. Since the Question was put down I have seen I the General Officer Commanding the Home: District who tells me he intends to do all in his power to get the regiments in his command to adopt the same system, and I am in hopes other General Officers Commanding may take the same course.
    MB. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the noble Lord propose to extend this to all regiments, including those abroad, or to limit it to the Brigade of Guards?
    LORD STANLEY: Certainly it will not be confined to the Brigade of Guards, I think I shall be able to put these ' facilities for placing money in the Savings Bank in the way of all soldiers when they receive their pay, though, of course, the conditions will vary according to the circumstances.

    Imperial Postal Orders.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state what progress has been made with the scheme for interchanging postal orders with the Colonies.
    LORD STANLEY: Proposals for facilitating the remittance of money throughout the Empire by means of British postal orders were made to all the Colonies and Dependencies in August last. Those proposals have been already accepted in the j ease of twenty-six Colonial Administrations; and the services will be established very shortly. There is reason to hope that notification of additional adhesions will be received before long. As matters stand at present, British postal orders are procurable for remittances to this country in India, New Zealand, Sierra Leone, Malta, Gibraltar, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, British Guiana, Newfoundland, and at the British Post Office Agencies at Ascension, Constantinople, Smyrna,
    478
    Salonica, and Panama; and they can be remitted for payment in New Zealand. Sierra Leone, Malta, Gibraltar, and at the British Post Office Agencies abroad. I fully recognise the advantages of an arrangement which will simplify the remittance of small sums of money by post, not only between the United Kingdom and the Colonies, but from any one part of the Empire to another; and, so far as the Imperial Post Office is concerned, every effort will be made to render possible the general adoption of the system.

    Delay in Delivery of Irish Butter.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that a package of butter, weighing lewt. Oqr. 6lbs, gross, sent on 8th June from Limerick to Ramsbottom, via Holyhead, by passenger train, paying the higher goods rate to ensure (puck delivery, was not delivered until 7 p. m. on the 10th, and then in bad condition; and, if so, will he cause inquiries to be made as to why the railway companies are allowed to exact such rates on Irish goods and at the same time to deliver as slowly as if the stuff went per goods train.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOAED OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have communicated with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and have received a reply from which it would appear that the goods referred to sustained no delay whilst in their hands. The company are making inquiry of the English railway companies concerned, and promise a further reply. When I receive it I will inform the hon. Member of its contents.

    School Teachers and Extraneous Duties.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to two recent letters written by corresponding managers of non-provided schools to applicants in each case for a vacant head-mastership, in the first case from the Rector of Euston, Thetford, Norfolk, dated 20th March, 1904, asking whether the applicant could play the organ, as this extra work was in that place an essential; and in the second from

    479
    the Vicar of Alwinton, Rothbury, Northumberland, dated 31st May, 1904, stating that a man would be preferred who was a Churchman and communicant, and who would be able to play the harmonium at one of the Sunday services; and, if so, whether he will, in view of Article 15, Clause (1) of the Education Code for 1904, which expressly forbids the imposition of extraneous duties as a condition precedent to appointment, state what action, if any, the Board of Education proposes to take in these cases.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I have inquired into the cases mentioned in the Question. In the first case the master who was appointed did not undertake any extraneous duties. In the second case the trust deed required the head teacher to be a member of the Church of England, and the information given on the subject of playing the harmonium was given in consequence of frequent inquiries made by applicants for the post of head teacher. It does not appear that in either case the performance of extraneous duties was made a condition of employment, or that the local education authority took any exception to the appointment, but the writers of the letters appear to have written them under some misapprehension as to the precise requirements of the Code.

    Alien Immigration into America.
    MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House the annual cost to the State and Federal Exchequers, for the last ten years, of the measures for regulating the immigration of aliens in the United States of America.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OP STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.): No, sir; I am afraid I cannot give this information.

    Admiralty Shipbuilding Work in Belfast.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if any and, if so, what work is being done at present in the Belfast shipyards for the Admiralty.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The work which is at present being done for the Admiralty in the Belfast shipyards is the construction of machinery for H.M.S. "Hibernia," and the building of the coastguard cruiser "Squirrel." The building of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" and the construction of machinery for H.M.S. "King Edward VII." are also in hand, but are practically completed.

    The Treasury and South African Railway Revenue.
    MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to Lord Milner's statement that after providing £250,000 for improvements, the railways will still have a considerable balance to the credit of the Treasury, he is now prepared to press for a settlement of the claims of Great Britain on account of the railways of South Africa.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLUN, Worcestershire, E.): The hon. Member's Question appears to be based upon a complete misapprehension of the financial arrangements of the colonies. The surplus revenue of the railways is credited to the Inter colonial Budget, but is insufficient to meet the expenditure charged against it. The balance is made good from the separate revenues of the two colonies. There is therefore no balance of revenue available from the railways for the purpose named.
    MR. AINSWORTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon there is a prospect of the payment being made?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to what I have said.

    Duty on Methylated Spirits
    MR. BRAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if methylated spirits, when imported from our Colonies, pay a duty of 11s. 4d. per proof gallon, whilst methylated spirits produced at home pay no duty but receive a drawback of 4d. per proof gallon; and, if so, whether any alteration will be proposed in regard to these duties.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If methylated spirit were imported from the Colonies, it would pay a duty of 11s. 5d. per gallon; but as a matter of fact there is none imported. Spirits used for methylation in this country are taken out of bond, duty free, and no allowance given except in case of exportation, when an allowance of 3d. per gallon on the quantity of spirits methylated is given in respect of the Excise restrictions on the manufacture of spirit.

    The Value of the Rupee.
    MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the present actual value of the rupee; and, seeing that the maintenance of the exchange value at 1s. 4d. is calculated to injuriously affect the export of Indian tea in its competition with exports of to similar prices from China and other silver-using countries, where there is no fixed standard, whether he can do anything to alleviate this alleged grievance.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): At, the present price of silver the bullion value of the rupee is approximately 9d. The suggestion that the maintenance of the exchange value at a higher level is injurious to the Indian tea trade in its competition with China is not in accordance with the opinion expressed in 1899 by the Committee on Indian Currency, over which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton presided; nor is it borne out by such statistics of the export of tea from India and China as have been brought to my notice. There is no intention of modifying the Indian currency system.

    The Tibet Mission.
    CAVTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the General in command of the Tibet escort is now about 200 miles away in the Chumbi Valley and the Political Agent nearly 300 miles away on the Indian frontier; and if he can say under these circumstances who is to carry on negotiations with the Tibetan authorities.
    MR. BRODRICK: It is the case that Colonel Younghusband left Gyangtse to consult with General Macdonald and to confer with the Bhutanese authorities who are in communication with the Dalai Lama at Lhasa. They are now both on their way back to Gyangtse. During Colonel Younghusband's temporary absence, Mr. Wilton, Assistant to the Commissioner, and Captain O'Connor, Secretary to the Commissoner, have remained at Gyangtse. They are in a position to deal with any communication that may be received from the Tibetan authorities.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what relief, if any, is being sent to the 700 men now besieged at Gyangtse, in Tibet; and, seeing that 20,000 animals and men are now required to keep open the lines of communication, can he say approximately what amount of additional transport will be required when the rainy season begins this month.
    MR. BRODRICK: As I stated on the 31st May in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for West Denbighshire,† the Government of India have taken steps to send forward such reinforcements as it considers necessary for the safety of the Mission. These steps include the provision of transport. The reinforcements are far advanced towards Gyangtse.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: The right hon. Gentleman does not say what the reinforcements are, nor what amount of extra transport will be required.
    MR. BRODRICK: I think it better I should not do so in this House.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can say whether the Commander-in-Chief in India was consulted with reference to the escort sent to accompany the Mission to Tibet and gave his approval.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Answer is in the affirmative.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 435.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the ultimatum sent to Lhasa expired; whether any arrangements have been made with Russia as to the advance to Lhasa; and when any forward movement will be made by the force now at Gyangtse.
    MR. BRODRICK: The 25th June has been approved by His Majesty's Government as the date on which the Mission is to be authorised to proceed to Lhasa, if by then the Tibetan Government has not sent a competent negotiator with the Amban to Gyangtse; and the Mission will act on these instructions if the Tibetans fail to comply with our request. The Russian Government has been informed of the intentions and policy of His Majesty's Government.
    MR. FLYNN: Before this expedition proceeds further will the sanction of the suzerain Power, China, be obtained?
    MR. BRODRICK: The suzerain Power has been kept informed of our operations.
    MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): When will the Government be able to lay before Parliament the communications which have passed between them and the Russian Government on the subject?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not think that is a subject on which to lay Papers—at least, at the present time—but the Foreign Minister has, throughout, kept the Russian Ambassador fully informed of what this Government are doing.

    Indian Railways.
    MR. RANDLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report on Railways by Mr. Robertson has been considered; and, if so, what steps are being taken to carry out the policy recommended in the Report both as to development and improved facilities on existing railways.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Report on Railways by Mr. Robertson is still under consideration. I am unable to say at present to what extent Mr. Robertson's recommendations will be acted upon.
    MR. RANDLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that a very similar Answer was given about twelve months ago?
    MR. BRODRICK: The question is a very complicated one, and necessitates. I much consideration.

    The Indian Viceroy's Council.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if, in providing for the addition of a member to the Council of the Governor-General of India under the Indian Councils Bill, it is his intention to place the new member in charge of a Department of Commerce and Industries; and whether the new member will make it his special duty to organise a special system of technical and industrial education in India.
    MR. BRODRICK: I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave 1 on the 9th inst. to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, t The establishment of a secretariat for Commerce and Industries is under consideration, but has not yet been finally decided upon. Should I such a secretariat be established, it would no doubt give attention to the question of technical education.
    MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in the Bill he has recently introduced to amend the Viceroy's Council, he will take the opportunity to provide that at least one representative and experienced Indian member shall be appointed to the Viceroy's Executive Council; and whether he is aware that a representation to this effect was contained in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure.
    MR. BRODRICK: I am aware that a representation to the effect named in the Question was contained in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. It is open to the Crown to appoint an Indian member to the Viceroy's Council if deemed desirable, and His Majesty's Government are not prepared to limit the choice of the Crown in this matter.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1210.

    East Indian Accounts and Estimates.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state when the Explanatory Memorandum on East Indian Accounts and Estimates, 1904–5, will be presented to Parliament.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Memorandum is in preparation, and I hope that it may be presented to Parliament early in July.

    White Estate, County Clare.
    MR. SHEEHY (Meath, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the sale in the Land Judge's Court of the White Estate, in Clare, although the farm held by Michael Moloney, an evicted tenant, has not been sold to him; and whether, seeing that Moloney has been excluded from buying by the Receiver demanding two and a half years arrears of rent and costs, in addition to the price which was placed on the farm, the Commissioners have power to withhold their sanction of the sale, or can they in any way assist Moloney to purchase his farm on terms similar to those agreed to between the occupying tenants and the Receiver.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This estate was not dealt, with by the Estates Commissioners. I am informed that the greater portion of the estate has been sold to the occupying tenants through the Land Judge's and Land Commission Courts.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): Do I understand that this estate was sold under the Land Act?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It was not sold through the Estates Commissioners at all.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: By what process was the money found if not through the Estates Commissioners?
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise administrative points perhaps he will put the Question down.

    The Charge against Constable Anderson.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on whose suggestion was the constitution of the Court to investigate for the second time the charges against Constable Anderson altered so as to include District Inspector Hetreed did Sir Antony MacDonnoll suggest, approve, or sanction this change; is District Inspector Hetreed the same officer who was formerly stationed in Limerick during the attacks made upon Dr. Long, and against whom complaints were made to the authorities that he had declined to afford adequate protection to the Protestants in Limerick; why was this officer specially sent from the depot to investigate this case; and who is responsible for the selection of this officer for such a duty.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Court, as originally constituted by the Inspector-General on 30th October, consisted of District Inspectors Berne and Gregory. Subsequently it came to the knowledge of the Inspector-General that Mr. Berne was on leave, and being unwilling to cause him expense and, inconvenience by requiring him to return before the completion of his leave, he selected another officer, Mr. Hetreed, in his stead, because, as he has informed me, Mr. Hetreed being at the depot where only a few recruits remained could more easily be spared than an officer in the country. Sir Antony MacDonnell was not consulted, and neither ho nor anyone else made any suggestions on a matter which was entirely for the Inspector-General. Mr. Hetreed was stationed in Limerick at the time of the attacks on Dr. Long, but I am not aware that complaints were made of the character mentioned in the Question. If made, they were not justified. I may observe that when Mr. Hetreed left Limerick in 1902 he was presented with an address subscribed to by persons of all religious denominations, including Dr. Long himself.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any suggestions were made to the Inspector-General of Constabulary to hold a second inquiry into the case of Constable Anderson after his acquittal had been directed by his

    487
    county inspector and confirmed by the Deputy Inspector-General, Mr. Singleton; and, if so, by whom; to whom were the complaints of the Rev. Denis O'Hara, P.P, addressed, and did these complaints influence the authorities in their decision to hold a second inquiry; what grounds were suggested for reversing the findings of the previous inquiry; and did Sir Antony MacDonnell sanction or approve of such grounds, if any.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There was no second Court of Inquiry. The first inquiry was an investigation, not on oath, ordered in August by Acting County-Inspector Monson, and carried out by District-Inspector Shankey. His report, together with the written statements taken by him from a number of persons, was submitted to the Inspector-General on the 5th September. On the 11th September Assistant Inspector-General Singleton, by direction of the Inspector-General, gave his decision, viz., that there was not sufficient cause for transferring Constable Anderson but that he might have a Court of Inquiry if he desired it. On 9th October County-Inspector Brooke, who in August saw no reason for transfer, having returned from leave, interviewed one of the persons, Carr, who subsequently gave evidence at the Court of Inquiry. He reported, "I have now seen him, and from what he tells me there can be no doubt that the constable was in the act of having immoral intercourse with the girl when discovered by him," though in common justice I must say that that was not borne out by the evidence given by Carr at the inquiry. Assistant Inspector-General Singleton replied, "This report alters the case, and the file will be laid before the Inspector-General when he returns." The Inspector-General on that report on the 21st October directed a Court of Inquiry to be held. The letters from the Rev. Mr. O'Hara were addressed to District-Inspector Shankey.
    MR. SLOAN: Whose suggestion did the county inspector adopt?
    MR. WYNDHAM: This was a matter of discussion in the district. I do not suggest that Father O'Hara was not anxious that this man should be trans-
    488
    ferred—he was anxious, and wrote letters to that effect. I think notice was properly taken of the new report.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Was the evidence of Carr not taken at the preliminary inquiry?
    MR. WYNDHAM: He made a statement in general terms, and not on oath.
    MR. SLOAN: Has it not been the practice—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Further Questions on this subject should be placed on the Paper.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the medical certificate in the case of Constable Anderson was submitted by him to the Inspector-General in the month of January last as part of the evidence of his innocence; and whether Constable Anderson was informed officially that the offence negatived by the certificate was not the offence charged against him, and that his dismissal was unaffected thereby; and, if so, was this decision arrived at with the approval of Sir Antony Mac-Donnell.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The medical certificate was not communicated to me in the first instance. It accompanied Mr. Mannion's letter of the 2nd January, addressed to the Inspector-General, who, in replying to Mr. Mannion, on the 23rd January, stated that the Court of Inquiry recorded as their opinion that while the facts proved in evidence fully substantiated the charge of immoral conduct, they did not consider that any actual intercourse took place. The Inspector-General's draft reply was submitted to Sir Antony MacDonnell, who offered no objection to its issue. Had the letter been before me, I should, us at that time advised, have concurred in the Inspector-General's opinion.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who ordered the first, second, and third inquiries in the case of Constable Anderson; who

    489
    selected the president of the second Court; and will he explain why the president, who was first selected for the second Court, was rejected and District Inspector Hetreed appointed in his place.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I have stated by whom the first investigation was ordered. The second investigation, which was on oath, was the Court of Inquiry and there was no second Court. By the "third inquiry" I presume my hon. friend alludes to my action when I was first cognisant of the matter in the month of February. I asked for the opinion of my legal advisers, and submitted to the Inspector-General for his consideration the view that since (1) actual intercourse was not urged on oath in respect of the facts deposed to as having occurred on the 4th June; since (2) Constable Anderson after that date and up to October 9th was for four months free to continue his courtship of this young person; since (3) seven months after the 4th June medical evidence was submitted of the character I have indicated; it was at least as probable that the facts deposed to were consistent with an innocent interpretation as that they were conclusive evidence of an attempt at seduction. I should not have pressed that view, in a matter of discipline, against the opinion of the Inspector-General. But he concurred with me in it. Then, and then only, I recommended Anderson's reinstatement with his complete assent. I believe we took the right course, and my belief is confirmed by the fact that Anderson has married the young woman. I wish to associate myself with a statement made to me by the Inspector-General, which I quote in his words. "The reckless and unscrupulous statement in certain newspapers that the confidence of the Royal Irish Constabulary is shaken in the justice they get at headquarters is absurd. I confidently assert that it is untrue, and that never in the history of the force were the men more satisfied with the way they are treated than they are now."

    The Irish Agricultural Department
    Mr. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a position connected with transit work was recently created in the Veterinary
    490
    Branch of the Agricultural Department, and, if so, whether he will state who is I the official appointed to this position, what is his salary, qualifications, and previous experience.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: No position of a permanent character has been created. An officer has been temporarily employed by the Department to assist in the collection of information respecting railway rates. He has had twenty-five years experience of railway work, and is paid £ a week.

    The Irish Development Grant.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposal embodied in the Development Grant Bill, now before the House, by which the sum of—150,000, now lying to the credit of the Fines and Fees Fund in Ireland, is to be used for other purposes, will not necessitate a demand upon the ratepayers and make good at least a part of this sum to the Petty Sessions Clerks' Fund.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The sum of £150,000 forms part of the moneys standing to the credit of the Fines and Fees Fund. These moneys are invested in stock to the inscribed value of £170,258. The withdrawal of the sum of £150,000 will not necessitate any demand upon the ratepayers. The proposed allocation will only affect the revenue of the Department to the extent of the withdrawal of the dividends payable on the stock, but this withdrawal will be made good by increasing the amount transferred annually to revenue from the proceeds of the duty on dog licences, and there will still remain a substantial sum available for distribution among local authorities. The local authorities will, it is calculated, receive about £12,000 a year in relief of rates instead of £17,000, as previously, the difference representing a loss to local rates of only one-eleventh of Id. But they may not even lose this, as steps have been taken to enforce the Dogs Act throughout the country with greater rigour, which will result in corresponding benefit to the revenue of the Department. With respect to the balance

    491
    of the invested funds, which it is not proposed to divert, I am considering the question of introducing legislation securing the balance for the purposes of the superannuation and retiring allowances of the registrar of the Department and his staff.

    Law Officers and Local Government Inquiries.
    MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent Local Government inquiry on the appeal of the Rathmines Commissioners from the decision of the Dublin County Council, the Rathmines Commissioners were represented by the Solicitor-General who raised a point of law upon the validity of which he may, as a Law Officer, have to advise the Local Government Board; and, if so, will he say whether this is in conformity with the usual practice.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is a fact that the Solicitor-General represented the Rathmines Urban District Council at the recent inquiry. The Local Government Board has a law officer of its own, and has absolute authority to select what counsel it pleases to represent it in Court on any particular occasion, and to send important cases to any senior counsel it may select. It is only on large questions of law affecting the country generally that the Board submits its own legal adviser's opinion for the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown. Should the question raised in the case be referred to the latter of course the Attorney-General will alone advise.

    The Waterford Railway Guarantee.
    MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in reference to the sum of £93,000, which the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland repaid to the Treasury rather than carry out the undertaking to construct the Fermoy to Cork direct hue, he will recommend that said sum be applied to relieve the ratepayers of the county and city of Waterford from the annual charge of £4,000 still paid by them in respect of the guarantee for the County
    492
    Waterford Railway, on which such sum of £93,000 was originally lent by the Treasury; is he aware that the ratepayers of the county and city of Water-lord have paid nearly £400,000 since 1874 on foot of the guarantee for the railway, and that the Waterford County Council recently passed a resolution asking that the grant of the £93,000, made by the Treasury for railway development in 1898 should be applied to relieve the ratepayers, since there is no prospect' of its being applied in the way then intended for their benefit and the benefit of the South of Ireland generally.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): It is not correct to say that the sum of £93,000 was repaid by the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland to the Treasury rather than carry out the undertaking to construct the Fermoy to Cork direct line. The £93,000 was paid by the Fishguard Company to the Treasury in respect of the sale of the Treasury interests in the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, and in discharge of the principal and interest on the Board of Works loan. The construction of the Fermoy to Cork line and of the Rosslare to Waterford line was an obligation undertaken by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company under the Treasury agreement scheduled to the Company's Act of 1898, in consideration of which the Treasury-agreed to ask Parliament, if the obligation were duly fulfilled, to vote the sum of £93,000 for repayment to the Fishguard Company. The obligation as regards the Cork and Fermoy line has not been carried out. If, however, Parliament should sanction (as it was asked to do by a Bill introduced by the Fishguard Company in 1898) the substitution of another scheme for that of the direct line from Fermoy to Cork, the Treasury would have to consider whether the £93 000 should be repaid in that event also. But the £93,000 is only a loan repaid, and there is no power to apply it to relieve county rates. I may add that the amount paid in the past under the county guarantee is overstated by about £100,000.

    Belfast Poor Law Officer's Superannuation.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the correspondence between the Local Government Board for Ireland and the Belfast Board of Guardians with reference to the superannuation of Mr. J. C. Neeson, clerk of the union of Belfast, and to the fact that the Local Government Board has decided that Mr. Neeson's salary and emoluments of office amounted on an average of three years to £1,764 9s. 10d., and that as an existing officer under the Local Government Act of 1898 he was entitled to a retiring allowance of £1,145 18s. 4d., which was thirty-nine-sixtieths of £1,7649s. 10d.; whether he is aware that the actual amount paid to Mr. Neeson by the guardians was only £500 per annum, including £200 for the preparation of jurors' lists; that the difference, amounting to £1,264 9s. 10d. between that sum and the amount on which the Local Government Board has decided that his superannuation is to be calculated, was made up of sums of money paid to Mr. Neeson by the Belfast Corporation and the Belfast Harbour Board, and as registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, over which sum the guardians bad no control; and that the decision of the Local Government Board has been unanimously condemned by the guardians; and, if so, whether in view of the dissatisfaction felt by the ratepayers under the circumstances, steps will be taken to ensure that this whole matter shall be the subject of a fresh and more complete inquiry before a final decision has been given upon it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The guardians awarded Mr. Neeson a retiring allowance equal to thirty-nine-sixtieths of the salary and emoluments of his office. They subsequently asked the Local Government Board to state what was the amount of the salary and emoluments. The Board was advised that the duties performed by Mr. Neeson for the Corporation and Harbour Board were imposed upon him by statute as clerk of the union; that any sums received by him in respect of these duties were part of his emoluments as clerk, and pensionable by the guardians, and that the sums received by him as
    494
    registrar of births, deaths, and marriages were also pensionable by the guardians. The Board communicated this advice to the guardians; it did not fix the amount of the pensions. The question for decision is one of law, and upon this it is of course open to the guardians to take an independent legal opinion.

    Land Act, 1903—Compensation to Planters.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have informed Mr. Thomas M'Cormack, evicted tenant, Limahoe, Queen's county, that they have no power to make an advance for the purpose of compensating a tenant for leaving his holding; and if so, whether, seeing that the planter in this case is willing to surrender the holding if reasonable compensation is paid, he will insert a clause in the Land Act Amendment Bill to remedy this defect in the Purchase Act of last session.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The point of law raised by the question is of more importance than the particular case, on the details of which I have no information. I will look into both, and communicate with the hon. Member. My intention was that Section 12 should cover the purchase of an interest in a holding "generally for the purposes of the Act."

    Estates under Receivers in Ireland.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return relating to estates over which a receiver has been appointed by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in the same form as that recently issued in reference to estates in the Land Judge's Court.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Return recently issued comprised estates in the Land Judge's Court in respect of which absolute orders for sale had been made. I am not aware that the further Return suggested would serve any useful public object. If the hon. Member will communicate to me his reasons for desiring it, I will inquire into the practicability of giving the Return.

    Mr. Daniel M'Cartie's Estate.
    MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of Mr. Daniel M'Cartie, at Headfort, near Killarney, is still under the control of the Land judge's Court, and that the proceedings for sale have been blocked constantly for frivolous causes; and, if so, whether he could request the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board to negotiate for the purchase of this estate, which is of a character suited for the operations I of the latter Board; and can he take steps to expedite the sale to the tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Estates Commissioners will inquire whether the case of this estate is one in which they should issue a request under Section 7 of the Land Act.
    MR. MURPHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these proceedings have been pending for several years.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Estates Commissioners will deal with the great body of work before them as rapidly as they can.

    Mr. Daly's Tenants at Tynagh.
    MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the Portumna District Council or Board of Guardians calling his attention to the Tynagh tenants of Mr. Daly for agreeing to give twenty-five and three-quarter years purchase for land which was offered for eighteen years purchase on a former occasion, and calling on the Estates Commissioners not to sanction the sale, in the interest of the ratepayers, without inspection, as from their knowledge of the district they are convinced the land is not security for the money; and, if so, whether he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the transaction.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen the resolution. The police have been unable to verify the statement that the landlord
    496
    offered to sell on a former occasion at eighteen years purchase. In any case the terms now voluntarily agreed to are satisfactory to the parties concerned, and were arranged, I understand, by the parish priest. The Estates Commissioners will be guided in their action by the provisions of the Land Act.
    MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.): Will special attention be directed to this, as it is a typical case?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I really do not propose to do the Estates Commissioners' work in this House. They are perfectly competent to discharge the duties imposed upon them by Parliament.

    Atnell Estate, County Tyrone.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Atnell Estate, county Tyrone, came to an agreement in January last with the receiver (C. E. Fair) for the purchase of their holdings at Sheskinspull at a reduction of 25 per cent, off the existing rents; and if he can explain why Mr. Fair, acting for the Lord Chancellor, is now threatening legal proceedings to recover the rent due last November, and ignoring the agreement to which he was a consenting party.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give further notice of this.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I will put it down for Thursday.

    Comyn Kenny Estate, County Galway.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of several tenant purchasers under Acts previous to 1903 in the neighbourhood of the Comyn Kenny Estate, county Galway, which has been purchased recently by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, will he take steps to enable these tenant purchasers to have their uneconomic holdings increased without requiring them to resell their purchased holdings to the Congested Districts Board, so that the whole of the increased holding should be security.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The point raised in I this Question cannot be answered without a fuller knowledge of the facts than are at present before me. I am making further inquiry in the matter. Of course, when the Congested Districts Board acquires the estate referred to, it will consider the question of the enlargement of uneconomic holdings.

    Belfast Valuation.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Select Committee on the Irish Valuation Acts recommended the abolition of the present system of hearing and deciding appeals from the Commissioner of Valuation, and the substitution therefor of a different tribunal, and that notwithstanding this recommendation the Commissioner is pressing the hearing of the appeals under the system which the Select Committee declared to be unsatisfactory; and, if so, whether he proposes to introduce legislation on the lines laid down in the Select Committee's Report; and whether he will make provision for the further suspension of the operation of the revaluation of the city of Belfast until such time as Parliament has been afforded an opportunity of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is not possible to suspend the hearing of the appeals even if it were desirable to introduce legislation. The new valuation, I have already explained, cannot come into operation until the year 1905. The decisions of Sir John Barton, which have been mainly objected to, are those in which he has, in respect to the valuation of licensed premises, adopted the principle recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and the Select Committee on Irish Valuation Acts. The latter Committee did not recommend the abolition of the present system of hearing and deciding appeals from the Commissioner of Valuation. On the contrary, the Committee stated it was difficult to suggest anything better. The Committee held that an appeal as at present should continue to the Recorders or County Court Judges, with whom it was recommended two assessors should be associated.

    Galway Model School.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the average attendance at the model school of Galway from the first to the last day of the year 1903; and the total amount of aid and subsidy given to that institution during the same period.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The average attendance for the year 1903 was ninety-five. The expenditure out of public funds was £482 11s.

    Imprisonment of Koscommon County Councillor.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the resolutions passed by several representative bodies in the county of Roscommon, dealing with the sentence recently imposed on Mr. Patt Webb, county councillor, which resolutions ask for a repeal of the law empowering magistrates to inflict imprisonment without the option of a fine, to which sentence there is no appeal; and whether he proposes to introduce the change requested by these resolutions into the law in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: On Monday last I replied to Questions addressed to me on this subject by the hon. Members for South Donegal and South Roscommon.†

    Irish Poor Law Reform Commission.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Poor Law Reform Commission have as yet formulated their Report as the result of their sittings in the provinces of Ulster and Leinster; and, if not, can he say at what date the Report on these provinces may be expected.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners do not propose to issue Reports according to provinces. They consider it would be open to objection to deal with the matter except as a whole and until all the evidence affecting Poor Law administration, generally, has been received and carefully
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1478 and 1495.

    499
    considered. I may add that the Commissioners will this week have completed their inquiries in twenty-three out of the thirty-two counties in Ireland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE: I desire, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, to ask the First Lord what business he proposes to take on Thursday and Friday. Perhaps, he will also now tell us when the statement of the Secretary for War will be made.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): As regards the business for the week we propose to take Irish Estimates on Thursday—first the Vote for the Board of Agriculture, second the Vote for the Board of Works, and third the Vote for the Local Government Board. On Friday, I propose to put down as first and second Orders two Irish Bills which the Government are very specially desirous of dealing with—the Irish Land Bill and the Irish Labourers Bill. I cannot make any statement as to the date on which the Secretary for War will make his announcement to the House.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has it been communicated to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the unanimous wish of the Irish Party that the Labourers Bill should be taken first, and will he, under those circumstances, see his way to put it first on the Paper?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be sorry to give a dogmatic refusal, and perhaps it may be made a matter of negotiation through the ordinary channels.

