Sitting of 21 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Midland Railway Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Barnard Castle Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
City of London (Central Criminal Court-House) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords] to insert the following Clause in Part VIII. of the Bill: Any scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this Act shall not come into operation until the Corporation shall, in respect of that fund, have been registered under The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the provisions of that Act (except the proviso to sub-section one of section eight and section forty-one), so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply as
680
if (a) the Corporation were a society to which that Act applies and were the trustees of such society; (b) as if the scheme were the rules of such society; (c) as if the superannuation or provident funds were the funds of such society; and (d) as if the contributors to the fund were the members of such society.
Provided, "That the powers of sections seventy, seventy-one, seventy-three, seventy-eight, and seventy-nine of the said Act shall not be exercised without the consent of the Corporation."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Ordered, "That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
(King's Consent signified). Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
  Petition from Isle of Wight, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Altrincham; Ampthill; Ashton under Lyne; Ash well; Askrigg; Aspatria (three); Attercliffe; Avonbridge; Baldock; Balham; Banks Hill; Barrowford (four); Bathgate; Beaumaris; Bedford (three); Beeston; Bedlingston; Bermondscy (four); Bewdley; Billingborough; Birmingham; Birtenshaw; Blaby; Boddam (two); Bodmin; Bofarnel; Bo'ness (two); Bootle (four); Bowling (three); Brad-field; Brazecott; Brea; Brierley Hill; Brierclifie; Brighton; Brompton; Burtersett; Buxton; Canterbury; Carlisle; Carlton; Carnkie; Carzantic;

  681
  Chatburn; Chelmsford; Churwell; Clap-ham (Beds.); Clophill; Clydach; Colan; Cornwall (two); Crawshawbooth; Croydon; Delabole; Denby Dale; Derby; Dewsbury; Didsbury; Downicary; Dumbartonshire (three); Duntiblae; East Ardsley; East Harlsey; East Somerset; Eglos Kerry; Enderby; Enfield; Farnworth; Farsley; Foulridge; Gayton; Gildersome (two); Glasgow; Glenfield (two); Grantham; Grimston; Guiseley; Gwynfa; Hadfield; Hallamshire; Harrow (five); Haslingden; Haven Street (Isle of Wight); Headingley; Hebburn on Tyne (two); Helmsburgh; Higher Bebington; Holloway; Holyhead (three); Honington; Hornby; Horsforth; Hosear Moss; Hove; Hull (sixteen); Huncote; Hunslet; Ickleford; Illogan; Irby; Kepwich; Kexby; Kibblesworth; Kibworth; Kimpton; Kingston; Kingston upon Hull (two); Kirkdale; Kirkintilloch (three); Kirkstall (three); Lane; Laneast; Lanner; Larbert; Launceston; Leeds (fifteen); Lees and Booking; Leicester (three); Lifton Down; Lincoln (three); Little Sutton; Liverpool; Llangefni; Llanrhaiadr; Lofthouse; Longsight; Longstone; Lovesome Hill; Lower Bebington (two); Lower Weston; Low Gate; Lutterworth; Lye; Maddey; Manchester (two); Marfleet; Market Deeping; Marsett; Marton; Maunby; Mawgan; Mawla; Middleton; Milford Haven (two); Mitchell; Morden; Moreton; Morley (four); Morton; Mount Tabor; Mumbles; Murton; Narberth; Nether Silton; Newcastle on Tyne; New Ferry (two); Newlyn East; Noel Park; Northallerton; North Petherwyn; Nuthing Grove; Oadby; Old Basford; Oldham (two); Osmotherley; Paddington; Paignton; Pavenham; Penffordd Petherwin; Piperspool; Porthtown; Portreath; Poulton; Preston; Prime-thorpe; Pudsey (three); Pulham Market; Queen's; Radcliffe; Rawdon; Rawtenstall (five); Redlynch; Redruth (eight); Reeth; Rejerrah; Richmond (Yorks.); Ridgmount; Rippingale; Rochdale; Rosenannon; Rose Perranporth; Runcorn (two); Ryde; Sabden; St. Columb; Salisbury; Salwayash; Saundersfoot; Scorrier; Shanklin; Sheffield (two); Shepton Mallet; Sherburn in Elmet; Shipdham; Shoreditch; Sidmouth; Sketty; Skinner's Bottom; Soothill Upper; South Cheriton; South Wigston
  682
  (two); Spittlegate; Stanbury; Stanningley; Stepaside; Stithians; Stoneferry; Stonehouse; Stotfold; Summertown; Sunniside; Swaffham (two); Swalwell; Swansea; Tabernacle; Tenby; Thornhill Lees; Thornley; Tingley; Tingley Common; Tooting; Torquay; Tow Law; Trawden; Trebudannon; Trefor; Tregada; Tregadillett; Tregarth; Tregeare; Tremaine; Treskillard; Tuckingmill; Upper Tooting; Voguebeloth; Waddington; Warrington; Watlington; Welton; West Bridgford; West Kirby; West Lane and Bridgehouse; West Winch; Whatley Range; Wheal Buller; Whetstone; Whitley Bay; Wigton; Willingham; Wilton; Wolsingham; Woolwich (two); Worcester; Wray; Yeadon (two); Yeolmbridge; York; and Zelah; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Grantham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MONTGOMERY, W. B. AND E. H.
  Petition of W. B. and E. H Montgomery, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF TOBACCO TO CHILDREN.
  Petition from Leeds, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Keighley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Barton upon Irwell; Christchurch; Leek; Pocklington; Sevenoaks; and Woolwich; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of February, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Return presented, relative thereto: [ordered 9th June; Mr. Wyndham]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries for 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA (No. 4, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Map to accompany Despatch from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, inclosing a Report by Mr. George J. Kidston on a journey in Mongolia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPOKTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3186 and 3187 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEER CORPS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Return of the Volunteer Corps of Great Britain for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (COMPENSATION).
  Copy presented, of Statement relating to a sum of money granted as compensation to the Widow and Children of an Officer killed at the Battle of Inkerman [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Trayers' Foundation for the year 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return ordered, "(1) from each Savings Bank in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, containing, in columns, the names of the Officers, their respective salaries, and other allowances, if any; the amount of security each gives; the annual expenses of: management, inclusive of all payments; and salaies, for the year ended the 20th day of November, 1903; the rate per centum per annum on the capital of the Bank for the expenses of management;
  684
  the rate of interest paid to Depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing to Depositor the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; the balance in the hands of the Treasurer on the 20th day of November, 1903; the total amount of the separate Surplus Fund on the 20th day of November, 1903; other assets, including estimated value of Bank premises, furniture, etc.; the total assets; the total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of Depositors; the number and amount of annuities granted; and the average cost of each transaction; also the year in which business commenced in each Bank, and the name of the day or days, and the number of hours in the week, on which the Banks are open for the deposit and withdrawal of moneys; including in such Return a list of all such Savings Banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic. c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed and have transferred their funds, or any part, thereof, to the Post Office Savings Banks; showing, in each case, the number of such Banks, as well as the number and amount of Depositors' accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the Officers of such Banks respectively; and showing also the years in which such Banks were respectively opened and closed, and the number and amount of their Depositors' balances, and the number of days and hours in each week on which the same Banks were open for public business at the close of the year next preceding the date of such closing; distinguishing the same, as in the Return for each separate county, as well as collectively, for England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, and for the United Kingdom: and (2) for the year ending the 20th day of November, 1903, showing the total number of Depositors in Trustee Savings Banks; the total number of deposits; the average amount of each deposit account; the average sums paid in and drawn out; the total number of persons who have deposited in single sums the entire amount allowed to be deposited during the year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 211, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Mount.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Imports into the Transvaal via the Cape and Delagoa Bay.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the amount of imports into the Transvaal viâ Delagoa Bay and viâ Cape Colony in the months of January and December, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lytlelton.) The figures are as follows:—

  viâ Delagoa

  viâ Cape.

  Bay.

  January, 1903.

  £949,810

  £286,417

  December

  £885,150

  £235,085

  Whitgift School, Croydon—Pension for Rev. Q. Huddlestone.
  MR. STEVENSON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what pension is being paid by the Governors of Whitgift School, Croydon, to Mr. Robert Brodie, formerly headmaster of this school; whether he is aware that the Rev. George H. Huddlestone, who had been an assistant master at the same school for a period of thirty-one years, was dismissed by the new headmaster, and, consequently, ceased to be a member of the staff in the Christmas term, 1903; whether representations were made by the governing body or by any governor of the school to the Board of Education for permission to pay a pension to the said Mr. Huddlestone; and, if so, what reply was given to these representations by the Board of Education, and on what grounds was it based; and whether, in the event of the establishment of a pension fund for assistant masters under the new scheme of this school, Mr. Huddlestone would be entitled to obtain any benefit from the school funds.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The pension paid to Mr. Robert Brodie is £400 a year. At the request of the governors, the Board have sanctioned the payment to Mr. Huddlestone of a grant, as a special gratuity, of a sum equal to one term's salary. It is not clear what scheme is meant by the "new scheme" mentioned in the Question; nor how Mr. Huddlestone could benefit by any pension
  686
  scheme which may be established in the future.

  Admiralty Contracts for Armour-Plating, etc.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is a rule of the Admiralty that all armour plating and shaftings supplied under direct contracts shall be manufactured from British-made steel billets, and all brass castings from British-made ingot copper and ingot tin.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No such stipulation is made in armour contracts; but, as a matter of fact, all the firms with whom contracts are made are British firms who make their own billets. In contracts for forged steel shafting for ships' machinery purposes, it is the practice to stipulate that the steel shall be of British manufacture. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

  Hall-Marking of Gold and Silver Watch-Cases made outside the United Kingdom.
  MR. CHARLES MURRAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House of the number of gold and silver watch cases marked by each of the Assay Offices in the years 1902 and 1903, on declarations that such cases were made outside the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Assay Offices have been good enough to supply the information desired by my hon. friend, and it appears that in London one gold watch-case was marked in 1902, and one gold and one silver case in 1903, on declarations that they were made outside the United Kindom. No watch-cases were marked under similar circumstances at any of the other Assay Offices in either year.

  Inquiry into Accident near Duffield Station.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a Board of Trade inquiry has been or will be held into the fatal accident near Duffield Station, on the Midland Railway, on Tuesday, 14th June, when two platelayers, Arthur Ford and Edward Locker, lost their lives, especially

  687
  as regards the rules or appliances in use, with a view to prevent such accidents to permanent-way men.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) An inquiry will be held into the circumstances attending this regrettable accident. The officer charged with the duty of inquiring will no doubt take evidence as to the rules and appliances in use. His attention shall be directed to the terms of the hon. Member's Question.

  Publication of Poor Law Statistics.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in view of the fact that the Poor Law authority is a separate authority in many places and of the cost and size of the Annual Report of the Local Government Board, it would be possible to publish that part of the Report which deals with the Poor Law matters only as a separate volume; and whether it would be possible to issue half-yearly or quarterly to boards of guardians comparative statistics for groups of unions upon the lines of the weekly returns now prepared for the metropolitan unions, the districts of the several inspectors being taken as his basis of such statistics.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It would not be practicable to give effect to the suggestion in the first part of the Question, so far as the Annual Report now in preparation is concerned, but before the next one is commenced I will give full consideration to that suggestion. The half-yearly statements with regard to pauperism issued by my Department, which can be purchased for a few pence, give information as to the number of paupers in each Poor Law union, and also comparative statements of pauperism as respects certain geographical divisions and union counties. I should be glad to include in these statements any additional information which could be given without undue labour, but I am afraid that to give in the periodical returns comparative statistics for each union would considerably increase the work of preparing these returns.

  Alleged Ill-treatment of a Child at St. Giles' Receiving Home.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the
  688
  Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of the child named Albert Algage, who was returned to the Westminster Union from the St. Giles' Receiving Home with marks of injury on the face and limbs; whether he has received evidence to satisfy him that the injuries were not due to punishment or to want of proper care and supervision; and, if not, whether he will order an inquiry into the treatment of the child while an inmate of the Receiving Home.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware of this case, and the inspector of the district has made investigation with regard to it. As a result he reports that the bruises were not in his opinion due to punishment or to want of proper care and supervision, and that in all probability they were caused by the child himself. I do not think that any further inquiry is needed.

  The War in Samoa — British Claims.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the British claims arising out of the war in Samoa; whether a portion of the New Zealand claims come under the decision of King Oscar, to the effect that they were good claims against Great Britain and the United States; and what action it is proposed to take.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The award of the King of Sweden deals only with the question of principle, Great Britain and the United States being held liable for the consequences of certain military action which was pronounced to be unwarranted. An exchange of views as to the construction to be placed on the award has taken place between the three Governments interested, and a further examination of the claims to see how far they are covered by the award, is now being made. The New Zealand claims stand upon the same footing as other claims of British subjects, and will be dealt with in the same way.

  Fenny Postage to Australia.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General

  689
  what is the date of the despatch to the Postmaster-General of Australia making proposals for extending penny postage to the Commonwealth; and whether any reply to the despatch has been received by telegraph.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The proposals which I had communicated to the Colonial Office for transmission to the Commonwealth Government have not, I understand, yet actually been sent forward to that Government.

  Pensions of men on Sunday Duty in the General Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of established officers of the General Post Office, London, appointed to continuous Sunday duty, have had their attendance on that day reduced to each alternate Sunday; that these men had been doing continuous Sunday duty for an average of twenty-six years; and that all the men, up to the date of the order, had been pensioned on the basis of their Sunday duty being reckoned for pension; and, if so, will he explain why those who have been pensioned since the date of the order have not received consideration for continuous Sunday duty, seeing I that the Tweedmouth Commission Report, adopted by the Treasury, lays down "that the rights of the existing holders should in all cases, be maintained."
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and I fully explained them in a letter I sent to him on the 19th March last. The Report of the Tweedmouth Committee did not deal with the frequency of Sunday attendance, and their recommendation as to reserving the rights of existing holders cannot, therefore, be held to apply to the case of these officers.

  Sunday Pay in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the scale of pay of the London officers of the circulation department for Sunday duty has been reduced since the Tweedmouth Commission, and that of the provincial staff
  690
  for the same purposes has been materially augmented.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Prior to the 1st April, 1897, Sunday duty in the provinces was paid for at a rate and a quarter, and in London at a double rate, but under the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee the payment was fixed at a rate and a half throughout the United Kingdom. Provision was, however, made for allowing all London officers who were in receipt of regular payment for Sunday duty prior to 1st April, 1897, to continue to receive the same payments as previously, i.e., at a double rate, calculated on their then rate of pay, on condition that they should receive no addition to that amount until, in consequence of the yearly increase in their salaries, payment at a rate and a half would yield a larger sum.

  Postal and Telegraph Facilities at Cloonfad, County Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a memorial from Cloonfad, Ballyhaunis, county Roscommon, seeking the establishment of a telegraph office and for Sunday delivery, and, if so, whether he can see his way to comply with the wishes of the people of the district in this respect.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The memorial referred to has not yet reached me, but I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Tobacco Drawback.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent will the amended drawback on tobacco stalks proposed under the schedule to the Finance Bill, increase the net sum of two shillings and seven pence now obtained by the manufacturer for a pound of stalks on which drawback is claimed.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The drawback obtainable under the existing law in respect of tobacco stalks when ground will be increased on an average by about 4d. per pound, or slightly more, under the provisions of the Finance Bill.

  Dum-Dum Ballets in Tibet.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can now say whether the troops, or any of them, on active service in the invasion of Tibet are provided with the Dum-Dum bullet, or any other bullet of an expansive character; and, if so, what explanation, if any, can be offered for the use of such bullets in the Tibetan Expedition, having regard to the undertaking against their use in the Boer War, and the declaration signed by all the delegates of the European Powers except the delegates of Great Britain at the Hague Conference, to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the body or is pierced with incisions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Government of India have informed me that no Dum-Dum ammunition has been used by the Tibet Mission escort, and that none is in the possession of that force.

  Militia Serving Abroad during South African War.
  COLONEL BAIN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the numbers recently officially stated of the Militia who served abroad during the war in South Africa (51,488) included the Militia Reserve who were drafted from their own units to serve in their Line battalions; and what number of reserves were so drafted from their own units.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The number quoted includes those Militia Reservists who were held to serve with their own Militia units in South Africa. In addition to this number 13,000 Militia Reservists proceeded to South Africa and joined Line units.

  Chinese Labourers for the Transvaal-Disturbance at Tientsin.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the fact that a conflict has taken place in Tientsin between two batches of Chinese indentured labourers awaiting embarkation for
  692
  the Transvaal mines, under the provisions of the Chinese Labour Ordinance, the casualties already reported being three Chinamen killed and twenty wounded; and whether, having regard to the fact that the combatants at Tientsin were Natives of North China and South China between whom a deadly feud subsists any provision has been made to prevent similar collisions during the voyage to South Africa and in the mines.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have asked for a telegraphic report on this occurrence.

  Census Returns of South Africa.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent Census Returns of South Africa will be issued to Members as a Parliamentary Paper; and, if so, when it may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) There is no objection to laying the Returns (which are, however, at present, unaudited), and this shall be done at once.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Woolwich Arsenal—Discharge and Suspension of Workmen.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the discharges and suspensions of workmen from Woolwich Arsenal, if he will take steps to prevent further discharges and suspensions by ensuring that a larger proportion of orders for munitions of war are placed in the Arsenal; and also if he can state the number of men suspended and discharged through orders being delayed owing to the length of time taken in conducting various experiments in shell and gun work.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The proportion of orders allotted to the Ordnance Factory and the trade is governed by the policy that trade resources must be kept open during peace so as to be available in time of war, and no promise regarding such proportion can

    693
    be given. Experiments are carried out as expeditiously as possible, and no discharges or suspensions can be attributed to delay in this respect.

    British Troops in India.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of for War if he can state the number of men enlisted for three now serving in India, and also many of these will complete term of service prior to the close of the trooping season 1904–5, also the number of troops required for Indian reliefs for 1904–5.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The number of men serving on their three years engagement on the 1st May returns was 3,677. About 1,000 of these will complete their term of service prior to the close of the trooping season 1904–5 unless they extend their service. The drafts estimated as required by India next trooping season amount to 11,300.

    Pensions of Ex-Crown Agents.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any pensions are now being paid to any persons who have held the office of Crown Agent for the Colonies; if so, what is the amount of those pensions; if not, what was the amount of any such pensions paid in recent years.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): When Sir P. Julyan, who is still alive, retired in 1879 he was awarded a pension of £1,200 a year. At his request the Agents were authorised to purchase for him a Government annuity of that amount. Sir M. Ommanney, on his transfer from the Crown Agency to be permanent Under-Secretary in the Colonial Office, was allowed to draw £400 a year of the pension to which he will ultimately become entitled in consideration of the fact that the salary of the permanent Under-Secretary was less than his previous emoluments by that amount, and this sum of £400 is the only pension to a Crown Agent which is at present being drawn from their Funds.

    The Tibet Mission.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the object of the Mission to Tibet, the cost to date of same, the progress made and the loss in life sustained in promoting negotiations; whether, in view of the determination of the Tibetans to resist further negotiations of the character exemplified by the Mission, it is the intention of the Government to continue the work of the Mission; and if, in the event of success attending the Mission, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to annex Tibet.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRTCK,): For the object of the Tibet Mission, the progress of the negotiations, and the intentions of His Majesty's Government, I must refer the hon. Member to the Blue-books and to the statements made from time to time in this House. There is no change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. The total estimated expenditure to 31st March last was £308,500, and the monthly expenditure from April is estimated at a little over £50,000. Down to 10th June there had been killed in action two British officers, one native officer, twenty native rank and file, and two followers. There have also been the following deaths, otherwise than in action:—Two British officers, one British soldier, one native officer, one native warrant officer, sixty-three native rank and file, 116 followers.
    MR. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the loss of life among the Tibetans?
    MR. BRODRICK: The information with regard to the losses among the Tibetans has been published as it reached us, and we have no other knowledge on the subject.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question.
    MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir; I have stated that there is no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Tibetans have been made fully aware that

    695
    it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to annex their country?
    MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, in every way in which the Government could make it clear.

    Licensing Bill.
    MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has received the resolutions passed unanimously against the Licensing Bill at an open-air demonstration at Llanelly on Saturday, 13th inst.; and, if so, can he make any communication thereon to the House? I might say, Mr. Speaker, I sent the resolutions to the First Lord of the Treasury on the 15th inst., and, not having received even a printed acknowledgment, I put down this Question.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is not the practice of any member of the Government to send printed acknowledgments. With regard to the Question, the hon. Member asks me whether I have any communication to make to the House. No, Sir, I have not.

    Unclaimed Stock.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of the unclaimed stock transferred to the National Debt Commissioners; and the amount standing at the credit of the Unclaimed Dividend Account in respect of unclaimed dividends both as at 31st March, 1904.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: The amount of unclaimed stock, forming part of the National Debt transferred to the National Debt Commissioners at the 31st March, 1904, was £929,987 14s. 11d. The amount standing to the credit of the Unclaimed Dividend Account at the same date was—Stock £1,852,413 14s. 4d. Cash, £11,895 14s. 0d.

    Strokestown Rural District and the Income-Tax.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor
    696
    of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue authorities have made a demand on the Strokestown Rural District Council for income-tax in respect of cottages built by the council under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and whether he will give instructions to have this demand with drawn, in view of the fact that there is no profit to the rates on these houses, and that they have been erected to relieve the condition of a very poor class of the community.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The assessment upon the cottages in question has been made upon the council, as the immediate lessors of the property, in accordance with the Income-tax Acts. The assessment has, however, been restricted to the amount of the head rent, and the council are entitled to deduct the tax upon the head rent when paying the head landlords, thus throwing upon the latter the burden of the duty.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman is it not usual to collect this income-tax from the head landlord and not the householder?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    Slaughtered Horses as Food.
    MR. CREMER (Shorediteh, Haggerston): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he has any information or statistics in regard to the number of slaughtered horses, or hordes unfit for work, that are periodically exported to the Continent; to what country or ports they are consigned; if he can state what becomes of the exported animals; whether he has any information to the effect that the flesh of these animals is made into condiments of various kinds returned to this country and sold as articles of food.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUB,): I have no information as to the export of slaughtered horses. The horses exported alive during the first five months of this year at a value of under £5 each have numbered 1,665 and all of

    697
    them have been shipped to Holland, Belgium, or Germany. I have no official information as to what becomes of these animals after they are landed on foreign soil.
    MR. CREMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the statements repeatedly made that the carcases of dead horses and of unfit live horses that are exported from this country come back in the shape of food, cause inquiries to be made into the subject?
    MR. WHITLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that the carcases of these horses go to feed the people in protectionist countries?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am sorry I have no further information, but if the hon. Member will provide me with the information that he has in his possession I shall be glad to look into the matter.

    Appointment of Medical Officer for Edgeworthstown Post Office.
    Mr. J. P.PARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether any medical officer has been placed in charge of the health of the Edgeworthstown post office staff consisting of some eighty public servants; and, if not, will an appointment be now made.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The appointment of a medical officer to the post office at Edgeworthstown is under my consideration.

    The Parliament Street Subway.
    MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can state the reasons why the subway which was constructed at the bottom of Parliament Street five year3 ago has never been used; whether his attention has been called to the hindrance to traffic by the railed-in staircases leading to the subway; whether, if there is no intention to use the subway, he will cause the railings to be removed, so that the spaces now occupied by the staircases maybe restored to their former use, and vehicles be allowed to stop at both corners of Parliament Street, instead of the practice which is now frequently
    698
    adopted of putting down passengers in the middle of the street.
    LORD BALCARRES: This is a matter with which the First Commissioner is not concerned, it being entirely a question for the Westminster City Council.
    MR. CREMER: Will the noble Lord cause communication to be made to the proper authorities on the subject?
    LORD BALCARRES: It is nothing to do with the Commissioner of Works, though he is of course anxious to secure fee access for Members to the Palace of Westminster.

    The White Estate, Culleenmore.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the sale of the White Estate in the townland of Culleenmore, North Longford, the Estate Commissioners propose to sanction an advance to one John Bodell, a planter tenant on that estate, and whether, in view of this man's stock and his financial position, an inspection will be directed before this sale is sanctioned.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The application for an advance in this case does not bring it within the provisions of Section 1 (1) of the Act, and an inspection will accordingly be made.

    Turbary Eights in County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Colonel J. H. Dopping, a land agent in county Longford, who recently deprived some three or four tenants of their turbary rights in the Larkfield Bog, and when they then proceeded to make mud turf for their winter's fire sent in his men and smashed up their turf; and, if so, whether, in view of Section 21 of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, he will direct the Estates Commissioners' attention to the case, with a view to such action being taken as will enable these tenants to obtain turbary for the coming season.
    Mr. WYKDHAM: Section 21 enables the Commissioners to make regulations as to turbary on holdings in the event of the sale of an estate. No application has been made to them in respect of the estate in question.
    In reply to a further Question.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners will take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.

    Floods in North Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that owing to want of sinking and embanking of the tributary rivers to the Corglais, Doogra. and Gortemore lakes, lying between Longford and Leitrim, tracts of cultivated land in North Longford are annually flooded to the loss of the farmers of the district; whether he is aware that an outlay of about —50 would so widen and deepen these tributaries as to enable the freshets to be carried off before floods could form; and, if so, will he direct the Commissioner of Public Works in Ireland to hold an inquiry on this subject with a view either to the formation of a local drainage board to carry out a drainage scheme or such direct supervision as will, during the dry weather, make such alterations as will prevent flooding in the winter.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The tributary rivers referred to are situated in an existing drainage district. The Commissioners can only require the drainage trustees to maintain the works for which they are responsible, and the trustees are not empowered to expend money on new works. I am unable to say that an outlay of —50 would provide a remedy for the floods complained of, but I am making further inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. J.P. FARRELL: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the attention of the Commissioners will be directed to this particular grievance.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Yes, I am inquiring into the matter.

    Technical and Agricultural Schemes in the Congested Districts.
    Mr. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary
    700
    to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the reason that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education and the Congested Districts Board cannot come to an arrangement as to the working of technical and agricultural schemes in congested districts; and whether, in view of the injury and loss caused to the people residing in congested districts, he can do anything to bring about a working arrangement in the matter.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The Question is based on a misapprehension of the facts. The Department of Agriculture by arrangement with the Congested Districts Board has extended its agricultural schemes to all the congested districts. In respect to technical instruction, the Board is already largely engaged in work of a kind which does not come within the scope of the county schemes. The Board's work in this respect is more in the direction of assisting industries than in that of secondary education, and it preferred to continue to work on these lines.
    Me. MURPHY: Considering the report has been made by the county council of Kerry in respect to the working of the technical education schools in the congested districts, will the right hon. Gentleman do something to bring about an understanding?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, ordr! That, is the very same Question.

    Evicted Tenant on Mr. Charles Stafford's Estate.
    Mr. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any applications for the sale of the estate of Mr. Charles Stafford, in the Carrick-on-Shannon Union, and county of Roscommon; if so, if they are endeavouring to negotiate for the reinstatement of Patrick Moran, Jun., of Bealragh, an evicted tenant; or, in any event, have the Estates Commissioners done anything in connection with the application received from this man.
    Mr. WYNDHAM.The reply to the first query is in the negative. An application for reinstatement has been received from the evicted tenant named and will be considered.