NEW BILLS.
  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  "To make better provision for the Administration of Justice at Sessions of the Peace, and for the transaction of county business in the county of Suffolk," presented by Sir Cuthbert Quilter; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]
  NEW WRIT.
  New Writ for the County of Surrey (North Western or Chertsey Division), in the room of John Arthur Fyler, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not think the Committee was in a position to consider the tea duty until they knew what the effect of the other proposals in the Bill would be. There was a deficit of £5,500,000 from the previous year, and a deficit of £3,800,000 for the coming year; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to borrow to meet the former, and to impose extra taxation to meet the latter. This he proposed to do partly by direct and partly by indirect taxation. He did not object to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the amount he was going to raise during the coming year, but he did not think the best method of raising the revenue had been chosen. Last year they thought that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had remitted too large a proportion of direct taxation and too small a proportion of indirect taxation, and what he desired to impress upon the Committee was that on the present occasion the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to raise an equal amount by direct and indirect taxation. Considering the very large remission of direct taxation last year, he did not think indirect taxation ought to bear any of those burdens this year, which ought to be borne by direct taxation. His reason for postponing this clause was that until they knew the decision of the Committee in regard to the income-tax they were not really in a position to decide the question of the tea duty on its merits. This was the only opportunity that would be given them of discussing the respective merits of the tea duty and the income-tax and
  502
  whether an extra penny ought not to be put on the latter. If this clause were passed before they had discussed the income-tax, and the Committee decided that the income-tax should be only raised by one penny, they would be in a difficult position, because they would have voted so much towards the deficit, and it would not be necessary to press for the additional penny on the income-tax. On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman could show conclusively to the Committee that it was impossible to impose an additional penny on the income-tax, and that no other source of revenue was open to him, it would make a difference to them in considering the tea duty. On the ground that they were called upon now to propose an addition to the duty on tea which they believed could be met by the alternative of a penny on the income-tax; and because they were prejudiced in discussing the merits of the tea duty until they knew the result of the Budget as a whole, he begged to move the postponement of Clause 1.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: It will not be possible for the hon. Member to raise the income-tax, but he can move to reduce it.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said the hon. Member's object appeared to be to raise the question whether the whole of the increased taxation which was necessary this year should not be charged upon the direct taxpayer instead of a proportion of it being placed upon the indirect taxpayer; and he also complained that to ask the Committee to discuss the tea duty before the income-tax-prejudiced the merits of the discussion on the tea duty and the figure at which he proposed to place the income-tax. It would be perfectly clear to the Committee that if he had put the clause relating to the income-tax first, exactly the same process of reasoning would have enabled the hon. Member to argue that the income-tax clause must be postponed

  503
  because they could not allow the I income-tax to be fixed at 1s. until they had decided whether or not they were going to increase the tea duty. These proposals must be taken as a whole. When they came to the tea duty there were Amendments on the Paper which raised the particular question which the hon. Member for Poplar wished to discuss, namely, whether there ought to be any increase in the tea duty at all. He thought it would be to the convenience of all parties that they should come to the point as soon as possible instead of debating matters which really did not advance their discussion. He was quite prepared to justify his proposal to increase the tea duty as soon as he was allowed to do so. He hoped the question would be discussed on its merits and in its proper place, instead of having a discussion on a proposal to postpone the clause which necessarily limited the discussion in which they were engaged.
  MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that if they had discussed the income-tax first precisely the same argument would apply. That was not so, because it was indirect taxation they were opposing and not direct taxation. The right hon. Gentleman knew this very well. If they once committed themselves to the tea duty it would be impossible for them to go back on the decision. Another reason for postponing this clause was that it was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman might not require all the money he had budgeted for, because, apart from the question of the deficit, which was a subject of difference between them, he thought those who looked into these proposals and compared them with the estimated expenditure must be led to the conclusion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had underestimated the produce of the revenue. Of course he quite admitted that, after the experience of last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite justified in taking a very moderate view of the increases under the different heads of estimate, but notwithstanding this he felt confident that the right hon. Gentleman would have a larger revenue than he had budgeted for; and besides this a
  504
  considerable saving was anticipated under the head of Army reform.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Those arguments are not relevant to the postponement of this clause, although they might be relevant to a Motion to cut down the amount. The hon. Member is now proceeding to argue upon the merits of the proposal, and he is not in order in so doing.
  MR. McCRAEsaid those were reasons which he thought should induce the Committee to postpone Clause 1 until they came to those other heads of taxation, more especially with regard to direct taxation. After they had discussed that question, and in view of the fact that many of them were of opinion that the income-tax was reduced too much last year, he put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a fair and full case had been made out for the postponement of this clause.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)said the right hon. Gentleman had not only bean unfair to the hon. Member for Poplar, but he had actually misrepresented his argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that if the income-tax had been placed in Clause 1, the same argument could have been advanced, but the direct opposite was the case. They could not discuss now the question of the income-tax, and the question before them was the broad general principle as to whether it was a proper and feasible course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inflict this huge burden upon indirect taxation. Those who represented Irish constituencies had a grievance of a much larger and a more forcible kind, because their great complaint was that indirect taxation was levied on Ireland out of all proportion to the justice or reason I of the case. The proportion in Ireland was 75 per cent, of indirect and 25 of direct taxation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The arguments which the hon. Member is using are arguments in favour of cutting down the amount, and they are not relevant now.
  MR. FLYNNcontended that it would be far better to putt the income-tax

  505
  in the forefront and postpone this clause 40 a later period.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he confessed that he did not see sufficient reason for the postponement of this clause; but on the contrary, he saw some good reasons for taking the opposite course. Some hon. Members opposite desired to deal with the income-tax, but they could only do that by moving to reduce it. It was to the interests of hon. Members opposite that they should keep the tea duty as high as possible, because that would give them a better chance of taking something off the income-tax. The accredited modern method of drafting a Bill was to put the whole crux of the measure into the first clause. It was a fact that the great objection of hon. Members opposite was not so much to the income-tax but more especially to the tea duty, and therefore it was the right thing to do to place this tax in the first clause of the Bill. He thought hon. Members, if they were candid, would admit that his arguments showed that instead of being advantageous to them to postpone this clause it would be disadvantageous, and therefore he should vote against the proposal made by the hon. Member for Poplar.
  MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)thought the hon. Member for King's Lynn had relied too much upon the letter of the law in this matter. It was perfectly true that they could not introduce a new tax, but any hon. Member might move a reduction with the object of getting an expression of opinion in favour of an increase. It was desirable that they should have some mode of considering the alternative before they committed themselves to this particular proposal. They had only got a certain amount of money to raise, and if they raised £2,000,000 of this amount by the tea duty it would be idle to propose a reduction of the existing taxation in order to get an expression from the Committee in favour of a new tax to find money which was not wanted. The Committee in considering the other proposals in the Budget ought to have their hands free from any commitment in regard to the duty on tea. He suggested that Clause 1 should be postponed not only until the
  506
  other clauses in the Bill before the Committee had been dealt with, but until all the new clauses had been disposed of, and then they could take a broad view of the best means of raising the money they required. This Motion was not a mere formal proposal, for it was a definite matter of principle that this Committee should not tie its hands in discussing the various methods by which the money might be raised. Why should they settle the tea duty first of all? On the Opposition side of the House they thought that it was desirable that the Government should put in the forefront of the Finance Bill not indirect but direct taxation. It was upon direct taxation that they mainly relied for their necessary income, and this year it was more important than ever that direct taxation should stand first. He hoped that his hon. friend would press this matter to a division.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that what had been said went to show the way in which the House tied its hands in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that all the clauses ought to be taken as part of one scheme. It was quite true that every proposal now put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be accepted as it stood, or at all events the taxes could only be diminished and could not be increased. Consequently those who wished to postpone this clause would find themselves hampered and tied by the Rules which governed the proceedings in regard to this Bill. As his hon. friend had stated, if changes were announced by the War Office this week that might do away with the necessity for the increase of the tea duty altogether. The tax which he disliked most of all was the tea tax, and it was because he regarded this tax as the worst of all in the Budget that he thought they should proceed to deal with it last of all.
  MR. WHITLEYsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar on the broad ground of principle. He thought when a Budget was being framed it ought first to be decided what taxes were to be put upon the rich and, after that, only put the balance of taxes which it was absolutely necessary to

  507
  raise, upon the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing forward this Budget had taken exactly the opposite course, and had first imposed the burden upon the indirect taxpayer and then taxed the rich to make up the balance. He looked upon the clause they were now discussing as an illustration of the way the present Government looked at taxtion as a whole. They first asked themselves, "How much dare we put upon the poorer classes of the community" and then said, "We will ask the income-tax payer to pay the residue." The Motion for the postponement of this clause was not a mere matter of form,
  but was the embodiment of a very substantial principle. Taxation ought to be so placed upon the people that the burden might be imposed where it could be best borne, and the smallest possible remainder placed upon the poor through their necessaries of life. He hoped the Motion for postponement might be carried and might be taken as a precedent of the method to be adopted in proceeding with the Budget in the future.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 157.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hammond, John

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

  Allen, Charles P.

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  O'Shee, James John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harcourt.RtHn SirW(Monm'th

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Perks, Robert William

  Blake, Edward

  Hayter, Rt, Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Russell

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ruburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rigg, Richard

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roche, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Labouchere, Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shackleton, David James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Leng, Sir John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  C'rombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sheehy, David

  Cullinan, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R(Northants

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dewar, John A. (Invemess-sh.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Doulgas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Ure, Alexander

  Ellice.Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Morley, Rt.Hn.John (Montrose

  Wallace, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Woodhouse.Sir J.T(Huddersf' d

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Young, Samuel

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gilhooly James

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

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert Jn.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Grant, Come

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

  Dalziel and Mr. Soares.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bain Colonel James Robert

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Balearres, Lord

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Randles, John S.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bill, Charles

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Howard, Jn. (Kent.Faversham

  Richards, Henry Charles

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Bowles, T.Gibson(King's Lynn

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, S.Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

  Butcher, John George

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rothschild, Hon.Lionel Walter

  Carlile, William Walter

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Kimber, Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Dalkeith, Earl el

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stanley, Rt, Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dyke, Rt,Hn.Sir William Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Iver.Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H

  Fison, Frederick William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton and Lyne

  Forster, Henry William

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Garfit, William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Mount, William Arthur

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

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E.R.(Bath

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

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

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gosohen, Hon. George Joachim

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Younger, William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

  Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Alexander Acland - Hood

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Hain, Edward

  Platt-Higgns, Frederick

  MR. J. H. LEWISmoved an Amendment to reduce the
  510
  tea duty. He said the Amendment was to bring the from of the clause back to

  511
  the form in which it was presented to the Committee in former years, and, read with other Amendments of which notice had been given, the exact effect would be that the tea duty for the coming year instead of being 8d. would be 6d. per pound. He thought the Committee must agree, at all events, that this was an extremely moderate and reasonable proposal. A few years ago the whole trend of public opinion was in favour of the absolute abolition of what were known as the breakfast table duties. The late Mr. John Bright devoted a very great amount of attention to this question. He wondered what Mr. Bright would say of this clause if he were alive to-day. They had receded very considerably from the standard set to them of policy and of consequent economy in those early days. He had no doubt that the desire of the public was still for the abolition of the breakfast table duties, but it must be admitted that the enormous growth of expenditure during the past few years made any proposal of that kind absolutely impracticable. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the duty proposed to be levied on tea now was higher than any duty which had been levied on that article during the last forty years. In the circumstances he thought they had a right to make the strongest possible protest in their power against the raising of the duty this year from 6d. to 8d. In 1865 the tax was reduced from 1s. to 6d., and in 1890from 6d. to 4d., and it remained at that figure until the war, when it was raised to 6d. When the war was over the reasonable expectation of the public was that war taxation would be taken off, or at the very least that the taxation imposed during the war would not be increased. But here was an increase amounting to 25 per cent. on a commodity which was of universal use, and which was largely used by the poorest of the poor. It was a commodity which was already taxed to the extent of about 100 per cent, of its value. He thought they had a right to protest against leaving on war taxes in time of peace, and they had a still stronger right to protest against any increase of war taxation in time of peace.
  He was afraid that one effect of this increased duty would be that to some extent the increased taxation would defeat
  512
  its own ends, because it would restrict the purchasing power of the working class and diminish the amount of tea imported into this country. He thought that experience proved pretty conclusively that that would be the case. In 1896 the consumption of tea in America was-93,000,000lbs.; in 1898, during the war a war tax was imposed on tea, and the-result was that in 1899 the consumption, of tea in America had fallen from 93,000,000lbs. to 72,000,000lbs. That-showed the effect an increased tax upon tea had upon consumption of tea, and indicated the sort of danger which threatened the tea industry in India and Ceylon from whence we had obtained nine-tenths of our tea imports. For years previous to 1900 the average annual increase in the amount of tea on which duty was paid was 5,000,000 lbs.; but since the duty was raised in 1900 there had been no increase, and that showed that the additional tax imposed had prevented any increase of the amount of tea on which duty was paid. Perhaps, in order to strengthen his position, his hon. friend the Member for Islington would allow him to quote some figures that that hon. Gentleman had given to the public outside this House. In 1901, duty was paid on 238·3 million lbs.; and in 1903, 229·2 million lbs.; or a falling off of 9 million lbs. At the same time the amount of tea imported from foreign countries had risen from 9·08 million lbs. in 1901 to 14·9 million lbs. in 1903. The direct effect, apparently, of the increase of the tea duty had been to stimulate the consumption of foreign products and discourage the consumption of British products—a rather curious reverse of the kind of fiscal policy now entertained by the Government. In 1901 the consumption of tea was 6·16 lbs. per head of the population; but in 1903 it had fallen to 6·03 lbs. per head.
  The imposition of the new tax must necessarily check the consumption of tea and affect very greatly the great tea industry founded in Assam and Ceylon. There were £30,000,000 sterling of British capital invested in India and Ceylon. India was one of the very poorest countries in the world. He remembered that during a debate on India there was a dispute as to whether the average income

  513
  per day of the people in India was ¾d. or 1½d. That showed how miserably poor that country was. The tea industry served a double purpose. It relieved the congestion of the population in some parts by drawing labour from the plains to the hills, and it provided employment for large numbers of people. Within the List few years India had suffered from pestilence and famine and the country had been drained of its slender resources, and he considered that the British Parliament ought to do nothing to discourage a great industry. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not for a moment suppose that he imagined that the tax would be more prolific because it was increased 25 per cent. His argument was that it would restrict consumption, that that would in turn restrict production, and so the great tea industry would be adversely affected. The tax would also be extremely discouraging to the tea planters in Ceylon. The history of the tea industry in that colony was very interesting. He remembered when be was there twenty years ago the whole island was practically in the Bankruptcy Court. A fungus had destroyed the coffee plants just as the phylloxera destroyed the vines in France. The planters faced the position with courage and cheerfulness. They did not come whining to the British Parliament for help, but decided to start the tea industry; and although they paid twice as much for Cingalese labour as the planters in the North of India paid for coolie labour, they had developed the industry to an enormous extent, although within the last year or two it had not been so prosperous as before. By putting an additional tax on tea the Government would strike a very heavy blow at what was now the staple industry of Ceylon. He believed there was no more loyal part of the King's dominions than Cevlon, It was said that it had been held by a brass band, and the planters during the South African war equipped a force themselves. Both natives and planters engaged in this industry deserved more consideration at the hands of the House than they were receiving at present under this clause.
  He should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why tea had been selected for this great increase in
  514
  taxation. At the present time a duty of three-halfpence was levied on coffee, and 1d. on cocoa. 28,500,000 lbs. of coffee and 45,000,000 lbs. of cocoa were imported into this country, chiefly from foreign countries, whereas the tea that we drank came largely from British possessions. He was not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have put a tax on coffee and cocoa; but he had a right to ask why the right hon. Gentleman had selected tea for the whole increase of the duty? While this House properly took an interest in the industries of India and Ceylon, its main concern must be with the consumer at home. How could the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a time of peace, justify to the House the addition of so large an amount of taxation upon the working classes of the country? There was a much greater claim for remission of indirect taxation than of the income-tax. He wished it were possible for the working classes to realise what they did pay in indirect taxation. These taxes were easily collected, because people did not realise equally how much they paid through them, as they realised an increase of 1d. in the £1 on the rates. When these poor people were told how much they paid through indirect taxation they did not believe it; and he contended that if they did realise it there would be a revolution in the country. So long as they did not realise it, the boundless extravagance which had characterised the expenditure of the present Government would be continued. Then, he held that this tax was a direct discouragement to temperance in the country. After all, whatever might be said against tea, the drinking of it did not ruin homes, produce beggary, send people to the workhouse, or lead to crime. We did not find paupers who attributed the loss of their property to drinking tea. Therefore he thought they might have had some better proposals than those which encouraged the undue consumption of intoxicating liquors and discouraged the consumption of harmless beverages. Above all, why should an article of consumption found in the homes of the poorest of the poor all over the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland, have been selected for increased taxation? He was certain that if hon.

  515
  Members were free to vote without fear of consequences the sense of the Committee generally would be in favour of his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words In lieu of.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'In lieu of stand part of the clause."
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he would not repeat the arguments of his hon. friend but would confine himself to the question. What was the burden of taxation which was now laid on the working classes of this country? In the earlier stages of the discussion on the Budget, his right hon. friend the Member for Haddingtonshire appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint an expert Committee to investigate the question of the real incidence of taxation on the various classes of the community; and he very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had refused to appoint such a Committee. Under these circumstances, they had to depend on their own researches. They were like doctors who were dealing with a malady without having diagnosed it. That necessary investigation which was required in order to enable the Committee to deal adequately and scientifically with the problem of taxation had not been undertaken. It was often assumed that as long as the State raised its revenue, half by direct and half by indirect taxation, a certain measure of justice was done as between the wealthier and the poorer classes. That was elevated to the rank of a principle of national finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, whose mind was always lucid, clearly stated that as far as he, at all events, was concerned, he recognised that there was no such principle whatever; and that the fact that direct and indirect taxation were about equal in volume was merely a coincidence, or very little more. There were many, however, who assumed that because this equality existed between direct and indirect taxation the burden on the average poor man was therefore the same as the burden on the average rich man. He thought the Committee ought to divest their mind of
  516
  that idea. They should aim not at an equality at amount of revenue of the Exchequer, but an equality of burden on the individual taxpayer. There was one principle, apart from land taxation, which stood to some extent on a separate basis, which commended itself to political economists and students of public finance in the allocation of taxation; and that was that each class and individual should, as far as was possible, be made to contribute to the revenue in proportion to its or his ability to pay. The present system of taxation of the country was very far indeed from conforming to that rule. They were left to their own researches; and he, for one, had spent many long days in investigating this problem.
  The results at which one arrived were somewhat surprising. Taking an average working-class family receiving average wages, and consuming an average amount of taxable commodities, he found that they would pay, not an income-tax of 8d. in the £, as the income-tax on other classes used to be a few years ago, nor of 1s. as it now was, nor even of 1s. 4d. as it was during the war, but of no less than 1s. 7d. in the £ on their wages. In order to arrive at that conclusion it was necessary that two assumptions should be made. One was that it was the consumer who paid indirect taxation. It was universally admitted by political economists, so far as the long run was concerned, that, if a tax were not imposed, prices would be lower or the quality of the articles supplied would be better. The second assumption was that an average working-class family consumed an average amount of taxed commodities. Probably of spirits they would consume rather less; of beer rather more; of tea probably more; wine must, of course, be excluded from the calculaton and coffee also since the working-classes consumed but little. The extra duty on coal would also, not enter into the category at all. The assumption that an average working-class family consumed an average amount of taxed commodities was borne out by the budgets of expenditure which had been collected by the Board of Trade and by political economists. It was also supported by Lord Welby, than whom few men knew more about questions of indirect taxation.

  517
  He said in 1901 that four-fifths of the taxation on articles of consumption was paid by the working classes. Sir Robert Giffen, in his evidence before the Labour Commission, said that four-fifths of the population belonged to the working classes; and if four-fifths of the population paid four-fifths of the indirect taxation, it was obvious that an average working man's family did consume an average amount of taxed commodities. If that were accepted, they reached the fact that such a family paid in indirect taxation £7 5s. a year.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a Question which he put, stated that the taxes on tea, sugar, dried fruits, tobacco, beer and spirits would amount in 1904–5 to £65,100,000. According to the census there were just under 9,000,000 families in the United Kingdom; and dividing the amount of taxation by the number of families that gave a sum of £7 5s. per family paid by indirect taxation, which was equivalent to 1s. 7d. in the £ of the average wages of such families. He would not take any extreme case such as a farm labourer or any specially poor class of the population. He would take the average wages of a working-class family; and for that he went to the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade had stated, in answer to another Question, that the average annual earnings of the adult male wage-earners employed in the principal industrial and agricultural occupations in the United Kingdom in a year of average employment might be approximately estimated at £70 per head. Sir Robert Giffen said that the average family wages of a working-class family were rather more than £80. He would put it at £90 in order to be on the right side. The amount paid in indirect taxation was on that sum equivalent to 1s. 7d. in the £. It was quite true that rather more than half the indirect taxation was paid on beer and spirits, which were to the working classes more or less luxuries. Some hon. Gentlemen argued that because much taxation was raised by duties on beer and spirits and tobacco that, therefore, it was no taxation at all; and that the working man need not pay it if he did not choose to consume beer and spirits and tobacco.
  518
  But they were dealing, not with an ideal population consisting of teetotalers and non-smokers, they were dealing with the British nation as it was, which, as a matter of fact, did smoke a great deal and did drink a great deal, being not yet converted to the principles of his hon. friend the Member for the Camborne Division, or, as regarded smoking, to the principles of his hon. friend the Member for Appleby. That being so, the fact remained that the working classes did pay the taxes on beer and spirits; and that they were consequently so much the poorer because of those taxes having been imposed. His hon. friend had truly said that there was little resentment against this taxation because it was not generally known. If a tax collector were to visit each year every working-class household and demand £7 5s., or if there was a deduction of 1s. 7d. from every £1 earned in wages, then, undoubtedly, there would be very fierce and bitter resentment; and there would soon be more economy in our administration and a rapid and sweeping reform in the financial system of the country.
  It had been said by Colbert that the art of taxation consisted in so plucking the goose as to get the maximum quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing; and that was a principle which had evidently to some extent animated the financiers of the country in the past. That was, however, very far short of the ideal at which public financiers should aim and very different from the maxims by which statesmen should be guided. Since 1899 the present Government had added£15,000,000 to the amount raised by indirect taxation. They had added 2·7 millions sterling to beer and spirits; £2,000,000 to tobacco; and no less than £10,000,000 to sugar and tea. That increase in indirect taxation was equal to 32s. 8d. per family per annum, and from tea and sugar alone it was equal to 22s. 2d. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman had taken for the purposes of the Government one week's wages from every working class family more than was taken five years ago. He would now turn to the taxation paid by the middle and wealthier classes. They paid indirect taxation the same as the poorer classes. They paid, in addition,

  519
  the duties on wine and coffee and they paid the income-tax. Putting all those taxes together, and allowing for the abatements in the income-tax, one found that an income of £200 paid 1s. in the £; that an income of £500 also paid 1s, that an income of £1,000 paid 1s. 2d.; that an income of £5,000 paid 1s. ½d., while the workman's income of £90 paid 1s. 7d. Those figures were, of course, only approximate; and on the assumptions that the consumer paid the indirect taxes and that the average working-class family consumed an average amount of taxed articles. No one would assert for a moment that the working classes should not pay their fair portion towards the revenue of the State, but they would all admit that it was not fair to tax a man whose earnings were £90 a year 1s. in the £, if a man whose income was £5,000 a year was also taxed only 1s. It was still less fair to tax a man who earned £90 a year 1s. 7d. in the £, if the man with £5,000 a year only paid Is. In our taxation there was a system of graduation, but it was graduation the wrong way. He submitted that the facts he had put before the Committee were sufficient to justify their asking for an inquiry into the incidence of our taxation. Such an inquiry would, he believed, show the urgent necessity for the revision of our whole system. In the meantime it was their duty to oppose this increase in the duty on tea, which would worsen the inequality already existing. It was evident that the whole of the social legislation of this House was largely nullified by the great progressive increase of taxation which was placed on the shoulders of the working-class population. With one hand we tried by our laws dealing with housing, with education, with temperance to raise them out of the swamp of poverty; with the other we imposed fresh burdens of taxation upon them which pushed them down still further into the slough. So long as this heavy taxation continued and increased, so long would they do much to stultify their efforts in the cause of social reform.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment reminded him of the lady, introduced into the
  520
  speech of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, in his 1894 Budget Bill, who paid income-tax all her life without knowing it. He never saw the monstrousness of this extra duty on tea. It only amounted to about 1s. a year per head of the population which was not an enormous tax. After all, the working classes were the masters in this matter; they sent the Government to power in 1900; they voted for the war. Nobody could deny that it was popular with them. It was all very well to say—
  "Men laugh and jest until the feast is o'er;
  Then comes the reckoning, and they laugh no-more."
  But it was not a very brave thing upon the part of the working classes or their representatives in this House to vote for a war and then when it came to paying the expense of it, try to evade their liability.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington W.)said as the hon. Member had said, the working classes had returned the Party opposite to power in 1900, but it was to be hoped they would soon have an opportunity of reconsidering that decision, and, when they had, they would no doubt take these tea duties into account. His hon. friend had spoken in the interest of the poor consumers of this country, and as many others would no doubt speak from the same point of view, he would not traverse the ground. Then there was the question of the distributors. He had introduced two deputations of distributors to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One was a deputation from the distributors of dry tea—a business with which he himself was connected, and the other represented that great new trade which had grown up in providing cheap food for the working and lower middle classes, which supplied liquid tea in cups. As tea was sold at a halfpenny or a penny a cup in many of these new coffee taverns, it was impossible to re-adjust prices so that the tax should be passed on to the consumer. Therefore, these tradesmen had a very serious grievance. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the utmost attention to the representations of both, and if he could do anything to readjust the burden of this duty he would do so.

  521
  He would say nothing further upon that. The most serious things in this matter was the interest of the growers of tea throghout the Empire. That point, no doubt, had been touched upon by the mover of the Amendment, but he had not said anything that would at all allay the dismay and alarm with which that great class, the growers, viewed this tax. There should be with regard to the duty on any commodity in the mind of every Chancellor of the Exchequer a figure beyond which taxation could not go without endangering the revenue received therefrom. In the opinion of the growers the tax of 6d. stood in that relation to tea; any increase upon it would result in disaster and would not be profitable to the Empire. In support of this view he would ask the House to consider the history of the 6d, duty on tea. For forty years this tax had never been more than 6d., and it was interesting to see how this House dealt with this matter in 1863, in the days of perhaps the greatest Chancellor of the Exchequer of modern times, Mr. Gladstone. At that time tea was already a great article of consumption in this country. We used 90,000,000 lbs. at a duty of 1s. 5d. per lb., and the revenue from that was just over £6,000,000, the same revenue which the right hon. Gentleman received I today. All this tea came from foreign countries except 2,000,000 lbs. which came from India where tea growing was an infant industry. This industry was then passing through a great crisis and seemed to be passing away altogether. It looked as if it would have to be abandoned. Mr. Gladstone's eye fell upon this industry, and he was no doubt supported by Mr. Cobden in the drastic ways in which he dealt with the tea duty. In the first year it was reduced by 5d., and in the next by 6d., leaving the duty at what it was before this tax was proposed. This sweeping reduction of the tea duty by 11d. a 1b. might be contrasted with the niggling policy of recent years. It was a beautiful illustration of the system of taxation which had built up the wealth of this country. Mr. Gladstone was a true Imperialist, who had his eye on the real methods by which the interests of the Empire might be developed and consolidated and the investments of merchants and producers
  522
  protected. The result of all this was perhaps the most romantic chapter in the annals of English trade. In 1863 India produced 2,000,000 lbs., in 1873 21,000,000; in 1883, when Ceylon had commenced to contribute, 62,000,000 in 1893 240,000,000; and in 1903 355,000,000, surely a most remarkable development of commerce. At the present time, the tea industry of India I and Ceylon was not languishing. It passed through bad times like other businesses, but nobody thought of abandoning it. He hoped the Committee would not forget the figures which had been brought forward by the mover of the Amendment to show the result of the present duty, and what the effect of raising it to 8d would be. His hon. friend had shown that the raising of the duty to 6d. had checked the supply of tea from these countries; that it went down some millions of pounds. Before then it was increasing by 5,000,000 lbs. a year.
  With these figures in their mind he would ask the Committee to contrast the action of the two Chancellors. In 1864 Mr. Gladstone made a proposal which had the result of inducing our own Empire to begin producing an article which had hitherto come from foreign parts, and now the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was making a proposal which had the opposite effect of driving trade from our own Empire, and inflicting a heavy blow upon an industry in which a huge amount of capital had been invested. The right hon. Gentleman had given expression to certain ideas which were very ominous to the producers of tea. He had stated that the people were "saturated" with tea, and that the same development could not be expected in the future as had taken place in the past. But that was the argument of all Chancellors of the Exchequer, whenever through their greed or folly they injured a trade, they laid the blame on Nature instead of on their own actions. There were many parts of the country in which greater development was possible. Ireland consumed more tea in proportion to population than any other part of the Kingdom. Every year 50.000 or 60,000 people were driven out of the country; but he looked forward to the time when under proper conditions the population of Ireland would be allowed to increase.

  523
  Every million by which the population increased would mean an additional consumption of 8,000,000 lbs. of tea. But the population of Great Britain was also increasing every year, and the consumption of tea had not nearly reached its maximum, so that it was quite easy to imagine an increase of 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 lbs. of tea in ten years. In any case, it was not the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a blow to an industry and then say the consequent decline was not his fault. When they came to consider why this particular tax had been selected the reason was obvious. It was because the advisers of the Chancellor had told him that every additional penny on tea brought in £1,000,000 to the Exchequer. The same used to be said of the income-tax, but tea was a much more delicate and subtle subject of taxation, and the marvellous way in which the industry had grown suggested that it might with equal ease be damaged, and if this took place each penny would not produce the expected return. How far was this policy to be carried? Would the tax be raised to 10d. or 1s. or even 1s. 5d.? The Committee ought not to pass from the subject without obtaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement that would console the minds of the people engaged in the industry. The least the right hon. Gentleman could do was to promise that the tax should be of a purely temporary character.
  MR. MARTINsaid there was another point more interesting than any yet dealt with in connection with this examination as to whether the tax was really oppressive, and as to who should bear it. It seemed to him that the real people who were grinding down the poor were the wealthy wholesale tea dealers who were charging exorbitant prices for their wares. He once asked a friend of his who was a wholesale tea dealer what was the highest price he had ever paid for tea, and his answer was that it was one of the secrets of the trade which he would rather not divulge, and, when he asked him if he had ever paid 8d. he made the same reply. As a matter of fact, he (the hon. Member) believed ordinary good tea was
  524
  about 4d. or 6d., and, allowing a margin of 1d. and adding a tax of 6d., they brought the prices to 1s. 1d., leaving, at the 2s. which was charged to the public, a profit of 11d. or over 45 per cent. If the tea were put up to 8d. the cost would then be 1s. 3d., which would leave a profit of 9d., or about 32 per cent. There was thus, as far as they knew, a very I large profit to the wholesale distributors of tea, and he thought the trade could I quite well afford an extra 1d. or so, and that there was no reason why they: should grumble over it. Even if they paid the full increase of 2d. per lb. their profit would still be something like 25½ per cent., which ought to be enough to pay to the wholesale and retail dealers. He therefore maintained that there was a large profit; and unless there was some attempt on the part of the wholesale dealers to reduce the price to the consumer, they had no right to cry out. No doubt it would be hard on the poorer people, to whom an extra 2d. was a great consideration, but he did not think the wholesale dealers had made out any case why they could not pay the additional 2d. or at all events some part of it. He considered the Committee would devote their time more usefully to the consideration of this point than to the question of the general incidence of taxation, and as to how far direct and indirect taxation ought to be borne by the same individual. He had often suggested—but he had never found anyone willing to undertake the task—that a Return should be made showing the percentage of taxation borne by persons spending £2 a week and £1,000 or £10,000 a year; and he considered such a Return would be most useful.
  MR. SOARESsaid he did not pretend to know precisely the proportion of profits that were divided between the wholesale tea dealer and the planters; but he knew that the tax would increase the price of tea 2d. per lb. or more, and would be a heavy burden on the poor, and it was because of this that he opposed it. The previous Friday afternoon he walked over to the Park and he was struck, as he always was, with the wealth, luxury, and extravagance which one saw on all sides there; and he was perfectly certain

  525
  that if one had asked any of the elegantly dressed ladies what the price of tea was and whether it had been increased in consequence of the tax, very few would have been able to tell them anything about it, unless they happened to be the wives of Members of Parliament. Even in this House, although they saw a general election was imminent, and were therefore compelled to be economical, none of them had curtailed their consumption of tea, and he had not heard that hospitality on the Terrace had in any way been curtailed. He was quite sure that during the season not one single cup of tea less would be consumed in London drawing-rooms because of the tax. It was, however, quite a different matter with the poor. The other day he was staying in the North of England, and he asked a poor woman what she thought of the Budget. She said the village grocer had put the price of tea up 2d. per lb., and she announced her intention of getting even with him by making three quarters of a pound go as far as one pound had hitherto done. This meant that the poor woman, her husband, and children, would consume less tea in the future than in the past. He therefore maintained that the tax was burdensome to the poor and did not press heavily on the rich. Then let them take another section of the people—those in receipt of outdoor relief. He was a guardian of the poor, and he knew perfectly well that not one penny more was being given in outdoor relief because of this tax, and yet £d. or 1d. per week to those people was of the very gravest importance. Many of them lived largely upon weak tea and bread and butter, and they would feel this tax very much indeed. It was really almost a farce when one remembered that it was this Government which promised them old-age pensions. Instead of giving them old-age pensions they taxed their tea. He knew, too, from experience that the tax would be a heavy burden upon the agricultural labourers. Most of them were in receipt of low wages and a penny per week made a lot of difference to them. They were large consumers of tea. They drank it in the morning, most of them took it with them in bottles and drank it with their mid-day meal in the fields; and then they
  526
  drank it again when they arrived home at night. All these people would have to pay more for their tea. Then there was that large section of women who worked at home—sempstresses, and so forth. Those anæmic women had to take a certain amount of stimulant, and temperance people recommended them to take tea, and undoubtedly this class would feel the tea tax as a very severe burden. They were people without votes who were compelled to suffer in silence, and they would feel this burden very severely.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the hon. Member for Islington was quite right in saying that I this tax on tea would interfere with the tea industry. Any tax was injurious to those who produced the particular article taxed, and it lessened the consumption and the amount produced of that article. His sympathies were with those who consumed tea in this country, and there was no doubt that the tea duty pressed very heavily upon the workpeople of this country. He did not object to a tax of this kind being put on as a war tax, because it wa3 most important that every person in the country should be made acquainted with the cost of going to war. The hon. Member opposite had truly said that the South African War was a war which the people approved of and that its cost should be brought home to every working man in the country. That he did not complain of, but the war concluded more than two years ago, and this tea duty was not now being imposed as a war tax but as a part of the ordinary taxation of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer with very great courage said on the debate on this Bill that he did not see his way to any possibility of retrenchment, and he expressed similar sentiments the other night when he said that so long as they were determined to keep up such an enormous Army so long would it be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose any remission of taxation. Although the poor and the rich alike had war taxation imposed upon them, yet when the war was over the remission was immediately given to the rich and withheld from the poor, although equal quantities of direct and