    Irish University Education.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce next session legislation on the subject of Irish University education; and whether any promises have been made by His Majesty's Government, or by any member of the Government, that legislation bearing on the subject of Irish University education would be introduced at an early date.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to anticipate legislation for next session, but no promise has been given by any member of his Majesty's Government that legislation bearing on the subject of Irish University education would be introduced at an early date.

    Protection of Irish Estates from the Rivers and the Sea.
    MR.THOMAS O'DONNELL: I bee; to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when estates adjoining the sea or large rivers and protected by banks are being sold, what arrangements will be made for the permanent proper upkeep of those banks.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Sir, it is not possible to give a general answer to a general Question which embraces an unknown number of hypothetical cases.

    Salaries of Irish National School Assistant Teachers,
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what additional annual sum would be sufficient to give assistant teachers in Irish national schools of ten years service and classed under old system second or above second grade salary.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No accurate state-given, but it is ment of the cost can be estimated that it would amount to about £8,000 per annum.

    The Rae Estate.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Rae
    702
    Estate, Killorglin, Kerry, for which an order for sale was made in the Land Judge's Court last November, has yet been disposed of; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.
    MR. WYNDHAM: On the 9th instant the Land Judge made an order directing the sale of the estate to proceed under Section 7 of the Land Act. The fact has been notified to the Estates Commissioners who will issue their request for an inspection.

    Recommendations of the Constabulary Commission.
    MR. SLOAN: (Belfast, S.) I beg to-ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can the Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commission will be introduced.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to fix a date for the introduction of legislation in this matter.
    MR. SLOAN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman will there be any legislation in this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Oh, no; certainly not this session.

    The Constabulary Force Fund.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the balance lying to the credit of the Constabulary Force Fund (Reward Branch), and of the fact that this fund is made up of tines from members of the force, he will consider the advisability of restoring the 4 per cent, allowance which, owing to insolvency, was reduced to 2 per cent.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The income of the fund is mainly derived from portions of fines awarded to the police in prosecutions. The question of increasing the payments out of the fund will be considered.

    Commission on Trinity College Lands.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who is the Mr. George Trench that is named as a member of the Viceregal Commission appointed in connection with

    703
    the lands held by Trinity College; at whose request has the Commission been appointed; and has any effort been made to ascertain the wishes of the tenants affected in regard to the personnel of the Commission.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. George Trench of Abbeylands, Ardfert, county Kerry, is the nominee of the Grantees. The appointment of a Commission was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth on the 8th July, 1903, during the passage of the Land Bill through the House. That Gentleman, who is also a member of the Commission, will represent the tenants.
    MR. MUEPHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the tenants have been consulted at all with reference to this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the purpose of the Commission is?
    MR. DELANY: Is Mr. Trench a land agent?

    Lighting of Galway Harbour.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the opinion of the Harbour Commissioners, the lighting of Galway Harbour has been defective during the past five years; that the Harbour Commissioners decided recently to transfer the contract for the lighting to the Galway Gas Company; that, on representations made to the Board of Works by the Messrs. Hutchinson, the new contract was not sanctioned by the Board of Works; that, as a result, there is now no contract for the lighting of the Harbour; and whether he can see his way to have the contract sanctioned by the Board of Works.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The Board of Works have had the allegations of the Harbour Commissioners as to defective lighting investigated on the spot by one of their officers. They are considering his report, and will shortly communicate their decision to the Harbour Commissioners.

    Salaries of Irish National School Teachers-
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that the salaries of certain teachers in national schools in Ireland are determined on the basis of attendance, and that where the attendance does not exceed twelve the salary is £12 per annum; and, if so, will he take steps to remedy this arrangement.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Question refers presumably to the class of teacher known as Manual Instructress. The rules governing payments to such a teacher provide that where the average attendance is less than twenty she shall be paid a capitation grant of £1 for each girl in average attendance. Where the average attendance is twenty or over, but where the total attendance does not warrant the employment of an assistant, payment is at the uniform rate of £24 a year.

    The Anderson Case.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government has taken any steps to ascertain the identity of the lady examined by two doctors in Dublin, in the Anderson case, with the lady who is now Mrs. Anderson.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mrs. Anderson had an interview on Friday last with the doctors who made the examination. These gentlemen identified her as the woman whom they had previously examined, and made a statutory declaration to that effect.

    The Valuation Bill.
    MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)asked whe her the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could now give an answer to the Question asked the previous day with regard to the Valuation Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not able at present to say when the Valuation Bill would be taken. There was a good deal of important business before the House, in which the hon. Gentleman and his friends took a prolonged interest.

    Bules of Procedure.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESstated that he had on the previous day's Paper a starred Question of considerable importance and urgency with regard to the intentions of the Government respecting the rescue of Mr. Varley, now detained by brigands in Morocco. It was not reached by five minutes to three, but had not been answered in the Papers circulated with the Votes according to the Standing Order. He asked the Speaker, as this was not the first time the same thing had occurred to his Questions, whether it was not the duty of the Ministers to cause to be circulated with the Votes the Answers to Questions not reached.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked leave, as he was the criminal referred to, to interpose the explanation that he had failed to take into account that his hon. friend drew a distinction between two of his Questions, both postponed, one of which he had asked him not to answer according to the Standing Order, and this one, which he desired to have so answered.
    MR. LOUGH: The same thing happened to me, Mr. Speaker.
    MR. WHITLEY: The same thing happened to me too, Sir.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: And the same thing has happened to me, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is obvious that this oversight has frequently happened. It is obvious also, from the Prime Minister's explanation, that the duty of Ministers to answer the Questions as prescribed in the Standing Order is not disputed.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question now.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to answer now. The Answer I was prepared to give yesterday is that it is extremely inconvenient to make any statement to the House on the subject.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT REFUSED.
    MR. CROOKSIn consequence of what he deemed to be an unsatisfactory answer given to him by the Secretary of State for War, asked leave to make a Motion for the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance—the unsatisfactory distribution of Government work to the detriment of the national workshops and of workpeople.
    MR. SPEAKERruled that this was not a "definite matter of urgent public importance." It was open to the hon. Member to raise it in Committee of Supply.

    SHOP HOURS BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 217.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 235.]

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    The honourable Philip James Stanhope, for the County of Leicester (Southern or Harborough Division).

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Sir George Fardell, Sir George Bartley, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. Soares, and Lieutenant-Colonel Pryce-Jones; and had appointed in substitution Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Seymour Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Mr. John Rutherford.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. John Gordon, Mr. Goulding, Captain Balfour, Mr. George Montagu, and The Lord Advocate; and had appointed in substitution: Sir John Barrington Simeon, Mr. Baird, Mr. Hare, Mr. Garfit, and Sir Charles Renshaw.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee, "That, in the case of the Great Western Railway Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers in the Parish of Hanwell,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."
Report to lie upon the Table.

SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
MR. HUGH LAWsaid in their endeavour to take Ireland out of the purview of this taxation his colleagues and he were not actuated by any unworthy motive. They had always consistedly opposed all proposals which tended to increase the burden on the poor of both Islands, and they had always opposed extravagant expenditure and the heavy taxation which vas the direct consequence of such expenditure. The charge that the people
708
supported the war could never be made against Ireland, and he was not altogether certain that it was entirely true to say that the working classes of Great Britain supported it; but even if there were parts of Great Britain where it was true to say that the working classes desired extravagant expenditure, the inevitable accompaniment of an increase in the military establishment, that did not apply to Ireland. Such a fact would in itself justify the Irish representatives in asking that Ireland should be specially exempted from this tax. But there was another fact, which was that the expenditure on tea in Ireland per head was far greater than it was in any part of Great Britain, and the burden far heavier. He had made very careful inquiries and had been astonished to find how large a place tea occupied in the dietary of the poor of Ireland. An ordinary breakfast of the poor in the part from which he came was tea and bread, composed in part of flour and in part of Indian meal, butter when they could get it and tea; whilst dinner consisted of potatoes, milk, and on very rare occasions a piece of bacon, and tea. At six o'clock there was a meal like breakfast, tea and bread; and the supper consisted of Indian meal porridge. It would be obvious, therefore, to the Committee that tea occupied a place in the dietary of the poor of Ireland which it occupied in no part of Great Britain. This was a matter of great importance to Ireland. It was, of course, quite easy for hon. Members to say it would be better for these people not to drink so much tea, but what was to be given to them in exchange? He had heard it said thatitwould be far better for these people to eat oatmeal porridge, but oatmeal was rather an expensive article of diet and not one which was particularly palatable when eaten with water or goat's milk, and very often the only milk they were able to afford was goat's milk. One hon. Member on the previous day had said that the increase of taxation on tea and sugar during the past three years was equivalent to a week's wage of the working men of this country. In Ireland the case was even worse. There the wages of agricultural labourers did not in many districts exceed 9s. a week. Therefore this single increase upon tea now under discussion

709
would, upon the figures he had quoted, be very nearly the equivalent to a whole week's wages in the case of their people. He hardly ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would listen to his appeal; yet he thought both he and the other Irish representatives who thought with him would be neglecting their duty if they did not take every opportunity of protesting against any additional burden being placed on the shoulders of those who were least able to bear it. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words "or Ireland.'"—(Mr. Hugh Law.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the clause."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said he had listened to the hon. Member, who had placed before the Committee a very painful picture of the poor people of Ireland. He hoped that nothing which he might say would lead the hon. Gentleman to suppose that he was without sympathy for the very poor, whether they were in Ireland or in Great Britain. Whilst he was bound to maintain this tax before the House, he was not without feeling for those who had a hard struggle for existence and who felt the least pinch of taxation. But the hon. Member was asking the Committee to exclude from the burden of this taxation not the very poor but the whole of Ireland. The effect would be to exclude many people in Ireland who were as well able to pay as any one in this country, and to leave subject to the tax many people in England and Scotland whose lot in life was no easier than that of many people in Ireland. As to the financial relations of Ireland with the other parts of the United Kingdom, he could not usefully go over the ground which he traversed in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. The more complete inquiries to which he referred at the earlier stage of the Bill would, when the results were published as Returns, as he promised they should be, show that the grievance of Ireland in respect to this particular tax was not so great as had hitherto
710
been supposed. It had been assumed that the consumption of tea per head of population was greater in Ireland than in the rest of the kingdom. That was a misapprehension. That impression was due to the imperfect method by which statistics were at first collected and upon which subsequent calculations had been based. A Memorandum which would accompany the next Financial Returns would explain the steps taken to ensure accuracy, and it would be seen that the actual consumption per head of population was fractionally less in Ireland than in England and Scotland. Such taxation was undoubtedly a burden on the poorest classes of the community anywhere. It was not a tax he lightly chose, he was not insensible to the objections that could be urged against it, but he had not a very wide field of selection. Revenue had to be raised, and he felt that besides asking a contribution from income-tax payers he should make some demand from the masses of the population, and the tea duty appealed to him as the easiest and most reasonable way of raising part of the money required. The Committee on the previous night had agreed that the tax should be so raised, and he conceived they would also agree that the tax should be levied equally, for separate Exchequers, Customhouses, and financial systems could not be set up for different parts of the United Kingdom.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he had voted against an increase of the tax on tea because it was a tax on the poorer classes of the community, and he should vote against the increase of the duty in Ireland for the still stronger reason that Ireland was the poorer nation. It was a part of the Empire in which, in his opinion, it was singularly unstatesmanlike to increase such a duty. Our financial system did not necessarily require uniformity, and it would not be impossible to exempt Ireland. It was the fault of our fiscal relations that Ireland was not treated as the poorer country. The curious argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not assist him. Of course a poor man it Ireland did not drink more tea than a man in the same position in England, and

711
no doubt because of his poverty he consumed less of many of the necessities of life.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he could not quite understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imported the question of the financial relation* between Great Britain and Ireland into the debate. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had abstained from doing so although he would have been perfectly within his right if he had raised the question on every Amendment moved to the Finance Bill. He objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing so; at the same time it was only fair to have a general discussion. It might have been claimed that they had no right to go into the general question on this Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman thought otherwise and had introduced the general financial relations into this question. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken from figures which he said strengthened him in this matter as it affected Ireland. He objected to a Minister quoting from Returns as to the consumption of tea in Ireland which had not been distributed to Members. They had had reason to object to the right hon. Gentleman doing that a month ago when he made his speech upon the Second Reading of this Bill. A month had passed and his figures had not yet been published, and he complained seriously of the right hon. Gentleman after a month quoting these figures again without producing them. If he had those figures a month ago why did he not produce them and why were they not in their hands? What did those figures mean? He said those new figures showed that compared with the population Ireland did not drink more tea than the rest of Great Britain. What did that prove even if the right hon. Gentleman's figures were correct, which he did not at all admit? How did that advance his case? The Irish case was this, that there were in Ireland, in proportion to the whole population, more people to whom tea was absolutely a necessity of life than there were in this country, and if that statement was true, and he did not know how any man could controvert it who was acquainted with the facts, how did the figures of the right hon. Gentleman help him? His
712
figures did not show that there were many poor people in Ireland to whom it was a necessity of life, or that there was a much larger number of such people than in the rest of Great Britain, and their contention was that there was a much larger number of people in proportion to whom tea was a necessity of life than there was in this country, and that, therefore, the burden that fell upon Ireland was proportionately heavier and greater than the burden that fell upon Great Britain.
There was another matter that differentiated the case of Ireland from that of this country. In this country the invariable financial policy of Government after Government had been to bring down the proportion of indirect taxation, and they boasted that in this country the direct and indirect taxation were about equal. But in Ireland the indirect taxation was something like 80 per cent, of the whole, and, therefore, any general increase of indirect taxation was an additional grievance to Ireland. What did this country do when they wanted additional taxes for the war? They went to the very poorest of the poor, to the people least able to hear them. The Irish people were paying at that time at least 75 per cent, in indirect taxes of the whole taxation of their country. First they went and taxed sugar, then corn, then tea, and then they went to tobacco, and in that way they raised their war taxes in Ireland. They did not raise their war taxes by income-tax. The income-tax yield was found to have fallen away—a pretty good proof of the poverty of the people; whereas its yield in Great Britain had gone on and on increasing, in Ireland it went on diminishing, and so the additional war tax was raised altogether from this indirect taxation. That was to say that Ireland, the one portion of the Empire that was practically unanimously against the war, was the one portion of the Empire where the whole cost was borne by the poorest of the population. That was an additional reason why Ireland had a separate case altogether from Great Britain.
He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer remembered what took place when the corn tax was proposed, when the right hon. Member for West Bristol was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although the Irish representatives did not find that right hon.

713
Gentleman very easy to get round on financial matters, still he was bound to say that on more than one occasion the right hon. Gentleman showed himself in a sympathetic spirit when a strong case of grievance was made out on behalf of the poor of Ireland in those discussions. What did the right hon. Gentleman do when the corn tax came on—and it was one of the rare cases he remembered when the policy and the taxes and Ministerial legislative proposals had been actually changed by the force of the arguments addressed to Ministers—what happened in the course of the discussion on this corn tax? It was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that maize, or Indian meal as it is known in Ireland, formed a large portion of the dietary of the very poorest classes of the population of the South and West and North of Ireland. That was shown to him conclusively, and it was proved to him that the tax on corn would inflict a hardship upon Ireland quite different in its character to any hardships that might be imposed upon this country. The right hon. Gentleman listened and attempted to resist the argument for some time, but he was eventually convinced and he came down to the House and reduced the maize tax by one-half entirely upon the strength of the case made out from Ireland. A similarly strong case had been made with regard to tea. It was as much a necessity of life in the poorest parts of Ireland as maize, and if any one would take the trouble to read the budgets of families given by the Congested Districts Board they would be appalled to find what a large proportion of the whole expenditure of these poor families was made up of tea. Both he and his hon. friends had quoted these budgets over and over again in this House. It was sufficient now to point out here that, in the case of the congested districts, in what was called a well-to-do family with an income of £26 a year as much as £7 or £8 a year was spent on tea. In these circumstances was it not a monstrous hardship that this additional tax should be put upon those poor people—a tax which would wring from them an additional two or three hundred thousand a year. It was a cruel injustice to the poorest of the population, and he congratulated his
714
hon. friend on having put his case so strongly before the House. He appealed to hon. Members in all parts of the House who had any spark of feeling or sympathy with the poor to assist them in the demand which they made.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he did not think it would be right to leave all the discussion on this Motion to Nationalist Members. He represented a different part of Ireland, and he could assure the House that the tea tax was as acutely felt in Ulster as in any other part of Ireland. He did not accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any want of sympathy, but he had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with something like astonishment. This was not a proposal for altering the whole system of Irish taxation—he wished it was. The position of Ireland with regard to the question of taxation had become intolerable. There was the rich country England, where taxation was going up by leaps and bounds, and where the population and wealth were increasing; and opposite to that was the poor country Ireland, where the population and wealth were decreasing, and it seemed to be expected that the poor country could keep up with England in the mad race of armaments and taxation. The thing was not possible, and he wished to tell the House frankly that this question of Irish taxation was becoming a serious one in Ireland, and the strain could not much longer be borne. He knew all the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he knew that they were subject to the law of indiscriminate taxation, and the great difficulty there would be in changing it. But, whether the House of Commons liked it or not, they would find speedily that, if the country went on in this mad race of armaments to tax the Irish people as they were doing, and expected Ireland to keep up with England, they were mistaken, and they would plunge Ireland into bankruptcy. The right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire had plainly shown that the question was not whether Ireland consumed more tea per head of the population than England or Scotland, but Ireland's capacity to bear the tax. No doubt there were very poor people

715
in Scotland and England, but at any rate those people managed to get on pretty-well as compared with poor Irish people. In thousands and tens of thousands of Irish homes they never saw meat from one year's end to the other. What they lived upon was wretched yellow meal, still more wretched tea, inferior bread, and potatoes. It was thus all nonsense to compare their case with that of the people in England and Scotland. He appealed to hon. Members who advocated preferential treatment for the Colonies to let some preferential treatment be given to Ireland by leaving the tea tax there at 6d. It was not too much to ask that the poor of Ireland should not be subjected to this additional tax. English representatives were responsible for what caused this tax, because they voted for the Boer War, whereas the great bulk of the Irish representatives voted against it; it was only fair therefore that there should be some differentiation in regard to the payment of taxation. Ireland could not afford the reckless extravagance pursued by England. He would vote for this reduction in the taxation of Ireland, and he felt perfectly; certain that the day was not far distant when the House would have to face the whole question of the financial relations between England and Ireland.
MR. FLYNNagreed with the chairman of the Irish Nationalist Party that it was most unfair for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to quote figures from a Return without giving copies of that Return to the House. It was a Rule of the House that a Minister should not quote from any Paper unless copies were in the hands of the House. He could in a very few words prove from such Returns as they had that this increasing of the tea duty was growing more and more intolerable, and becoming a great burden on the poorer classes, not only of Ireland, but of England and Scot land. Hon. Members were entitled to rely on the Treasury Returns. It was not fair that when they had been allowed j to wander for ten or twelve years through a maze of figures, they should be suddenly told that those figures were not to be relied upon. Where were hon. Members to get these figures if not from the Treasury;
716
and if the Treasury could not rely on their own figures how were hon. Members to do it? Looking at the last Treasury Returns it was found hat in 1898–9, when the duty was 4d. per 1b., the amount of tea tax collected in Ireland amounted to £345,000 and in Great Britain to £3,805,000. Of the total amount collected Ireland contributed 8·75 per cent. In 1901 the duty was increased to 6d. per cent, and the amount raised from Ireland rose from £345,000 to £570,000; I and in Great Britain the amount collected was £5,957,000. Ireland contributed 8·73 per cent, of the entire revenue from tea. The last Return for 1902–3 showed that with a continuance of the duty at 6d.— it pressed heavier on Ireland in proportion than on Great Britain. The amount I produced by the tax in Ireland was £549,000, and in Great Britain £5,687,000. Ireland paid 9 per cent, of the whole of the tea tax levied in the United Kingdom. The increase in the levy in the four years from 1898–9 to 1902–3 was 50 per cent., amounting to over £200,000, and that from the poorest population in Europe. Was that a fair tax which commended itself to the sym pathetic judgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It was not necessary to labour the point. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford brought to the recollection of the House that similar case submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, in regard to Indian corn. The Tight hon. Gentleman recognised, after prolonged debate, the justice of the Irish case, acknowledged that it had been made out, and consented to reduce the duty on maize by one-half. That was the reason why the Irish Members pleaded with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Members of this House on this occasion—the more especially as the figures prepared by the Royal Commission on the financial relations of the two countries showed that Ireland was overtaxed already to the extent of £3,000,000 a year. That grievance in. stead of being abated, had been increased during the nine years that had elapsed since the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission, and the case was becoming more indefensible and the burden heavier year by year.
MR. LOUGHsaid he agreed with all that had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as to the figures. He himself had put a Question to the Secretary of the Treasury and got a very courteous reply, but the hon. Gentleman did not account for the disappearance of this important Memorandum. These figures should have been forthcoming before this debate, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer six weeks ago said the old figures were wrong.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that on that occasion he had told the House that he would not present a document the absolute accuracy of the figures in which he could not guarantee. The Returns were not then complete. He had no desire to keep information I back a moment after he was in possession of it. He had no information since the debate to which he had alluded; but he would put hon. Members in possession of the information as soon as possible.
MR. LOUGHsaid he had no desire to introduce this matter in a controversial spirit, but they had been told that there was a Paper in existence which would reconstruct the whole basis on which the case for Ireland had been built up. He himself did not at all believe in the new figures any more than in the old figures. They never had had a fair statement of this matter. Every figure given by the Treasury as to the taxation of Ireland was doctored. The truth was there was no means of getting correct figures on this matter. By a Treasury Minute, which the House had never sanctioned, in 1823 all the trade in Ireland was treated as coast trade, and the result was that Ireland was the only part of the British Empire, the only island or province, which was cruelly deprived of all information on these vital matters. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that he had told the Customs authorities to obtain the absolute figures as to the consumption of tea and any other articles in Ireland? He knew that the House was going to have another set of fictitious figures presented, and when they came to study them a new Chancellor of the Exchequer would start up and say, "Oh,
718
these figures are wrong." He hoped the Committee would get from some responsible member of the Government a promise that these vital facts relating to Ireland' would be given in a correct form and in the only way which would make them valuable.
He was unable entirely to agree with the way in which the case was presented in the eloquent and touching speech of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Motion. The hon. and learned Member expressed sympathy with the poor both in Ireland and in this country as the foundation of the case. That was not the foundation of the case. The hon. and learned Member did not touch the great principle on which his Motion could alone be defended from an Irish standpoint. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer took advantage of that, and told the Committee that he felt the sufferings of the poor as much as any one. They believed that. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the burden of this tax fell with equal weight on persons who were equally poor in both countries. Quite true. But suppose there were 20 per cent, of the very poor in Great Britain who felt this tax as a horrible oppression; and then suppose that the proportion of the very poor in Ireland was 70 per cent., that made all the difference. If the whole of the valuation of Ireland was taken it was found to be only three-eighths per head of what it was in Great Britain. Therefore the whole question depended on what was the proportion of these poor people to whom this tax was oppressive. That raised an important question; but it was equally right for the Committee that night to look at the case not from the standpoint of the individual but from that of the nation. Ireland was a separate entity with separate rights as well as Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth had shown that there had been a complete difference between the taxation of Ireland and Great Britain till 1853, and that there was still a difference. It should be realised what a fearful instrument of oppression it was for one country to select the taxes for another country. The tobacco tax, for instance, had formerly been only one-fourth in Ireland what it was in England, and why should.

719
not the tea tax in Ireland be made one-fourth what it was in England? With regard to the collection of the tax the British considered they had a right to collect it. They assumed that as the proportion of men in Ireland to those in England was one to eight, that they should collect what Ireland had to pay. Why did the position of the large country give it a right to fix the tax of the small country? No other island but Ireland had been treated in this way. In this question the relationship of tea as an article of food to the diet of the country had to be considered, and if it stood in a different and more intimate relation to the diet of that country than it did in this the tax became very oppressive. Twenty times as much coffee, five or six times as much cocoa, and more than three times as much meat per head were consumed in this country as was consumed in Ireland. Those facts in themselves showed that the diet of the two countries were essentially different, and this principle of paying an equal tax on staple articles must be very harsh and cruel in its effect. The Government inevitably without knowing it favoured their own country. Take the case of the duty on beer and spirits; they taxed beer low because it was the national drink of the country, and they taxed whiskey high; but whiskey was the national drink of Ireland. The whole case had been summed up by the hon. Member for South Tyrone who had shown that the effect of an equal system of taxation between the two countries was to make the richer country more prosperous and the poorer country still more poor. He opposed this tax because it was cruel and unfair to Ireland.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid he joined with his countrymen in the House in applying to the Government to yield to this Amendment. He was against this increase in the tea duty and had voted against it in every division which had been taken on the subject. He strongly objected to its being imposed on Ireland. Already the indirect taxation of Ireland amounted to 80 per cent, of the total taxation, and inasmuch as it was the working classes and the poorer classes upon whom this tax must fall the burden must be exceedingly heavy.
720
The argument that the working classes supported the war and therefore must assist in paying for it could not be held to apply to Ireland, which was unanimous in opposing it, besides which he did not think they should make a tax a punishment. Nor was it any argument to say it would be very difficult to differentiate between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in this matter, because up to a certain period the taxes were altogether different in the two countries and no inconvenience resulted from that experience. It was within the recollection of some in this House that when the income-tax was revived by Sir Robert Peel it was not revived in Ireland for many years after, and that when it was imposed on Great Britain, Ireland was exempted until 1853. The spirit and beer duties were also different, and there were other variations. Was it fair or reasonable that a tax which pressed so unfairly on the people of the two countries should be imposed? Was it fair that the Irish peasant with an income of £12 a year should pay the same direct taxation as the English peasant with an income of £40. It was all very well to speak of equality of taxation, but the fundamental principle of the economic law was that equality of taxation meant equality of sacrifice and not burden. A tea duty of 6d. in Ireland was equivalent to a tea duty of 8d. in this country, and on that principle this Amendment ought to be considered. The Irish peasantry was the worst fed, worst housed, and worst clothed peasantry in Europe, and, notwithstanding that, they were supposed to be equal to bearing the same burden as that borne by the richest peasant not only in Europe but in the whole world. That was the misfortune of the position of Ireland with regard to England. Every year she fell backward in the race of nations whilst England progressed by leaps and bounds in the opposite direction, yet no difference could be made in favour of Ireland when it came to taxation to meet the enormous expenditure.
After hearing the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Donegal and by the hon. Member the Leader of the Irish Party, could it astonish any fair-minded man to find that after so many centuries the Irish