  527
  indirect taxation were put upon the shoulders of the people. When the war was over direct taxation was remitted to a very much greater extent than indirect taxation. Consequently the rich people got the remission first although the poor expected it first. The pre ent system of taxation was a rough attempt to equalise the taxation upon rich and poor. In former days Chancellors of the Exchequer, both Liberal and Conservative, worked upon the principle that they ought to raise an equal amount of revenue from direct and indirect taxation. The late Lord Derby laid it down as a canon of finance that if the Government remitted a certain amount of direct taxation they ought to remit an equal amount of indirect taxation; and Lord Derby further said that when they remitted indirect taxation they never put it on again. Now they were constantly increasing indirect taxation. Working men with small incomes paid a very much larger proportion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than a man with £5,000 or £6,000 a year or a man with £500 or £600 a year. As a matter of fact, the present system of taxation pressed more heavily upon the poor than the rich. The principle which was accepted by most statesmen was that a man ought to be taxed according to his ability to pay, and a perfectly fair system was that every man should pay the same proportion in taxation to the State. Some people held the doctrine that every man should be secured the bare means of subsistence free from taxation and that taxes should be imposed only upon superfluities. That was called Socialism by some people, but the responsible Minister in this House worked upon the principle that the ideal system of taxation was that in which everybody paid the same proportion of the money over which he had command.
  The hon. Member for Essex said very truly that the people did not object to this tea duty, and that they had the remedy in their own hands but they did not apply it. To some extent that was true, but if the mass of the people of this country were sufficiently enlightened and instructed and made aware that they paid a greater proportion of taxation than the rich, he was not quite so sure that they would stand it. The people did not know this fact,
  528
  and their leaders did not tell them. Where were the representatives of the working classes during this debate? He saw one of them present, and he hoped the hon. Member for Clitheroe would give them his views upon this question. The hon. Member behind him had spoken of the profits made by the wholesale dealers in tea, and he seemed to think that a great part of this tax would be paid by the wholesale dealers. That might be perfectly true in regard to the tea sold to the richer classes, but it was not true of the tea consumed by the poor. The poor people got their tea mostly from co-operative societies and they bought their tea mostly from the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which was the biggest importer of tea in Great Britain. This large wholesale society distributed tea in the Midlands and in the North of England amongst the poor, and the consumer could not by any possibility escape paying his full share of the tax. The Co-operative Wholesale Society was bound to charge the extra price, and the Committee might take it that the great mass of the working population did pay directly the tax which was imposed upon tea. The question the Committee had to decide was whether the poor were paying too much or not enough of the taxation of this country. He earnestly recommended to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if they had to continue raising this enormous revenue he ought to make some official inquiry in regard to the proportion to be borne by working men who had very small means and who often had great difficulty in making both ends meet, and the proportion to be borne by the richer classes of the community. There was one reason why he was especially suspicious in regard to this tax, and it was because they had been told that under certain conditions in the future the tea duty was to be done away with. That was why they were a little suspicious that an increase in the tea duty was now being made with that object. The time might come when the Unionist Party, after being purged of men like himself, would become a united Party and would do away with the tea duty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assure them that this was a perfectly genuine business and that this tax

  529
  was being put on solely for revenue purposes, the Committee would much more readily be likely to accept his proposals. Although the House might this year allow this additional burden on the poor, he hoped that before next year, and before any proposal was made to further increase indirect taxation which was already so high, some inquiry would be made to see whether or not the working classes of this country did not pay a wholly undue proportion of public burdens.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)said he wanted to state in a few words why he would vote against the increase in the tea duty. In dealing with the question of taxation both in and out of this House he had consistently maintained that indirect taxation fell much more heavily on the class least able to bear it than any other form of taxation. They were face to face with declarations made in various quarters that there was a disposition now to reverse the policy by which the indirect taxation of this country had been consistently reduced by the Chancellors of the Exchequer one after another; reduced so that the comparative burden of indirect taxation should be less and not greater than it was. They had recently a declaration of the most formidable character by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that he saw no prospect of the reduction of the expenditure of this country. The expenditure of this country, he believed, at this moment was more than the country was able or ought to be called upon to bear. If that were true, it was quite certain that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the expenditure would not be reduced they might conclude that it; would be increased. There was and must always be a normal moderate increase in the expenditure of this country consequent on the growth of its population, and the expansion of its resources. But the expenditure of this country had far exceeded any reasonable amount due to either of these causes. If that were so, it was quite plain that the most serious question for everybody in this country was how it was going to be met. The hon. and gallant Member for Essex had said that this proposal was the result of the Khaki war. That was quite true. The hon. and gallant Member said that
  530
  the people of this country liked the Khaki war. He himself was one of those who did not like it. The hon. and gallant Member said that the people of this country had the matter in their own hands if they did not like the consequences of the Khaki war. Well, had they it in their own hands? That was the point he was going to deal with. As far as he could see the people were going to take it into their own hands, and there were symptoms that they did not like the consequences which had come upon them from the cost of the war.
  They were told that there were to be large contributions from the Transvaal. The large contributions were not to be found. He never believed in these contributions. He had always maintained in this House that we never would get them, and he was sorry to say that it seemed to him that there were very sound grounds for the prediction he made on that subject. That being the case what was to be the direction of the future policy of taxation in this country? It was adumbrated that it was to be in the direction of increased indirect taxation. He could recollect the day when Mr. Gladstone took off the tea duty. He recollected the popular feeling that was created among the humbler classes of this country by the greater cheapness of the commodity of tea. It was one of the greatest blessings that ever was bestowed upon the people of this country next to the abolition of the duty upon corn which was so much felt by the working classes. War always meant the imposition of taxes, but they always expected when the war was over that there would be a remission of taxation. There was a remission of taxation in the year after the war. But what was the character of that remission? The remission of direct taxation was largely out of proportion to the remission of indirect taxation. That was the first indication of the policy that was going to be pursued. Now they had this proposal to increase the tea duty in the second year after the war. He protested against that policy and he would vote against it. That policy was called scientific taxation. It meant a general increase in indirect taxation. Put in plain words that was what scientific taxation meant. They were now in the second year after the war,

  531
  when people had a right to believe that they would have a further remission of war taxation. Instead of there being a further remission there was an increase in taxation. He thought they ought to take every opportunity of protesting against such a policy as that. Nobody pretended that the tea duty did not fall on the consumer. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not maintain that for a moment. From that point of view, and believing it to be unjust that after the close of the war there should be a great increase of indirect taxation, he would certainly vote against this increase of the tea duty. It was a great injustice to the growers of tea in India, and from that point of view it required serious consideration. He objected to the increase of the duty because tea was largely consumed by the humbler classes of the country. The hon. Member for Islington had said truly that there was no part of the United Kingdom where it would be more felt than in Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would not vie with the right hon. Gentleman as a prophet. The right hon. Gentleman had truely said that from the beginning he had expressed his disbelief in the receipt by this country of any contribution from the Transvaal towards the expenses of the late war. The Government regretted that it had not been possible to obtain that contribution as early as they had hoped and expected, but for his part he saw no reason to abandon the expectation because it had been delayed, and he still expected that they would receive the contribution that was originally anticipated though at a later date. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a speech he made the other night at the Mansion House, and said that this tax had assumed a certain added gravity because of the nature of the observations he then made. The right hon. Gentleman quoted him as having said that there was no prospect of any reduction in our taxation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In our expenditure?
  MB. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was not exactly the meaning he intended to convey. He was alluding to some remarks of a previous speaker's as to the high level at which many of our taxes
  532
  now stood, and he said he saw no prospect of any such reduction of taxation as would bring these taxes down to such, figures as he had spoken of, in our present circumstances. He did not wish to be held as saying that no reductions in expenditure either in regard to the Army or Navy or of particular parts of the Civil Service were possible; but he did say that, having regard to the natural and inevitable growth to which the right hon. Gentleman had just alluded, no great reduction in expenditure could be expected as long as we had to maintain our defences and preparations upon the scale which was now required by the situation in the world. The discussion on this Amendment, which raised the question of whether there should be any increase in the tea tax or not, had travelled over a rather wide area. He would deal first with those critics who had said that the proportion of indirect taxation he was now imposing was unfair to the indirect taxpayer. Whilst it was, no doubt, true of certain indirect taxes, and of this tea duty amongst others, that they did press with greater severity on the poor than they did on the rich, he did not accept the view that that was true, or necessarily true, of all indirect taxation, He could conceive a tax upon an! article of luxury, which was also an indirect tax, that would fall almost wholly on the rich and not on the poor.? He quite admitted that that was not the: case with the tea duty, which fell with greater severity upon the poor than on the rich. In his proposal to raise the tea duty it was not fair to take it only by itself. He was raising as much by direct taxation as by indirect. It must be remembered that indirect taxation fell on the whole community, though with greater force on the poor, while direct taxation, such as the income-tax, fell only on a very small class of the community. The right hon. Gentleman and others complained that his right hon. friend who preceded him in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undue proportion of relief to the direct taxpayer last year and an insufficient relief to indirect taxation. At any rate, the right hon. Member for Croydon was not open to the suspicion which the right hon. Member for Cambridge University cherished as to the motive which impelled him to increase the tea duty. That

  533
  right hon. Gentleman was, he believed, a great admirer of the financier on the other side of the House, whose orthodoxy was beyond criticism. When that decrease was made the reason for it was that during the war the direct taxpayer had been called upon to pay more than his peace proportion of the increase that was necessary. There was a rule of finance that, at the first call of war, recourse must be had to the direct taxpayer, and during the course of the war the direct taxpayer would have his burdens increased out of proportion to those of the general taxpayer, and it was in recognition of the additional sacrifices he had to make that his right hon. friend gave a larger proportion of the relief which was at his disposal to the direct taxpayers. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University said that the remissions of, or additions to, direct and indirect taxation ought always to be in the same proportion; but that was impossible because indirect taxation must vary with the amount of dutiable goods consumed. Changes in the habits of the people might very seriously affect the produce of a particular tax and upset the balance so laboriously built up between direct and indirect taxation. He could, at any rate, say that the estimate of the revenue which had been framed—and which he still thought, with a little more experience than he had at the moment when he had been obliged to frame it—was a very fair estimate for the year, and that he had brought the proportions of direct and indirect taxation back to the point they occupied before the war, that was to say, to a point more favourable to the indirect taxpayer than at any preceding period when the right hon. Gentleman who criticised him was responsible for the finances of the country. Fortune was not always kind, and none of them knew whether the Government would be allowed to remain in office to carry out those schemes of reform which they had framed for the benefit of the country. He did not say that there were not good things in store for the benefit of the taxpayers—more death duties and such like—but he maintained that the proportions fixed between direct and indirect taxation, be they right or wrong, were the proportions which prevailed before the war, and
  534
  were more favourable to the indirect taxpayer than in any previous year. That he believed was settled.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland raised a difficult question. The proportion of half-and-half of which the hon. Member had spoken was purely arbitrary, resting on no principle, and having no merit except that it was easy to remember. He agreed with the hon. Member that we must look further to the capacity with which the people could bear taxation, but he thought it was wise also to consider, as Colbert argued, in what manner the revenue which it was necessary to raise could be raised most easily. The mover of the Amendment said that if all the facts were known as to the present taxation, he believed that there would be a revolution. He differed from the hon. Gentleman; but, assuming that his statement was accurate, he was not certain that a system which produced a revolution was not to be preferred to one which enabled the revenue to be collected easily and without any sense of injustice in any section of the community. The hon. Member for Cleveland had taken a great deal of trouble to make a calculation as to the amount of taxation borne by the working classes and what proportion of their income they were obliged to pay to the Exchequer, That was a subject of great interest but also one of extreme difficulty. He himself was very anxious to obtain more accurate ideas on this subject than he had when he first went to the Treasury, and he had hoped that he would have been in a position to frame some estimate sufficiently trustworthy for him to give to the House as the basis for discussion on this matter. He had, however, been warned by every one of his responsible advisers—men who had had great experience and had devoted much study to this question—that they had no more difficult subject of inquiry and that there was no calculation that they were prepared to give him which would be at all trustworthy, or at all fit to be placed before the House or which it would be safe to give. He did not say that they had exhausted all means of arriving at the truth; but he did say that he could not accept the figures of the hon. Gentleman; nor did he think that the averages taken, as he had taken them,

  535
  settled the question. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted that an average of what was paid by the whole taxpayers would be no measure in this matter. Amongst the working classes circumstances differed as widely as between the working classes and the class next above them, or between the middle classes and the higher classes. What they could calculate was the amount of taxation which was taken compulsorily, whether they would or not, from members of this class per head. He distinguished between those taxes from payment of which a man could not escape—taxes on articles of consumption, in which he would include tea and sugar, and taxes on alcohol and tobacco, which were also largely paid by the working classes. But surely, when they were considering what was the capacity of the people to pay and whether they were unduly burdened, the taxation taken on something in the nature of a comfort or luxury was a very material point. If they looked at what was taken from articles of necessity, including all except alcohol and tobacco, it amounted to no more than 7s. 3d. per head. He did not think that that was a demand too great to make considering the amount that had to be raised altogether to meet general expenditure. He confessed he found it difficult to reconcile the argument of the hon. Gentleman that there should be some material decrease in the taxation, with the desire that the burden of this great expenditure should be brought home to every voter in order that public opinion might be roused to check its growth. For his part, when regard was had to the enormous proportion of expenditure which now went specially to the benefit of the poorer classes in the community, when regard was had to the fact how vitally they were interested in the proper administration of the great spending Departments, and that they would suffer most by any failure on the part of this country to keep command of the sea, he was not afraid to appeal to his countrymen, to whatever class they belonged, that they should bear whatever expense was necessary. And he did not hold that any Member of this House need be afraid to appeal to his constituents on that basis.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that, of course, this tax would be borne by the consumer in this
  536
  country. To that extent, however, it-lessened the complaint of the tea growers of other countries, of which they heard a. great deal. He did not say that the tea grower would be entirely unaffected because the tax would fall on the consumer in this country; as it was perfectly true that if there were a great reduction in the quantity consumed that would obviously affect him. But how would it affect him? Surely, by reducing the demand for his tea. He would then have a supply greater than his demand; the price would fall; and, to that extent, the consumer in this country would cease to pay the duty. He thought that that would not be contradicted by any of the statesmen whom his right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University had yoked to his cart. He was not without sympathy for the tea growers in India and Ceylon.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that if the demand decreased the tea growers would lose the capital they had expended.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid, although that was really no answer, he might make one observation upon it. He thought capital was liquid and that it could be removed from one industry to another.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid capital in a plantation could not be removed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would consult the manufacturers as to how much capital they could get out of their business if they ceased to be able to produce a profit he would alter his opinion. That, however, was not material to his point. The right hon. Gentleman said that if tea planters ceased to produce they would lose their capital. But they would have every stimulus not to lose that capital and not to cease to produce. What he was pointing out was that if that occurred the price in this country must fall, and the consumer would be relieved of the tax. He did not, however, think that that was going to happen. He did not think that the consumption of tea in this country was

  537
  going to be changed so as to materially affect the imports of tea. Hon. Members had quoted the figures of the imports of tea for individual years. That was, he thought, a very misleading and dangerous way of treating the figures; because, necessarily, no account was taken of the stocks in the hands of dealers and grocers at the beginning of the year. It was much safer to take an average, say of a period of three years, and then to compare periods. He had had the figures taken out from as far back as 1859 right up to the close of 1903; and it would be seen from them that there was a steady growth in the consumption of tea in this country in spite of the increase of duty in 1900; and he believed that the increase in the imports would continue in spite of the increase which he was now obliged to impose. It was suggested by several hon. Gentlemen that the increase in the tea duty was peculiarly unfavourable to the growers in Ceylon. He thought the figures hardly bore that out. It was suggested that the effect of increasing the duty on tea was to cause a greater quantity of China tea to be imported, which would replace Ceylon-grown tea. If hon. Members would examine the figures more carefully they would find that, so far as Ceylon tea had been displaced in the home market, it had been displaced by Indian tea and not by China tea. There was no decrease in the importation of Ceylon tea in 1900; the decrease began in 1901, and continued in 1902 and in 1903; but that decrease was accompanied by a very marked rise in the importation of tea from British India. There was one other observation he would make which had been overlooked by hon. Gentlemen. There had been a falling off in the amount of tea brought into this country for re-export; and that had affected the figures. More tea was being shipped direct from Ceylon to other countries than was the case formerly. The re-exports of Ceylon tea from the United Kingdom to other countries fell between 1901 and 1903 by over 2,000,000 lbs. The import figures should, therefore, be corrected to that extent before they could judge as to what the rates of the whole consumption had been. He
  538
  thought he had now dealt with all th points which had been raised.
  He would not go into the question concerning distribution, to which allusion had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington, because the hon. Gentleman said that he proposed to raise it again. As regarded one observation of the hon. Gentleman, namely that the tax pressed very heavily on the sellers of liquid tea—cofiee-house owners and others—it was evident from the case they put before him that they were accustomed to make tea practically produce the whole profit of their business. They sold meat and bread at prices which left them no profit, and which barely paid the expenses that were being incurred; they even supplied condiments—salt, pepper, and vinegar—to people who brought their own food; and the fact was that the ½d. cup of tea had to pay the whole cost of running the establishment, apart from the bare cost of the other materials, and they were getting out of tea all their profit. Of course, if that was the case, there were other ways in which they could redress the injury put upon them by the higher taxation of tea than by simply raising the price of the cup of tea; and it was unfair to argue that no Finance Minister should ever touch tea because it would cut out all source of profit in a business in which all the profit was taken out of tea. He did not propose an increase in the tea tax with any pleasure. Ho did not consider it as being in itself an admirable or desirable thing. He came to it rather by a process of exclusion; but having to raise revenue, and under the conditions with which they were confronted, he did not think there was any fairer method of distribution than a proposal to increase the duty on tea, coupled with an increase of 1d. in the £ on income-tax. He thought he had now said all that need be said in connection with the speeches which had been delivered. He had been obliged to repeat himself to some extent; but he hoped the Committee would forgive that, because, after all, this was not the only time they had discussed the question, and ho had had to reply previously to many of the arguments which had been advanced.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in commencing his speech referred to a remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire with reference to a report which appeared in the newspapers of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the Mansion House. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer really qualified the character of that announcement or in any way altered its meaning. The right hon. Gentleman at the Mansion House said that the scale of taxation required by the present condition of the world did not admit of any material reduction from its present standpoint. That was exactly the point on which he wished to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman, because, in his opinion, the present scale of expenditure was not required by the present condition of the world, but was required by the present policy of His Majesty's Ministers. That was a very different thing from the present condition of the world. Later in his speech the right hon. Gentleman brought up again the old story of the Navy; and he said he was quite sure that the constituencies would not respond to any reduction in necessary Navy expenditure. That was not the question at issue.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was very glad to hear it, because the proposition was made by several speakers on the other side of the House.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he did not quite agree. The question was a question of principle; not the application of the principle; and there was no controversy between the two sides of the House with regard to the country not grudging any necessary expenditure on the Navy for the proper protection of the country and of its vast trade. The controversy was as to extravagant and unnecessary expenditure on the Army; and, in discussing that, they should always remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not only maintaining but increasing taxation. This was not war taxation. This was a peace Budget; it was peace taxation intended to form a permanent part of the ordinary revenue. No doubt the war led to expenditure, because it called
  540
  the attention of the country to certain de-ficiences in its military administration. But that in no way justified this exceptional taxation, which was to be a permanent increase; nor could it be justified on the ground that all classes of the community had to pay their share. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no question of principle was settled by the classification into direct and indirect taxation. Direct taxation did not mean taxation affecting a certain specific class, but taxes collected at the least possible cost in a direct manner with no deductions in consequence of their imposition. Indirect taxation was an attempt to delude people into the payment of taxes of which they were not conscious, and involved a larger expenditure upon collection and on various details of trace arising from that mode of collecting revenue. A statement of so much per cent, on this side and on that, and that there was a perfectly fair balance between the two did, not touch the issue set out in the remarks of the hon. Member for Cleveland. It was the equality of burden and the class of person on whom the burden fell that was the question raised. No doubt a poll-tax would be the most direct form of taxation if it could be levied; but, of course, that was out of the bounds of possibility; but if you take from a man's income a certain amount and take from a person of larger means a like amount, the burden is not equalised when you apply a rule of three sum to the large and small incomes; the burden is the capacity of the man to pay that amount. Taxation on the poor was not harsh because it was indirect; but because the burden on the poor man was greater, and it was harsh when the tax was imposed upon a necessity of life. The present Government had imposed taxation on necessities of life; first there was the tax upon corn and now the right hon. Gentleman had increased the tax on tea by 50 per cent. Nobody knew whether the corn tax was meant to be permanent or temporary until, through the attitude adopted by the right hon. Member for Croydon, it was treated as a temporary tax and got rid of, but now the right hon. Gentleman dealt with another necessity of life second only to corn, and he proposed to make the tax permanent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down a distinction

  541
  between necessaries and luxuries, and had lid that there were certain things that people could do without and if they were taxed you taxed luxuries, but in putting a tax on tea he taxed what was a necessity of life to the Irish peasant.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I expressly excluded tea.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman increase the taxation? A duty on tobacco was a tax on a luxury, but the right hon. Gentleman dealt with tea, and an addition of 2d. was made on tea—2d. on 4d, an increase of 50 per cent, for war purposes, while the tobacco duties which had been reduced by 6d. a year before, a reduction from which the consumer got no proportionate advantage, were never raised to a war level. The real objection to this tax was that it was demanded for expenditure the country ought not to be called upon to bear, and when the country had the opportunity he did not doubt that in that sense a verdict would be pronounced. If such expenditure was necessary, then let taxation be levied on those best able to bear it. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an equivalent increase in the income-tax his proposal would have met with the strongest if not successful opposition.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had justified his proposal to put half the amount required on direct and half on indirect taxation, by saying it was a convenient method, and easy to remember. Coining, as the proposal did, so soon after the reductions made by the right hon. Member for Croydon, when he took four times as much off direct as off indirect taxation, upon the ground that in the first instance the war taxes had been practically drawn from direct taxation, he was, he confessed, astonished at that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had a very distinct recollection of the speech made by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget. The right hon. Gentleman then said—
  "There is another thing; during the last four years the proportion in which our revenue has been derived from direct and indirect taxation has not varied. The portion of it derived from direct taxation is rather less—a slightly increasing proportion—than that derived from
  542
  indirect taxation, but there has been no material variation. I think those proportions are fair. We shall endeavour as far as may be to see that this proportion shall not be materially varied."
  That was to say, in imposing fresh taxation for the war, the right hon. Gentleman put it equally on direct and indirect taxation; and he pursued the same system in 1901. When taxation which was taken off last year had to be re-imposed, surely it was only just that it should be re-imposed in the same proportions by which it had been reduced. It was absurd to say now that in time of war the direct taxpayer was the first resource of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when, in fact, the direct taxpayer was not the first resource in 1900. Discussion on the tea duty was not a new thing in the House of Commons. There had been discussions every year, certainly, since Mr. Burke described tea as the most important article of our trade. He had not looked up the whole of the debates which had taken place upon tea, but ho had looked up some of the pregnant observations of some of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, which; the right hon. Gentleman might wisely: follow. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had had observations to make during the last ten or twelve years on the subject of tea, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken their experience as a guide he would not have hastened with unwise speed to touch the tea duty at this moment. In 1894 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had to face a situation of great difficulty; trade was very bad and he had to face a deficit. He found the tea duty at 4d., but he did not propose to raise it. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Next as to tea. Here there has been an excess of £101,000 over the receipt in the preceding year, and an increase of 6,000,000 lbs. or 3 per cent, on the whole consumption."
  The conditions were so satisfactory as not to warrant him in interfering in any way with the tea duty, which then stood at only 4d. He would now turn to some observations made by the right hon. Member for West Bristol in 1896. He then found the tea duty still at 4d. and he showed there was an increase in that year over the preceding year of no less than

  543
  £158,000 of revenue and that the consumption had increased by nearly 10,000,000 lbs.
  In 1897 he had the same tale to tell of a large increase of consumption and a large increase of revenue. In 1898 and 1899 the story was the same, so that during the period between 1894 to the close of the century there was a continuous increase of revenue from tea and a large increase in the home consumption. That was while the duty stood at 4d. In 1900 there was the war. The duty was increased to 6d., and the receipts largely increased, but with regard to the increase the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a part of it was doubtless due to premature withdrawals from bonds. In 1901 there was an increase of £1,000,000 on tea beyond the estimate, but that again was accounted for by forestalments. In that year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, having to find a new source of revenue, said—
  "I turn to tea. Tea is already taxed up to 75 per cent, of its value. Tea is the produce mainly of India and Ceylon—a produce in which our fellow-subjects at home and abroad are deeply interested, and a trade which, owing largely, I think, to overproduction, is at present in a by no means satisfactory condition. I do not think we ought to increase the duty on tea."
  That was when the duty was 75 per cent, of the value, and when an estimated deficit of £55,000,000 had to be faced. To-day the proposed duty of 8d. was 100 per cent, on the average price of tea, and 120 per cent, on the price of the ordinary cheap tea. In the face of these facts was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer wise in departing from the advice and practice of so distinguished a predecessor, and in asking the House to disregard the fact that such an increase of duty was a great obstacle in the way of a trade now chiefly done with our own Colonies? In 1902 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking as to the advisability of imposing any fresh duty on tea, said—
  "Then, Sir, I come to tea. I have listened to the pitiful cry of our fellow-subjects, the tea producers in India and Ceylon, and bearing in mind that tea, which is almost a necessary of life, is already taxed to 75 per cent, of its average value, confess should be sorry to increase that tax."
  He asked the Committee to compare the treatment meted out to our Colonies
  544
  by a free-trader who listened to the pitiful cry that came from India and Ceylon, and the treatment proposed to be meted out by an avowed protectionist and advocate of colonial preference. In 1903 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Croydon, did not refer specially to tea, but he followed the wise policy of his predecessor and left it alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now said that there had been some confusion as to the consumption of tea, and had suggested that if a triennial period were taken it would be found that during the last three years there had been a substantial increase. But was it fair to take the total consumption of tea without having regard to the large increase in population? Surely the figure to be taken was the consumption per head of the population.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is what was dealing with.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that in that case he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman's figures were wrong. As he was informed, the consumption per head in the year 1900 was 6·07 lbs.; in 1901,6·16; in 1902, 6·06; and in 1903,6·03, so that in the two years after the imposition of the increased duty there was a considerable decline. Having regard to the fact that the duty was not at once felt, owing to the large stocks of tea in hand, he submitted that it was not fair to take the whole of the year 1901 as a taxed year. If allowance were made for that fact, it would be found that since the increase of the tax there had been an appreciable reduction in the consumption per head of the population. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that, while it was true that the consumption of tea from Ceylon had largely declined during the last few years, the consumption from India had made an important increase. He was not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that the total; consumption from India and Ceylon combined had not declined. It might be true that in tea from India there had been an increase, but it was certainly not so large as to make up for the decrease of 9,000,000 lbs. from Ceylon. Side by side with that diminution in the consumption of tea from our Colonies there

  545
  was an increase in the importation of China teas, showing that the tendency of an increase of duty was to injure our colonial trade, to reduce the consumption of tea at home, to impair the revenue, and to give a benefit to China teas which the Committee was not in the least degree called upon to confer upon them.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the hon. Member had suggested that, in dealing with taxation last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hardly justified in taking off so large an amount from the direct taxpayer as compared with the amount taken off the indirect taxpayer. Without going into the figures, his recollection was very clear that, so far from dealing unfairly with the payers of indirect taxation, the Budget provided for taking off only the amount of direct taxation to which the direct taxpayers were entitled, and that the amounts taken off the two classes of taxpayers were in direct relation the one to the other. The hon. Member had also said that the income-tax payer was always the first called upon to provide money for war purposes. Whether that was the case or not, the direct taxpayer was called upon during the progress of the war for a much larger proportion of the taxes that were required than the indirect taxpayer was called upon to pay. The best criterion for judging of the position of the direct and indirect taxpayer was to examine what was the proportion of taxation paid by each class before the war and after the Budget of last year. He had not the figures before him, but he was satisfied he was correct in saying that the indirect taxpayer was in a better position as compared with the direct taxpayer after the Budget of last year than he was at the commencement of the war. It was quite true that the amount taken off direct taxation was much larger than the amount taken off indirect taxation because the amount paid during the war by the direct taxpayer was far in excess of the amount paid by the indirect taxpayer.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there was the coaltax.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid they were talking about the burden on the taxpayer, and if the coal tax had had any effect, at all on the taxpayers of the country, it had been rather to tend to a decrease in the price of that article than to increase it. It would therefore be an act of folly on the part of any financier to regard the coal tax as an element entering into a consideration of the burden falling on the direct and the indirect taxpayers. The Chancellor of the Exechequer had, in his view, pursued exactly the right course in putting practically an equal burden upon both classes of taxpayers. He had always contended after the remission of taxation last year that in any future remission of taxation the direct taxpayer had as strong a claim as the indirect taxpayer. With regard to what the right hon. Gentlemen had said as to the increase of 2d. in the tea duty not having decreased the consumption of that article, that was very easily understood. He had to look into the question of tea at the time of the preparation of the last Budget, and he found that, although there had been an additional duty of 2d. put upon tea, the wholesale price of tea had only gone up by one half-penny per pound. This was due to the fact that there had been an enormous development of the tea industry and an increase in the production, and consequently the prices obtained by the growers in India and Ceylon had fallen. It did not follow, however, that this additional burden now being imposed would not have the effect of decreasing the consumption of tea, and if it had that effect it would injure the growers both in China, India, and Ceylon. He regretted that his right hon. friend had felt bound to raise the additional sum required from indirect taxation by putting an increased duty on tea, but he was not disposed to find fault with him for so doing. He had no doubt his right hon. friend very carefully examined all the sources of taxation, and that it was only but that was after this careful examination that he rejected the idea of putting a considerable, additional amount of taxation on tobacco. Having regard to the way in which the tobacco duty was coming in, he thought it might have been better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have got all the money he wanted out of tobacco, but he was not at all sure that he could have

  547
  done that without running the risk of losing revenue by a decreased consumption. No doubt his right hon. friend carefully investigated that matter before he came to the conclusion to adopt the taxation of tea, and he did not propose to find any fault with the course he had adopted.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not want to enter into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman as to the Budget of last year, but he would like to refer to what he had said about coal. Surely coal must be regarded as indirect taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon contended that the foreign importer paid some portion of the coal tax, but the Opposition held that that was a perfectly absurd proposition. He contended that the miner as well as the coal-owner was paying a share of this tax, and it must be put amongst the indirect taxes. Their complaint was that the indirect taxpayers were, by this Budget, put in exactly the same position as they were in at the worst period of the war, and that this was differentiating against the poor in favour of the rich. The poor man was left in exactly the same position as he was during the war. He had not received any benefit from the war, but those who had paid income-tax had a chance of receiving something back from Chinese and cheap labour, and consequently they ought to bear their fair share. This was just the time to put up the income-tax, because shares in South Africa were going up in the market. This was just the time when the direct taxpayer ought to be taxed, but the working man, instead of being benefited by cheap labour, was just the man who was being hit very hard by it. In those very carefully worked out figures quoted by his hon. friend, he had shown that a working man contributed in indirect taxation a sum amounting to something like one week's wages a year more than he contributed five years ago. That was a very serious matter, and it was time they considered it; and instead of increasing this form of taxation they ought to be seriously considering: how they could decrease it. He remembered an hon. Member speaking from that Bench, from which all hopeless causes were pleaded, proposing to wipe off all
  548
  taxation upon tea. Now they were considering a proposal to increase it to 8d., thus putting the tea tax at a figure at which it had not been for forty years. That fact ought to make the Committee-pause before proceeding with this Budget.
  The increase in indirect taxation hit two very worthy classes who could very ill afford to bear increased taxation at this or any other time. It first of all hit the working classes of this country. The additional duty on tea would mean that the working classes would have to drink an inferior quality of tea, and, in order to get the most out of it, they would allow it to stew. This Budget, therefore, was a Budget to encourage the stewing of tea. The workman's wife would pay just the same price for tea as before, and the Ceylon and Indian planter would be-hit. The only result of this tax would be that the workman's wife would keep the tea stewing twice as long, and they would drink more tannin. That was what this Budget would do. It was a Budget to promote the consumption of tannin by the working men of this country, and therefore there would be more indigestion. There had recently been a meeting of Ceylon planters in the City, and at that meeting it was stated that one result of the increase in the tea duty would be a large increase in the consumption of a very cheap quality of China tea, A class that would be hit very hard were the Ceylon tea planters. They were a class who deserved a great deal of encouragement. It seemed to be assumed by hon. Members on the other side that they had a monopoly of sympathy with colonial trade. Not at all. On the Opposition side of the House they were in favour of encouraging colonial trade in every way legitimate, and they considered that this was one of them. Ceylon had made great efforts during the last few years in order to develop its tea industries. It had made an exceedingly plucky fight. What hid been done during the last three or four years? This Government by increasing the duty on tea had struck a very hard blow at the Ceylon tea planters. An hon. Member on the other side seemed to think that they were not involved in it. They had a great meeting the other day, and they began by saying that it was for the enlightenment of the

  549
  Government. A perfectly hopeless task. They went on to say that during the last three or four years there had been no increase in their business. They said that the increase of the tea duty had practically put a stop to the development of Celyon tea planting. They said that during the war they raised no objection. Why? Because they believed that they were giving their contribution to what they considered a great Imperial cause. He believed they also contributed a large force to go out to South Africa. But they felt that when the war was over they were entitled to get their share of the remission of taxation which was their due as well as the due of every other man in the Empire, and they did not get it. On the contrary, instead of getting a remission the duty on tea was increased, and increased by a Government that believed in colonial preference. The Secretary to the Local Government Board, speaking on Saturday night said this was a Government of disappointments. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Nobody who knew the Government could be disappointed at anything they did. The proposal to increase the tea duty was a thing that required a good deal of explanation. It was a proposal to increase the tax on a colonial product. It was increasing the duty on a very important colonial industry, and he ventured to say that while they were doing that they were hitting hard a very deserving class in this country.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a tax which everybody; ought to bear. He said that every class of the community ought to bear a share of the burden of taxation. Perfectly right, and if the working class encouraged war he was one of those who believed that they ought to bear a share of the burdens of that war. War ought not to be made easy for any class. But let them bear only a fair share. Contrast this with the indulgence shown to the gentlemen who really rushed the country into war—the mining magnates—in their financial transactions. When they were; hard pressed in South Africa the £10,000,000 were remitted. Their fair share of the burden was not imposed upon them. But when it came to the question of the working classes, not
  550
  merely was their taxation not remitted, it was put up; and when there was a claim put forward on their behalf that they should receive their share of remission the Government said, "Oh, you! clamoured for the war, you, therefore, ought to pay your share of the burden," So did the others—and not only that, it was they who engineered it. The working classes went into it out of pure motives of patriotism, and that was more than could be said for the other gentlemen whose £10,000,000 had been remitted. He was not sure whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument about the ease of the tax was one that ought to commend itself. It was the ease of that indirect taxation that had conduced to the enormous extravagance of the country, and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who really wanted to warn the people as to where they were rushing to would not want to seek out methods of easy taxation. The death duties had increased enormously the revenue of the country, and an extravagant Government, instead of using those duties for the purpose of promoting some beneficial reforms, used them to increase extravagance on military armaments and military expeditions. He would be perfectly ready, therefore, to increase the burden of direct taxation. Let every man know what he was doing. If he wanted war let him pay for it and know that he was paying for it, and he believed that the result would be to curtail the expenditure of the country and make the people of the country more interested in economy than they were at present.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he was glad to hear the lion. Gentleman opposite state his opinion that every class that was responsible for a war ought to bear its contribution towards it. The hon. Member had compared the present Budget proposals with the revenue raised at the height of the war, and said the direct taxpayer had been relieved. But the only fair comparison was with the period before the war, and as compared with that period, if the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon were correct, the proportion had certainly not been altered in favour of the direct taxpayer. With the general criticism that if the expenditure of the

  551
  Government were not extravagant this tax would not be necessary, he was largely in sympathy, but he noticed that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to dissociate themselves with criticism of expenditure on the Navy. Surely, necessary or not—and he believed it to be necessary—there was no Department where the increase of expenditure had been more rapid than in that of the Navy, and if it was thought that the whole scheme of national finance was on an extravagant scale, no chapter of the Budget ought to escape rigorous examination. The belief in the necessity of a paramount Navy was not inconsistent with the belief that we did not get full value for our money. Theoretically, the standard of our Navy was that it should be equal to the navies of any two Powers, but that standard had been very largely exceeded. Although he did not desire to prejudge the result, and although he was a fervent believer in the paramount necessity of maintaining an efficient Navy, he wanted the expenditure to be brought under rigorous examination. It appeared to him that the general expenditure of the country could not very well be criticised in this debate. It did not seem to be germane to the proposal before the Committee, nor did he think that the result of criticism of that kind on such an occasion a: the present was likely to be very productive of practical reductions. And if it were assumed for a moment that the expenditure which had been authorisedby this House and the country was necessary, then no criticism of the present proposal appeared to him to be valid unless some more efficient substitute could be suggested. He had listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but there was no general consensus of opinion in favour of a tax to substitute for the tea tax. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have a general tax on raw materials, they were not in favour of a general tax on luxuries, there was no agreement as to an increased duty on tobacco instead of tea. Therefore he was not disposed to vote against the Government proposal, because he believed that the revenue already fell short of the requirements of the country. He had stated on previous occasions that the revenue should be adequate, not only to
  552
  pay all expenditure—both charges on revenue and capital—but that further provision should be made for the Sinking Fund than in any one of the last three years. In the absence of any definite proposal to substitute another tax for that on tea, he adhered to the belief that this proposed increase of the tea duty was justifiable and that it was necessary.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money and was bound to get it, and the right hon. Gentleman thought he could get it with least trouble by planting taxes on those who were already in the habit of paying most into the Exchequer. The increased duty on tea they were now asked to pay was due to the increased expenditure of the country. It was said that the people of this country justified that expenditure. They, in that quarter of the House, had not been very heartily in favour of those military expeditions which had been undertaken by the Government. With his colleagues he was grateful to hear the statement made by the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, who had consistently opposed many of the expeditions which had rendered necessary this huge expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that this tax would tell very seriously against Ireland; and once again he had given an example of his friendship for Ireland. The hon. Member for Islington had likewise brought before the Committee how heavily this tax would bear upon Ireland; and the right hon. Member for Cambridge University had invited hon. Members below the Gangway and the Labour Members on that side of the House to protest against it. It should be remembered that the labouring classes in the country had already protested against the increased tax. Ireland was struck more by it than any other portion of the United Kingdom for two reasons. First, because she was unable to bear more taxation than at present, being overtaxed already to the extent of £3,000,000 a year more than she should be; and, second, because it would press more heavily on Ireland than on England and Scotland, inasmuch as more tea was consumed in Ireland than in England or Scotland in proportion to the population. The Prime Minister on more than one occasion had

  553
  said that he was opposed to a tax on food. It might be alleged that tea was not a food, but in the West of Ireland it was looked upon as a food. In fact, with bread, it was almost all the food the peasantry had. To raise the duty from 6d. to 8d. was a very serious matter; how serious would only be known when they had the results at the end of the financial year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer that afternoon admitted that this tax was going to bear especially on the masses of the people. Just imagine the position when a man went into a shop to buy a pound of tea and found that he had to pay 8d. for the tea and 8d. duty for those military expeditions of which they had heard so much that afternoon! That was a serious thing for a man earning 1s. a day and whose children were denied all the little luxuries of life.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the money would be expended amongst the people in the dockyards and those engaged on public works. But in Ireland they would not rejoice at that, because there was no such expenditure there. No warships were built in Ireland, although there was one small dockyard, and there was some expenditure on the salaries of officials who only oppressed and repressed the people. They were told that the people of this country wanted the South African War and that they must pay for it. It was possible that England wanted the war, but it could not be said that Ireland wanted it, and was it fair that the Irish people should be called upon to pay the expenditure incurred there? He admitted that the reason for the Irish Members opposing the South African expenditure was the still higher reason that they hated the destruction of the liberties of two free Republics. They had to realise the fact that this tax which the Irish peasants would have to pay was equivalent to an income-tax of 2s. in the £1. An appeal had been made to certain hon. Gentlemen and to others who happened to be engaged in the wholesale tea trade to reduce their profits. Why not first ask Ministers to reduce their salaries? Why should not the Attorney-General, who received £20,000 last year, be asked to reduce his income and save expenditure. The position for the representatives of Ireland was almost hopeless. They made their appeal in this House and it was not heard. The Irish people, were
  554
  leaving their country year by year; the country was taxed to the extent of £3,000,000 more than it ought to be and there was no redress. Yet the Irish people were asked to bless the Union, because they were given a Friday afternoon on which to discuss two Irish subjects. He would not enter into the question as to the injury this tax would do Ceylon. His business was to enter a protest, as an Irish Member, against it, because tea, in his judgment, was an article which ought not to be taxed; and also because the tax fell very severely on his country; and further because he had no sympathy with the expeditions for which the money that would be derived from the tax was required.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid that the inability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give to the House any figures showing the proportionate share of taxation paid by the working classes led him to think that another department of State was wanted, and that was an intelligence department. It was bewildering to think that a Government department could not get out figures which could easily be produced in any well-conducted business establishment. Surely that was a matter to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might devote some attention. His hon. friend the Member for the Cleveland Division had estimated that the amount paid by the working classes was equivalent to 1s. 7d. in the £ of the wages earned. His hon. friend, however, fixed the average wages at 35s. What would happen when the wages were only 25s., 20s., 18s., or 16s.? The proportion would then increase in a terrible ratio, because all the wages would be spent on the necessaries of life. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to pay attention to this matter: and that when another Budget was introduced they might be informed what was the proportion that each class was going to contribute. It appeared to him that the workman was the bottom dog all the time. Of course, direct taxation fell ultimately on the consumer. It could be proved that 20s. six years ago was only equivalent to 18s. at present. He had complaints coming directly to him; and he had inquired into the subject, and found that, taking an average co-operative society or private shopkeeper, there was 2s. in the £ increase in the price

  555
  of commodities during the last five or six years. The Government seemed to have an idea that the South African War enabled them to do anything they liked. That was an entirely wrong impression. He happened to be in close connection with the working classes; and he declared that many of them did not know anything about the merits or demerits of the war. The fact that there were a number of acquaintances and relatives going to the war made them favour it; and when any ordinary man uttered a word against it "pro-Boer" was flung in his face. When the country voted for the present Government in 1900 did they give them power to impose this additional taxation? Under this tax the rich man who paid 4s. or 5s. per pound for his tea would only pay 2d., whereas the poor man who only paid 1s. or 1s 6d. per pound for his tea would also have to pay 2d. The proportion of taxation was altogether out of reason; and out of all proportion to the amount spent on the articles taxed. He had heard an hon. Gentleman opposite on another occasion criticise the expenditure on the Navy and say the Estimates this year were £9,000,000 more than what was required for a two-Power standard. It came to this, that the responsible Government of this country and its influential supporters differed as to the amount that was required to bring up the Navy to a two-Power standard and the country had to pay that £9,000,000 while the Government were figuring out whether it was wanted or not. As a working man he protested against this taxation and urged the Committee not to agree to the extra twopence on tea until they knew what money was actually required. If the Government insisted upon having the money, let them come forward with another tax that would not bear so harshly on the people.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINappealed to the Committee, now that this Amendment had been under discussion for some hours, to come to an early decision upon it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that the Amendment raised the whole question of direct and indirect taxation, and said that under the circumstances, and having regard to the importance of the discussion, he did not think the right
  556
  hon. Gentleman ought to ask the Committee to come to a nasty conclusion.
  MR. LABOUCHEEEexpressed his concurrence with the view of the hon. Member for Exeter that before taxation was raised up to this point the Committee ought to be certain that there was no wastage. The hon. Member regarded with some dread any reduction of naval expenditure, but looking at what had taken place with regard to the Army in recent years there could be little doubt but that there was considerable wastage in both services. The hon. Member for Exeter then went on to say he was prepared to vote against the tax upon tea being raised because he did not think tea was a desirable article to tax, if it could be pointed out to him in what manner the money could be raised by any other means. It was well known that when a tax was brought forward in a Finance Bill they could not in Committee introduce another tax in its place. He never could understand the ruling because Sir Erskine May, who was considered a very good authority on Parliamentary procedure, ruled the reverse. But if the Government had any difficulty in selecting a tax he would point out that there were many which were more fair to the poor than those in the present scheme. They might have a tax on licences, which were a monopoly. A tax could be raised in order to equalise the monopoly possessed by brewers, which would be no injustice to the brewers, and which would exceed in amount the revenue raised on tea. Then there was the progressive income-tax, which he would prefer. There was still another tax which either the Government or the locality might levy on land values, which would yield the £10,000,000 they got now from the people. Then there were the Transvaal magnates who owned so much and who had underwritten a large loan. Why did we not get that? Why should we tax the teapot of every wretched old woman in the country and let off these wealthy magnates of the Transvaal? The hon. Member for Droitwich had told the Committee that this was a fair tax because the wholesale vendor made such enormous profits that he was the proper person to pay this tax. But that was hardly so; he was told by a wholesale

  557
  vendor that if he bought a tea at 6½d.or lb. he would add to that the duty of 8d. and he would add another half-penny to make it level, that that would bring the price up to 1s. 3d., and that he would sell it at 1s. 4d., and that a tea costing 1s. 8d. with the duty added he would sell for 2s. It was absurd to suppose that another tax of 2d. could be put on tea and that it would not be paid by the consumer. It was perfectly certain that when such a tax was put on it must be paid by the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman was a banker. How would he apply this doctrine to the banking business? A banker made a great deal more per cent, on his capital than the importer of tea. This opened a large vista of taxation if we were to tax people according to their capital, and bankers would find such a tax press very hardly on themselves.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in the scheme which he had placed before the country, suggested that taxation would be equalised by taking the tax oil tea because it was necessary that a person must take a certain amount of bread and tea, and if he had tea cheaper he would eat less bread. No doubt every person had to take a certain amount of liquor to keep going. Those who drank a quantity of tea did not drink so much beer, and if they taxed tea very highly the tendency would be for people to drink more beer instead of tea. Therefore he was opposed altogether to this kind of taxation. He did not wish to exaggerate, but surely everybody knew that there were a number of poor old women whose only happiness in life was a cup of tea, and yet it was now proposed to raise the price of tea to these poor people with their miserable pittances. If all this money had to be raised they ought to see if it could not be raised in a more legitimate way. When this tax was put on it was said that it was only a war tax and that it would be taken off after the war was over, but instead of doing this the Government had doubled the tax. Therefore the Government had not carried out their pledge in regard to this tea duty. Possibly this tax would not be necessity at all, because he gathered from the Secretary of State for War that hi had got some scheme for the reorganisation of the Army which would
  558
  effect a very great economy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken account of that economy in his Budget. Consequently it was possible that they would not require this extra money from the tea duty. When the Government had agreed amongst themselves and really settled what the scheme was to be, he was perfectly certain that they would stand to the statement tint there must be a reduction in Army expenditure. That fact went to show that this tax was not necessary. Tin Government appeared to be levying this tax, overlooking the fact that a very great amount of tea came from India and Ceylon. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had been preaching the doctrine of retaliation. He wished to know how the Secretary of State for India was going to treat this matter? If the right hon. Gentleman did justice to India upon this question, he would tell his colleagues in the Cabinet that if they put an extra tax upon Indian tea he would have to advise the Indian Government to retaliate by placing a tax upon cotton goods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged them to bring this debate to an end, but he thought hon. Members had every reason to look with the greatest suspicion in matters of finance to the proposals of the present Government, and they ought to examine exhaustively every Bill which they brought in. The Finance Bill was one of the most important Bills of the session, and it was practically the only one, unless they managed to get through their odious Licensing Bill. And yet, although they had only discussed briefly one of the most important proposals in this Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he thought the discussion had gone on long enough. He really believed that the right hon. Gentleman was capable of carrying things so far as to get up and move the closure. If he did, then the country would remember that this tax upon tea had been forced through the House of Commons by the closure.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he welcomed the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had not shut the door on economy in the future. The country was now looking forward to a very great

  559
  reduction in our present gigantic expenditure. He had been comparing the taxation on tea in various countries, and he found that in this country the tax was rapidly mounting up and would soon reach the sum imposed by the most highly protected State on the Continent. Denmark, instead of 8d. on tea was only charged 4d., the tax in Germany was only 5½d., and in Spain, it was equal to 6½d. in the lb. The United States was an enormous consumer of tea, with its population of 77,000,000, and there the commodity was admitted absolutely free from taxation, whilst our own people, who were probably the greatest tea producers in the world, were suggesting to other countries that tea was a proper article to levy taxation upon. This was what they had come to after nine years of this patriotic Government, whose object was to increase the production of the Colonies and bind them closer to the Empire. They were told that this tax was a legacy from the war, but for which it would not have been increased from 4d. to 8d, but he noticed that although one of the objects of the war was to consolidate the Empire, Canada was not taxed at all, and the burden was to fall on the poorest of the poor in this country. In Australia there was no tax on tea, whilst in New Zealand it was only 2d., and was it fair and reasonable that this country should bear the whole burden of taxation to maintain mighty armaments necessary to protect the Empire, whilst the tea drinkers of the Colonies were allowed to go scot free. The burdens of Empire ought to be distributed more reasonably all over the Empire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that this was a tax upon a necessary of life, and he asked hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was right, after nine years of the most perfect Unionist Government the country could be placed under, to double the tax upon one of the necessaries of life.
  If our self-governing Colonies were producers of tea this tax would not have been imposed. The House would doubtless remember than when it was proposed to tax colonial wines there arose immediately a great outcry from our Colonies supplying them, and he was
  560
  greatly surprised, having regard to the millions of capital invested in the tea plantations of India and Ceylon, that the Secretary for India was not present in his place to protest against the proposed additional taxation. The effect of the existing tax had been to bring into this country cheap, common China tea. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that this tax would fall upon the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman might take a leaf out of his distinguished relative's book, and endeavour to place the tax upon the foreigner rather than the consumer. He protested against the taxation of the necessaries of life being increased in times of peace, and he thought some other sources of revenue should be found. He was in favour of taxing the foreigner if they could do it, but the right hon. Gentleman was proposing a tax which he admitted would fall upon the consumers, and upon the poorest class of the community. If his hon. friend pressed his Amendment to a division he should support him.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid it had been asserted that this tax did not fall altogether upon the consumer, and that part of it fell upon the producer. He had no doubt that they would hear a great deal more about that argument before this question was settled. He could not see how it was possible to impose a tax of £2,000,000 upon an industry without hurting to some extent every person engaged in it. There would undoubtedly be a reduction in the consumption, and there would be a depreciation in the quality of the tea consumed. At the present time, but for this miserable Tibet expedition, they might have said that they were at peace with the world, and they could then have set their hands to reducing their great armaments, both military and naval, because he was of opinion that the standard set up for the Navy was too high.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  EAST AFRICA (ALIEX SETTLEMENT).
  Adjournment (under Standing Order No. 10).
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he claimed on this subject to have almost special knowledge with regard to land settlement—and also with regard to its effect on the native populations. In his early days in New Zealand he had witnessed two important native risings in the course of which many unfortunate people lost their lives. All these things arose out of the inability of the native mind to understand our dealing and our way of utilising land. They did not understand in any degree whatever that simply for a few blankets or beads, or some trifle of that sort, or by fixing their names to a document they were parting with land over which they and their ancestors before them had roamed at will. In the colony, with which he was familiar, we never lived on anything approaching amicable terms with the natives until we fully recognised all the rights and privileges they had with regard to the land. Let hon. Members imagine if they could a large tract of land reaching from the Indian Ocean to the Albert Edward and Albert Lakes on the West, a country larger than France, bounded on the East by the Indian Ocean, on the West by the Albert Edward and Albert Lakes, on the South by the German boundary, and on the North by the Soudan and Abyssinia; a country of great possibilities; a country we owed to the great men who had gone before us, and who had made this country what it was, not with any idea of benefiting themselves by forming land syndicates and obtaining concessions, but for the benefit of the native population. It was in their names as well as his own that he ventured to address the House on this subject. In this country we had spent millions of money and thousands of valuable lives. Their idea was that this great territory was acquired for the benefit of humanity and of those who had from time to time been ruined by slave raids. One of the chief reasons for making the Uganda Railway was that the slave trade might be stopped, and it had been stopped. Through that railway we had acquired
  562
  the country through which that railway passed, 570 miles in length. Every official in the country admitted the great future of that country. We sent over our best sons who lived under great disadvantages, with only a few black soldiers to protect them, yet such was the confidence with which they inspired the natives that he had seen them walking with only a stick in their hands among the native kraals, among men fully armed with all the weapons of their country. It. was not for us here to enhance their difficulties and render their lives more insecure than they were at the present time. The natives, as a rule, were peaceful in their habits and travelled considerable distances with their flocks and herds, and the country was held for us by a few settlers whose safety depended on the fact that they represented British justice and order. But last year he had found the country seething with indignation at the proposition to make these settlements of Russian and Roumanian Jews. To his Questions on this subject he had received nothing but evasive answers. The noble Lord had refused to say where the settlement was to be.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIBS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.)said the conditions of the lease were not decided.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that made the matter worse. He was not there to attack this Jewish settlement, or the Jews in particular. There was not a Member of the House who had not many friends among the Jews. What everybody in East Africa wished to know was, at whose instigation this thing was started; what was going to be made out of it; and who was its author? But no one had been able to obtain the slightest information. They attributed it not to the noble Lord or the Foreign Office, but to the late Colonial Secretary the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who made a hurried tour in this country, and spoke of smiling homesteads and waving cornfields, and the happy tons and daughters of the British race who would settle there, but who apparently proposed finally to make over the whole country to a self-governing settlement of foreign

  563
  Jews. If the officials of the Government in East Africa had bean consulted, he should have bean the last to have brought this matter before the House, but as he understood they had not, he had been compelled to do so, because he was sure that if the noble Lord had had any official communications to place before the House he would have done so. If the noble Lord had appointed a small Committee of the House to have inquired into the whole matter that would have set, to some extent, the minds of hon. Members at rest. The noble Lord now admitted that he had read some remonstrances, but he might have said, with regard to the resignation of Sir Charles Eliot, whether the statement of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was correct. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had said in this House that Sir Charles Eliot had resigned, and if that was true the position was rendered much more difficult. To establish a colony of aliens whose thoughts and whose civilisation were not ours, and whose language was not ours, was a cruel wrong to inflict on this country. The difficulty of administration would be increased a thousand-fold if the suggestion of the noble Lord and the Foreign Office was adopted. How were our representatives to carry on and retain the confidence of the natives and control so many thousands of people as the noble Lord had in his mind if his idea were carried out. When the Return granted last year showing the number of concessions granted was laid on the Table of the House this concession was not among them, it was not then completed, but nothing could have been easier than to have started in a small way. If twenty or thirty people had been sent out and a little land given to them on which to make the experiment, a great deal of the difficulty would have been avoided, and there would not have been this outcry in East Africa. These hind concessions and land syndicates were the curse of all oar dealings with the natives. That was illustrated by the present state of affairs in German East Africa. There there was a great strife going on owing entirely to the stupidity of allowing concessions to be given without having regard to native rights. All the trouble in the Congo was due to the same
  564
  fact. There were many thousands of Somalis in this protectorate and many thousands of Sudanese, and the peace of East Africa was by no means assured. If the Foreign Office could only forget the stupid blunder that led us into war with the Somalis, and could take the advice of the men who understood the country, we should have little to fear in the future. All these natives were greatly concerned in the welfare of their country, and if this concession was allowed to go through—
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was travelling rather wide of the Motion for adjournment, which was to call attention to a specific matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the danger to the peace of East Africa arising out of the steps now being taken, with the sanction of His Majesty's Government, for the establishment of an alien settlement in East Africa on lands now in the occupation of native populations." He must ask the hon. Member to confine his observations to that.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid it was difficult to express in a few words the object of bringing this matter forward, but the step taken by the Government in making this offer to this Jewish Syndicate constituted a very grave danger to East Africa, and the House was entitled to have some information on the subject. We spent £250,000 on the Uganda Railway and considerably more on the administration and the military forces of that country. This expense would be very largely increased, and we would have to largely reinforce the troops now there if the Government persisted in carrying out this insane and suicidal policy. It was not too late—and that was why he asked leave to move the adjournment of the House—for the noble Lord to appoint a small Committee of the House to take evidence and report on the matter. He for one should be perfectly willing that the noble Lord should appoint a Committee of his own personal friends on the Government side of the House. This was not a Party question in any sense. It was a question on which the honour and good faith of this country were founded. He could not help feeling very strongly indeed on this question. With regard to the question of colonisation, he should only like to say that no

  565
  colony we had would ever dream of allowing such a settlement as this—a settlement of persons not speaking our own language, nor any of the dialects of the native population, and ignorant also of the native ways of living. Such an empire within our Empire was nothing short of suicidal madness. [An HON. MEMBER: What is the settlement?] He did not know what the settlement was. That was what he wanted to know. The Government of this country ought to be above suspicion, and he regretted to say that on this, as on many other matters, their conduct had given rise to, among others, the question tow far the doctrines of Tammany had got hold of them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Cathcart Wason.)
  MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid the hon. Member had drawn a tragic picture of the results which he thought were going to follow upon what was, so far as he could understand, a wholly imaginary evil. He had taken great interest for various reasons in matters concerning the Jewish community, and what he understood to have happened was really this. Some years ago—he did not know from whom it emanated—an offer was made to the Jewish community of certain lands in East Africa, and that offer was first made public at a congress at Basle. It was there said that an offer of land for a settlement in East Africa for Jews from all the countries of Europe had been made by the British Government. There was great division of opinion on the merits of the proposal. The whole of the Jewish community recognised the generosity of the Government in making it, but a certain section of the congress—he believed all the Russians—withdrew as a protest against this proposal being taken up, and their argument was that to carry through this policy, and to establish this colony, would divert the funds and the energies of the great Zionist movement from their original object, which was of course Palestine, to East Africa, and that their funds and energies would not suffice to carry out both these objects. They thought that on the whole it would not be wise or possible to carry it through. On
  566
  the other hand another section, headed by Mr. Israel Zangwill, a distinguished Jew and authority on the subject, thought that both objects might be carried out, and that the Zionist ideal so long held in Jewish minds could be maintained. These two sections came together so far I as, he believed, to appoint a committee, to inquire into the subject. The committee were to send three members East Africa to look into matters there, to see what the nature of the country was, and to inquire whether there was any hope of the project being carried to a successful conclusion. While appreciating the offer of the Government, many Jews held the opinion that the expenses attaching to sending out families in any considerable number would be soenormous, and the difficulties of settling there so great, as to be almost insuperable. It must be remembered that the Jewish people were not agriculturists. Years of confinement in towns in all parts of Europe had taken away their agricultural abilities to a great extent, and the sending of them out to East Africa was thought in many quarters to be an experiment of very doubtful advantage. Be that as it might the committee had gone out to inquire, he did not know whether they had returned, but they had certainly never reported.
  The hon. Member talked of a Jewish syndicate. He did not believe the question of any syndicate entered into the matter at all. It was a matter concerning the welfare of the Jewish people throughout the world. The hon. Member also talked about the honour and good faith of this country, the great size of the territory in East Africa, its great possibilities, and of its having been acquired for the benefit of humanity. He could not see that they were going away from these objects. Certainly it was for the benefit of humanity if they could do something at all events to provide a home for these people. Before anything had been done and before a single Jew had gone to that country, it was surely rather strong to say that East Africa was seething with discontent at the mere proposals which had been made. It was extremely doubtful whether any Jewish families could go there at all. If beginnings were ever made, they must be small, and the transport of hundreds of thousands of these people as the hon. Gentleman had suggested and the settling

  567
  of them down in that part of the world, was a fairy tale. It was perfectly ludicrous to think that it could be done. It could only be accomplished by sending a few families at a time, and to talk of disturbance and the wrecking of the honour of the British Empire was, it seemed to him, a ridiculous exaggeration. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were scarcely consistent in protesting against this proposal in view of their action in connection with the Aliens Bill. Between 80,000 and 100,000 Jews came into East London, and the Government proposed not to exclude these people but merely to weed out the good from the bad. If this colony were ever established, the Jewish community themselves would be the first to take precautions that none but desirables should go there. The difficulties in connection with the proposal to send Jews to East Africa were very great, and to suppose that the country was being overrun in the way foreshadowed by the hon. Gentleman was quite beside the mark. It would be half a century before anything in the nature of a colony such as the hon. Gentleman had foreshadowed could be established. He hoped these words would set at rest what he believed to be a groundless fear.
  MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Ellatid)said he agreed with the hon. Member for Stepney that the proposal they were discussing had a great deal to be said for it. It appeared to him to be one that either the Jew hater or the Jew lover might approve of. The Jew hater might hope that many would go and settle in East Africa, and the Jew lover would naturally approve of a scheme by which a large number of that community might find an abiding place there. There was another reason why at the present moment they ought to welcome this proposal. It was a proof, and it was calculated to reassure the world, that the British Government was not affected by the wave of anti-Semitism which was passing over Europe. It was a good thing to hear the hon. Member for Stepney say something for a scheme like this, and also say that those in favour of the Aliens Bill were not actuated in any way by Anti-Semitic feeling. There was one argument used by the mover of the Motion which he could not
  568
  understand. He said that the natives would seriously object to this incursion into their territory. He did not know why they should object more to Jews than to Christians. He should have thought if a community of that kind could be obtained that it was an excellent way of developing that part of East Africa which he understood from reliable information contained extremely few natives. The rights of the natives to the possession of land might very well be safeguarded by any arrangement which was come to. The proposal had not been discussed in the House so far as he was aware, and he thought they were entitled to hear what the Government had to say upon it. He thought the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs might at least reassure the House on the questions which had been raised by his hon. friend with regard to the rights of natives. If it was true that Sir Charles Eliot had resigned his position owing to the circumstances connected with this proposed grant, he thought it was certainly an action of which the Government ought to give some account. As far as he understood the subject with the meagre information before him, he was afraid that he could not support the Motion.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEsaid the question before the House was one which did not admit of definition in law or logic. It came to this, virtually, that it was proposed to alienate with the sanction of the Imperial Parliament a great tract of territory to an alien race. He wished to make himself perfectly well understood. He should be the last to deny the immense contribution to civilisation, science, and art for which we were indebted to the Hebrew race, but at the same time let them never forget that a Jew was a Jew all the world over. Wherever they went the Jews remained a distinct race; and he believed that the institution of a Jewish community in East Africa, or anywhere else, would mean trouble in the near future. He believed that the Jewish race, for one reason or another, had been at the bottom of all our troubles in South Africa, and that they owned great English newspapers as absolutely as if those newspapers were edited by a Rabbi and printed in a synagogue. It was against the public

  569
  interest of this country to do anything to strengthen the forces of Judaism as against Christianity, or even, he would say boldly, as against paganism. Any man who knew France or Frenchmen knew perfectly well that at the bottom of the Dreyfus affair, and in the hearts of many men who only half believed in Dreyfus, there was a determination to put down and smash Jewish influence French politics and finance. He thought this proposal in regard to the settlement of Jews in East Africa was monstrous, extravagant, and unconstitutional, and opposed not only to the best interests of Christendom, but of civilisation at large. He should certainly vote against it as being an infraction of the rights and authority of Parliament.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think I ought to say before the debate proceeds further that the question before the House is not whether or not it is desirable that a Jwish colony should exist in East Africa. I should never have granted leave to move the adjournment of the House had I thought that that was the question to be discussed. I understood from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion that the Government were taking some definite steps now for the purpose of immediately carrying out the policy of planting a colony there, and that they were at the same time excluding natives from territory for that purpose. That is the only matter for discussion by the House. General questions about the Jewish race cannot be discussed now.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he would endeavour not to discuss the general question, but confine himself to the question of East Africa. The mover of the Motion had based his remarks entirely upon hearsay evidence. The whole case had been based on what someone had told or written to the hon. Member, or what someone saw in a newspaper. They had been told that the Governor of British East Africa had resigned or was resigning because he was opposed to this settlement by the Jews. He himself did not believe that the Governor had resigned on that ground, and he had just as good a right to believe that as the mover of the Motion had to believe otherwise, for he had not given one tittle of evidence in support of the statement. [An HON.
  570
  MEMBER: The Government have al the evidence.] He had personally no doubt that the representative of the Foreign Office would make the House understand the simple facts of the case. Anyone who knew business life knew that a board of directors would not disclose all the terms of an agreement while negotiations were in progress. That would only tend to hamper the negotiations. Might he suggest that the Government had a plan for the settlement of East Africa by alien Jews and that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the question in full when the scheme was ready for discussion. The natives had been brought into the question. Were the rights of the natives to be invaded? [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] His hon. friend knew nothing of the scheme, and, therefore, he could not say that the rights of the natives were to be invaded. The Motion was a very frivolous proceeding. Great care would be taken that the land was not handed over for ever, but that it should be secured eventually for those who would settle the land in the interests of British domination. The hon. Member opposite had spoken about people of various languages coming into the country. Was that a new thing in the settlement of the Colonies of this Empire? Had there not gone into Canada Norwegians, Swedes, French,Germans, Russians. Poles, Jews—people of all classes, and all creeds, but had this House ever entered a protest againt the settlement of a British Colony by people of various creeds and races?
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEsaid that his point was that this was a people of one nationality speaking different languages.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that that was hair-splitting. He wished once more to make a protest against the Motion for an object so frivolous in its nature and so objectless, on a statement based upon information which had no more authority than a conversation, he presumed, with officials in East Africa. He did not imagine that officials always were the best judges as to what was good for the settlement of the country. [OPPOSITION ironical cries of "Hear, hear."]