721
people should be dissatisfied and discontented when no effort was made to lift the in up from the slough of despondency into which they were cast by poverty? The more they went into the history of Ireland and examined what was now going on and had been going on for the greater part of the last century, they would find that, the origin and fountain of it all was the poverty of the people and the difficulties they had to meet in their struggle for life. He had mixed with every class in Ireland and was not a blind observer, and to his own knowledge in the poorest parts of Ireland one of the necessaries of life was tea. Formerly they had potatoes in abundance, but that article of food had almost disappeared; formerly they had in the farmhouses quantities of milk, but they could not now afford to partake of it themselves or give it to their children. As to meat, they formerly perhaps were able to have a small portion on n Sunday, but now they had none. Their whole nourishment was now derived from yellow meal, maize, and inferior flour, baked as well as they could bake it, and tea was the liquid that washed down that not very appetising food. Not only the peasants—not only the workmen— not only their wives and children, but all classes of struggling people in Ireland who were on the very verge of starvation used largely as their beverage tea, which could at once cheer and not intoxicate, and surely that should be the very last subject of taxation. Temperance was preached on every side of the House, and they had rich and wealthy people coming forward to denounce the vice of intemperance, but was the way to promote temperance to put a tax on what alone could be a substitute for alcoholic liquor. Coffee was out of the question in Ireland, and yet the main source of the comfort and almost the subsistence of the Irish people was selected by the present Government to be the principal instrument for swelling up the revenue and enabling them to maintain that waste and extravagance which characterised the whole of their expenditure.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLcalled upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give to the Committee the figures to which reference had been made that day. The right hon. Gentle-
722
man interrupted the hon. Member for Islington to explain how it was that he had not hitherto produced those figures, but he (Mr. Churchill) did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposed to produce them.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that I especially guarded myself—
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures he quoted a month ago and to which he again referred to-day?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can repeat the figures, subject to the qualifications that obtained a month ago, and if the hon. Gentleman wants them he shall have them. I said, then, I was trying to give the best information in my power and hon. Gentlemen opposite expressed their gratification that I had done the best I could to give them the latest figures. I said those figures were subject to revision and that I could not pledge the authorities to the exact figures I then mentioned. As soon as I am able to give the exact figures they shall be in the possession of the House.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask whether any one is entitled to quote figures from any Government Return that he does not lay on the Table of the House?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Rule has hitherto been that if any Minister quoted from a document he must eventually lay that document on the Table of the House, and I have no doubt that the same rule will apply to the figures quoted in this case. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted certain figures from an official document, it will be his duty to lay those figures on the Table of the House.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid after that ruling he concluded that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at once take steps to lay on the Table of the House the document which a month ago he considered sufficiently complete and accurate to use for the purpose of debate. The

723
right hon. Gentleman had said that he would lay the figures on the Table as soon as possible, but they were entitled to insist that they should be laid, not sooner than possible, but forthwith. It might be quite true that some note would have to be appended qualifying the figures and explaining that there might be some possibility of error. If that proved to be the ease the House would not complain of the information being in an incomplete form. In his short experience of the House he had found Ministers ready to say they would produce something as soon as possible. They were going to produce the Army scheme as soon as possible, but the House was put off from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, and they had never succeeded in arriving at anything definite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not even so definite about these figures as the Prime Minister was about the date of introducing the Army scheme. He (Mr. Churchill) did not suppose that the figures in the admittedly incomplete and inaccurate form were of vital importance, but as a point of order and in defence of the rights of the Committee and of the House of Commons they were bound to insist that the rules should be carried out and that documents from which Ministers quoted should be produced and laid on the Table of the House.
His hon. friend the Member of Tyrone used an expression which encouraged him to intervene a moment in this discussion. The hon. Gentleman said this was a preferential Amendment and proposed a preference to Ireland. It was quite true that this Amendment sought to limit and impair the operation of the tea tax by excluding from its scope one part of the British Empire. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment could not have been encouraged by the treatment meted out to a similar Amendment which he (Mr. Churchill) had ventured to move on the preceding night. He hoped the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would meet with more respectful treatment than was accorded to his own, which was designed to exempt Ceylon and our possessions in India. There was a very good reason why this Amendment should be treated with more respect and should meet with a greater
724
measure of support in the division lobby than was accorded to that designed to give colonial preference, because, comparing the claims of Canada and Ireland to a preference, there could not be the slightest doubt that with regard to Imperial taxation the claims of Ireland were far greater than those of Canada. Ireland contributed very much more to Imperial taxation than did all the Colonies put together. Ireland sent more soldiers to South Africa for the war than went from the Colonies, and in addition to those reasons Ireland was a much poorer country than Canada. The latter was a progressive country, whilst Ireland alone amongst the ancient civilised nations in Europe was declining in wealth and general prosperity. Those were sufficient reasons to compel him, as he voted on the previous night for the exemption of Ceylon and India from this tax, to vote for the exemption of Ireland. Frankly, he was against this great increase of tax on tea. He thought it would have been very much better, more prudent, and would have conduced to content and financial economy if the burden thrown on the country at large had been defrayed much more substantially out of the income-tax. He would have liked to see the expenditure on our vast armaments thrown to a far greater measure on the more wealthy people of this country. That class was amused and interested by international complications to a much greater degree than was the great democratic class who had not the leisure to study the questions. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to meet the deficit with which he was confronted—not through his own fault, but through the policy of which he heartily approved—by making a greater demand on the direct taxpayer—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. I must ask him to confine himself to the subject of the Amendment.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was explaining to the Committee the reasons which induced him to accept every opportunity of expressing his hostility to the tea tax. The argument

725
brought forward by the hon. Member for Waterford was familiar to the House and had been submitted on many occasions. So long as taxation was at a low level it might be possible that the Same system of taxation that was adapted to England was also adapted to Ireland, but in proportion as the expenditure increased it was quite certain that an increased measure of suffering must fall on the weaker partner. He felt himself bound to point out how it was that the height to which they had raised expenditure brought much sooner to the arena of practical politics the questions of having a separate Exchequer for Ireland, and a fixed contribution paid at stated periods. They would, no doubt, have a future opportunity for discussing those questions, but he ventured to say that the treatment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accorded to the Amendment had been hard, unbending, and unsympathetic, and he did not think the tone he had adopted, any more than the frequent use of the Closure, was likely to facilitate the passage of the Budget Bill.
MR. CLANCYsaid there were two matters in connection with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which he wished to refer. The first was the curious fact that the information which had usually been furnished before the present period of the session had been delayed until after the discussion in Committee. It looked very like a deliberate delay in order to deprive Irish Members of the opportunity of examining the document to see whether or not the figures were accurate. The second matter was more important. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman had announced that these Returns were in future to be drawn up on a different basis. That not being contradicted, he assumed that, without notice to Parliament or any Irish Member, the Treasury, at the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or somebody else, had entered upon an important alteration in the method of calculating the financial relations between England and Ireland. He objected to any such swindle being perpetrated where such vast interests were at stake. ["Order, order!"] If it was not a swindle let the right hon. Gentleman explain what it was. In the
726
Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman said that the results of the annual Returns would be somewhat different this year, but nobody gathered from that statement that a change would be made in the method of calculation. The right hon. Gentleman now plainly declared that the method adopted in the past inaccurately showed the movements of trade, and that a new method was to be adopted in the future. Such a fundamental alteration made by one of the parties to an agreement, without notice to the other party or to Parliament, was capable of covering any swindle, and in these circumstances he felt it his duty to put certain questions which he would not otherwise have asked in regard to these Returns. Who initiated the change about to be affected?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting away from the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. CLANCYsaid that his excuse, in fact his justification, for what he had said was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced the matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: I took no exception to what the hon. Member had said hitherto, but when he proceeded to say that he intended to make a series of inquiries as to the method in which these Returns were prepared, and so forth, I thought those matters would be outside the subject matter of the discussion raised by this Amendment.
MR. CLANCYsaid that as a matter of fact he had not intended to submit a catechism on the present occasion, but merely to suggest one or two points to which the right hon. Gentleman might turn his attention, and to which Irish Members would undoubtedly give consideration. After the Chairman's intimation, however, he would not pursue the subject further. As to the rest of the case, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was of the old familiar type, beginning with expressions of sympathy, but containing no practical suggestions for giving effect to those sympathetic utterances. Not only was the case proved for the Amendment, but the time was

727
opportune for granting some measure of justice to Ireland in this matter He said that the case was proved, because neither on the Second Reading nor on the present occasion had the right hon. Gentlemen attempted to answer the arguments put forward by the representatives of Ireland. The exemption of Ireland from the operation of the increase of the tax was said to be impracticable, but how could a scheme which had been in operation for many years be impracticable? This sort of legislation was usual up to 1853. Even after the amalgamation of the Exchequers taxes were levied in England and not in Ireland, and other taxes levied in England at one rate were levied in Ireland at a lower rate; and this Amendment merely proposed that in the case of a tax which affected the poorest of the population there should be a reversion to that practice on a small scale. What had been done once could be done again; therefore there was no weight in the argument of impracticability. But if the right hon. Gentleman regarded it as an impracticable proposal, why did he not suggest some other method to give effect to the sympathy which he had expressed. He had at his command an abundance of the best paid legal expert assistance to be obtained in the British Empire, and if he liked he could within a very few hours produce an alternative scheme by which Ireland would be given the relief she desired. A man who expressed sympathy, and practically admitted the case to be a just one, but failed to take advantage of the expert assistance at his command with a view to giving practical effect to his sympathy, seemed to be convicted of something very like hypocrisy. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to admit the whole case when he admitted that this tax on tea affected the poor. That was the very point of the whole case. This tax affected Ireland more than was the case in England and Scotland, because there were more poor in Ireland. The Tight hon. Gentleman said he had selected this tax because it was the fairest and the easiest way of raising the additional taxation he required. It certainly was the easiest way, but he questioned whether, after that debate, anyone would venture to say that it was the fairest. He wished
728
to allude to the motive underlying this persistent treatment of Ireland for the last sixty or seventy years. They had often been reproached for imputing to successive Governments malignant intentions towards Ireland. But supposing he withdrew that charge, what remained? Simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and successive British Governments had acted with an entire absence of regard for Ireland, that they had never considered the true interests of Ireland; had paid no regard to her needs, circumstances and requirements, and had never realised that—
"Evil is wrought by want of thought, as well as want of heart."
Therefore they need not be surprised when Irishmen endeavoured to make the strongest protest they could against the continuance of this policy.
MR. FIELDsaid that Ireland had always been regarded as a separate fiscal entity in matters of taxation according to the union treaty and the findings of the Royal Commissions on the Financial Relations, therefore Ireland was entitled to separate treatment. Anyone who studied current politics at home or abroad must be aware that political oppression had not always taken the form of shooting down the people, but in civilised communities when the strong desired to oppress the weak that oppression generally took the form of taxation. Those who inquired into Irish history would find that notwithstanding Coercion Acts, the most fatal legislation passed for Ireland was that which instituted a system of taxation by which they were absolutely being taxed and emigrated out of existence. This was being very cleverly accomplished and it was being done in a way that enriched England. Ireland complained that the present system of national book-keeping had been erroneous and ruinous. With regard to this question of tea, the Committee should remember that just as the Irish and the English Exchequers were amalgamated, so were other Departments. They had no separate branch of the Board of Trade for Ireland, consequently all exports and imports were treated as coasting trade, and they had no reliable information as to what was imported into Ireland or what was

729
exported from it. That showed the necessity for a new system being adopted whereby they could separate the Irish exports and imports from those of Great Britain. If they wished to have a correct system of taxation, whereby the incidence of taxation would be just and fair, some such system would have to be devised. The result was that in Ireland the whole system of taxation had become more or less discredited. There was one point of view which had not been touched upon. Recently they had had in the House a great deal of temperance oratory in regard to the licensing question. This tax upon tea would undoubtedly have a certain amount of influence upon temperance, for anything that would cause tea to become dearer would have the effect of driving people to imbibe spirituous liquors, and from this point of view the tea tax was entitled to more consideration than it had yet received. The effect of taxing tea might be that the retailer would not increase the price, but the tea would be reduced in quality, and therefore an inferior quality of tea might be sold and there would be a smaller consumption. This tea duty affected a greater number of people in Ireland in ratio to the population, by reason of the fact that the Irish people consumed more tea proportionately than any other part of the three kingdoms. He was intimately acquainted with the habits of the poor people in Ireland and he wished to impress upon the Committee that in recent years the whole system of living in the country districts had changed, and the element of tea now entered much more largely into consumption than it used to do in former years.
There was one other point he wished to impress upon the Committee. He warned hon. Members in all seriousness that this question of taxation in Ireland had become so intolerable that really the burden was almost impossible to bear, and it was driving the people to seriously consider whether they ought to resist in future the collection of Imperial taxation. What they objected to was that they had not the management of their own affairs in this matter. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that if the taxes in Ireland were increased to such an intolerable ex-
730
tent undoubtedly public opinion would be exercised to know what would be the best way of meeting the difficulty. He had always the courage of his convictions, and he declared that, in his opinion, the proper way for the Irish people to meet the question of over-taxation would be to strike against the payment of all Imperial taxation. He was quite aware that was an unconstitutional idea, and that if he were to give utterance to it outside this House he might be subject to prosecution and imprisonment. But in that ease he would not be the first Irishman who had been imprisoned in a good cause. It might come to that, because undoubtedly the burden of Imperial taxation had become so great that people were being taxed and emigrated out of the country. They did not know how to get a remedy. It might be said that this was the mother of Parliaments and that the British people would see that Ireland got fair play. One of the main planks in their system of Government was that there should be no taxation without representation. Ireland had representation here, but it was always over-ruled. No matter what view the Irish Members might take, their opinion was voted down. Although in theory they might be represented, in fact the representation had no effect. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give due consideration to the views which had been put forward from the Irish Benches that afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman might usefully remember that the enforcement of a tax upon tea was the lever which operated to raise the American Republic, and history had a habit of repeating such occurrences.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that though he represented a London working-class constituency he desired, as an Irishman, to take part in this debate. If the protest against this tax on the part of English working-class constituencies was a good one, it must necessarily be a very much better one with reference to the poor of Ireland. His experience went to show that the working classes of this country desired to do common justice towards the working classes of Ireland. If, as had been stated, the working classes of this country

731
supported the Government in regard to the South African War. it should be remembered that the Irish people almost to a man had protested against the war. In fairness it must be acknowledged that, in a certain sense, no portion of the people did their duty better than the Irish in South Africa. They gave all they had to give. They gave their blood. Yet their friends were to be taxed, not in the same proportion as English working men, but in a far heavier proportion. They were to have a tax of 8d. on tea which was not worth 8d. a pound in itself. The working classes in England lived far better now than forty or fifty years ago, whereas the Irish people lived far worse. Tea of the worst quality was substituted now for milk and other articles of diet. Porridge of Indian meal or oatmeal, when coupled with milk, was a fair diet, but when it was coupled with tea it was practically no diet at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed sympathy with Ireland, but if he had any real sympathy he might forego the £200,000 he was going to get through this tax from the peasantry of Ireland when he could get the money with great ease from some other sources. A few years ago he went to Ireland after an absence of many years, and he was shocked at the state of the country. There was no improvement of any kind. There had been not only a tremendous decrease in the population, but what was worse a decrease in the character of the population. There were old people and young children in the country. The remainder of the population of mature years were those who were kept in the country from some special motive, or who had not the courage and determination to go to America and the Colonies in order to better themselves. By increasing the duty on tea the Government were putting a crushing tax on the poorest of the poor in Ireland. It was said that tea was a wholesome beverage. It might be so. It was not detrimental as prepared in Russia where the peasantry consumed it in large quantities. In Ireland it was a rank decoction of the worst quality of tea. According to some authorities the increase of insanity in Ireland was due to the consumption of immense quantities of a decoction of low-class tea. There could be little doubt that insanity had been accentuated to a
732
very great degree in Ireland in consequence of the people not having sufficient nourishment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the tax was fractionally lower than in England. That was certainly not the case if they took into consideration not only the quantity but the quality of the tea. It was a monstrous thing that, for the sake of a few hundred thousand pounds, considering the injustice Ireland laboured under, this extra tax should be imposed-
MR. SLOANsaid Ireland as a whole was against taxation. Taxation of any description was a most unpopular thing. In fact England was-against the enormous taxation at the present time. It was inconsistent for hon. Members opposite to be against preference in other parts of His Majesty's dominions and yet to favour preference for Ireland. A great deal, however, had been said from the Irish Benches that he entirely agreed with. Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom she should pay her part of the taxes. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin said that what they objected to was that they had not the management of their own affairs. That was just the crux of the whole thing. Every injustice that was done to Ireland was, according to some hon. Members, because there was not an Irish Parliament. The hon. Member who had just sat down had said that this tax could be taken from other sources with ease. If that was the fact he was quite willing that it should be taken from other sources, and that tea not only in Ireland but in this country should be left alone. It must not be forgotten that while Ireland was the poorest part of the United Kingdom, there were other poor people in this country who would also suffer through this taxation — people who went for their halfpennyworth of tea. It was a universally unpopular tax for the poor, and if something else could be substituted it would mean a great benefit to the poor, and certainly it would be acceptable to the Irish Members in the House. He was always glad to associate himself with any legitimate and fair demand made from the Irish Benches. This Government had done some unpopular things for Ireland, it had done some unpopular

733
things for England, and it would perhaps do more unpopular things before it had done with the country; but what he maintained was that while they remained a Unionist Government, and while there were Unionist Members representing constituencies in the North of Ireland, they had a perfect right to say that Ireland had no more claim for differentiation in this particular case than England or Scotland. They felt, he admitted, taxation was a most unpopular thing, and, although they desired to make the course of the poor of Ireland more smooth, when it came to a proposal for differentiating between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, it was time a line was drawn, and that Irish Members from the Unionist Benches should get up and make a protest. He wished to make a simple and humble protest against this idea of preference, and he hoped that some hon. Gentleman would give some idea as to a plan for a substitute for the tea tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider. If that were done and some other reasonable tax were selected instead of the present proposal he would be glad to give it his support.
MR. SHEETIYsaid that the objection to giving preference to Ireland was, to his mind, ridiculous. At present the only preference given to Ireland was the preference of burden. The sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland was spoiled by the right hon. Gentleman's remark in his speech that it would be inconvenient to the Government to frame regulations by which Ireland would be free from this tea tax. The tax was imposed to pay for the South African War. This country had started that war gaily, but Ireland had protested against it. England had called the tune and ought to pay the piper. It had been acknowledged that the Irish soldiers had fought the Boers with bravery, and the relatives of the Irish soldiers who bled for England in that war were now being called upon for a double dose of bleeding—a bleeding of their sons and brothers and husbands and a bleeding of taxation—all to forward Imperial interests. Ireland derived no benefit from that war in any shape or form, and yet to pay for it the poorest of the poor were to be exceptionally taxed on their main articles of consumption.
734
Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have found another method of raising the few hundred thousand pounds he wanted. He did not think even if the Amendment were carried that the right hon. Gentleman's Finance Bill would be wrecked. It was the bounden duty of the Irish Members to insist, although they were in a hopeless minority, on making a protest against this treatment so long as they had the misfortune to come to this House at all.
MR. POWERsaid it had been generally acknowledged that the present system of taxation had done infinite harm to Ireland. They had had a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which that right hon. Gentleman expressed sympathy for Ireland; but he also used an argument: which they had heard so often before, and which had been largely used in this country during the last ten years. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were various taxes which were levied in England and not in Ireland, and he argued that, therefore, Ireland was exceptionally treated. But, as his hon. and gallant friend below him had shown, these taxes, such as the tax on armorial bearings and menservants, were not imposed in Ireland because they would not be worth the cost of collection. The Union had ruined the gentry of Ireland, or had driven them from the country. They had all listened with interest to the speech with which the hon. Member for Donegal had introduced his Motion. It commanded the attention of the House all the more because of its very moderation. But, speaking of the condition of the people of Ireland, the hon. Member alluded to the fact that the peasants used butter almost daily at their meals. He himself could not speak for the people of Donegal, but, in his own part of the country, he knew that butter was an unknown food for the peasants. Their breakfast, dinner, and supper consisted altogether of tea and very indifferent bread. Further than that, a number of small farmers in his own constituency did not use butter, and he knew of cases where they had not even milk to their tea. Consequently, his hon. and learned friend had understated his case. Personally, he did not approve of the large

735
amount of tea that was consumed by the Irish people. He thought that both morally and physically they were better men and women when they lived on a vegetable diet. But that diet was out of the question at the present time. It was all very well to say that they should drink cocoa, but every halfpenny was of importance to these people whose wages were often not more than 6s. a week. Tea was cheaper than cocoa or coffee, and people in Ireland drank tea for that reason. Although he objected to the large consumption of tea in Ireland, he was afraid that the effect of this tax would be that the quality of the tea used would be very much inferior to that now used. He differed to some extent from the remarks of his hon. and gallant friend, because he thought that, considering the means of the people, the quality of the tea now used was remarkably good. The effect of the imposition of this extra taxation would be, not to reduce the consumption of tea, but the quality of the tea consumed, and he feared that the general health of the people would not be improved.
Why was indirect taxation increased as it was being increased? It had been proved beyond aye or nay that indirect taxation weighed most heavily on the poor and on the poorest parts of the country, and consequently hit Ireland severely. But how did the right hon. Gentleman deal with direct and indirect taxation? At present direct taxation was 20 per cent, lower than it was during the war, whereas indirect taxation was 33 per cent, greater than during the war. The increase in indirect taxation was, no doubt, imposed in the first instance as a war tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when he introduced it, said it was a war tax, and that it was only fair that teetotalers who approved of the war should be called upon to pay something towards the expense of the war. He did not, however, understand why indirect taxation should be increased and direct taxation reduced. The present position in Ireland recalled to the mind of every student of history what was predicted with regard to taxation. Cur-ran said that the Union would mean British taxation without the advantage of British trade. That turned out to be
736
true. As had been pointed out by various Members, Ireland occupied an an exceptional position. She was exceptionally poor, and rightly or wrongly— he believed rightly—she protested against the war for which this taxation was imposed. She had no act or part in the origin of the war, and it was monstrous that she should be called upon to pay a large penalty in connection with it.
MR. MURPHYsaid that his hon. friend who stated that every Irish Member should take part in this debate gave very good advice; because it seemed to him that the grievance which had been brought forward had been so well sustained by argument that no answer could be given to it. One fact that struck him in connection with the debate was that the Chief Secretary, the Irish Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General for England who represented an Irish constituency, did not think it worth their while to be present to hear arguments connected with the taxation of Ireland. That remark also applied to hon. Members from Ulster, with the exception of the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. Member for South Belfast. No one, however, expected the hon. Member for South Belfast to give any light or leading in connection with a financial discussion; and he did not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks in the debate disclosed any knowledge of the circumstances connected with the taxation of tea. Even his leader—if he were his leader—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, attended a meeting in Ireland connected with the financial relations, in which he declared that Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £2,500,000 per annum. It seemed to him that the arguments that had been advanced were unanswerable. The hon. Gentleman the; Member for West Islington, who always said something interesting when he spoke on Irish financial questions, pointed out; that whereas this tax affected 50 per cent, of the population of this country, it affected 70 per cent, of the population of Ireland, owing to their extreme poverty. The hon. Member who initiated the discussion spoke of Donegal. It was the same in Kerry. Tea was one of the necessities of life for the poor; and the.

737
imposition of this additional tax would press very heavily indeed upon them. As one who had some connection with the retail trade in Ireland, he was perfectly confident that the result would be that the quality of the tea would be reduced. The debate disclosed how really hopeless it was for Irish Members to seek a solution of the financial grievance or any other grievance until they had a Government of their own, that could understand Irish questions and apply proper remedies. They could not expect a British Government, ill-informed, and out of touch with the country, to deal with these questions. He could only repeat what had been said by a hon. friend that the imposition of taxation had become such a grievance in Ireland that the people were justified in striking against taxation altogether. They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an inquiry would be put in operation by the Treasury in order to ascertain how taxation affected people in Ireland. The Irish Members ought to make a strong protest against any such proceeding, adopted behind their backs, and without their being given any means of discussing the proposal or the methods to be pursued. From experience they knew very well that when the Treasury came to deal with Ireland, it would deal with the country in an improper and unjust manner. They knew very well that the additional taxation was a result of war expenditure, over which the Irish Members had no control and against which they protested. It had been remarked that Irish soldiers had participated in the successful fight which had been waged on behalf of England in South Africa; but there were very many Irishmen who, like himself, regretted that Irish soldiers had been engaged in such nefarious and improper proceedings. If Irish soldiers only realised how little success attended appeals from Ireland in consequence of the assistance they had rendered during the war they would come to the conclusion that it would be much better for Irishmen to remain outside the Army.
THE CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the Amendment.
MR. MURPHYsaid it might not have anything to do with the Amendment in a
738
direct sense; but he was referring to arguments which had been used by other speakers. He only wished to emphasise the fact that they regretted that Ireland had had any connection with the war, through Irish soldiers or otherwise. Because of the large amount of improper taxation which would be dragged from Ireland, he hoped that every Irish Member would protest against this additional duty.
MR. HAVILAND BURKEsaid the whole argument of the hon. Member for South Belfast was based on the assumption that Ireland had not been joined to England bran Act of Union which was as solemn, emphatic, and distinct a treaty as was ever contracted between two nations. A reference to the Parliamentary Debates of the period during which Pitt brought forward his famous eight Resolutions for the Act of Union would show that even Pitt, whatever his sins against Ireland and the Irish might have been, and however base might be considered the methods by which he achieved his object, argued, as regards to financial relations between the two countries, that they should not be in common, that Ireland should be treated as a separate entity, and that the proportion of taxation should be considered as separate and apart. For a Unionist Member of Parliament to attempt to go back upon William Pitt on one of the most important and essential parts of the treaty was an extraordinary line to adopt. Some hon. Members seem to labour under the impression that the Act of Union converted Ireland into thirty-two British counties. It did nothing of the kind. It made a separate entity of Ireland, with a separate Government, a separate Executive, and a separate everything, and it acknowledged that taxation was to be levied on a separate basis. He submitted, therefore, that to adopt the line of argument followed by the hon. Member for South Belfast was not only morally unfair, but constitutionally wrong. So far from differentiation being an absurd claim, it was per se an essentially constitutional claim, warranted in every possible way.
MR. JOSEPH DEVLINas an Ulsterman, though not an Ulster

739
representative, protested against the absence of almost the entire representation of the North of Ireland from the discussion of this important question. Whenever a further lease of coercion was under consideration, the Unionist Party of Ulster were present in solid array, but when the question under discussion was one affecting the conditions and necessities of the poorest of the people, and when there was an opportunity for them to utilise the influence which they unquestionably possessed in order to secure a reduction of taxation, those hon. Members were not in the House of Commons at all, but selected as the one financial representative of intelligent Ulster the hon. Member for South Belfast. The hon. Member had put forward the extraordinary proposition that the true function of an Irish Member was to accept every impost put upon Ireland by the British Parliament. A more preposterous proposition was never placed before the House of Commons. The business of all Irish Members, whether Unionist or Nationalist, was mutually to protect their country from the terrible drain, both in taxation and population, placed upon it by England. The proposal of the Amendment was that Ireland ought not to be called upon to bear an increase of taxation, but here was the democratic Member, returned against the old gang to represent the enlightened principles of the new and glorified democracy of Belfast, actually putting forward a preposterous argument in favour of the continuance of heavy taxation. The hon. Member had said that it was his duty to support everything done by a Unionist Government. Why, then, did he revolt on the question of the drainage of the Bann? If it was necessary to revolt on that simple question, surely it was far more important to revolt against an attempt still further to tax the poor of Ireland. It was satisfactory to know, however, that when the hon. Member spoke of the Unionist Party in this House he spoke of a force which soon would be non-existent. The day of the Unionists in Ulster was over; the people in the North of Ireland were beginning to recognise that with the passage of landlordism the necessity for the maintenance of an ascendancy force to back up and defend the continued Mr. Joseph Devlin.
740
robbery of an impoverished country was no longer necessary. He protested against the increased duty on tea because it was an additional tax upon not only a luxury but a necessity of the people, and because it imposed a further burden of £250,000 per annum upon a country already overtaxed. A Commission of financial experts had decided that Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £2,500,000 a year, but in four years, in consequence of a war for which the Irish people were not responsible, an additional sum of nearly £8,000,000 would have been imposed. He made his protest merely as a matter of form, as no logic, however irresistible, coming from the Nationalist Benches would have any effect upon the Government. But by his speaking he had done his duty to his constituents, and no desire for favours to come would prevent him from raising his voice against what he considered to be a public robbery.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Nationalist Members had completely made out their case, and he should certainly support the Amendment. On the first opportunity of protesting against this additional duty on tea, those with whom he acted spoke and voted against it on the general ground that if additional taxation was required this year, it ought to be obtained not by indirect taxation at all, and certainly not from an article of consumption used by the poorest of the people, but by another Id. on the income-tax. He should support the Amendment, in the first place, because, the addition to the tea duty being in itself an evil, he desired to limit the evil as far as possible, and, in the second place, because it had been conclusively proved that this additional 2d. would fall with special severity on the Irish peasant and the poorest people of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that if the 2d. were remitted in the case of Ireland, there would be cases in Ireland in which people would be relieved who were perfectly able to pay the duty, while, on the other hand, there would be people in the United Kingdom paying the duty who were just as poor as some of the peasants of Ireland who would be relieved. That was perfectly true. Any proposal