  571
  He presumed the House understood him to mean subordinate permanent officials in the colony. [OPPOSITION laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed, but he ventured to say that they had been the first in the House to criticise in the strongest manner the opinions of subordinate officials, and to claim that the Front Bench, representing the country, were the final authority. He looked with confidence to the statement to be made by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
  EARL PERCYsaid he thought this was the most extraordinary debate to which in his brief experience he had ever listened. He had heard many Motions for adjournment described as an abuse of the forms of the House. He would not characterise this Motion in those terms, but it was avowedly based on an hypothesis, and an hypothesis which, as a matter of fact, had no foundation whatever. The hon. Member had a perfect right to object to a grant of land in East Africa to a Jewish syndicate and it was open to him to raise the question by moving the reduction of the Secretary of State's salary when they came to deal with the Protectorate Estimates; but he had involved the question of a grant of land to the Jews with a question of interference with the rights of natives in East Africa, which had no relevancy to the subject at all. The hon. Member seemed to think that he had treated him cavalierly in his replies to Questions on this subject. He was quite innocent of any such design. The hon. Member had first asked him what were the conditions of the alienation of land to an alien race in East Africa. He replied that there was no question whatever of an alienation of land, and that the conditions of the lease were still under the consideration of the Secretary of State and, therefore, he could not possibly make the conditions public. The hon. Member had repeated the Question since, and on every occasion had repeated it in the form "What are the conditions of the alienation of land" The hon. Member also asked him whether he had received remonstrances from the settlers. There were several remonstrances which were published last year, but they were based on the same misconception. They had never contemplated any alienation, and he did not see what other answer he could give the hon. Member.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the noble Lord might have said where the land was and what was its extent, instead of evading every Question on the subject.
  EARL PERCYsaid surely before the hon. Member moved the adjournment of the House he might at least have asked the categorical Questions whether he could inform him of the whereabouts of the land, whether there were any natives upon it, and whether their rights were likely to be affected.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he had done so repeatedly.
  EARL PERCYsaid the hon. Member's recollection did not coincide with his own. What were the facts of the case? In July of last year a representative of the Jewish Colonial Trust, representing at any rate one section of the Zionist movement, came to the Foreign Office and asked Lord Lansdowne whether he would be prepared favourably to consider the lease of a considerable area of land in East Africa, which they preferred should be near the railway, for the purposes of a Jewish colonial settlement. At that time there was a great dearth of applications from settlers for land in East Africa. It had been stated over and over again in debate on the financial position of the Protectorates that if they were ever to pay their way and if this country was ever to get back anything like value for the vast sums which had been expended upon those territories, the first requisite was to attract settlers and capital to the country. Under those circumstances, Lord Lansdowne said he was prepared favourably to entertain the proposition of the Jewish Colonial Trust, provided that a suitable area could be found and that they were prepared to accept conditions with regard to autonomy which would be satisfactory to the Secretary of State. The representatives of the Jewish Colonial Trust had already proceeded to East Africa with a view to examining the area which had been offered to them and seeing whether it would suit their requirements. Until they had got a report from those gentlemen it was absolutely impossible to take the House further into their confidence with regard to the details of the lease. He might say, however, that the House

  573
  need not be under any apprehension that they had been indifferent to the claims of British settlers. They recognised that men of British race had a prior claim to the lands which could be most profitably developed along the railway line. But the lease of land which they had provisionally offered to the Jews was not on the railway line at all. It was in the area situated between Lake Victoria and Like Rudolf, in the Kisumu province, where there were practically no natives at all. It was an absolutely undeveloped country and some distance from the railway, and the Jewish colony, if they were planted in that territory, were not likely to come into close contact with any European settlers at all. The motives which had actuated the Government had not been of a purely financial character; they had been inspired by those feelings of sympathy which ought to be felt by every Christian nation and which had always been felt by the British race for that persecuted and oppressed people. Whether the hopes of the Zionists reasonable foundation or not, no country would ever regret that they had not turned a deaf ear to an appeal from the Jews for assistance provided there was no fundamental reasons of State policy against it.
  The native question, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland alluded, derived additional importance, he regretted to say, from the fact that it was in connection with it that Sir Charles Eliot hail thought it his duty to resign the appointment he had hitherto held. The question of native rights had always been under the careful consideration of the Government, and no leases of land ever had been, or were, granted in East Africa without an express reservation of any right which the natives might have already acquired. The question had assumed a more critical aspect lately owing to the fact that, whereas at the time the Jewish Trust made their application there were very few applications from settlers, since then there had been a great inrush of settlers, and a large part of the most valuable land available near the railway had already been taken up. They had had very carefully to consider how far they could continue the grant of these leases without encroaching to some extent on the
  574
  rights which the natives had exercised. The Masai tribe for instance had long grazed their flocks and herds—they were a pastoral rather than an agricultural people—over vast areas of the country, moving from one plot to another as the grass was exhausted. The Government could not lay down a rule that, because such indefinite rights existed, therefore, the whole of these large areas should remain sterilised and undeveloped for an indefinite period. They were under a moral obligation, however, from the standpoint of humanity as well as under the provisions of the Berlin Act, to see that the native tribes were not deprived of those means of livelihood which they had hitherto possessed, and the only course which seemed open to the Government was to intimate to Sir Charles Eliot that no fresh large leases of land were to be granted in the province of Naivasha in the neighbourhood where the Masai had hitherto grazed their flocks. Apart from a lease of about 320 square miles to the East African Syndicate, for the purpose of raising stock, and another smaller parcel of land which had been leased to a private proprietor, there was no large concession in that territory which, in accordance with their instructions, would be reserved for the present until they could examine the whole question in consultation with local experts who were on intimate terms with the Masai themselves, and make up their minds as to the policy which it was best to pursue under the circumstances. Those, he thought, were all the facts which it was possible for him to give to the House on this matter; and, as he gathered that the hon. Member was only interested in the question of the native rights, and as they had taken every precaution to safeguard those rights and to see that these leases to Europeans did not interfere with them, he trusted he Would see fit to withdraw his Motion.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Why has Sir Charles Eliot resigned?
  EARL PERCY: Because he took a different view from the view we took as to the expediency of reserving a large area for the natives and refusing to grant any fresh leases in that area to Europeans.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he agreed that there

  575
  was something extraordinary about this debate. He did not share the expressions of surprise and indignation which had been heard from hon. Members on the other side of the House nor did he think that his hon. friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland had abused the forms of the House by bringing this question forward. After the noble Lord's speech he did not suppose there would be a very strong desire to press the matter, but he thought his hon. friend was quite justified in moving the adjournment of the House. Everybody must feel that the noble Lord was not intentionally discourteous in answering the Questions of his hon. friend. But the House must remember that through the action of the Prime Minister a custom had been established and followed of not asking the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs supplementary Question. That had made it more difficult to get information from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs than in the case of any other Department. The mere fact that the administrator of this territory, a most distinguished public servant, had resigned, and that the reason was unknown, was sufficient to cause anxiety. The hon. Member for Graves-end said that anxious suspicions might not lead to just conclusions. The hon. Member had never been in opposition in the House. If he had been, he had no doubt that the hon. Member would not be so eager to say that the blind confidence of the supporters of the Government always led to just conclusions. Take for instance, the case of Somaliland, next door to the East African Protectorate. Judging the Government by their past, anxious suspicion was much more justifiable than the attitude of blind confidence. It was in relation to the natives that the most serious question arose. Difficulties leading to native risings occurred when civilisation was pressed too fast upon the natives, or when white men going among them left their own civilisation behind and ill-treated them. The land question, bound up as it was with native custom, was an exceedingly delicate one. Something had turned on the point that it was a Jewish settlement that was contemplated. They all knew what Anti-Semitic feeling was, and what it gave rise to. But there was another view of the Jewish race, that
  576
  of millions of persecuted people who had been, through generation after generation, scattered without homes and without hope; and he said frankly that if it was the intention to attempt to provide a refuge and a home for people of that description in the British dominions it would have his entire sympathy. Whether it was wise to make the settlement in this part of East Africa at this time was another matter. There was great difficulty in governing these territories in their present stage of development; and he could imagine an administrator, to whom the proposition was made that an alien community speaking another language should be put down there, saying it would introduce a complication which filled him with such apprehension that he could not, in view of all the other difficulties, be responsible for the good government of the territory. If Sir Charles Eliot had said that, he should say that that: alone ought to have been enough to stop this project for a time, at any rate, until the country was more settled; but he gathered distinctly from the noble Lord that that was not the reason of Sir Charles Eliot's resignation. Was that so?
  EARL PERCY: Yes.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Sir Charles Eliot had not expressed an opinion of that kind?
  EARL PERCY: He did object to it.
  Sis EDWARD GREY: If the objections were a matter separate from the resignation, it ought to be perfectly easy for the noble Lord, if there were difficulties in speaking about Sir Charles Eliot's resignation, to give the House in full the objections which Sir Charles Eliot had raised. Though he felt nothing but sympathy with what he understood were the motives for this settlement, he saw the possibility of great danger in introducing a new complication of this kind into the country, especially if land were to be leased. It was the essence of maintaining good relations with natives to avoid occasion for grievances in connection with the land and to keep the administration in the hands of trained

  577
  officials who understood native customs. These were reasons for proceeding in this matter with great caution; and now that the House knew that objection was made to this proposal by somebody who was the administrator of this country, and not a subordinate official, as had been said, they were justified in pressing the Government not to proceed further with the scheme until the matter had been brought before the House again and the House were in possession of the objections which Sir Charles Eliot had raised. Over and over again something which had a perfectly innocent and harmless and perhaps even a laudable appearance had led to serious trouble in parts of Africa, the circumstances of which were not understood in the House, but were understood by the people on the spot. In the present case the people on the spot had doubts and apprehensions. So far from this being an untimely Motion, it appeared to him to be one of the few Motions brought forward while there was still time to prevent action which we might afterwards regret. The noble Lord had admitted that the scheme was entirely inchoate, that no steps had been taken; and he trusted the Government would give a pledge to take no further steps until they had laid full information before the House and the House knew exactly how matters stood with regard to the position of Sir Charles Eliot and the Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the House had discussed the matter an hour and thirty-five minutes, and it was only in response to a Question put by his right hon. friend that they had discovered that the Motion for adjournment was completely justified. He had not been one of those who sympathised with the opposition to the establishment of a Jewish colony, but, in view of the answer given by the noble Lord, he thought the matter assumed much more serious proportions. As he understood, Sir Charles Eliot had raised objections to this settlement, and that was one of the reasons why he resigned.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No.
  EARL PERCYsaid it would be more correct to say that Sir Charles Eliot expressed an opinion both ways. His last opinion was unfavourable to the scheme. Neither had anything to do with the resignation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if Sir Charles Eliot had expressed an opinion both ways he was a most worthy servant of the present Government, and he could not understand why he should have resigned. Had he been invited to take a seat in the Cabinet? The Government, he contended, were themselves responsible for what they were pleased to suggest had been a gross waste of time. It was the air of mystery which they had chosen to assume in regard to this matter that had been responsible for the whole of the trouble. The noble Lord contradicted his hon. friend when he said that he had asked for specific information with regard to the locality of this settlement. His hon. friend, however, did ask the noble Lord what were the conditions on which land was offered to the Zionists, the extent of the land, and where it was situated. Instead of giving a straight answer—
  EARL PERCYasked if the hon. Gentleman would state the answer that he did give.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had not got the noble Lord's" answer; but, as far as he could remember, he put the Question off.
  EARL PERCYsaid he stated then, as he had stated in the course of the present debate, that the exact conditions had not been settled.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that until the present debate he had not the smallest idea where the land was situated, nor could any Question until to-day produce any straight reply.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Government themselves were responsible for the waste of time that had occurred. His hon. friend had asked a perfectly simple Question which, from information he had received, turned out to be perfectly correct. He had anticipated

  579
  trouble similar to that which had occurred in German East Africa, where there was a rebellion, in which a great many lives were lost; and his hon. friend pressed the Government for some information on the subject. The noble Lord, after his hon. friend had spoken, instead of replying himself, allowed the hon. Member for Gravesend to speak for twenty minutes, although his speech was not of an informing character. Personally, as long as the native question was settled properly he did not see any objection to the settlement of the Jews. There were a great many Jews they might well spare. He did not, however, agree with the remarks of one of the Irish Members. The anti-Semitic feeling shown by the hon. Member was, however, hereditary. A relative of his fought Christchurch against Sir Drummond Wolff, who was incorrectly supposed to be a German Jew, and wound up his election address as follows—
  "Down with Infidel, Jew, or Turk
  All good Christians vote for Burke."
  The debate had been raised simply in order to see that native rights were not interfered with in such a way as to produce disturbance in South Africa.
  Question put, and negatived.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHEK (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words 'In lieu of.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid he had only a few remarks to add. There were a number of shareholders in various companies connected with the tea, industry who would not only suffer from this tax, but also from the rate of exchange between this country and India. He maintained that the consump-
  580
  tion of tea in this country ought to extend year by year; but what were the facts? The consumption showed a falling off of 2 per cent., and where 6·1 1bs. per head were formerly consumed, only 6·03 1bs. were now consumed. The people of this country spent £20,000,000 on tea, whereas they spent £170,000,000 on intoxicating liquor. When an additional tax on tobacco was suggested in 1902 as an alternative to the corn tax, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the limit of taxation on tobacco had been reached, and that further taxation would not be productive. But the result proved that that was an erroneous statement. The revenue from tobacco was still increasing; and he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should put an extra, duty not only on stripped tobacco, but on tobacco all round. That would give him all the revenue he required. He would support the Amendment because the tea tax was taxation in the wrong, direction, and pressed very heavily on the very poorest.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)said that the effect of the Amendment would be to continue the tax on tea at the figure at which it now stood; and he ventured to think that the object of his hon. friend in moving the Amendment was in every respect laudable and desirable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that there might be some other opportunity of referring to this subject: but, in his humble judgment, he ventured to think that the present time was the proper occasion to thrash this matter out. The right hon. Gentleman did not meet the Amendment of his hon. friend with any great display of sympathy. His words were sympathetic; but the action he suggested was very much the reverse. He thought, therefore, that they as Liberals should appeal to the House from the right hon. Gentleman. The questions which surrounded this important matter seemed to group themselves under three heads. The first was that the tax was onerous the second was that, having regard to the relative proportion of direct and indirect taxation, the Government were not justified in suggesting it; and the third was whether any substitute could be

  581
  found in order to recoup the Government for the money they would lose if the Committee accepted the Amendment. He ventured to suggest that this increase in the tea tax was cruelly onerous, and that it would fall with undoubted and exceptional severity, not only on the working classes, but especially on what; was sometimes called the submerged tenth. It had been suggested that the working classes might not have to pay for this increase; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer frankly acknowledged that an increase in the cost of tea would be the direct result of his proposal. It was unnecessary to argue that tea was not one of the necessaries of life. He would not, however, class it in the same category as corn, meat and dairy produce, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his new fiscal policy proposed to increase in price. He did not think that the working classes would ever accept a reduction on the duty on tea as being equivalent to an increase in the price of meat, bread, and dairy produce. His hon. friend the Member for Barnstaple in his excellent speech described the habits and customs of the agricultural population as regarded the consumption of tea. He himself knew the habits of the industrial population of the North perhaps as well as any other hon. Gentleman. Every man, woman, and child in a cotton factory brought with him, or her, a can in which to make tea. It was open to hon. Members to argue, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, that tea was inimical to the physique of the people, and generally to their health. He objected to the use which the right hon. Gentleman had made of the word "saturated." Surely it was better that the working classes should drink tea than beer and spirits; and, surely it was better that they should be saturated with tea than soddened with gin, or oozing with whisky. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there should be a kind of Plimsoll load line beyond which tea should not be taken. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that there could be no reduction of taxation, and that it might have to be increased. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that as the country would not consent to the rearrangement of its fiscal system, by which an extra amount of money would be obtained from taxation on corn,
  582
  and meat, and dairy produce, money had to be raised in this way.
  To the many suggestions which had been offered to the Committee he would add another. Before doing that he wished to impress upon the Committee that the remissions of taxation during the last two years had been entirely unfair to the working classes. Of the £12,500,000 remitted last year £10,000,000 went to the rich in the reduction of the income-tax, and only £2,500,000 went to the poor in the abolition of the corn duty. During the war the income-tax was 1s. 3d., now it was to be 1s. That was a reduction of 20 per cent.: but the tea duty, which was chiefly paid by the poor, instead of being reduced 20 per cent, had been increased 33⅓ per cent. The Government argued that the expenditure of the country had been increased; but he argued that the expenditure had increased beyond all bounds as a direct result of the action of an extravagant Government. Members of the Opposition and many Members on the other side of the House agreed that the military expenditure of the country was extravagant, and that it was the urgent duty of the House of Commons and the Treasury authorities to take the matter into serious consideration with a view to large reductions. It was not so popular to make similar suggestions with regard to the Navy, but he did not hesitate to express his agreement with those who believed that even our naval expenditure would admit of serious reduction. We had outgrown the two-Power standard, and where these perpetual increases in naval and military expenditure were going to end he did not know. Under almost every head of expenditure the same policy of expansion was observable. Many suggestions had been made as to the manner in which the Government could find further revenue, and if he might add one to those already put forward he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take into serious consideration the advisability of repealing the Agricultural Rating Act and the Tithe Rent Charge Act. Under those Acts the Government had dissipated revenue almost equivalent in amount to that which they would derive from the additional tea duty, but they had not

  583
  brought any real relief to the farming classes. Remissions of rent had practically ceased.
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that the lion. Member was passing from the subject under consideration.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he would not pursue the subject. Any of the alternatives which had been suggested, such as the increase of the tobacco, wine and spirit, and death duties, or a graduated income-tax, would be infinitely preferable to an increase of the duty on tea which pressed with such hardship upon the working classes. Recent by-elections had shown that the working classes were not in sympathy with the policy of the Government, and he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should advise his Leader to consult the country and get a decisive answer on these matters.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the tea duty had been discussed on many previous occasions, but never under such peculiar circumstances as that afternoon. Previous to the year 1900 Irish Members protested against the duty as being unfair to Ireland, but it had now reached the climax of tyranny and oppression. The tea duty of 8d. per 1b., representing from 75 to 100 per cent, of the value of the article, possessed every vice that could possibly attach to a tax. It pressed with peculiar severity upon the poorest of the population. Four years ago the House was informed that the increase from 4d. to 6d. was solely for the purposes of the war, but the war was now over, and yet the Government were imposing another 2d. because they had not the courage to tax the rich. The greatest aggregation of people with slender means, many of them verging on starvation, was to be found in certain parts of Ireland,
  and there the pressure was severe in the extreme. No attempt had been made to show why other sources of revenue should not have been tapped. The percentage of the tax paid by Ireland increased as the duty was raised, and if the Irish representatives were justified in describing the tax as unfair when it stood at 4d., how much more justified were they in opposing it now that it was 8d.! The increased duty would have the effect of driving people to drink inferior tea, or tea dust, in place of the fairly nutritious beverage they were now able to secure. What would be said of a foreign Government which imposed a tax of 100 per cent, on the value of an article of diet used by the poorest of the poor? To the rich the duty made no difference whatever, but to the poor it was a matter of enormous importance. The goal of a free breakfast table appeared to be receding year by year, and, if the present Government continued in office, probably some other article of food would be attacked in the next Budget. He could not conceive how English Members, representing working-class constituencies, could have the temerity and effrontery to face their constituents and attempt to justify a vote by which so onerous a tax was imposed upon the food of the people. The special case of Ireland would be dealt with on a subsequent Amendment; he would merely say now that the tax possessed the worst possible qualities in that the rich escaped scot-free, while the poor felt its full force.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 212; Noes, 166. (Division List No. 158.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Butcher, John George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.SirH.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bigwood, James

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bill, Charles

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brassey, Albert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Renwick, George

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Slalybridge

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Royds, Clement Molyueux

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Doughty, George

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

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Spear, John Ward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stewart, Sir Marx J. M'Taggart

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stock, James Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Macdona John Gumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh, W)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

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

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Welby, Sir Charles G E. (Notts.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Younger, William

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Randles, John S.

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rankin, Sir James

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Black, Alexander William

  Burt, Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Boland, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P.

  Brigg, John

  Caldwell, James

  Asher, Alexander

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Cawley, Frederick

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Clancy, John Joseph

  586

  587

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rigg, Richard

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roche, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Delany, William

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rose, Charles Day

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Runciman, Walter

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Russell, T. W.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Edwards, Frank

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ellice. Capt E.C (S Andrw's Bghs

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sheehy, David

  Evans, Sir F. H (Maidstone)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Field, William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Slack, John Bamford

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Murphy, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Grey, Bt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Haldane, Bt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Toulmin, George

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hemphill, Bt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, Robert John

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  William M'Arthur.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Rea, Russell

  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'In lieu of' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 165. (Division List No. 159.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bigwood, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bill, Charles

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, William Walter

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Keswick, William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Doughty, George

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Waller

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Maryleboae, W.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fison, Frederick William

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spear, John Ward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John dimming

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell Sir John M.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stock, James Henry

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greene, Sir E.W (B'ryS EdD'nds

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hay, Hon. (Maude George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

  Helder, Augustus

  Peol, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyno

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hickman Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hope, J.F. (Shefield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Randles, John S.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Renwick, George

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Boland, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Allen, Charles P.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Asher, Alexander

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Burke, R. Haviland

  Cremer, William Randal

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Cullinan, J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Cadwell, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  590

  591

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leng, Sir John

  Runciman, Walter

  Doogan, P. C.

  Levy, Maurice

  Russell, T. W.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Farreli, James Patrick

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sheehy, David

  Pield, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Slack, John Bamford

  Poster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hammond, John

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

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

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomkinson, James

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugone (Clackmannan)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Malley, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Woodhouse. Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rea, Russell

  William M'Arthur.

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Langley, Batty

  Rigg, Richard

  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee is not in order.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that his hon. friend's Amendment did not involve new taxation, and therefore he respectfully submitted that it was in order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in order for two reasons. In the first place this clause deals with tea and not the licensing of public-houses. The second reason why it is out of order is that the proposal of the hon. Member would place an additional charge upon the public, and he could not do that without having previously obtained a Resolution in Committee.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLwho spoke from the Opposition side of the House, said the Amendment which he wished to move raised a delicate issue, and he therefore asked leave to move to report Progress. He could compress the remarks which he had to make to something under an hour, but the subject would raise so many bitter feelings on the other side of the House, and so much interest on his side, that if he embarked upon it there was no hope of their reaching any satisfactory or useful conclusion that night. Since dinner they had discussed quite a new subject with which most hon. Members were quite unfamiliar—namely, the question of the Zionist settlement in Uganda, and hon. Members had been compelled to distract their

  593
  minds from the Finance Bill to quite another quarter of the globe. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury not to compel them at that hour to embark on an elaborate discussion of the question of preference, particularly as the nerves of tariff reformers must be in a highly sensitive condition in consequence of the recent news that had reached them from the West of England. Under those circumstances he respectfully moved that Progress be now reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Winston Churchill.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member well knows that there is no limitation under the Twelve O'clock Rule, and there is no reason why we should not go on to a much later hour. I understand that the particular Amendment which he desires to bring before the Committee would advocate the introduction of the principle of preference into the Budget of the present year. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman has so often argued on the other side that he would be perfectly competent to deal with that question, but as the Committee knows, the view of the present Government is that the question is not one to be dealt with by the present Parliament. Gladly as we welcome this new and unexpected recruit, gladly as those of us who are in favour of preference welcome this new recruit [OPPOSITION cries of "Which of you;" and cheers.] I think the mere fact that some hon. Gentleman desires to speak formally and deliberately against his convictions [Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL dissented]—perhaps I have misread the Amendment; it was shown to me—is not an adequate reason for the Committee's adjourning at this untimely hour. I hope that the hon. Member will give us his speech within the fifty minutes that he has promised; but, if that cannot be done, we shall endure with what patience we may the longer period which he requires fully to develop his views upon this important point.
  MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)said the Motion which his hon. friend had made to report Progress was well justified, if
  594
  for no other reason, by the important declaration which it had elicited from the Prime Minister. They now knew that the Prime Minister was one of the supporters of the policy of colonial preference. Here they had a new, though he confessed, for his part, not an unexpected recruit. In view of that important declaration—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is serious?
  MR. ASQUITHasked if he was to suppose that the Prime Minister was not serious. In view of this very important declaration, which threw a new light on the whole fiscal question, and in view of the fact that they had been engaged in discussing the Budget ever since three o'clock, except for a fruitful interval, [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] he thought a more reasonable proposal than that of his hon. friend could hardly have been made. He ventured to submit to the Prime Minister and to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would gain no advantage whatever from starting a new and important discussion at that hour which could not possibly be concluded that night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why not?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the fact that they would enter upon the discussion in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was an additional reason, if an additional reason were needed, for reporting Progress. He was satisfied that the House would waste its time by having a discussion which could not possibly be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and he should certainly support the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. LOUGHsaid be hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suggest to the Prime Minister that some effort ought to be made to meet them in this matter. Up to the present they had got on very well. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] One of the most difficult and contentious matters in the Bill had been disposed of, and a good start had been made. He suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that more progress

  595
  would be secured in the long run by accepting this Motion. At this hour of the night their discussions were not reported in the Press.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 151 Noes, 196. (Division List No. 160).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Price, Robert John

  Asher, Alexander

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Hutchinon, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rea, Russell

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rigg, Richard

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Black, Alexander William

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Roche, John

  Brigg, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Langley, Batty

  Russell, T. W.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Leamy, Edmund

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leng Sir John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Slack, John Bamford

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Crae, George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

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

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone

  Nussoy, Thomas Willans

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Field, William

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mich)

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

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  O'Shee, James John

  William M'Arthur.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balcarres, Lord

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Butcher, John George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bigwood, James

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bill, Charles

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faveraham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Keswick, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sandys, Lt.-Col Thos. Myles

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Doughty, George

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stock, James Henry

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Grenfell, William Henry

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

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

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Peel, Hn. W D. Robert Wellesley

  Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Percy, Earl

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Younger, William

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Randles, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Renwick, George

  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLmoved an Amendment providing that the duty should be levied not in lieu of the duty of Customs payable on tea imported into Great Britain or Ireland, but imported from foreign countries into Great Britain or Ireland. He said that his object in proposing the insertion of these words was to draw a distinction between two classes of tea which came into this country—first the tea which was the produce of British Colonies and was sent by our
  598
  children across the seas, not for mere sordid gain, but to strengthen the ties of Imperial sentiment, and next the tea which was sent here as the result of an evil conspiracy between foreign countries and the Cobden Club with the intention of sapping the constitution of Englishmen and driving a wedge between the mother country and her Colonies. This Amendment afforded a convenient, and, he thought, a necessary opportunity, of discriminating and distinguishing between

  599
  these two classes of tea. He could assure the Committee that he did not move the Amendment at that late hour in any spirit of levity. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] He fully expected to be charged with having moved it in a spirit of levity, but hon. Gentlemen opposite would do him the honour to say that it was in a spirit of earnestness that he particularly resented and repudiated the charge which the Prime Minister had so lightheartedly flung across the House a few minutes ago. The Prime Minister flung his charges across the House, but he did not wait for any reply. Now, he would make the reply in the right hon. Gentleman's absence to the charge that he was moving this Amendment against his convictions. No one would accuse the Prime Minister of moving an Amendment on fiscal policy against his convictions. Nobody had ever yet been able to find out what those convictions were; and they had had that evening, a few moments before, another exhibition of those equivocations which left them in doubt as to what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman ["MINISTERIAL cries of Oh, oh!"] on the gravest question now before the country. Neither was it true or correct to suppose that he moved the Amendment because he had been converted by the eloquence of the arguments of the tariff reformers. He moved the Amendment because he was against the tax on tea, because he thought it a bad tax, and a blot on the otherwise excellent Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would much rather have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer raise the extra money by putting 2d. or 3d. more on the income-tax. That would have been a much wiser proposal, for, after all, it was the wealthier classes of the country who benefited most from the expenditure on armaments, and let them pay for it. He was against the tax as a whole, or a part of the tax. The effect of this Amendment, if it were successful, would be to destroy at a moderate calculation four-fifths or nine-tenths of the actual value of the tax. At one blow it would sweep away nine-tenths of the area of the Budget discussion. Of course it would be open to the House to move a comple-
  600
  mentary Amendment finishing up the tax altogether.
  The reason he had for limiting the tax and minimising its evil effect as much as possible was, that he might avail himself of the favourable grounds of having a large measure of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite who were pledged to grant Imperial preference. He did not know how much support he would get from those hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, from the fact that hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of preferences on tea and other commodities, were very bold to talk in the country, but in the House of Commons they were as meek as mice. They did not know how many there were, but they did know that 150 were going to dine with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order!"] However, whether that in all cases implied an adhesion to Imperial preference he could not decide; and he was almost at a loss, in the absence of the Prime Minister from the House—an absence in which he was following now an almost invariable practice—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"]—to know whether he by conviction and by inclination would support this Amendment or not. That was his first reason, and it was a perfectly serious one, which could be appreciated by anyone. His second reason was that he moved the Amendment in response to a deliberate invitation and challenge which was thrown out by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham on the first night of the Budget debate. He would take the liberty of reading to the Committee the challenge which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham threw across the House in reply to the hon. Member for Islington. This was what the right hon. Gentlemen said—
  "But surely in these circumstances the minimum which the hon. Gentleman should have moved should have been a preference Amendment.
  "MR. LOUGH: I leave that to you.
  "MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That shows a lack of courage on the part of my hon. friend. My hon. friend is perfectly well aware that so far as I am concerned, I have put forward certain views which have b6en contemptuously rejected on the other side [Several HON. MEMBERS: And on your own side] for discussion and consideration, and not altogether

  601
  without some success. But I have distinctly declared from the very beginning that I have no intention whatever of bringing them forward as practical subjects for the consideration of the present Parliament. But, although I should be guilty of almost a breach of faith if I were to introduce a subject of that kind into the House at the present time, no such limitation applies to my hon. friend, and I say, according to the theory which he has so admirably developed to the House, ho, as the saviour of the two Colonies of India and Ceylon, ought to have proposed an Amendment not to reduce the taxation of tea, but to give a preference to those Colonies upon the tea which they supply."
  That was a perfectly plain challenge. He had been reminded of it by the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary who said that at the last election he went down and made a speech on his behalf. He was frequently reminded of that fact by the partisan supporters of the new fiscal policy. He deeply regretted that, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, he had not been able to reciprocate the kindness of the right hon. Gentleman, but he was anxious to make any small return in his power after the language, almost of appeal, used by the right hon. Gentleman that someone should bring this question before the House, and he was very glad in a small way to be of service to the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not present. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been there, not, of course, to listen to any particular Member. Everyone knew why it was convenient; by any method of abstention, or that sort of practice, to put a discourtesy on an individual, but other means could be employed by the partisans of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That, however, was not the reason why the right hon. Gentleman was not present that night. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's absence deliberately implied a contempt for the existence of the present Parliament.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must invite the hon. Member to address himself to the Amendment before the House. He has not yet approached it.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid, of course, he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman. He was only deploring the absence of the right hon. Gentleman to
  602
  whom he was alluding. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."] In the campaign which the right hon. Gentleman conducted in the autumn he established very many facts, of only one of which he was convinced. He meant the importance of tea. The right hon. Gentleman had convinced him that tea was an essential article of consumption, and that it came very high up in the budget of the working classes. They had the admission of all hon. Members that tea was very highly taxed. That alone should be a reason for limiting the tax. Who would pay the tax? As a free-trader he, of course, believed that it would be mainly paid by the home consumer. He could conceive the foreign and colonial importer suffering by the restrictions on the commodity and by the dislocation of his trade; but his view was that the tax was mainly paid by the home consumer. That was also the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet, as a follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that this tax would be paid by the foreign and colonial importer. That made the right, hon. Gentleman's case very much worse. Where did the bulk of the imported tea come from. The bulk of it came from India and Ceylon. The colonists had made great sacrifices in the South African War. Their little ponies were a most peculiar and interesting feature in all columns of march in South Africa. He understood that the purchase price of their services was to be something in the nature of preference; but they did not get preference. The position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very anomalous one. He himself did not think that any right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench should throw taunts across the floor of the House at hon. Members for speaking according to their convictions. It would be impossible to imagine any Members of the House less qualified for that.
  In deference to the appeal of the Prime Minister, he did not intend to embark on any elaborate examination of the previous duties on tea, though the subject was one of great interest. No doubt other hon. Gentlemen would examine at greater length, and in closer detail, the amount

  603
  which the Exchequer would lose by the operation of this Amendment, and exactly the proportion of tea which was imported from the Colonies and from foreign countries. Roughly speaking, nine-tenths of the tea imported came from British subjects. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed free trade and protection to move in and out of his mind on something like the principle of "Box and Cox." As a free trader, the right hon. Gentleman might agree that the effect of the Amendment would be that, while the burden on the consumer would be diminished, a great loss to revenue would ensue, and that what was left would hardly justify the imposition of the tax. The right hon. Gentleman might also point out as a free trader that the colonial producer would make a profit. But the right hon. Gentleman had always declared himself in favour of colonial preference; and he could not be in favour of it one day and not on another. Either it was right and proper, or it was a humbug and a delusion. The arguments which he had ventured to advance to a free-trade Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to a preference on tea applied with equal force to all other preferential tariffs. They applied to corn with even greater force. Nine-tenths of the tea imported into this country came from India and Ceylon, and if the right hon. Gentleman believed that colonial preference was a good thing, and not mere humbug, he must agree that tea was a much better subject to which to apply the principle than corn, of which only one-third of our imports came from the Colonies. His real reason for moving this Amendment was to give hon. Gentlemen opposite who belonged to the Party of tariff reform—a Party which he believed was intimately associated with the Conservative Party—an opportunity for a debate on Imperial preference which they had repeatedly avoided.
  The other day, the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich charged the late Colonial Secretary with being afraid to face a debate in this House. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to face a debate; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman was very wise in not being anxious to bring these matters forward. Hon. Gentlemen opposite professed strong views on the subject.
  604
  They were never tired of calling their opponents unpatriotic and Little Englanders. Now was their chance of making good their case on the floor of the House of Commons. Were they going to accept the opportunity or were they going to run away as they had done over and over again? This Amendment might succeed or it might fail, or possibly it might be laughed out of the House. On the first occasion when preference was brought forward in the House it might be kicked with contumely out of doors. He had brought the matter forward to oblige the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He was very anxious that it should be freely and fairly discussed. He said in all seriousness that if hon. Gentlemen opposite who were tariff reformers—whether they would be tariff reformers when they went to face their constituencies was another question—tried to laugh the matter off as a joke, the responsibility would not rest with him. His position with reference to Imperial preference was perfectly plain. But what should be said of those who believed that this was a vital matter to the Empire—like the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and tried to laugh it off? What should be said of those who supported Imperial preferences on partisan platforms in the country, but refrained from doing so when it involved the smallest personal risk or Party inconvenience?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 16, after the word 'imported' to insert the words 'from foreign countries.'"—(Mr. Winston Churchill.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought the speech made by the hon. Member dispensed him from the necessity of making any lengthy reply. The hon. Member did not profess to believe in his own Amendment. He had chosen as a means of justifying it the journey which he had lately tardily made across the floor of the House. He had used the Amendment as a medium for sneering at those whom a little time ago he was glad to claim as his political friends. The answer to the question, what was the attitude of the Government was very simple. They would keep the pledges.