741
of this sort was bound to create certain anomalies, but taking the whole situation in Ireland, it was clear to his mind that the extra 2d. would fall with much greater severity on the population of Ireland as a whole than on the population of England as a whole. It had also to be remembered that this was not really a question of the amount of revenue involved. An hon. Member had placed the amount at £250,000. As far as he could make out the reduction of revenue involved was about £180,000, but even if it were £250,000 it would be a very small amount if something considerable was to be gained by the concession. He desired to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same way as an appeal was made two years ago to one of his predecessors. In that case the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had proposed to include maize in his taxation on corn, but on its being represented that the duty would fall with special severity on the poorest inhabitants of Ireland, he recognised the justice of the contention, and reduced the duty on maize by one-half. That was practically on all fours with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now asked to do, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to meet the special circumstances of the present case in a similar manner.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to make an urgent appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this question. It has been very fully discussed, the tax is not a new one, there is simply an addition made to it this year, it raises no new principle, and we have spent the whole of yesterday and the whole of this afternoon without making any but the smallest progress with the Bill. Under these circumstances I venture to ask the Committee to come now
to a decision, at any rate, upon this Amendment.
MR. CULLINANthought it was the duty of the Nationalist Members to continue the debate as long as they possibly could in order to extract from the Chancellor of the Exchequer something more than an expression of sympathy and a request to be silent. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the figures quoted in past years were misleading, and that he had now obtained a new set of figures which altered the situation. Those figures, however, had not been placed before the Committee, and until the Return was published they would adhere to their former arguments. The arguments put forward in the present debase had been quite as strong as those used in regard to the corn duty, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol gave way to the views of the Irish Members, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would act wisely and well in following the precedent then set by his predecessor. The tax on tea involved a very great hardship on the poorest people in Ireland, and by increasing the duty the right hon. Gentleman would reduce the quality of the tea consumed and seriously injure the health of the people. He entered his strongest protest against the proposal of the Government, and hoped the Amendment would be supported.
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, 260; Noes, 194. (Division List No. 163.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Boulnois, Edmund

Aird Sir John

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

Bousfield, William Robert

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brassey, Albert

Arrol, Sir William

Beckett, Ernest William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Bull, William James

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Bignold, Arthur

Butcher, John George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bigwood, James

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

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bill, Charles

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Balcarres, Lord

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pemberton, John S. G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Percy, Earl

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

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Heaton, John Henniker

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Helder, Augustus

Plummer, Walter R.

Chapman, Edward

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Charrington, Spencer

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pym, C. Guy

Coates, Edward Feetham

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

Randles, John S.

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

Hogg, Lindsay

Rankin, Sir James

Coddington, Sir William

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Horner, Frederick William

Reid, James (Greenock)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

Hoult, Joseph

Renwick, George

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Richards, Henry Charles

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jefireys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Robinson, Brooke

Dalkeith, Earl of

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Davenport, William Bromley

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kimber, Henry

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

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

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Doughty, George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead).

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Duke, Henry Edward

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

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lowe, Francis William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Macdona, John Gumming

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Spear, John Ward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Fison, Frederick William

Majendie, James A. H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

FitzGeraid, Sir Robert Penrose-

Malcolm, Ian

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stock, James Henry

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Galloway, William Johnson

Milvain, Thomas

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Gardner, Ernest

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Garfit, William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Valentia, Viscount

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Walker, Col. William Hall

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrison, James Archibald

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Graham, Henry Robert

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Mount, William Arthur

Warded Colonel C. E.

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Webb, Colonel William George

Grenfell, William Henry

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

Gretton, John

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

Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Gunter, Sir Robert

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Hain, Edward

Myers, William Henry

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hall, Edward Marshall

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Nicholson, William Graham

Wills, Sir Frederick

744

745

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Alexander Acland-Hood

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

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

Younger, William

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Allen, Charles P.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

Asher, Alexander

Hammond, John

O'Malley, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir. W. (Monm't

O'Shee, James John

Austin, Sir John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Barlow, John Emmott

Harwood, George

Parrott, William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

Philipps, John Wynford

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Black, Alexander William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blake, Edward

Holland, Sir William Henry

Price, Robert John

Boland, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Priestley, Arthur

Brigg, John

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Rea, Russell

Broadhurst, Henry

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reckitt, Harold James

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jacoby, James Alfred

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rigg, Richard

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Joicey, Sir James

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Burns, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Burt, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Robson, William Snowdon

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Caldwell, James

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Runciman, Walter

Cameron, Robert

Kilbride, Denis

Russell, T. W.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Labouchere, Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Clancy, John Joseph

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cogan, Denis J.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sheehy, David

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Leamy, Edmund

Slack, John Bamford

Crean, Eugene

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cremer, William Randal

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cullinan, J.

Levy, Maurice

Soares, Ernest J.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Lough, Thomas

Stevenson, Francis S.

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tennant, Harold John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Tomkinson, James

Dunn, Sir William

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Frank

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elibank, Master of

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wallace, Robert

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Emmott, Alfred

Mooney, John J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Fenwick, Charles

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Field, William

Newnes, Sir George

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf d

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Young, Samuel

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

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

Thomas Esmonde and Cap-

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

tain Donelan.

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes, 185. (Division List No. 164.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Aird, Sir John

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Johnstone, Heywood, (Sussex)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Doughty, George

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Arrol, Sir William

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Duke, Henry Edward

Kimber, Henry

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

Balcarres, Lord

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

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

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

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lowe, Francis William

Beckett, Ernest William

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Bentinck, Lord Henry G.

Fison, Frederick William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bignold, Arthur

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bigwood, James

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bill, Charles

Flower, Sir Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Forster, Henry William

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Boulnois, Edmund

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Bousfield, William Robert

Gardner, Ernest

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

Garfit, William

Majendie, James A. H.

Brassey, Albert

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

Malcolm, Ian

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bull, William James

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Butcher, John George

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Megsey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Graham, Henry Robert

Milvain, Thomas

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

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

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Grenfell, William Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gretton, John

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Hain, Edward

Morpeth, Viscount

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morrison, James Archibald

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Chapman, Edward

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Mount, William Arthur

Charrington, Spencer

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

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

Cochrane, Hon. ThosH. A. E.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Coddington, Sir William

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Myers, William Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Heaton, John Henniker

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Helder, Augustus

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hogg, Lindsay

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Percy, Earl

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Horner, Frederick William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Dalkeith, Earl of

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Plummer, Walter R.

Davenport, William Bromley

Hoult, Joseph

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Denny, Colonel

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Pretyman, Ernest George

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Pym, C. Guy

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Randles, John S.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rankin, Sir James

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hunt, Rowland

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Ratcliff, R. F.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Remnant, James Farquharson

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Webb, Colonel William George

Renwick, George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Richards, Henry Charles

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Spear, John Ward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wills, Sir Frederick

Robinson, Brooke

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

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

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Stock, James Henry

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

Round, Rt. Hon James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

Wyndliam-Quin, Col. W. H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Thorbnm, Sir Walter

Younger, William

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Tollemache, Henry James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Tomlinson, Sir Win, Edw. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Alexander Acland-Hood

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Valentia, Viscount

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Walker, Col. William Hall

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Dunn, Sir William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Edwards, Frank

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Elibank, Master of

Kilbride, Denis

Allen, Charles P.

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Labouchere, Henry

Asher, Alexander

Emmott, Alfred

Lambert, George

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Langley, Batty

Atherley-Jones, L.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Austin, Sir John

Farrell, James Patrick

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Barlow, John Emmott

Fenwiek, Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith)

Leamy, Edmund

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Field, William

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Leng, Sir John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Flynn, James Christopher

Levy, Maurice

Black, Alexander William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Blake, Edward

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lloyd-George, David

Boland, John

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Lough, Thomas

Brigg, John

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, W.

Broadhurst, Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert. John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Goddard, Daniel Ford

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Grant, Corrie

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Burke, E. Haviland-

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

M'Kenna, Reginald

Burns, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Burt, Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hammond, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Caldwell, James

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th

Markham, Arthur Basil

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Mooney, John J.

Causton, Richard Knight

Harwood, George

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Cawley, Frederick

Hayden, John Patrick

Moulton, John Fletcher

Clancy, John Joseph

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Murphy, John

Cogan, Denis J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Newnes, Sir George

Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Crean, Eugene

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Cremer, William Randal

Horniman, Frederick John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cullman, J.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

Delany, William

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Joicey, Sir James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Doogan, P. C.

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Joyce, Michael

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

750

751

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

O'Malley, William

Russell, T. W.

Tomkinson, James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shackleton, David James

Toulmin, George

O'Shee, James John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wallace, Robert

Palmer, Sir. Charles M. (Durham

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Parrott, William

Sheehy, David

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Partington, Oswald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Philipps, John Wynford

Slack, John Bamford

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Price, Robert John

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Priestley, Arthur

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Rea, Russell

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Reckitt, Harold James

Stevenson, Francis S.

Young, Samuel

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sullivan, Donal

Yoxall, James Henry

Rigg, Richard

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tennant, Harold John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Thomas Esmonde and Cap-

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

tain Donelan.

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)moved an Amendment for the purpose of limiting the operation of Clause 1 (duty on tea) to 1st May instead of 1st August, 1905. He said he did not desire to adhere to the word "May" if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the word "June." His argument was that this was a bad tax and that the sooner it was off the better it would be for the country. Another consideration which he wished to place before the right hon. Gentleman was that by keeping the clause in operation until August he might be binding the Government which was to succeed the present one. Of course, he admitted that he did not know when the general election would take place, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had stated that it must come within a "reasonable time." His ideas and the Prime Minister's might not coincide in regard to that matter. He himself should have thought that if the right hon Gentleman believed in the policy he was advocating a reasonable time would have meant the earliest possible moment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point the hon. Gentleman has raised is really not relevant to the Amendment. If he means that another Government will be in power next year, this clause will not tie their hands. It would be perfectly open to any subsequent Government in their next Budget to introduce an Amendment.
MR. SOARESsaid he was pointing out that the proposal in the clause would put the succeeding Government to the
752
trouble of repealing the tax. He bowed to the ruling, and he would not pursue the point further. If the right hon. Gentleman should be in office at this time next year this tax would enable him to bring in, perhaps, what might be called, with all due deference, an electioneering Budget. If the tax remained on till August next year the right hon. Gentleman would get the benefit of the tax for a third of the ensuing financial year. Supposing he came to the conclusion that this was a tax which should be taken off he would announce, with a great flourish of trumpets, that he intended to take off 3d., though he would be at the same time receiving the benefit of it. He would really be only taking off 2d. That might be good electioneering, but it would be bad finance. There was another objection to the proposal in the Bill. By permitting taxes of this kind to run until August they delayed the bringing in and passing through all its stages of the Finance Bill, and that had a detrimental effect on the course of trade. To his mind the Finance Bill ought to be brought in and passed through all its stages soon after the introduction of the Budget. There was on the Notice Paper now an Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the tobacco duty, showing that the Budget Resolutions on that point were not quite clear and conclusive. They knew that sometimes it might be necessary to delay the passing of the Finance Bill. This year it was Ascot; another year it might be something else. But traders strongly objected to the Finance Bill being delayed when new taxes were to be imposed. They wanted