  605
  they had given to the House and the country and would not attempt to deal in this Parliament with a question which they had excluded from their policy for this Parliament. The Government had proposed a Budget raising no new fiscal issue. It was framed on the old lines and carried out the old traditions, which might or might not be the best traditions for this country; but they were the traditions which for this Parliament the Government had undertaken to observe and from which they would not depart. The Amendment which the hon. Member had moved would not have the result which he desired to follow from it. If the hon. Gentleman did understand the result he failed to convey it in his speech It would leave them with a nominal duty of 8d. on foreign imported tea and without the present duty on British tea. It would destroy the whole basis of the Budget and necessitate an entire recasting of the Bill. The present Government would not undertake that task, and would therefore resist the Amendment.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dismissed this Amendment very curtly. He understood him to do so, not on the ground that the matter was not one of importance, but on the ground that it was not opportune for the Government. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, combined with that of the Prime Minister, had been to increase confusion which was already very great as to what was in the mind of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had reproached his hon. friend the Member for Oldham with having been tardy in crossing the floor of the House, but the Prime Minister had just welcomed his hon. friend as a new and unexpected recruit to "us who are in favour of preference." So it seemed that, as the Prime Minister had made an advance towards preference, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to keep the balance as it was before—a somewhat delicate matter—had receded a little on the question of preference. He assumed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham had in his mind when he moved his Amendment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being a member of the Government, had an open mind on the subject of preference; and
  606
  it was quite legitimate to attempt to educate persons with an open mind. Nothing was more educating in these matters than practical illustration. It was constantly said that those who were not in favour of preference were doctrinaires. He believed that was absolutely untrue. This Amendment would give a practical application to the doctrine of preference, and directly it was brought to the test of practical application in the House of Commons it was dismissed as inopportune and inconvenient by the Government. So he believed it would be in every succeeding Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer meant that the question was only inopportune for the present Parliament; but what made it inopportune now would make it inopportune always.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that his argument was that it was contrary to the pledges which had been given.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he did not think he had misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman. His interpretation was that, from the point of view of the Government, the present was not an opportune moment at which to raise the question. But it was a question of very great importance; and, even if the present was not an opportune time for discussing it, it was no reason why it should be dismissed as curtly as it was by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Amendment illustrated what the effect of preference would be. It would destroy revenue; and, even apart from the pledges of the Government, they all realised the difficulty of accepting the Amendment. This was an illustration of the effect which preference would have. The first effect would be to destroy revenue. Even apart from the pledges which the Government had given, they all saw that it would destroy revenue, and so it would always be. When they gave a preference, preference to India would be the first claim. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the pledges of the Government. It was all very well for the Government to give pledges that they would not deal with this matter, but they had no right really to prevent the matter from being discussed in the House of Commons. It

  607
  was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham who used the phrase, "The discussion to which I invite the House and the country." Those were the terms addressed to the House a year ago. Why was it, then, that discussion was to be regarded as unreasonable? There were two serious points to be considered. First of all, the division would be taken seriously. It would be taken as an indication of opinion on the subject of preference, and a very important opportunity would be given to hon. Members opposite to express their opinions. But, in the next place, he would ask, How long was the matter to be hung up? How long was the pledge of the Government to keep the rest of the Empire in the condition of not knowing what the mind of the country was with regard to the question? He thought it was becoming increasingly serious as time went on that this matter should be kept in suspense, and that whenever an occasion arose of discussing it they should be met with the statement that the Government had given a pledge not to discuss it in this Parliament. How long was this Parliament to last? If there was a definite term set they might be content to accept the pledge of the Government, but no definite term was set, and yet they were told that it was their duty to show how they would respond to the colonial offer; it was a matter of importance that they should be continually staved off from discussion of the matter merely for the reason that the Government had given a pledge to keep the opinion of the country in suspense. Not only was it becoming serious; it was becoming ludicrous to the rest of the Empire.
  MR. McCRAEsaid he thought his hon. friend had been far too sanguine in expecting an answer from the Government He never expected to hear the voice of the Government as to their opinion or preference, but he wished to point out that they had misunderstood the effect of this Amendment. The result of this proposal would be that all tea coming from foreign parts would be subject to the increased duty of 2d., making the tax 8d. per lb., but unless some consequential Amendment were inserted the duty on colonial and Indian tea would remain at 6d. per lb.
  608
  Therefore, so far as a reduction of the revenue was concerned the Amendment had not the effect which the Chancellor of the Exchequer feared. On the merits of the question he was willing to support his hon. friend below the Gangway, for the reason that ever since he came into the House, with the exception of the taxes imposed during the war, he had always voted against any tax whatever on tea. Therefore he welcomed his hon. friend's Amendment because it gave him an opportunity of supporting the tax on tea in a modified form. The tea duty before the war was 4d., and now they were proposing to increase it to 8d. Colonial preference had been put before them in this way, that they were asked to make a sacrifice for the sake of the Colonies, but in this case they were going to give their Colonies the benefit and also benefit their own people by remitting the tax on tea coming from the Colonies. From China they imported 26,000,000 lbs. of tea annually and 229,000,000 lbs. from India and Ceylon. So that if they did not put this extra 2d. on Indian and Ceylon tea they were not only helping the Colonies but were at the same time giving a tangible benefit to the poorer classes of the people at home. The war taxation amounted to £33,500,000 and of that £8,000,000 had been remitted and the whole of that,had gone entirely to the income-tax payers, which left the war taxation at £25,500,000, £10,000,000 of which was on the income-tax and £15,500,000 upon indirect taxation. Consequently he thought they had a strong case for a further reduction, and they could not make that reduction more to the advantage of the poorer classes of the community than by relieving them of a portion of this tax on tea. Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imposed a tax on sugar it would have had a less injurious effect. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was not a protectionist Budget, although he admitted that there was a trace of protection with regard to the duty imposed upon cigarettes. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer could afford to make this remission which would benefit their own people by removing a. portion of the tax on tea. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had

  609
  under-estimated the produce of the taxation he had imposed, and in view of this fact he would be quite within his rights in considering whether some slight remission should be made.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wandering away from the Amendment.
  MR. McCRAE, while bowing to the ruling of the Chairman, said he was endeavouring to point out, on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing, that he was in a position to remit part of this duty, and yet have sufficient taxation to meet the expenditure for the year. He thought a more considered reply ought to have been given to this Amendment.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made one taunt which he heard with some astonishment. He referred to his hon. friend the Member for Oldham as having tardily crossed the floor of the House. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had done the same thing himself, but in the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he only crossed the floor when he accepted office. Therefore under those circumstances it was not for the right hon. Gentleman to charge his hon. friend with having tardily crossed the floor of the House because he had joined a Party which had stood to the traditions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Party embraced two years ago. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about the pledge of the Government upon this question, but that was a very convenient thing which was brought forward whenever it was necessary to prevent a discussion which was inconvenient to the Government. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman did not give fair consideration to arguments which were thoroughly appropriate to this Bill. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham proposed a scheme of preference which would begin by taking off a tax, but the preference schemes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite began by putting on a tax. If hon. Members opposite believed in preference they ought to take the opportunity which was offered them now and accept an Amendment which gave an advantage to India, and which made the China grower pay the full duty. He urged the Government to take this opportunity of raising money by taxing
  610
  Chinamen and at the same time benefiting Ceylon and India. If the right hon. Gentleman did not accept this Amendment his conduct would be only one more illustration that the whole thing was a sham and a pretence.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that certainly this had been a very curious debate, because not a single Member from the Ministerial Benches, with the exception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had even attempted to participate in the debate.
  MR. HUNT: I stood up.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he could not vote for the Amendment because, although he should be glad to see this duty on tea reduced in any way, to vote for it might be supposed to be giving a sanction to the principle of preference. But he could not abstain from expressing his surprise that on a matter of this kind, which had been the subject of agitation and controversy during the last nine months, not a single disciple of preference had risen on the Benches opposite to support the faith that was in him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government were under a pledge not to discuss this question during the present Parliament. Upon every occasion they had burked discussion and they were doing the same now. The pledge which bound the Government did not bind the supporters of the Tariff Reform League outside the House. That was a fact which he did not pretend to understand or explain, but which he thought the country was taking note of, and although he regretted he was not able to go into the division lobby with his hon. friend, he congratulated him on having elicited this startling, this almost incredible, fact that the Tariff Reform Party, when challenged on the floor of this House, were unable to produce one single Gentleman to champion their cause.
  MR. HUNTsaid he thought that Gentlemen on the other side had quite forgotten that if the Government had not been bullied and worried by people on the Opposition side of the House, and by people who called

  611
  themselves Unionist free-traders on this side of the House, they could have brought in a very good Budget indeed, and had no extra tax on tea, but might have taken some of the tax off tea. But because hon. Gentlemen were so tied up with this rotten system, which they were pleased to call free-trade, the Govern-Government could not do it. They could hardly expect the Prime Minister to risk the life of the Unionist Government, when we knew that if they went out the Empire would be delivered into the hands of a conglomeration of oddments who were pleased to call themselves the Liberal Party.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. HUNTsaid he was sorry if he had made a mistake. He was only explaining why he thought the Prime Minister believed that he could not risk the fate of the Unionist Government. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He disliked the tea tax just as much as other people, but they gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer no other chance of showing the people of this country the folly of the rotten—[An HON. MEMBER: Rotten war]—system, and of the policy of the Liberal Party which was the sort of policy that might be expected from a cross between a parrot and a Chinese Mandarin.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order!
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he would support the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend the Member for Oldham. Those who knew Ceylon in the late' 60's knew what a terrible state it was in at that time. The whole industry of the colony was ruined, and the people set to work to create new industries, and the one thing to which they could turn their attention was tea, with the exception of a few cocoa-nuts. These worthy British
  612
  men and women had laboured hard to develop the tea-growing industry of the colony, and that was the industry which was specially singled out for this unjust tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided to put upon it. Leaving the question of preference to be dealt with on a future occasion, he supported the Amendment because he believed it would do away with a great deal of the hardship and injustice which the proposed increase of the duty would cause. If the Amendment were carried, it would be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recast the Budget and to impose some other duty which would press less heavily on the needy and the poor. The position of the planters in Ceylon and India had. been at all times a most precarious one No other product had ever been taxed up to a 100, or, as some growers said, 120, per cent. They had protested repeatedly at meetings and by deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, being unable to bite, they found that there was very little use in barking before the Government. In supporting the Amendment, he also spoke for those poor persons to whom tea was their only luxury and at the same time a great necessity of life. Another reason why they should support the Amendment was that tea was a ticklish subject to deal with. There was a time in our history over a hundred years ago when the whole Empire was brought to the verge of ruin by the obstinacy and stupidity of the British rulers of that day. Liquor sellers throughout the country would gain enormously by this tax.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he did not think the debate ought to be allowed to close without a tribute being paid to the manly and outspoken declaration of the hon. Member for Shropshire. It was pleasing for those persons who served their Party to know that they contained within their ranks some men who were not governed by Party considerations, or domineered by the Party whip. The statement of the hon. Gentleman must be regarded,

  613
  he supposed, as a declaration on behalf of the Conservative Party. That hon. Gentleman was identified more particularly with the tariff section of that Party, but that night he was the only un-official Member who had spoken as representing the dormant feeling of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. What did the hon. Gentleman say as representing the united Party opposite? He told the Committee that the Government had been bullied and worried, or they would have treated this question very differently. He could sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. No doubt they had been bullied and worried during the last few days, but he did not think that that was the explanation why the hon. Gentleman's Leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, would not have been inclined to accept the Amendment, because he had told the Committee that if they were to accept the Amendment the life of the Government would be in danger.
  MR. HUNT: No, I did not say that.
  MR. DALZIEL: The hon. Gentleman may explain.
  MR. HUNT: I did not say anything about raising the issue.
  MR. DALZIEL: I confess the hon. Gentleman was so charmed with his outspoken declaration that he has overlooked the small points in his observations. I suggest that the hon. Member said that to accept this Amendment would risk the life of the Government.
  MR. HUNT: I did not say anything about the Amendment.
  MR. DALZIEL: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is already receding from the lofty position he occupied.
  MR. HUNT: I have not receded at all. The hon. Gentleman's memory must be shockingly bad.
  MR. DALZTEL: I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman said nothing about the Amendment then he was going to identify himself with the Party opposite. But it is due to the House that the hon. Member should tell us what he did mean.
  MR. HUNT: If the hon. Gentleman's brains are not good enough to allow him to remember what I did say, it is not my business to say it all over again.
  MR. DALZIELsaid if ever he was in need of brains he would not go to Shropshire for them. Probably on the Report stage they might have a further declaration from the hon. Member of his position. He did not know what the explanation was of the silence of the Government, except that they had been struck dumb by the result of the Devonport election. If that were not so, it might be that they knew perfectly well that in all the silence that was being observed in regard to fiscal policy they were humbugging the House and the country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I invite the hon. Member to address himself to the Amendment.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he would address himself to the Amendment by saying that in his opinion the only proper explanation for the silence of the Government was that they were unable to deal with the position that now presented itself in regard to the question of preference. He

  615
  suggested to the mover of the Amendment that he had shown that the Party opposite were afraid to tackle their own proposal, and he hoped his hon. friend would give the House a better opportunity, on Report, of discussing the question, when the two leaders of the different sections of the Party opposite might be challenged to give their opinion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 161.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South

  Peel, Hs. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Percy, Earl

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bignold, Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bigwood, James

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Brassey, Albert

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

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

  Brodick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Butcher, John George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Spear, John Ward

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

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

  Stock, James Henry

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

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C R.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tuff, Charles

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Doughty, George

  Macdona, John dimming

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

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

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Alexander Acland-Hood

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

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Joicey, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asher, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Kennedy, Vineent P. (Cavan, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Black, Alexander William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Boland, John

  Labouohere, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brigg, John

  Langley, Batty

  Runciman, Walter

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehy, David

  Cullinan, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Slack, John Bamford

  Delany, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Crae, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mooney, John J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Elibank, Master of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Toulmin, George

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Flynn, James Chrissopher

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  O'Shee, James John

  Churchill and Mr. Cathcart

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'from foreign countries be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 38; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 162.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

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

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Shee, James John

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Murphy, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sheehy, David

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hammond, John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hay den, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Churchill and Mr. Cathcart

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wason.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Asher, Alexander

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W

  Rigg, Richard

  Bignold, Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bigwood, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brigg, John

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Butcher, John George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chaplin, Rt Hon Henry

  Keswick, William

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Langley, Batty

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Crossley Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Levy, Maurice

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stock, James Henry

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doughty, George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomkinson, James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, George

  Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Tuff, Charles

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Webb, Colonel William George

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

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

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Percy, Earl

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Priestley, Arthur

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Randles, John S.

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Harri, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Renwick, George

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  And, it being after One of the clock Mr. SPEKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes before Two o'clock.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Lord Balfour of Burleigh Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Morley, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Earl de Montalt, the Earl of Halsbury, the Earl Waldegrave, and the Lord Ribblesdale. The said Commission was read.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Eastern Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
London County Council (Money) Bill Committed.
Stretford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Leyton Urban District Council Bill; Swindon Corporation Bill, Brought
406
from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Brixham Gas Bill; Littlestone-on-Sea and District Water Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received Tomorrow.
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order)

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I desire in connection with this Bill, which contains the Huddersfield Order, to move that Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect to a petition of the Long wood Gas Company. I have seen the parties who desire to petition and also the promoters of the Bill, and no objection is offered by the promoters to an appearance being entered on this Petition, which had been withdrawn before it was known that a certain matter in connection with a clause in the Electric Lighting Order was to be discussed before this same Committee in regard to other Orders. I have satisfied myself that the ends of justice will be best promoted by allowing this Petition to be revived, and I move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, "That Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with, in respect to a Petition of the Longwood Gas Company."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, after having heard the statement of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I am prepared, as representing the Board of Trade,

407
to agree to the Motion he has submitted; but in doing so I do not commit myself in any way to the principle of the clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to present the said Petition.

RETURNS REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3186. Germany (Hamburg).
  No. 3187. Portugal (Beira).

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Returns for the year 1902–1903.

  ARMY.
  I. Sum of money granted as compensation to the widow and children of an officer killed at the battle of Inkerman.
  II. (Volunteers). Annual Return of Volunteer Corps of Great Britain, for the year 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881–1892.
  Fortieth Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works, by the Chief Inspector. Proceedings during the year 1903, presented to the Local Government Board and to the Secretary for Scotland. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL (No. 107).
    HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL (No. 108).
    Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; and to be printed.
    REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next (The Lord Clonbrock). (No. 109.)

    TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR IN THE MINES).
    LORD COLERIDGE,who had given notice "To call attention to the death rate And treatment of black labourers in the
    408
    mines of the Transvaal; and to move to resolve 'That, having regard to the assistance given to the Mother Country in the late Boer War by Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, this House expresses its regret that His Majesty's Government has disregarded their opinions on the policy of introducing indentured Chinese labour into South Africa,'" said: My Lords, since I drew the attention of this House to the subject of my Motion on 18th March last many fresh facts have occurred, and much new information his been supplied to us. It may possibly be said that the principal and natural place for a discussion of these facts and this new information is the House of Commons, but by an ingenious use, or possibly misuse, of a Rule of that House, all debate upon the subject of my Motion is precluded there for the session. His Majesty's Government have taken advantage of a plan whereby their supporters put down Motions which they never intend to bring on, but which prevent any other Members bringing forward discussion on the subject of those Motions. I find that three Motions have been put down in the other House which cover the whole ground of the Resolution standing in my name. If your Lordships will look at the Order Paper of the other House, you will see that I am correct in saying that by the attitude adopted by supporters of His Majesty's Government in putting down Motions, Members are precluded, in that House, from debating the subject of my Resolution. It may be said also that there is a form in which the matter may be discussed, namely, on platforms in the country, but I have noticed that supporters of His Majesty's Government are singularly reticent, not to say shy, in alluding to this matter on public platforms, and the public, therefore, have nothing to guide them but scraps of information brought out in driblets by the mode of Question and Answer in the other House and by the publication of Blue-books which the public as a rule never read, and, if they did read them, they seem to me generally so constructed as rather to confuse than to assist the reader.
    But the new matter which makes me bring forward this Motion is this. We find now that last August questions arose

    409
    in the Cape Parliament with regard to the alleged scarcity of native labour in the mines of the Transvaal, and as to the reasons which prevented a greater flow of labour to those mines. It was decided to send a deputation of sixteen headmen, who were Kaffirs, accompanied by a magistrate, to investigate into the alleged scarcity and the causes of that scarcity, and between September 24th and 30th last this deputation of headmen visited twenty of the principal mines in the Transvaal. They were accompanied by a Mr. Brownlee, resident magistrate at Butter-worth, and the first thing which strikes the reader of the Blue-book in regard to the information which they obtained is this, that although the object was to elicit complaints from the native labourers working in the mines, no interview was allowed by the mine-owners or the Transvaal authorities to take place between these headmen and the accompanying magistrate and the persons from whom they were sent to obtain information, except in the presence of the employers, which, of course, naturally tended to stifle, more or less, and to prevent freedom in the making of complaints which would otherwise naturally exist. But we have the results embodied in independent reports of these sixteen head Kaffirs. I am not going into them in detail, but I think it is fair to say that the result of the reports which they submitted to the Cape Parliament was this, that on the whole with regard to food there were no very well-grounded complaints, but five of these headmen reported that there were grave complaints that the Kaffirs were forced to work when they were sick, and eleven out of the sixteen reported that when sick the Kaffirs were not allowed to return home. All of them reported that there were grave causes of complaint with regard to the payment of wages, and that the agents who had recruited the men from their native districts had promised them wages which the mine-owners did not pay them when they arrived. Most of them complained that they were obliged to work weekdays and Sundays alike, having no one day's holiday in seven, which is usually considered the least that a workman ought to have. And another grave cause of complaint was the system whereby the mine-owners, through the establishment
    410
    of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, obtained a monopoly of recruiting and were thus enabled to draft the natives from mine to mine without giving them any opportunity of choosing to which mine they would go. This was a matter which gravely affected their minds in two directions—firstly, because the Kaffirs from a particular kraal or district like naturally to keep together and to go to the same mine; and, secondly, because some mines had a bad repute, and they naturally wished to be drafted to those mines whose repute was better with regard to the treatment of workmen. The effect of this monopoly was undoubtedly that no penalty attached to mines that treated their labourers badly—no penalty in the difficulty of obtaining labour in those mines. And all of them complained strongly that the men were flogged continually, flogged for the smallest cause, or for no cause; flogged for breach of the smallest regulations, and flogged for not going to work.
    Now, my Lords, how far were these statements backed up, or assented to, or approved by Mr. Stanford, Assistant Chief Magistrate of Native Affairs at Cape Town. He endorsed the report of these headmen on the question of the wrongful deduction from wages, on the question of misrepresentation with regard to wages, and, above all, on the question of flogging. Mr. Brownlee, the resident magistrate, said that on the whole the treatment of the labourers was generally good, but he admitted that there were misrepresentations as to the pay, and he also admitted the flogging, which he described, ironically I suppose, as the "gentle stimulus of cowhide." He further described the manner in which the overseers managed to control their men by stating that on one of the visits he found the men being lashed in his presence. Mr. Cooke, the Acting Pass Commissioner, admitted the misrepresentation with regard to wages and the evidence with regard to flogging. But he wound up with this remarkable statement—
    "I do not consider that the Cape Colony native employed on the goldfields of the Transvaal labours under any disabilities for which his personality is not accountable."

    411
    That is a repetition of what the American slave-owners always said with regard to their slaves.
    Finally, there is the covering letter of Sir Godfrey Lagden, who is head of the Department of Native Affairs in the Transvaal. He admits the flogging—that is admitted all round, but he says that when discovered the matter had been promptly dealt with. That may be. He admits that flogging did continually take place. Sir Godfrey Lagden and Mr. Cooke are officials. They are responsible to Parliament for the treatment of the natives placed under their charge. Therefore, it would be well to see what view they take of their responsibilities. Sir Godfrey Lagden was appointed in 1900. Three years passed and he did nothing; it was not until February, 1903, that he summoned a committee of doctors to investigate the mortality in the mines, and to devise a remedy, if remedy could be devised, They presented their report in June of last year, and Mr. Cooke in February of this year issued his report to Sir Godfrey Lagden, who is his official superior, dealing with the condition of the natives in the mines for the year ended 30th June, 1903. That report contains sentences like this—
    "I have pleasure in bringing under notice a steady and uninterrupted progress, not only towards the betterment of the conditions of life of the native labourer, but also of the consideration with which he is regarded by his European employers. An intelligent apprehension of the principles essential to human health has gradually worked a change in the conditions of native life in the mines. The inspector goes into all questions affecting the comfort, health, and happiness of the j natives employed in the mines."
    And finally he says—
    "The condition of the compounds has greatly improved. Medical attendance is efficient.ֵ In fact, a vast improvement all round has taken place."
    That would be most admirable if it were true. Mr. Cooke vouched for the fact that before the happy era which he is discussing matters were very much worse. The happy era under review is the year from 30th June, 1902, to 30th June, 1903. Now, what are the facts? Take the last eight months of that very year. The average death rate in those mines for the last eight months down to the time of the signing of the
    412
    report was sixty-one per 1,000. In the last two months preceding the issue of the report—May and June, 1903—the death rate was seventy-nine and, eighty-eight per 1,000 respectively, and in the month following the report—namely, in the month of July—the death rate rose to 112 per thousand, while for the whole year under review, which Mr. Cooke has characterised in the language I have read to the House, and which, your Lordships, believing to be true, very rightly cheered, the average death rate was 71 25 per thousand. For the six months succeeding this report the death rate on the average was eighty-one per thousand. No wonder that in February of this year Lord Milner, then advocating the importation of Chinese labour with all the energy and ability of which he is capable, said that the
    "high rate of mortality in the mines is the weakest part of our armour."
    I think, my Lords, I shall hear no dissentient voice in any part of the House when I say that the figures which I have read out show a state of things truly appalling, and how that state of things can be reconciled with the report of Mr. Cooke sent to Sir Godfrey Lagden I would rather that some member of His Majesty's Government should explain, for I cannot.
    On the last occasion that I drew attention to this matter the noble Duke the Under-Secretary replied that no doubt the figures were excessive, but he said the state of things was due to an outbreak of influenza. I accepted the noble Duke's word, and, of course, to that extent it was qualification of the apparently terrible state of affairs which I was presenting to the House. I do not know what figures the noble Duke had to go upon. The only allusion I know of to influenza is in the report of this committee of doctors, in which they are asked to explain the reason of the mortality. They go into the details of disease after disease, but influenza is not one of the diseases. Indeed, in their report they say that influenza is not even the cause of stoppage from work, and therefore it would be interesting to know where the noble Duke got his information that influenza was the cause of this high, rate of mortality.

    413
    Let us reflect that these men when they once become recruited by the Wit-watersrand Native Labour Association must go to whichever mines they are sent. Now, what are the returns from the mines themselves? I find that in the Simmer and Jack Mine the rate of mortality was 103 per thousand; in the Salisbury Mine, 109 per thousand; in the Angelo Deep, 113 per thousand; in the Langlaate Deep, 123 per thousand; in the Simmer and Jack E, 125 per thousand; in the Witwatersrand Deep, 135 per thousand; and in the Cassel Coal, 137 per thousand. That that high rate of mortality is not necessary is shown by the fact that in some mines; quite as large as those I have quoted the mortality ranges between 24 and 31 per thousand, a very different state of things. Can one wonder that Kaffirs are not inclined to be recruited by this agency when they have no choice as to the mine to which they are to be sent? You may say that mining is a dangerous occupation. Is it? Reflect that in this death rate you take men in the prime of life, from eighteen to forty-five years of age; you eliminate all women and children and all the old. What are the facts in England? The death rate of miners be-been the same ages in England is six per thousand, and if you take those mines which are most like the Transvaal mines in all their details, mode of work, the dangerous nature of the employment and so forth, the tin mines of Cornwall, you find that there the death rate is very high, as we think it, because it goes up to fourteen per thousand. How does that compare with the death rate in the Transvaal? I say again, and I repeat it, that these figures eloquently prove that on the commonest grounds of humanity the mine-owners ought to be called upon to reduce this mortality before the question of supplanting Kaffir by Chinese labour is even considered.
    It is said that necessity knows no law, that financial and other reasons make; the necessity of importing Chinese imperious. Let us look at that. If I am stating any facts that are at all questioned I make bold to say that I can give my questioner the answer from a Blue-book. The greatest output—that is surely one test as to whether it is so necessary to
    414
    bring in Chinese—the greatest output of gold from the mines was in 1899, a period which Lord Milner has characterised as one of fabulous wealth. In 1899 the output was £16,000,000; that is the statement of the Commissioner of Mines. In 1902 the mines began to work again after the war, and in that year Lord Milner tells us that the output was £7,458,000. By January, 1903, the output had increased from £7,458,000 to over £10,000,000; by October, 1903, it had increased to £14,500,000; and by March last the output had risen to £15,750,000, only £250.000 less than during the era of fabulous wealth. And I am told—though I have not authority for stating this—that since then the output has further increased, and, if so, probably at the time I am speaking we are taking out of the Transvaal as much gold as we have ever done since the Transvaal came into existence.
    Moreover, it is said that there is a dearth of labour. To extract £16,000,000 worth of gold in 1899 they had to employ 107,827 men; to extract gold in March last at the rate of £15,750,000, which is practically the same, they had only to employ 70,340 men, showing that with 70,000 odd men they can now extract as much gold, through improved appliances and through keeping natives from drink and in other ways improving the power of their getting gold, as it took nearly 108,000 men to extract in 1899. I have not got the returns since then of the gold, but I have the returns of the labourers, and at this moment the labourers have increased from 70,340 to over 82,000 men. Those are the numbers now working in the mines. Where is the necessity for supplanting this labour by indentured Chinamen? When we were last discussing this matter I drew attention to the moral aspect of introducing thousands of Chinamen into these compounds without their wives and families. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, told us, and no doubt he believed it, that we need not trouble about that at all; that the Chinaman could bring his wife and child at any time, and all alarm on that head might be dispelled. If I remember rightly, the noble Earl turned round to the right rev. Prelates and said—
    "Can we do more in the interests of humanity?"

    415
    The right rev. Prelates thought the Government could not. Now then, my Lords, how stands the fact to-day? I said I anticipated that only Chinamen would be engaged who had no encumbrances. Your Lordships rather laughed at that suggestion, and thought it impugned the bona fides of the importers. Since then I find that the mine-owners have convinced the Government that every Chinaman ought to register his wife and family, if he wants them brought over, before he signs his articles at the port of embarkation. As a matter of fact, not a single child or wife has come. The question I want to ask the noble Duke is this, Have any one of those men registered either wife or child at Hong-Kong or elsewhere? If they have not, then I think I am justified in believing that instructions have been given by the mine-owners to employ only such Chinamen as either have no encumbrances or do not admit having them, so that they may not have to bring them over. I hope the noble Duke the Under-Secretary will answer that question. I fancy the order has gone forth, "No bachelors, no dividends," and we shall find that no registration of either child or wife has taken place at the port of embarkation.
    On the question of wages, I do not think that sober men now have any real doubt that, whatever the Government may mean or intend, the practical effect of the importation of Chinamen will be not only to supplant Kaffir labour, but to supplant the white man also. What was the principle which guided the Government when the late Colonial Secretary was their mouthpiece? He said last March in the House of Commons, addressing in imagination the newly-conquered territories—
    "We have to try to find out if we can what would be your action if you were a self-governing colony and to treat the matter on that basis.'
    And I have no doubt that the noble Duke will repeat the assertion that he made the other night, and tell us that in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, the people of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony are entirely convinced of the necessity of the importation of Chinese labour. But assertions are not proof. I will make as bold an assertion, and on as good
    416
    grounds, that the people of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony are bitterly hostile to the importation of Chinese labour, and both my assertion and the assertion of the noble Duke are, if I may say so without any disrespect, just worth the breath we expend in uttering them. There is one very simple test. I am convinced of the truth of my assertion, and I will put it to the test. Is the noble Duke as confident of the truth of his assertion as to put it to the test?
    I am perfectly well aware that certain organs of public opinion have come round on this question. The mine-owners have bought up the whole Press in the Tranvaal. They absolutely control Chambers of Commerce and things of that kind. They have their grip on almost every white labourer connected with the mines, and they can, as we know, when a meeting is held like the one held last December in the Wanderers' Hall, employ men at 15s. a head to break it up. We know also that they can get any number of people to sign petitions in favour of the importation of Chinamen. But do you suppose that the people who put their hands to these petitions really mean what they say? Is it not true that the old saying that—
    "He that complies against his will is of his own opinion still"
    holds good in this case? That political and personal pressure can be put upon these men we know from the evidence given before the Commission. But, my Lords, there is one simple test. Put it to the vote. If you ever mention the question of a referendum to the mine-owners or anybody connected with the mines, their cheeks positively turn pale at the thought. Last September a very influential deputation of various white labour associations approached Sir Arthur Lawley, in the absence of Lord Milner, and asked that a referendum should be taken. Sir Arthur Lawley expressed his disagreement with that proposal, but in February of this year it occurred to the mind of Mr. Lyttelton, and he cabled to Lord Milner and asked how long a referendum would take. Lord Milner replied on 17th February that it would take six months, and he thinks that an absolute answer. Surely it is trifling with

    417
    the subject to suggest as a serious objection to it that it would mean a delay of six months.
    It is the knowledge of what the result of a referendum would be that is operating on the minds of the mine-owners when they pooh-pooh, or do all they can to prevent, such a test of popular opinion being put into practical effect. But more than that. Since this occurred to the mind of Mr. Lyttelton in February there has been a complete census taken of the inhabitants of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. If you can take a census so easily and without hitch, where is the difficulty in taking a referendum? Why cannot it be done in the same way? Meanwhile the mouths of the Rhodesian mine-owners are watering for Chinese labour. It occurred to the authorities that it might be well to take the opinion, by referendum or by dissolution of the Council, of the people in Rhodesia. There were terrible outcries from Rhodesia. The Mine-owners Association there telegraphed on 25th November that—
    "Wages have increased without conferring any real benefit on the natives."
    That is the first time I have ever heard of an increase in wages not benefiting the wage-earner. I wonder if that doctrine would be applicable to the increase in dividends. However, in Sir Marshall Clarke, the Resident Commissioner, the mine-owners found a very tough obstacle. He was not going to be driven from his course by any of these heated telegrams from the mine-owners. He says the movement" lacked spontaneousness," and he recommends on a "question of such moment" an appeal to the electors. How is that treated by the mine-owners? The question is referred by the Colonial Office to the British South Africa Company. What is the reply? It is what you would expect—" the board on general public grounds is strongly opposed." Of course they are; and the Colonial Secretary is roundly accused by them, I think somewhat impertinently, of "retarding the progress of Rhodesia" by refusing to let them have Chinese labour at once. I prophesy that before very long we shall hear the noble Duke—quite honestly—telling us that not only the mine-owners but all the white inhabitants
    418
    of Rhodesia are entirely convinced, and His Majesty's Government likewise, of the imperative necessity of introducing Chinese labour into Rhodesia, and that all opposition in that country is now at an end.
    I ask, are we proceeding on true Imperial lines? Are we proceeding in consonance with the wishes and aspirations of our colonies? Australia and New Zealand sent between them 22,000 odd men, at a cost of £1,800,000, to help to conquer the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. I have not the Cape Colony figures by me, but I have no doubt they are very large. Mr. Chamberlain, at the Colonial Conference, expressed himself in this manner—
    "We are profoundly grateful to you for what you have done. It has created a sense of reciprocal obligation. I attach still more importance to the moral support we have received from you."
    And, speaking to his constituents in Birmingham, he said—
    "In future you will have to take account of the opinion of your colonists; you will have to consult them, and if you wish that they should always stand at your side you will have to be guided, to some extent at any rate, by their wishes and their aspirations."
    Now, my Lords, the Transvaal has been conquered by the assistance of these colonies. It is not a self-governing colony which can express its own mind and deal with home matters, so to speak, independently. His Majesty's Government is responsible for the conduct of affairs in this newly-conquered territory, and not the mock Legislative. Council they have set up there, which; does not represent the opinions of the people. From Cape Colony on 2nd July we had a strong unanimous protest from the House of Assembly. On 17th August there was a protest from the Ministers, and on 4th January this year another repeated protest from the Ministers. On 19th January this year came protests, from the Australian Commonwealth and from New Zealand.
    I ask this House to express its regret that the opinions of these colonies have been disregarded. It is a matter, to my mind, of vast and overwhelming importance. It is not the question of the importation of one shipload of Chinese labourers. It is a far larger question than that. It is a question of whether

    419
    capital alone, uncontrolled by political or moral considerations, is to dictate the destiny of one of our colonies. The Chinaman is the tool—the apt tool—desired by the capitalists to free them from the restraints of any labour control. His Majesty's Government may deny it, but the facts show, and will increasingly show, that the Chinaman will be the supplanter, not only of the black, but of the white man. The Chinaman will confer on the mine-owner the power to work the mines for the exclusive profit of the shareholders, utterly disregarding the benefit of the country. In fact, to put it shortly, we have broken down one oligarchy only to set up another oligarchy, infinitely more intolerant, infinitely more unscrupulous, and infinitely more dangerous to the Empire at large.
    The difference between capital and labour is this, that capital knows no country and recognises no frontier. Naturally, capital only seeks the cheapest labour, and science with its rapidity of intercommunication has come to the aid of capital by strengthening its cosmopolitan influence all over the world. You have only to look down the list of mine-owners, and their un-English nationality is at once detected by their names. The only breakwater, so to speak, to the complete world-wide tyranny of capital lies in the combination of labour, and such combination is destroyed by the importation, in competition with white labour, of servile labour under such terms as those under which you are importing Chinese into the Transvaal. They are mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. They have no part or lot in the colony into which you introduce them, no part in its aspirations or its ideals. They are no strength to it. They will not fight for it, and they will not even find burial in its soil.
    The question involved then is whether the lot of labour in this colony shall be levelled up or levelled down. We on this side of the House believe in the levelling up of labour, because, although the few may not become so rich, the general condition of the community is raised and improved. Do His Majesty's Government and noble Lords who talk so proudly of Empire reflect that they are wounding and alienating the Imperial spirit in one of its most healthy and vital manifestations? Every permanent element in the
    420
    newly-conquered territories is raised against you in open or sullen hostility on this question. And it follows that you are sowing in these countries the seeds of future mischief and future revolt—a revolt in which, perhaps, for the first time in South Africa you will find the Kaffir and the white man sympathising with each other. You can only hope to succeed by driving out the British workman and by keeping the Boer in subjection by force of arms. If that is to be the outcome of your policy, all I can say is that you are permanently withholding from that country the blessings of self-government on which you have assured the British, the Boers, the Kaffirs, and the Colonies alike your hopes were unalterably fixed. For these reasons I move the Resolution standing in my name.
    Moved, to resolve, "That, having regard to the assistance given to the Mother Country in the late Boer War by Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, this House expresses its regret that His Majesty's Government have disregarded their opinions on the policy of introducing indentured Chinese labour into South Africa."—(Lord Coleridge.)
    LORD HARRIS: My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I rise to ask your Lordships to allow me to address you on this subject to-night, not from a want of acquaintance with the subject, for it has been my business for some years to make myself familiar with many of the points which have been dealt with by the noble Lord, but I cannot help remembering that in the other House, for some years at any rate, it has been intimated pretty clearly that the House objects to directors of companies addressing it on subjects in which, on behalf of their companies, they are interested, and I could not be sure but that your Lordships' feelings might be of the same character. I am a director and chairman of two important trust companies in the Transvaal, one of which controls a very large group of mines, and is responsible, and is prepared to accept the responsibility, for the management of the mines, within which is included, of course, the treatment of the natives. But after an experience of thirty years in your Lordships' House I have never detected any similar feeling

    421
    here. I think I may rather say that it is your Lordships' wish to hear those who have a practical knowledge of the subject. Therefore, encouraged by that manifestation, I will endeavour to deal with certain facts which, I think, I may with advantage bring to your Lordships' notice without advancing any opinions of my own.
    The noble and learned Lord dealt first of all with a Cape Blue-book. It has now been incorporated in a Blue-book presented to this House. When the subject was first raised by Major Seely in the other House it was a Cape Blue-book. It had not been presented to this House, and was not easy to get hold of. Therefore it was difficult to discuss it from an absolutely impartial point of view in that House. It had all the appearance of a Parliamentary Blue-book, and a leading Member of the Opposition in the other House told me a day or two afterwards that he had been at the time, and was then, when he spoke to me, of opinion that it was a Blue-book presented to Parliament. I do not dispute for one moment the statements which the noble and learned Lord quoted from the reports of the deputation which went to the Transvaal, I think, in the autumn of last year, but I would call your Lordships' attention to certain facts in connection with the examination conducted by that delegation. In the first place, they had no power to administer an oath. They went from compound to compound and probably selected at random natives they saw about. They would not have any power of making a special selection; they probably called up any boys—your Lordships are, of course, acquainted with the fact that "boy" is the technical term for, natives employed in the mines—they saw there and questioned them. They asked certain questions and the boys gave their answers. The mine-owners or the mine managers had no intimation whatever that these visits were going to be paid, so that they were quite surprise visits. The deputation asked the boys questions and obtained their answers, but where the answer conveyed something critical of the action of some employer at the mine, that person was never given an opportunity of saying anything in reply. If the noble and learned Lord will look at that Blue-book
    422
    from a purely judicial aspect he will admit that it is an ex parte statement.
    LORD COLERIDGE: Yes.
    LORD HARRIS: The noble and learned Lord accepts that. It is a purely ex parte statement brought before the House of Commons suddenly, and without any opportunity being given to those who might have answered the allegations in it successfully, or, at any rate, according to facts, and I do not think it is a report that should receive greater attention than the replies of Sir Godfrey Lagden and his subordinates. Now, Sir Godfrey Lagden in, I think, the last Blue-book which has been presented to your Lordships, deals with this report, and he also presents a memorandum drawn up by his chief inspector. They touch upon one or two of the points which the noble and learned Lord referred to, and I think it is only fair to those who have been charged, through the report of this delegation, with unfairness to the boys, that some one should point out what the chief officials of the Transvaal have to say on their behalf. The noble and learned Lord first of all said that the boys were forced to work when they were sick. I confess I have not seen that point particularly dealt with, and I have never heard any complaints myself about it; but it seems to me that inasmuch as a boy when sick is unable to do good work, it is highly improbable that the managers would want to put him to work of the kind of which the noble and learned Lord is thinking. Then he said they were not allowed to return home. Every workman is not a good one. There are a certain number of shirkers in every group of boys on mines; but if a boy is really well enough to be sent back to his home, and is not a good worker, it certainly is not in the interests of the mine-owners to keep him.
    The most serious complaint, I thought, in the report was that the boys were deceived as to the wages they would get; that they were told they would be paid so much a month, and when they came to work, found that they had got to put in thirty days in order to complete the month, and if they were sick for a day or two, they would not get paid in respect of that time. It was pointed out in the

    423
    House of Commons by Mr. Lyttelton that in the Cape Blue-book there is set out the certificate which is shown to the boy, and which is passed by the officer on the frontier before the boy is allowed to come into the country, and that certificate makes it perfectly clear that the boy is to receive so much per day. It would be perfectly possible for the recruiting officer to deceive the boy if there was no one on the frontier whose business it is to see that he knows the terms and conditions of his employment. Before a boy is allowed into the country he has to be brought to the nearest pass officer, who is an officer of the Government, and it is the business of that officer to see that the boy understands the contract which he enters into. Therefore, although it is possible that recruiting agents may have tried to deceive the boy, if the boy has arrived in the country in that state of ignorance it is the fault, not of the recruiting officer, not of the mine-owners, not of the mine managers, but of the official of the Government, who has either through ignorance himself or carelessness omitted to point out to the boy the actual terms of his engagement. As regards Sunday work, your Lordships must be aware of the fact that where there is machinery certain portions of it must be kept going on Sundays.
    As to the boys not being allowed to choose the mines to which they will go my information is that if the boys indicate at the frontier that they wish to go to a particular mine, the officer is bound to pass them on to that mine. That is a very marked difference from what obtained before the war, when a kind of piracy went on. Boys were kidnapped on the way, and intending to go to one mine were taken off to another, and boys were bribed away from one mine to another. Instances of that kind occurred, but I was informed when recently in South Africa that there is now no doubt whatever that if the boys indicate that they wish to go to a particular mine it is the business of the Government official at the frontier to pass them to that mine. Then, as regards flogging. Sir Godfrey Lagden says of it—
    "With regard to the allegation about being beaten, no power is vested in any mining authorities to inflict punishment. That is reserved for the officers of the law. But, of course, it is necessary to maintain discipline on mines where there are thousands of natives
    424
    working, and for that reason the mining authorities are bound to employ supervisors and overseers. Occasionally it has happened that these men, whether white or black, have exceeded their powers, and whenever such has been discovered it has been properly dealt with."
    Mr. Cooke, the Acting Pass Commissioner and Chief Inspector, refers to the punishment in these terms—
    "The term 'stocks' is the one applied to the mine detention room. The sobriquet is a relic of former days. 'Stocks' as understood by us are no longer tolerated. The mine detention room is, I consider, absolutely essential as being the only means of controlling riotous and quarrelsome natives. It must be remembered that in the majority of cases mines are situated a very considerable distance from any charge office or gaol, and as it is not infrequently happens that a native 'runs amuck' it is necessary that he should be promptly dealt with in order to prevent further developments.
    Mr. Cooke admits that cases of beating have occurred. But this is not confined to the mines. Mr. Cooke says—
    "Great difficulty has been experienced in securing conformity to the legal procedure. This has now been secured as regards those responsible, but cases of assault still occur, where ignorant miners strike natives probably for no other reason than that the natives are unable to understand orders given to them. When such cases have come to the notice of inspectors of this department, representations have at once been made to the management of the mine, and in almost all cases the result has been the dismissal of the European employé."
    I am not here to attempt to deny that there may be cases of brutality. I am sorry to say that if such exist they are not confined to South Africa. I have heard of cases of brutality in other parts of the world where a white race is brought in touch with a coloured race. I admit at once that it is the duty of those who are responsible for the management of these mines to do everything in their power to impress upon their white servants that such things are not to be allowed, and that the native is to be encouraged to regard the compound as a place where he is not only made comfortable, but where he will receive absolute justice and be free from brutality.
    The noble and learned Lord passed on from the Cape Blue-book to what seems to me to be a far more serious question. I refer to the mortality returns. I do not dispute the figures which the noble and learned Lord gave, for it is impossible to do so. The rate of mortality for the year which he quoted is lamentable, and by

    425
    every means in our power, and at whatever cost, that figure has got to be reduced. The committee of doctors to whom the noble and learned Lord referred have expressed a hope that by means of certain changes which they have recommended, some of which have been carried out, and all of which are being now undertaken, the death rate may be reduced to, they hope forty per thousand. There is a farther report which I only received a week ago, and which I do not think has been included in the Blue-book, signed by a sub-committee of doctors, three of whom were on the original committee, called together to report whether it would be a good thing to have a detention compound in which boys on arrival at. Johannesburg should be put for a few days before being passed on to the mines. At the end of their report these doctors say—
    "It must not be forgotten that, however great care is taken, and however much expense incurred, the permanent condition of climatic differences and seasonal variations, the circumstances of underground work, and the proved susceptibility of the natives to certain, and especially to pneumococcal infections, will contribute to render the risks of mortality always considerable."
    The figure of seventy-one per thousand is a terrible death rate to face, but I am not prepared to accept it as being extravagantly different from what may be the case in similar occupations in other countries. The noble and learned Lord quoted some mortality returns in connection with mines in England, and I think the worst case he quoted gave a death rate of thirty per thousand.
    LORD COLERIDGE: The figure was fourteen per thousand in the tin mines in Cornwall. I may tell the noble Lord that the highest rate of all is in returned miners from the Transvaal.
    LORD HARRIS: I will deal with that in a moment. I have in my hand a Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Health of Cornish Miners, by Dr. J. S. Haldane, F.R.S.; Mr. Joseph S. Martin, H.M. Inspector of Mines for the South Western district; and Mr. R. Arthur Thomas. On page 14 of this Report the noble Lord will see that the proportion of deaths from lung
    426
    diseases among Cornish miners who had not worked rock-drills was about three times the normal, and the total death rate about 1·8 times the normal. That leads one to inquire what is the normal death rate. The normal rate of mortality is given in another table in the same Report as thirty-four per thousand.
    LORD COLERIDGE: My figures were taken from page 6, table 2, in the same Report. They are the figures of the death rates between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, which represent the ages at which Kaffirs are employed in the Rand mines.
    LORD HARRIS: That may be so, but I think I am justified in quoting the statement of these gentlemen, that the proportion of deaths from lung diseases among Cornish miners who had not worked rock-drills was about three times the normal. The normal death rate in England is thirty-four.
    LORD COLERIDGE: May I ask where the noble Lord gets that figure?
    LORD HARRIS: I have not the reference in my notes, but I will find it presently.
    LORD COLERIDGE: That is the death rate of miners between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-five.
    LORD HARRIS: The ages taken throughout these tables are from fifteen to sixty-five. I have excluded machine-men because I think it must be admitted that the mortality of machine-men in Cornwall has been increased by the return of machine-men from the Transvaal and other parts of the world; but the death rate among machine-men from respiratory diseases is about fifteen times, and their total death rate about eight times that for average occupied males in this country; or, to make another comparison, the death rate among machine-men from respiratory diseases is about thirty times, and the total death rate about ten times, as great as that among colliers or ironstone miners of the same age. I only quote this to show your Lordships that the conditions of work in the Cornish mines and in the Transvaal mines are very

    427
    similar to the conditions of work in some other kinds of mines, and that the death rate where the rock-drill is used as it is in Cornwall and the Transvaal is very much increased.
    I do not think the noble and learned Lord will contest this, that where the rock-drill is used there is very serious danger from phthisis. Phthisis has been recognised in the Cornwall mines for over forty years, and I do not see from this Report that there has been any inquiry by the Government until these gentlemen were appointed in 1902. In the same year the Transvaal, which has not been mining for more than twenty years—and, I think, to be really fair, one ought not to consider anything before the war, for everything was then done in a rough and ready way—in the same year a committee was appointed in the Transvaal to report upon miners' phthisis, and their report is actually quoted in this Report about miners' phthisis in Cornwall. More than that, as far back as 1902 the mine-owners offered three prizes, the highest being £500, for the best machinery for subduing the dust which in dry-drilling is inevitable. They were desirous of doing all they could to reduce the tendency to this great increase in mortality. Therefore, so far as the Government of the Transvaal is concerned, they appointed a committee quite as soon as any Administration in England on this important question, and the mine-owners themselves have done what so far no one in England has done, namely, they have encouraged manufacturers to produce something which will allay the dust in the mines. Those prizes have now been awarded.
    I was talking to-day to an eminent engineer and he fold me that long before the war they were experimenting with all kinds of rock-drills in the hope of reducing this danger, but the difficulty is this, that the rock-drill men themselves will not use these machines if they can possibly help it. For one thing, they have not been perfected, and the second objection to their use is that they render the work, so to speak, "sloppy." Your Lordships know for how many years attempts were made to compel coal miners to use safety lamps before it was effectually done. By degrees I hope it will be possible, if not to induce, at any rate to compel, these rock-drill men to use these appliances which science has invented in order to
    428
    reduce the dust which is inevitable where the explosions take place. They are by nature, I fancy, a very careless body of men, and prefer to go on earning large wages rather than take greater care of themselves. I have quoted these cases in order to show your Lordships that the managers and the mine-owners of the Transvaal are not indifferent to the excessive rate of mortality, and are doing what they can to reduce it. That is as regards phthisis, and phthisis has affected the black boy as well as the white man, because the black boy goes down into the mines after the explosion has taken place just as soon as the white man. He is close at hand, and is subject to the same conditions to some extent; and if we can reduce this disability in connection with rock-drilling, I should hope that a reduction would certainly be shown in the rate of mortality.
    The committee of doctors, as I have already pointed out, and Lord Milner in one of his despatches, called attention to the enormous death rate from pneumonia. That is not peculiar to the natives. It is a very prevalent disease among Europeans in the Transvaal, and, having regard to the fact that many of these natives come up from the level of the sea coast to this great altitude of 7,000 feet at the time of the year when they are most liable to catch cold on emerging from the shafts, there will always be a tendency to their getting pneumonia. Our business is to do all we can to get the boys to take care of themselves, but they are just as casual in every way as the white miner is. When they come up from the shaft, instead of staying in their rooms for a time and accustoming themselves to the change of temperature, they lie about anywhere, and the compound manager cannot, of course, always be looking after them. These are some of the reasons. Another is, I think, that boys have been passed at the frontier who had much better have been left behind.
    There has been a great preyalence of scurvy, and a boy who has got scurvy is much more likely to get one of these other diseases than a boy who has not. The noble and learned Lord has quoted a case of one mine which I know very well, where there is a high death rate,

    429
    and considering myself to some extent responsible for the management there, and being aware that scurvy had been very prevalent in that mine, I made some inquiries on the subject. The doctors to whom the noble and learned Lord referred stated in their first report that scurvy was purely a dietetic disease. Knowing that, the greatest care was being exercised in that compound as regards food. I made special inquiries as to this, and I believe your Lordships will find that the doctors in the Transvaal will have to acknowledge before very long that scurvy is not purely dietetic, and that it is transmissible from one to another. I merely mention that as an interesting point. It has been recommended that dry-drilling shall be done away with, and wet-drilling substituted. That is just one of the points where we are in the hands of the drill-men themselves. As a matter of fact, a day or two before I left Johannesburg the chief engineer of the group of mines with which I have to do was asked this question in my presence, "Are the white drill-men using the jet drill? "and he replied, "No; I am afraid they will not. "It is impossible for the man in charge to keep his eye on every miner. It is impossible for every white man who is superintending a rock-drill to be looked after and compelled, as if he were a child, to use the water jet, and until we can get some more efficacious means of compulsion, there will be risks of miners' phthisis.
    I have mentioned these points because I am anxious to assure your Lordships that the mine managers and mine owners are most anxious to do all that lies in their power to improve matters by providing good food, more rooms with sufficient breathing space, sounder floors, removable bunks which can be cleaned in the sunshine, places into which the men can go at the shaft head; and by providing baths and looking after the sanitary arrangements down in the mines, we hope that eventually we may be able to arrive at something near the figure which the committee of doctors said they thought was possible. I do not contest the fact that there are certain circumstances connected with mining on the Rand which are remediable, and I believe it is the anxious desire of the managers of the mines, and the directors of the companies controlling
    430
    them, introduce these changes as to rapidly as possible.
    The noble and learned Lord went on with the question of the output of the mines and the labour employed before the war and now, and pointed out that the mines are now producing as much as they did before the war with about seven-tenths the amount of labour. I think that is attributable entirely to the fact that the boys are doing very much better work. They are not tempted away by drink, which before the war incapacitated quite a considerable proportion. That, indeed, is one of the reasons why we are not getting as many boys as we did before the war. They know they cannot get drink now, and prefer to go where they can get it. From observation, I should say that for the whole of the last century, and even before that, South Africa has been suffering from lack of labour. The wages that are paid to coloured men in the Transvaal are something enormous even as compared with the wages paid to English servants and English labourers in England. I believe it is impossible for South Africa to go really ahead until she can lay her hands on more labour somehow or other. There are several facts which support my contention. Cape Colony had to go to the East for labour, and she got Malays. You will find Malays all over the Colony. Natal had to go to the East for labour for her sugar plantations; and when the Uganda Railway was being built Africa had to go to the East for labour again. As regards these mines it would have been impossible, without going elsewhere, for us to obtain the labour necessary to keep working the number of stamps that are ready. At the present moment there are hundreds, if not thousands, lying idle, and it would have been impossible, in my opinion, to get the labour in South Africa to keep them going.
    As regards the question of morality, I have only this to point out, that the Kaffirs themselves did not bring their wives to the Rand, it being contrary to the custom of the tribe for men to take their wives away from the kraal, so that the Chinaman will be in pretty much the same position as the Kaffir in that he leaves his wife behind. I admit that there is this difference, that the Kaffir could return home, but the Chinaman cannot under the terms of his indenture for three

    431
    years. I should like, if I may, to read to the House one quotation. It was applicable to England sixty years ago, and at any rate the condition of the mines in South Africa, which is, after all, a country peopled by coloured men, a country dependent upon coloured labour under conditions which the noble and learned Lord is disposed to criticise very severely, and which is far removed from civilisation, is a thousand times in advance of what the condition of the mines was in this country sixty years ago. The quotation I would read to your Lordships is from the pages of "Sybil," published, I think, in 1846 or 1849—
    "But can we wonder at the hideous coarseness of the language used when we remember the savage rudeness of their lives. Naked to the waist, an iron chain fixed to a leather belt, clad in canvas trousers, while on hands and feet English girls for twelve and sometimes sixteen hours a day haul and hurry tubs of coal up subterranean roads—dark, precipitous, and splashy."
    He also describes how infants of four or five years had to go down the shafts first and to leave them last, and for many long hours were left absolutely alone in the dark, their only occupation being to open the air doors to allow the trucks through and to close them afterwards, on which depended the safety of the mine. Thank God everything of that kind had been changed in England, and thank God the example of England 'has been followed by the Transvaal.
    I think that the other questions which the noble and learned Lord dealt with are rather questions for the Government than for an independent Member of your Lordships' House. I would only say this, as regards the noble and learned Lord's Motion, that we must all be grateful for what the Colonies did for us in the recent campaign. At the same time, I cannot see the appositeness of the noble and learned Lord's reasoning. He says that because the Colonies helped us in the late war, therefore we ought to have paid attention to their objection to the importation of Chinese labour. The Australian Colonies and New Zealand have no real experience of what the labour conditions are in South Africa, and I think that when they arrived at those opinions they could hardly have realised that, so far as the lowest class of work is concerned, Africa always has
    432
    been, is now, and, in my opinion, for many years must be, dependent on coloured labour. But whether that is so or not, I do not admit that the argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord is a strong one. He and I would probably agree that it is regrettable that the Australian Colonies will not allow Indian natives to earn a living there, but I could not admit that it would be a sound argument to say that it was unfair of them to do this because India has spent so many millions and sacrificed so many lives in defending one of the bulwarks of the Empire. Australia and New Zealand are perfectly entitled to exclude coloured labour, but I do not admit that because they do that they are good judges of what is necessary for another colony in another part of the world. After all, my Lords, you are responsible, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, these being Crown colonies, for their government. Why should you cede your right to carefully watch all legislation proposed for colonies which have not got popularly-elected Legislative Assemblies?
    In conclusion, I would ask your Lordships to believe that whilst there are men in the Transvaal with names that are not English, men who, perhaps, have very little English blood in their veins, yet at the same time there are a great majority of men there concerned with the control of these mines, with their actual practical management, and with the engineering difficulties connected with them, who are Englishmen—Englishmen such as your Lordships associate with in your daily life, who do not change their feelings and their habits because they have gone to live in South Africa; and I say it is grossly unjust to attribute to these men habits of slave-owners.
    LORD COLERIDGE: I said they used the same arguments as the slave-owners did.
    LORD HARRIS: Is it intended by that to convey that the word "slave-owner" is applicable to them? [Lord COLERIDGE dissented.] I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord does not imply that. The men who are out there are Englishmen in every sense of the word and are most profoundly indignant that the

    433
    word "slave-owner" or "slave-driver" should have been used in connection with any occupation that they have got to manage; and I do earnestly ask your Lordships to believe that just as you have been grateful to pioneers who in different parts of the world have carried the frontier of your Empire forward, so you have every reason to be grateful to these Englishmen for what they are doing in South Africa to-day.
    LORD NORTON: My Lords, we have beard a very interesting statement from Lord Harris as to the management of the Transvaal mines; but is not that a very incidental and minor point raised by the Motion of the noble and learned Lord opposite? The main proposition is that your Lordships should express regret for having consented to the admission of Chinese labour into South Africa. As an incidental point of argument it was attempted to be shown that the treatment in the Transvaal mines? was very bad and the mortality great. I think what has fallen from Lord Harris shows that that need not be any argument whatever against the proposition for the introduction of Chinese. The argument itself was imperfect in the noble and learned Lord's own hands, for he said that the extreme mortality which obtained in some mines in the Transvaal was not the case in other mines. Therefore, the inference would be that the excessive mortality should be reduced so that the death rate should not be greater on an average than that shown to obtain in the better managed mines. But, after all, if there was any point to be made from the mortality in the Transvaal mines it would be in favour of the introduction of Chinese labour, because the introduction of carefully guarded indentured free labour would at all events be a very great advance upon the present state of affairs. It was, therefore, an argument against the general proposition of the Motion.
    The noble and learned Lord asks that the Imperial Parliament should interfere on this question. It is said that the Transvaal is a Crown colony. It is in one sense but not in a general sense. As Mr. Chamberlain has well shown in the other House, the Transvaal is in a position similar to that of an American territory—a position of inchoate but guaranteed self-government. It is a self-governing
    434
    colony which, from circumstances of the war, cannot be given entire self-government until the reconstitution of the country; but it is to all intents and purposes a self-governing colony so far as the guarantee of self-government is assured to it; and this country is pledged not to delay or interfere with her self-government more than is absolutely necessary for the immediate settlement of the country. But the proposition before us is that the Imperial Government should interfere with an entirely local measure in a self-governing colony.
    It is surprising to me that there are any who still retain such false notions of the right relationship between the mother country and the Colonies. It is that very mistaken principle which lost us our finest colonies; and if the idea which is embodied in the Motion now before the House is the idea of the Opposition, then all I can say is. Heaven prevent that Opposition getting into power, for if they do they will most certainly repeat the mistake which has been made before and lose these present Colonies just at the very moment when they are promising the most perfect prosperity and attachment to this country. The proposition of the noble and learned Lord goes further than mere interference with the rights and local policy of a self-governing colony. It proposes to express regret at the passing of, and, if possible, to undo, a measure which is now in process of being carried out. What is worse, the proposition is not only to interfere with the local policy and action of self-governing colonies, but actually that their measures should be used, I may say misrepresented, for the purposes of Party contests in this country. That is the proposition now before us.
    The Transvaal, by their Legislature and in every way in which they can express their own opinion, have decided upon the introduction of Chinese labour. That is what they feel to be absolutely necessary and vital for their prosperity, and we are asked to say that they were mistaken and that we know better. I must say candidly that I think the Opposition have lately been very hard up for a topic on which there was any prospect of uniting their Party for the purpose of making an attack on the Government. So prosperous and

    435
    successful were affairs conducted in this country that the only thing open to the Opposition was to go to a distant colony where they could get topics to misrepresent for the purpose of attacking the Government at home. The people in the Transvaal have made up their mind to pass this Ordinance for Chinese labour, and this Motion proposes that the Imperial Parliament should say that they should not have done so. It was, therefore, necessary to misrepresent so plain a fact to make it available for Party purposes in England. The employment of Chinese labour freely in Africa is misrepresented as a return to conditions of slavery—a distortion of fact which has not been made out at all by anybody. In fact, it has been clearly proved that there is no feature of slavery in the contract of labour adopted. But it was necessary to make the Transvaal Ordinance appear odious to become a possible topic for uniting the Opposition against the Government at home.
    We ought by this time to have learned the wisdom of not interfering with the local affairs of colonies. Do not let us attempt the more mischievous plan of garbling their affairs as material for Party strife at home. If this is attempted we shall soon find that our interference, however humanely conceived, will have but one effect; and that will be to alienate the Colonies from us. They will not stand that sort of usage of them. Mr. Chamberlain has lately most powerfully advanced the feeling of attachment on the part of the Colonies to this country, from what occurred during the South African War. If your Lordships were to pass this Resolution and to express your regret that you did not interfere in time to prevent this local Ordinance, which was anxiously wished for by the colony, from becoming law, and against which nothing has been said truly, but a good deal falsely, you would be doing much to break through that attachment which Mr. Chamberlain has so successfully encouraged, and than which, whatever some may say as to the method by which he proposes to cement it, there is nothing more essential to the interests of the Empire at large.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, when I saw this Notice on your Lordships' Paper embodying inquiry into the policy of His Majesty's Government in South Africa, and when I saw that it was the noble and learned Lord who was going to move the Motion, I felt certain that once more His Majesty's Government would be attacked in strong and vigorous terms for the policy which they have carried out in the Transvaal. The noble and learned Lord divided his subject into two parts. One part was an attack upon His Majesty's Government for having permitted the policy of the introduction of Chinese labourers, and the other was devoted to pointing out that the treatment of the natives in the Transvaal was not, in his opinion, all that could be desired. I cannot at this late hour follow the noble and learned Lord in a discussion as to the amount of gold that has been dug out at Johannesburg, and the number of miners employed there nor am I prepared to discuss with him whether or not the inhabitants of the Transvaal are in favour of Chinese labour. Nor do I think it necessary for me to repeat arguments why a referendum was not granted, and why we did not employ that process of discovering the opinion of the people of the Transvaal.
    The noble and learned Lord asked for a specific answer as to whether the Chinese who had started from Hong-Kong had been permitted to take their wives with them. I have a telegram in my hand from the Governor of Hong-Kong, in which he says that the emigrants were made fully aware of the provisions for taking out their families. Special accommodation on board was ready, but none took advantage of the privilege. It is impossible to say how many men will send out for their families later, but they have got every encouragement to do so.
    LORD COLERIDGE: Have they registered them? because they cannot send for them if they have not.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I do not propose, either, to dwell upon the points raised by the noble and learned Lord with regard to the opinions of

    437
    Australia and New Zealand on this question. The views of His Majesty's Government wore fully set out in the two telegrams from the Secretary of State, one to the Earl of Ranfurly, Governor of New Zealand, and the other to Sir Hely Hutchinson, at the Cape. No doubt the noble and learned Lord has read those telegrams, and knows their contents well. The views expressed by the Secretary of State at that date are exactly the views that the Secretary of State holds to-day. We have nothing further to add on that point. I feel sure your Lordships would not wish me to enter for the third or fourth time into a defence of the Ordinance for the importation of Chinese labour. Parliamentary discussions on that subject have taken place on several occasions, and I need hardly remind your Lordships that Parliamentary decisions have been duly recorded. The Transvaal is perfectly quiet. The agitation which the noble and learned Lord predicted has not taken place. Chinamen have safely arrived, and so far as we are aware, great benefit will result from their importation.
    I turn from the consideration of the general policy of the Government in South Africa to the main point which the noble and learned Lord has raised with regard to the treatment of labourers. I do not deny that it is possible by a judicious selection of passages to make a formidable indictment against the Transvaal Government. I admit, however, that the noble and learned Lord was on the whole very moderate in the indictment he made. He pointed out to your Lordships very accurately the facts of the case. Mr. Brownlee was sent with fifteen of the headmen of the tribes to find out why the natives of the Cape would not go and work in the mines at Johannesburg. They were also to inquire into the condition and the treatment of the natives. The immediate object and aim of the inquiry, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us, was to elicit from the natives any complaints they had to make against their employers; that is to say, to find out every complaint that the employee had to make against his employer. Your Lordships will notice that the result of this inquiry was not a dispassionate report; it was essentially the report of an inquiry instituted to formulate every grievance that could possibly be collected
    438
    The number of Kaffirs in the Rand mines is about 80,000, and of that number only 4,000 come from Cape Colony. It will therefore be observed that this inquiry referred only to 5 per cent, of the total number of labourers employed in the Rand. We know from experience of the natives of West Africa that those who live near the coast or near the towns are undoubtedly more prone to complain of the standard of living and comfort than the inland natives. Their inland brethren would regard very often as a condition of positive luxury, a condition of affairs which the natives in towns grumble at. I do not, for a moment, suggest that there is any difference of treatment between the Cape natives and the other natives employed in the Rand; but it is an undoubted fact that the Cape native is more troublesome and querulous, and more likely to make complaints. What does Mr. Cooke, the Acting Pass Commissioner, say of their disposition? He, speaking of the native, says that his association with Europeans has made him independent and impatient of control, that when brought to task he shows an ungracious spirit, and that his tendency to indulge in liquor and the smoking of hemp unfits him for work and brings him into conflict with those in authority. The Cape native is more likely to get into trouble with his overseer and to give a highly-coloured version of his conflicts with authority. Although I do not for a moment impugn the testimony of the natives, it is certainly a testimony which is not likely to err on the side of under-estimating any grievances they may have to bring forward. This view is sustained by the testimony of an independent witness and impartial critic, who is not in any way connected with Transvaal Administration or with the Chamber of.Mines—I refer to the Chief Medical Officer of Portuguese East Africa, the territory from which 75 per cent, of the natives employed in the mines comes. This gentleman, after paying a surprise visit to the compounds, stated that the Portuguese natives in the mines which he visited were 75 per cent, of the total employed, that he was confident they were better housed on the Rand than in their own homes; and that the food was in good condition; and after making some suggestions he passed a general note of approval. Thus your Lordships will see that, in regard to 75 per cent, of the

    439
    total number of natives employed, the representative of Portuguese East Africa, a perfectly independent witness, considers that their treatment on the whole was of a good and proper character.
    Now, my Lords, let us for a moment consider what the result of this inquiry of Mr. Brownlee's was. As I have already said, it is doubtless easy by making a judicious selection from the report to show that the Cape natives are subjected to all kinds of treatment—that they are flogged, that the contracts they have entered into are not kept, that they are bought and sold, and so on. But in many of these cases, if the facts are carefully gone into and examined, it is easy to explain why the natives have complained. On page 28 a native chief says—
    "Those who are unemployed are sold for six shillings per head."
    That is a remarkable statement. If it were true that natives were sold I should have great difficulty in replying, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord. But what are the real facts of the case? These natives are not sold at all. When they are unemployed they are put into what is called a protection camp, the Government charges 1s. per day for their care and keep, and when another employer comes along to take over these natives, he has to pay the sum which the Government have charged for their keep. This point was clearly explained by another chief, more intelligent than his brother, who said—
    "Natives look upon this as a purchase price paid for them and think they are sold. We explain this matter to our Colonial natives, and show that it is a good thing for the natives to be protected in this way."
    There is just another instance of the distorted view that some of these chiefs have taken in regard to complaints. The noble and learned Lord alleged that the natives when sick were not allowed to go home. That is very easily explained. When a native is ill his one desire is to get home as quickly as possible, but it may be necessary to detain him in the hospital to make sure that he is perfectly fit to travel before being allowed to go home. It is impossible for me at this hour of the evening to deal with many of the complaints to which the noble and learned Lord has alluded. Many of them are
    440
    based upon error and misconception. I think the natives who make these complaints make them against measures which they do not appreciate and which are really designed for their benefit and protection. When there is so much difficulty in arriving accurately at the opinion of these native chiefs, when the opinions of the commission itself vary, one native saying one thing and another native another, and when it is clear that the natives themselves were not capable of weighing very accurately the mass of information which was placed before them, there is only one way of arriving at a proper solution of the question, and that is to turn to the testimony of the one man who went with this deputation who was an impartial judge—the one white man, Mr. Brownlee. Mr. Brownlee took the part of and showed every sympathetic feeling for the natives, and quite rightly so, because he was sent to protect their interests and to bring up a report on any grievances which could be found, or irregularities of which complaint was made. Your Lordships will see in the Papers that he acted as the champion of the natives in a correspondence with Mr. Macfarlane, the general manager of the Native Labour Association, and so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned we have only to be grateful to Mr. Brownlee for the zealous and efficient manner in which he carried out his work. Now, Mr. Brownlee, while admitting that the deputation was warmly received by the Transvaal Government, that no attempt was made to burke inquiry, that every material assistance was afforded him by the officials and that, but for the assistance given him by the Government, he would have been unable to accomplish his task, while admitting all that, what does he say? He says, speaking about the treatment of the natives, that the diet was sufficient and wholesome; that the men's quarters were on the whole fairly commodious and comfortable; that the sanitary arrangements were in almost every instance sufficient and good, that the lavatories in most cases were excellent, that fresh water, hot and cold, had been laid on in unlimited quantities, and that every facility was afforded the boys to keep themselves and their clothing clean. That is the testimony of Mr. Brownlee upon this specific point. It is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, that there

    441
    were two complaints which Mr. Brownlee had to make—the first on the question of wages, and the second on the question of flogging.
    Let me deal quite briefly with the question of wages. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also dealt with this subject I confess that after having read the Blue-book very carefully, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how any quarrel could possibly arise between the natives and those who employ them with regard to wages. What is the system of recruiting, and what safeguards do the Government employ to ensure that the natives shall understand the amount of wages they are to be paid? As your Lordships are award, the recruiting is carried on by the agents of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. These agents are most carefully selected. It is, after all, in the intersts of the association to select the very best men—the most reliable and trustworthy they can find. In nearly every instance the agents can speak the language of the country in which they recruit. More-Over, they are obliged to get a licence from the Government in which it is distinctly stated that if they do not keep to the terms of the contract they may be severely fined and punished. On page 19 of the Blue-book is the contract itself, and there it is definitely stated that the men will receive 1s. 8d. per day for surface work and 2s. for underground work. This contract has not only to be explained to the natives, but it has also to be signed by them and by the native chief. There is yet one further precaution, namely, that when the native arrives on the frontier he is met by an official who asks whether he has coins voluntarily, and in the event of a native replying in the negative, this official can send him back home at the cost of the importer. In the face of these precautions it is difficult to understand how any dispute about wages can arise. But no doubt some do occur, and to meet such cases the Government have yet another precaution for the protection of the native. There are Government inspectors. As the Papers show, these inspectors, during the last two years, have made 9,000 inspections, and the number of cases of misunderstanding as to wages during those two years amounted only to
    442
    twenty-six, in seventeen of which the natives were proved to have miscalculated their pay, and the complaints were dismissed. Now, my Lords, when we bear in mind that there are 80,000 natives in the mines at Johannesburg, and that out of that total wages in two years, it is impossible to believe that there can be, as it has been alleged on many occasions, though not necessarily in your Lordships' House, continual complaints on the part of natives of being misled by the agents by whom they were recruited as to the exact amount of wages they were to be paid. Moreover, you will notice that the Government by their efforts have reduced to a minimum the number of possible complaints.
    Now let me turn briefly to the question of flogging, of which the noble and learned Lord made a great point. I do not quarrel with the noble and learned Lord for having brought that matter before your Lordships" notice. He referred to the fact that native overseers had sjamboks, and he quoted the passage about "the gentle stimulus of cowhide."No doubt this flogging is a legacy of the late Government. It was quite a common practice for people to carry sjamboks under the old regime. I myself, when in South Africa, saw nearly everybody carrying sjamboks, and I daresay other noble Lords present had the same experience. That having been the general practice there is no doubt that it is very difficult to eliminate it at once. I need not remind your Lordships that eases of unauthorised flogging are met with the severest penalties. The law is that no one can be punished by flogging except in pursuance of a judicial sentence, and a medical officer has to be present to see that the man does not receive more strokes than his constitution is capable of bearing. It is the special function of the inspectors to whom I have referred to find out from the natives any cases of abuse or any instances in which flogging has been carried out in an unauthorised or unjustifiable manner, and to bring any such cases to the notice of the authorities. These native inspectors have done their work well, and yet in the two years the total number of cases of unauthorised flogging and assaults brought to their

    443
    notice amounts only to fifteen. In fourteen of those cases the accused were found guilty and severely punished. When it is remembered that there are 80.000 natives employed, that there were 4,000 inspections per year, and that as the result of those inspections only fourteen cases of unauthorised flogging were discovered, I think it is clear that the Government are alive to their duties in the matter and that the practice is being put down. No doubt there are a few isolated cases of flogging, but the fact that those isolated cases are brought to the notice of Parliament, and form the subject of discussions in your Lordships' House, is sufficient proof of the great change which has taken place in the Transvaal in regard to this matter. It is not only a testimony to the humane instincts of British rule, but it affords conclusive evidence that the Government are succeeding and will eventually entirely succeed in stamping out unauthorised flogging. The late Colonial Secretary, during his term of office, did all in his power to reduce flogging throughout the Empire, and he succeeded to a great degree. The present Colonial Secretary is determined to follow the same policy. But cases where from ill-temper, caprice, or irritability on the part of overseers, flogging is administered in an unjustifiable or improper manner, will be visited with the severest penalties, as both Lord Milner, the Transvaal Government, and His Majesty's Government are determined at all costs to stamp out this most odious practice.
    My Lords, I now turn to the consideration of another matter, which is is by no means pleasant, namely the question of the death rate. On this point the noble and learned Lord had a great deal to say. He declared that whatever Mr. Cooke had to say with regard to the better treatment, the better housing, and the better status generally of the natives in South Africa, he could not agree with him, because the death rate was eighty or ninety per 1.000, a state of things that was truly appalling. But because there have been twenty-six cases in which natives have alleged that they have not received the money to which they were entitled, and because there were fourteen cases in two years in which men have been flogged in an unauthorised manner,
    444
    is the noble and learned Lord really going to claim that therefore the death rate in South Africa is so abnormally high? The death-rate in South Africa has nothing whatever to do with the treatment of the natives. The two things are totally unrelated. The high mortality is due to altogether other reasons than those which the noble Lord has inferred. According to our information, the death rate for the year 1903 was seventy-one per 1,000, for 50 per cent, of which pneumonia was responsible. The noble and learned Lord complained of ray having said that influenza was responsible for a certain number of deaths of natives. I do not pretend to be a medical officer, but I think I may reasonably say that an illness which ends in pneumonia frequently begins with influenza, and I believe that many of the cases of deaths recorded from pneumonia have been due in the first instance to influenza. I am confirmed in this opinion by a passage in the bulky volume before me. I am sorry to have to allude to this point at all, but the noble and learned Lord made such a strong point of it that I am obliged to reply to him. This is a passage from page 395—
    "Theirs was brought up to April. You cannot form any comparison between the two. Since they wrote their report there has been a very bad epidemic of influenza which has attacked a good many of the mines here."
    I quote that passage simply to justify my contention on the last occasion when we discussed this matter in your Lordships' House, and to show the noble and learned Lord that my statement was not altogether without foundation.
    It is a remarkable fact with regard to this death rate that for the first three months, and especially in the first month after their arrival, a great number of natives die. We believe that this exceptional rate is due to two causes, namely, the deplorably impoverished condition in which the natives arrive at the mines, and the sudden change to which they are subjected from the semi-tropical regions in which they are recruited to the somewhat rigorous climate at Johannesburg. As your Lordships will observe from the Paper, this high rate of mortality has been the subject of great anxiety to the Transvaal Government.

    445
    So far back as a year ago, a committee of medical men was appointed to consider how the high rate of mortality could be reduced, and various recommendations were made. Time will not permit me to go through all those recommendations, but I can assure your Lordships that they were accepted by the Transvaal Government and that one and all of them have been put into force. For instance, movable bunks in rooms have been provided, sanitation and drainage improved, baths provided, the diet has been carefully attended to, hospitals on modern lines erected, and lastly, but not least in importance, changing houses have been erected at the head of the mines, so that natives coming out his very hot condition may go in and cool down before submitting themselves to the cold air. Lord Milner in a despatch dealing with this subject says—
    "There can be no doubt that the all-round consideration which native labourers receive today as regards general care and comfort contrasts most favourably with their treatment before the war and with their treatment even a year ago."
    And he says further on—
    "I have every reason to believe that the Chamber of Mines has this important matter under its constant and anxious consideration."
    The Secretary of State, as your Lordships will see, has supplemented these local efforts by reminding Lord Milner that he must have a Return made to him I of every mine where the death rate is over fifty per 1,000, stating to causes of the deaths and whether the recommendation of the doctors with regard to I the treatment of the men have been carried out. We hope that the result of our efforts will be to improve matters in this regard. It is unwise to be too sanguine, but certainly we are justified in thinking that what we have done is bear in 5 fruit. Let me remind your Lordships of the death rate for the first throe months of last year and for the corresponding months of this year. For the month of January, 1903, the death rate was sixty-one per 1,000, this year it was fifty-nine, for the month of February last year, forty-four per 1,000, this year thirty-seven, for the month of March last year, forty-nine per 1,000, this year thirty-six, for the month of April last year, fifty-seven
    446
    per 1,000, while this year it was only thirty-two. It is clear that special attention must be given to two points in regard to the treatment of natives. However healthy the men may be, they should not be recruited from semi-tropical districts and brought to Johannesburg in the winter months. That point is under the serious consideration of the Secretary of State who will see if something can be done to secure the observance of such a rule. It is also very important that weaklings should not be recruited. It cannot be denied that in their anxiety to get labour and to secure all the help they possibly could at the mines, the labour agents have recruited from people whose physique was not perhaps sufficiently strong to enable them to cope with the onerous work which mining imposes upon them. However willing natives may be to work, however willing they may be to to the mines, it is clear that many of them, by constitution and physique, are not qualified to undertake what all admit is a very onerous task. It is our hope that by employing men who come from the more temperate region of Mancnuria we shall not only be able to raise the standard of physique amongst the men engaged in the work of the mines, but also enable the recruiters to discriminate in the indigenous supply in the future. With the higher standard of physique, coupled with the result of the improvements to which I have referred, we hope that the death rate—which I admit is a very high one—will be decreased, and that we shall be able to remove this cause of complaint and anxiety. I submit, my Lords, that on the whole—and it is on the whole that this matter must be judged—the treatment of the natives is good. As testimony in support of that submission, I turn to the verdict of Mr. Brownlee, the one man qualified to judge, the one man who summed up accurately the opinions of the various headmen. Mr. Brownlee's general verdict is this—
    "… the treatment is generally good-While there were two or three instances which came under our observation in which labourers had been ill-treated, yet we gathered that on the whole their treatment is good, and that the mine-owners and compound managers are anxious to make the treatment and condition of

    447
    the native labourers as congenial to them as possible. Various employers of labour expressed their determination to at once dismiss any European subordinate found guilty of in any way ill-treating native labourers, and the Government on their part have appointed a large number of inspectors, whose duty it is to visit the mining compounds and personally inquire into any cases of ill-treatment that the labourers may wish to bring forward."
    It is on the calm, deliberate, and measured judgment of a humane man, an official well qualified to judge of the affairs of the natives, that the Government take their stand. The noble and learned Lord has attached tome importance to the evidence collected by Mr. Brownlee; he cannot in fairness refuse to attach the same importance to the conclusions drawn by Mr. Brownlee from that evidence. Mr. Brownlee's conclusions constitute the case for the Government; but they constitute something more. They are the defence of a Crown colony; they are a warning and a protest against any attempt to formula tea general charge of inhumanity against a vast community of British colonists in South Africa—colonists who might reasonably consider themselves aggrieved by any imputations that might be made, and who, since they have no representation in the Imperial Parliament, look to their fellow-countrymen at home to safeguard them from those hasty charges and immature judgments which political and Party controversy may sometimes dictate to Members of both Houses of Parliament.
    EAEL CAREINGTON: My Lords, I ask permission to say a very few words on the subject which has been brought forward in a straightforward and apparently unanswerable speech by my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge. The question has been asked—" What on earth is the use of bringing forward this question? There is no life in it, the agitation has practically died out, and it is a pure waste of time to discuss it. "I would ask your Lordships to cast your eyes on the results of recent by-elections in the country. Last week a kinsman of mine, whose opinions are somewhat advanced, fought an urban and agricultural constituency, and was returned by a majority larger than that secured by
    448
    any other representative of the division since 1885, and he tells me that though he had several other cards in his hand, the great card he had to play was the question of Chinese labour, in, which the whole country was taking the greatest possible interest. I have listened very attentively to the speeches by noble Lords opposite in defence of what the Australians call the "pro-Chow "policy of the present Government, but it is very difficult to discover what those who still believe in the efficacy of Lord Milner's policy really think of the rather distasteful state of things at present obtaining in South Africa. Those speeches will be read by the ordinary Englishman, whether at home or across the seas, with a certain amount of genuine regret. There will be a personal regret that by the irony of fate it has fallen to the lot of the noble Duke, who worthily represents one of the greatest names in English history—a name associated with perhaps the finest period of the nation's history—to get up night after night, month after month, to minimise, palliate, and excuse the South African policy of His Majesty's Government, which it appears impossible to explain and very difficult to defend. There will also be a national regret that this great Government, who came into power under such glorious auspices, should have brought the condition of the whole of South Africa to the deplorable pass in which it appears to be at the present moment. I will not occupy your Lordships' time by saying anything on that point; I will simply quote the following words from a speech made by the present Colonial Secretary, Mr. Lyttolton—
    "Two years ago when South Africa was handed over by the military authorities to Viscount Milner, it was a wilderness with scarcely anything in it except blockhouses and wire entanglements."
    That surely shows that there was wisdom in the statement of the last Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ritchie, when he said that the annexation of the two Dutch Republics would be an unmitigated misfortune to this country. After all, what has it ended in? It has ended in what we are told is the regrettable necessity for the introduction of Chinese labour. In to-day's paper we read that Chinese labour has arrived

    449
    safely on the shores of South Africa; it has been jealously guarded from interference and from the representatives of the Press as if it were a foreign potentate; and it has been triumphantly sent up to work in the mines in the same manner as foreign potentates usually travel in foreign countries, viz., under an armed escort.
    Now, my Lords, let me say one word, and one word only, on the question of flogging. The Chinaman, as everybody who has had anything to do with China men knows, is a very astute individual, and he was evidently familiar with the contents of this Blue-book long before they were brought under the notice of His Majesty's Government, or of the people of this country. He knows perfectly well that he will have to work under Chinese gangers, Chinese over seers, and Chinese interpreters; he knows that so far as those positions are concerned no British need apply; he will be under his own flesh and blood, under overseers of his own nationality, and he knows perfectly well that those overseers, unlike the Secretary of State for the Colonies, are apt to carry out their contracts in the letter as well as in the spirit. I see opposite a noble friend of mine, Lord Redesdale, who knows these countries well, and he will correct me if I am wrong. The Chinese labourer has a distinct remembrance of the way in which these contracts are carried out in the "Flowsry Land"; he has a vivid recollection of the bastinado; he has perhaps had experience of ear-twisting—
    LORD REDESDALE: I assure the bastinadoed in my life.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I mean that the Chinese labourer has perhaps had the 'opportunity of being bastinadoed, of having his ears twisted or his fingers pinched, and possibly he has had experience of the frightful practice which sometimes prevails in China, viz., the pulling out of toe-nails. It is therefore no wonder if he has become a convert to the" policy which was fashionable six months ago—the policy of protection and preferential treatment with the mother country, and wisely determined to insist upon the introduction into the contract
    450
    of an anti-flogging clause between himself and this country, so that his skin may escape the application of the "gentle, stimulus of cowhide "to which reference has been made.
    There is one other point to which I should like to refer. After all, can these regulations really be considered as the law of the land? I am speaking in the presence of noble and learned Lords who are great lawyers, and perhaps they will be able to give an opinion on this point. Is it not a fact that the law of England does not permit any man in this country to part with so much of his freedom and civil rights, even by a perfectly voluntary contract, as the Chinese labourer surrenders under his contract? Is it not an established principle of English law that punishment by imprisonment and forcible deportation cannot be agreed to be submitted to by contract, and also that a renunciation of the right to hold property, even by a perfectly voluntary contract, cannot be enforced, it being contrary to the fundamental principles of common law? That is the law of the land, but I suppose the law of the land is overridden by the Ordinance under which these Chinamen are brought into a British colony.
    Then, my Lords, I would like to call attention to two or three statements which have been made with reference to the grievous mortality among the Kaffirs in the mines. We know that the death rate was seventy-one per 1,000 for the year 1903. I understand that those figures were for deaths of persons up to forty-five years of age.
    LORD COLERIDGE: From eighteen to forty-five years of age.
    EARL CARRINGTON: The, mortality for that year was seventy-one per 1,000. Lord Harris, to whose knowledge and authority in these matters we all bow, acknowledges that that is accurate, but he refers to Mr. Haldane's Report and says that the death rate in English mines is thirty-three per 1,000. That is perfectly accurate, but ' the noble Lord omitted to tell the House that those figures are for men, not up to forty-five years of age, but between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-five. I do not

    451
    wonder that thirty-three per 1,000 of those men die in the course of a year. If the noble Lord would go a step further and get for us the statistics of the deaths of miners between the age of sixty-five and eighty-five, he would probably find that the death rats was not thirty-three per 1,000 but 1,009 per 1,000 and that the whole of the miners between those ages were carried to the grave during that period. But, while we accept the noble Lord's statement on that point, I am sure he also will accept the statement of a man who knows what he is talking about. My hon. friend Mr. John Burns, speaking in the House of Commons, stated that the mortality among miners in this country was from five to ten per 1,000 per annum. Dealing with this argument, the noble Duke said, "Oh, that is all very well; the high figures that have been given were for last rear, this year we have effected a great reduction in the death rite." We are very glad to hear it but what is that decrease? In the month of March this year the mortality was thirty-six as against forty-nine per 1,000 in the corresponding month of 1903, and in the month of April this year it was thirty-two as against fifty-seven in April, 1903. But" that thirty-six and thirty-two is a terrible death-rat*. If your Lordships will only consider that during the three-and-a-half years of the war the death rate was only thirty-six of thirty-eight you will see what a terrible death rate the present figures represent. I think it can hardly be a matter of satisfaction to His Majesty's Government that, even after the great improvement that has been made, the death rate should still be of such alarming proportions. Moreover, the most favourable figures we have had were for the summer time, the best part of the year, and the rate is bound to increase materially in the winter months. Lord Harris also spoke about scurfy, which he said was not caused by indifferent food; he pointed out that it had been determined that the disease could be communicated, that it would have to be reckoned as an infectious disease and dealt with accordingly. I know that doctors have brought forward that theory, but it is really not the case. I do not know whether any noble Lords have
    452
    seen a bad case of scurvy; if they have they will never wish to see another. Scurvy is entirely due to bad food. I would call his Lordship's attention to another statement made by Mr. John Burns and not contradicted. In one case during nine months there were 240 deaths out of 1,600 boys, and 48 per cent, were caused by bad food. It was discovered that the boys had been fed on condemned Government stores. Twelve per cent, died of scurvy. There are 800,000 miners in England and Scotland, and I am certain I am stating the fact when I say that there has not been a single death recorded from scurvy in the mines of Great Britain during the last five or ten years.
    LORD HARRIS: I am sure the noble Earl does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that it is proved by the Blue-book that large numbers of the natives arrive with scurvy on them, and that I had been informed by one of the doctors that he thought they would have to change their opinion that it was purely dietetic.
    EARL CARRINGTON: That is what I called the attention of the House to. But the opinion of the best doctors in England is against that of the noble Lord's doctor. It is universally held in this country that scurvy is entirely due to bad food.
    My Lords, the night is far spent, and I shall not detain your Lordships further, though I had a great deal more to say. I would only ask the House to believe that the reason we bring this most important matter forward time after time is not cant of any kind, it is not what is sometimes called "Exeter Hall" sentiment, and, above all, it is not in order to promote what Lord Harris, the chairman of the Consolidated Goldfields, was good enough the other night to call one of the most malicious agitations which has ever soiled the reputation of an Opposition. My Lords, this movement is simply the expression of an honest and conscientious conviction that Chinese labour is adread-ful thing to introduce into a British colony; it is the expression of the views

    453
    of the great majority of Englishmen at home and abroad who are jealous of the honour of Old England, and who are determined, God helping them, to preserve intact and unsullied the good name and the great reputation of this country among the Christian nations of the world.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (the Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I really must apologise for again addressing your Lordships on the subject of Chinese labour in the Transvaal, but I shall not detain you more than a minute or two. While I quite appreciate the motives which actuate the noble Earl who has just spoken, I am not quite clear as to what are the motives of certain other noble Lords who support him. Some time ago, when this subject was first discussed in this House, there was a belief that a general election was imminent, and that in this question a fine Party cry had been found. That election has been indefinitely postponed, but certain noble Lords appear to think that it would be a misfortune if this very Useful Party cry were allowed to fade away from the minds of the people of the country, and I think that that is to some extent the reason why your Lordships' House is constantly being invited to discuss a subject which has been debated I might almost say ad nauseum.
    My Lords, I am not going to enter into the question of Chinese labour in South Africa. That has been dealt with by my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and it forms, after all, but a very small part of the Resolution which the noble and learned Lord asks your Lordships to adopt. I think your Lordships should pause before accepting unreservedly the statement which has been put forward by the noble and learned Lord to the effect that the Government of the Transvaal and His Majesty's Government are not fully alive to the necessities, in the interests of the people of South Africa and the honour of this country, of seeing that the natives employed in the mines are meted out that treatment which it has been the proud boast of Englishmen is meted out to all natives wherever Englishmen bear rule. I would ask your careful attention
    454
    to this Blue-book; I would ask you to look not only at the report of Mr. Brown-lee, to which the noble Duke has referred, but also to the report furnished by the Department to Lord Milner. I will venture quote one or two passages, from which, I think, it will be found that the Government are fully alive to the necessities of the case and fully determined to see that the natives in the mines receive proper and adequate treatment. Matters are very different now from what they were in the days of the Republic. The Native Department reports to Lord Milner that natives in the mines labour under conditions in direct contrast with those hitherto prevailing either as regards accommodation, diet, sanitation, or hospital arrangements—
    "Hot coffee or other non-alcoholic stimulant is now issued to them, and blankets or coats are provided as wraps while passing from the shaft-head to the compound."
    In the presence of noble Lords opposite who hold strong views on the temperance question I hardly dare quote my next passage, but I am constrained to do so to show the great care which is lavished upon these men—
    "These experiments have justified the issue (of beer) which it was found easy to control, and this wholesome fluid is now an important factor in the labourer's diet. Tt is now regarded as conducive to better health and contentment, and its issue is now almost universal."
    Imagine an employment in this county where the employer issued free beer to the men he employed. I really do not think the noble and learned Lord has any justification for the accusation he brought against the Government of the Transvaal. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has expressed the regret which His Majesty's Government, in common with everybody else, must necessarily feel at the high mortality disclosed by the figures which have been published. But the rate of mortality is high in mines all over the world where the rock-drill is used. It is the case in Cornwall. If the noble Lord will look at the report of Mr. Haklane's Committee he will see that even with the Cornish miners in the Transvaal, who most carefully look after themselves, the mortality amongst those engaged in rock-drilling and in propinquity to rock-drilling is not less than amongst the natives. I think that is a

    455
    proof that it is not the treatment of the natives, but the inherent unhealthiness of the occupation, which is the cause of the high mortality. My noble friend who is interested in South Africa has told your Lordships of the steps which are being taken by mine-owners to provide apparatus to minimise as far as possible the injury done by floating particles of rock in the mines. Hard words are often used of the capitalists who own the mines in South Africa, but none can say that they have ever been behindhand in putting down their money to do anything that the Government have said they ought to do, either to provide sanitation for those who work in the mines, or to improve the condition of those dependent upon them.
    I will not at this late hour follow the noble Lord opposite through the statement which he made, but I do think it is a significant fact that the rate of mortality has fallen from over eighty per thousand to thirty-six, and even to thirty-two in tb.3 month of April last, and that that thirty-two included a number of deaths caused by the unfortunate breaking of a rope, through which a cage fell to the bottom of the shaft and killed ten or fourteen men. Had it not been for that accident, the rate of mortality would have been twenty-six only. That is a conclusive proof that matters are improving. But whether they are improving or not. it is the firm determination of His Majesty's Government that nothing shall be left undone to persuade the mine-owners to do everything possible to make the conditions of work for their men more favourable than they have been in the past. There has been a ready response on the part of the mine-owners and a willingness to do all that the Government have called upon them to do, and from what I know personally of Lord Milner I am confident that your Lordships may rest assured that no stone will be left unturned to see that everything is done for the welfare and comfort of the native labourers in the mines.
    THE MARQUESS OF RIFON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Earl Spencer, who is detained at home through illness, I feel bound to make a few observations upon the discussion which has taken place. The noble Duke and
    456
    the noble Earl opposite appeared to make it somewhat a matter of complaint that this matter should have been brought forward. The noble Duke said the question had been discussed and settled Parliamentarially several times. But I do not think noble Lords opposite have any right to make such a complaint at all. The House of Commons is not allowed to discuss this question at all. Happily we are free to speak in this House, and as long as we are so free we shall speak when we think fit. But, my Lords, surely no one can be surprised that attention should be called to the terrific—I can use no other word—death rate which obtained in the mines last year. I acknowledge that the returns up to the present time show an improvement, but the death rate is still muck higher than it ought to be. It is certainly much higher than the death rate in English mines. The noble Earl spoke of the high rate in the Cornish mines, and referred to Dr. Haldane's Report, but he forgot to explain that the Report states that that specially high rate was due to the sickness of the men who had returned from the Transvaal, and I think it is a little hard to say that that is the average rate among English miners. I admit that in the Cornish mines the average rate is higher than, in other mines, but I believe the average rate throughout the country is six per thousand. In the face of that, one cannot rest content with forty per thousand or even twenty per thousand in the Transvaal; there must be a further change.
    I take it from noble Lords opposite that it is the desire and intention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to reduce the present rate of mortality and I hope that the noble Earl, when he says that, means that the Secretary of State, having the power in a Crown colony, will enforce any arrangements that may be necessary in order to bring down the figure to what I may call a decent death rate. And I see some signs of that being done, because, though it is curious it has not been alluded to in the debate, last year a Mines Regulation Ordinance was passed by the Transvaal Legislature, under which regulations have been issued. The Ordinance, perhaps, is not a very strong one, but I

    457
    hope its provisions will be strictly of the world; therefore, I deprecate, with enforced, and that wherever it is found to be defective, more strenuous measures will be enacted. There is another reason for attending to sanitary matters in the mines at the present moment. Those of your Lordships who follow the subject will probably have seen in the papers this morning that some of the Chinese who have just arrived at Durban are suffering from a disease called beri-beri. This is a very serious disease indeed, which spreads with great rapidity, especially when people do not observe sanitary regulations, and the Transvaal Government will find it very difficult indeed to make the Chinese labourers cleanly. It is of the utmost importance that steps should be at once taken to deal with that disease, and therefore I venture to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the matter, though they are probably already considering what should be done in it.
    With regard to the Resolution itself, my noble friend says that he regrets, and he asks the House to say that they regret, that the opinions of the self-governing Colonies have been disregarded in this matter. When I had the honour of addressing your Lordships sometime ago, I took the opportunity of saying that I drey a clear distinction between the Australian Colonies and New Zealand and the South African Colonies themselves. I do not at all admit that the Australian Colonies have the same right of interference in this matter as has Cape Colony;, but I am bound to say that, while I quite understand that there are many matters in which the Government might think they could not give way altogether to the views of the Australian Colonies, this is a question which excites the greatest interest in that Commonwealth, and is likely to arouse unpleasant feelings, and I think it would have been advisable to pay a little more attention to their views in this case. But the position of the Cape is very different. The Cape is the neighbour of the Transvaal, and the course, which the Government are taking in regard to this question of Chinese labonr will, I believe, be more fatal to the federation of South Africa than any other step which could be adopted. I hold that federation is the true remedy for the many evils of that part
    458
    all the strength of which I am possessed, any course which is likely to place the smallest impediment in the way of the policy which I believe ought to be followed in regard to South African affairs.
    On Question, resolved in the negative.
    House adjourned at a quarter be fore Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half - past Tea o'clock.