753
to know all about them and their true inwardness, so as to take their goods out of, or leave them in, bond. It was in order to ensure that the Finance Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment that he desired to restrict this tax to the 1st of June next year, and he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'August,' and insert the word 'May.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'August' stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was not possible for him to accept the Amendment. He was not prepared to break a practice which had been uninterruptedly pursued since 1863, and which had been a convenience not alone to the House, but to the traders concerned. May 1st or even June 1st was a date so close to the end of the financial year that, it would tend to the withholding of large stocks if a diminution of the tax were expected, and to great forestalments if an increase were expected. It had been found convenient for these reasons to fix the date of the passage of the Budget two or three months after the expiration of the financial year.
MR. McKENNAsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given two extraordinary reasons why he should not accept the Amendment. He said unless he made the 1st of August the date at which the Budget came into operation there would be large withdrawals of stock in anticipation of the change of duty. But the duty came into operation on the introduction of the Budget, and there was not a single case on record in which the Budget had been introduced so late as the 1st of June. The only reason for the present practice was that it enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a latitude not to I introduce his Budget Resolutions until the 31st of July. It was that very latitude that they wanted to stop. It was because they did not desire the Chan-
754
cellor of the Exchequer to postpone his Budget statement later than 1st May, or at the latest 1st June, that his hon. friend made this proposal. The second statement of the right hon. Gentleman was that the present practice had been carried on uninterruptedly since 1863. But they were living under modern conditions which compelled the. Committee to see that the Budget Resolutions were introduced earlier. This was a question for business men who did not like to be kept in doubt as to what the financial proposals of the Government were going to be. They expected now that any changes in the Budget would be introduced in the month of April. In 1901 the Budget was specially introduced in the month of March. Business men wanted it before the month of May. He was quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman gave his attention to the true apprehension of the Amendment he would understand that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple was a very proper one.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that this certainly was an Amendment of substance, and although he would not vote for it as it stood, he would vote for it if the word "July" was substituted for "August." The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it had been the unbroken practice since 1863 to main; the Customs duties payable on the 1st August. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. If he were to refer to the Finance Act of 1895, he would find that the Customs duties on beer were made payable on 1st July. The Committee should remember that although as a matter of fact the existing Acts continued the tea duty for one year, the proposed increase was to be enacted not for a year, but for fifteen months. He thought he was right in saying that the levy of Customs duties by virtue of a Resolution of this House was, strictly speaking, illegal, and that the real legal power did not rest with the Commissioners of Customs to levy these duties until the Finance Bill was passed and had received the Royal Assent. It was by what he, would not call a usurpation of power, but by the necessities of the case that the Customs duties to be imposed by the

755
Finance Bill should be levied immediately on the introduction of the Budget; and the reason was that the imposition of new duties was always intended to be unexpected.
It was reasonable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have a fair time in which to introduce his Bill; but that time should never extend to the 1st August. To pass a clause which would enable a Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone the Finance Bill to 1st August, would be inviting the Government of the day to repeat what the present Government had done, namely, to neglect its business and not to begin to ride until the race was nearly over, and then be reduced to the melancholy device of closure by compartments. That was not right. The Government should be compelled to commence the discussion of the Finance Bill long before the date on which it was commenced this year. The discussion ought to be commenced in May at the latest. Further, the Act of 1895 and the other Acts which continued the existing duty on tea were for one year only; but the present proposal in the Bill was to increase the duty not for a year, but for fifteen months. That was a very serious thing for many reasons. In the first place it was an infringement of the principle that all the financial dealings of the Government should be under the control of the House. There was, however, a very special reason with regard to the tea duty. As the Committee was aware, it was one of the few remaining imposts which were voted for one year, and for one year only. He had no doubt that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the increased duty should only be for a year; because, long before the 1st of August of next year, the right hon. Gentleman or another Chancellor of the Exchequer would continue the duty, increase it, or, as he confidently hoped, decrease it. He did not know if the Committee appreciated the manner in which annual taxes had been abandoned in late years, and permanent taxation substituted. He would quote figures which were very important in that respect. The amount of revenue estimated to be raised by the State in 1902–3 was £161,789,000; of that no less than £112,504,000 was raised by permanent enactments and £49,285,000 by temporary enact-
756
ments. The temporary enactments were the tea duty, the income-tax, and the extra duty on beer and spirits. The temporary duties amounted to 30·46 per cent, of the whole revenue. This year the total revenue was estimated at £153,306,000, of which £110,572,000 was raised by permanent enactments, which did not even require the House to assemble, and which the Government could put in force without any further authority; the annual revenue being estimated at £42,734,000. Therefore, in two years the annual revenue had been diminished from 30·46 per cent, of the total to 27·85 per cent. That was a very serious matter; and it had a direct bearing on the propriety or impropriety of the Committee allowing one of these temporary duties to be imposed for a period of fifteen-months instead of twelve months. The control of the House over public expenditure was being diminished day by day. He would allude to the enormous increase in Votes on Account.
THE CHAIRMAN: I really fail to see the relevancy of the hon. Member's remarks now. This is an annual charge; there is not the least doubt about that; and I cannot see what Votes on Account have to do with it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he intended to argue that inasmuch as the control of this House over public expenditure was being lost in many directions that process should not be further extended. He would not, however, pursue that argument. He thought the hon. Member's Amendment was unreasonable. They might not always have Governments with large majorities; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find considerable difficulty in getting his Finance Bill through. It was fair that he should be allowed until the 1st July to do it, but no longer. He agreed that there was substance in the Amendment; and, although he could not vote for it in its present form, he would certainly vote for an Amendment which substituted 1st July for 1st June.
MR. LOUGHsaid that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only look at the Amendment from the point of view of the tea duty, he would see that it ought to

757
be accepted. If there was an increase in the tea duty nothing would be lost by the Amendment; but if, as was more likely, there was a reduction it would mean a total collapse of business in the country, as no one would clear any tea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to receive deputations day by day, and would finally have to give in. If the right hon. Gentleman would look back to 1889, the year in which the tea duty was reduced, he would find that the trade immediately approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and that was the experience of every Chancellor of the Exchequer. The trade wanted a fortnight or three weeks to get rid of the old stock and did not want two or three months in which business would be convulsed. All they desired was a reasonable time. His hon. friend had taken six weeks as the period; it would be quite impossible to continue the higher rate of duty for longer than six weeks and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to accept the 1st June as being a reasonable date.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he had a similar Amendment on the Paper, but alter hearing what had been said he thought the 1st June would be a reasonable date to fix. He wished to add a word regarding the inequality shown by the Bill. The income-tax was raised for one year and no more, and yet in the casa of a tax imposed on the poorer classes the period was to be one year and three months. That was simply an encouragement to the Government to delay their financial business instead of getting it through with commendable despatch. This year they had had the Licensing Bill and the Scotch Education Bill pushed in front of the Government's financial business. He objected on the ground that the more they allowed the latter business to be put off, the more encouragement they gave to the Treasury and the more they relaxed their control over the Government.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the income-tax was charged over the whole of the year's income, whereas in the case of the tea duty they must make such provision that the trade would
758
not come to a standstill in the weeks just preceding the end of the financial S year. He was anxious to meet the Committee on this point. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had made a suggestion, and if it would facilitate progress he would agree to strike out the word August and insert July.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had met them very fairly and he hoped the suggestion would be accepted.
MR. SOARESasked leave to withdraw his Amendment and to substitute the word July.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think I ought to move to insert the 1st July.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'August' and insert the word 'July.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he moved the Amendment standing in his name because this tax fell heavily on the poor, and there should be some discrimination between the consumer of high-class tea and the consumer of lower class tea. This intention was to exempt from taxation entirely the tea used by the poor. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not even pretend for a moment that this tax fell on the producer, but had admitted it was a consumer's tax. There was indeed a refreshing contrast between his attitude and the contention set up that increased taxation would injure the producer in Ceylon and India, and therefore it would not injure the consumer in this country. He believed this tax would be injurious both to the producer and to the consumer, but the injury done to the poor consumer was the reason he wished to move this Amendment. They had heard a great deal that afternoon about the burden this tax imposed on the people of Ireland, but within three miles of the House there might be found people in as wretched a position as the peasants of Donegal.

759
To people of that class the tax was a very real and a very heavy one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not shirked anything in the course of the debate. The last Chancellor of the Exchequer but one in introducing a sugar tax said it would be a good thing if it diminished the consumption of lollypops, but the present Chancellor had not represented tea as a bad thing, and to tax it as a beneficent action. To the poorest of the poor a cup of tea was necessary for such happiness as they could possibly enjoy in this world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, took refuge in the plea that the increase in the tax would not much diminish the quantity of tea consumed. He wondered if Members had before their minds the ad valorem amount of the tea tax. It was variously estimated by those in the trade at from 100 to 120 per cent. Suppose there was an ad valorem tax of 100 per. cent., a proposal to raise it to 133. per cent., which was what the Chancellor's proposal really came to, would never be entertained. Many people who did not now realise the gravity of the tax would do so then. He was very much interested in the woollen trade with Canada, where, as they knew, the present Ministry had brought in a Bill to reduce the preference from 11⅔ to 5 per cent. If this Bill passed woollen goods sent there would pay 30 per cent, instead of 23⅓ per cent. That was regarded as a very great increase of duty, and one likely to have serious effect on the trade. In the same way this increased tax would have an effect on the consumption of tea, and because this Amendment would impose the duty only on the higher classes of tea and not on the lower classes, he moved it. This increase of duty was a tax on the very poor, and he therefore believed it to be not only bad philanthropy, but a piece of bad political economy. He was in favour of direct taxation entirely and of no indirect taxation, that being the only honest method of taxation.
THE CHAIRMAN: The arguments of the hon. Member are not relevant to the Amendment.
MR THEODORE TAYLORsaid it might be stated that if they heavily
760
taxed the better classes of tea and released from taxation the lower classes they would cause people to use rubbish, and the lower classes of tea only would be used. He believed that the result of this Amendment upon the users of tea would be rather startling and extraordinary. It would enormously increase the use of the better teas, and would cause the rubbishy tea not to be used at all, because it would not be worth anyone's while to buy the rubbish. Those who used the higher class of tea did not mind giving a little more for it. It must be admitted that a tax on the articles used by the rich did not tend to diminish consumption to any such extent as was the case when taxation was put upon articles used by the very poor. It was the very poor who were prevented from buying particular articles because they could get something at a lesser cost, and the people who could not now afford to buy decent tea would be able to do so if the Amendment were to be carried. The poor of Lancashire and Yorkshire took their tea in cans with them when they went to work, and in the early morning one could hear the clatter of the clogs and the clink of the cans as the people went to their employment. He had lived amongst these people and he knew that they consumed a great amount of tea, more especially those who worked in cotton mills, where the temperature was very high, and where they needed some reasonable kind of drink owing to the heat. Those poor people would have their tea made dearer. But there was another view of the question. The largest and best market for Lancashire goods was in India, and any action which resulted in a reduction of the imports of tea from India and Ceylon must reduce the amount of cotton goods imported into these colonies.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again wandering away from the Amendment, and is dealing with the general question with which we have been dealing all the afternoon. I must call his attention to the Standing Order upon this point.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid it was an undoubted fact that if less tea was bought from India there would be

761
less cotton goods bought there. He had only been trying to show why the burden of this tax ought to be lessened as regarded the people of this country. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, after the word 'tea,' to insert the words 'the value of which on import exceeds eightpence per pound.'"—(Mr. Theodore Taylor.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was afraid the hon. Member did not realize that the result of his proposal would be the abolition of the duty except as regarded eightpenny tea. Why should the limit be eightpence? Why was the poor eightpenny tea to be taxed at eightpence per pound whilst all other teas at higher prices were to be let off? If the hon. Member wished the higher teas to pay a higher duty then they came to an ad valorem duty at once. Upon an article like tea, an ad valorem duty was almost impossible. This proposal had all the inconveniences of an ad valorem duty without any of its advantages to the revenue.
MR. FLYNNsaid that if they could not adopt an ad valorem duty all round surely they could draw the line somewhere in order that they might not impose the same excessive duty on a lowprioed article as they did upon an article which might be double the value. He had made inquiries from a great many different merchants, and they informed him that a large quantity of tea imported into this country was valued at 6d., 6½d., and 7d. per pound. Surely it was unjust to put the same duty upon tea of that value as upon the higher-priced teas. This Amendment did not apply to Ireland so much, because the Irish people did not consume much high-priced tea.
MR. MCKENNAsaid there would be little difficulty in arriving at the value of tea, because by far the larger part of the imports was sold by public auction. He suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment in favour of the simpler form of an ad valorem duty to be pro-
762
posed by the hon. Member for Devonport.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid his hon. friend the Member for Devonport had given notice of an Amendment on the same subject in a better form. He would be glad to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. KEARLEYmoved an Amendment to make the duty on tea an ad valorem one not exceeding 50 per cent. He said it was evident from the cheers of hon. Members that his Amendment was an attractive one. He was not surprised, for it was neither a novel nor an unreasonable one. Until about 1833 the system of levying duties was an ad valorem one. Up to that time the East India Company had practically a monopoly of all tea coming into the country, indeed ho believed there was an Act making it illegal for anybody else to import tea except by the ships belonging to that company. In 1830, however, it became necessary to curtail and limit this monopoly because, as with all monopolies, abuses grew up, and consumers found themselves assailed by the exorbitant prices being charged. A Parliamentary Committee sat in that year and it advised that the monopoly of the company should be brought to an end as far as tea was concerned, and at an opportune moment the privilege was withdrawn. The Government accepted the opportunity of changing the system, and he believed it was in 1836 that a system of levying a simple duty came into vogue. This historical statement would show that ad valorem duties were possible and that they had been practised in this country. What title had he to ask the House to agree to an ad valorem duty not to exceed 50 per cent.? He had taken some pains to examine the percentage of duty in relation to the cost price of tea in bond. He found that in the past forty years the percentage of duty to the cost of tea in bond had never exceeded forty-five. He was more generous than that; he wanted to levy an ad valorem duty equivalent to 50 per cent.; and, judging by the imports of the past, the tea duty would bring in as much or more than the varying duties of the past forty years. When the duty was reduced to 6d. in the pound, he found that from 1865 to 1875 the average

763
price of tea in bond was 1s. 6d. per pound and therefore the percentage of duty was 33 per cent. During the next ten years, when the average price was 1s. l½d. per pound, it rose to 45 per cent. If they took the year when the duty was reduced to 4d., the year 1890, when the average price of tea was 10¾d. per pound, they found that the relation of duty to the cost price in bond was only 37 per cent. From 1890 to 1896, when the average price of tea in bond was 10d. per pound and the duty 4d., the percentage was 40 per cent. Thus for forty years, right down almost to the present year, the duty had never exceeded 45 per cent, in relation to the cost of tea in bond. How did they stand to-day? In 1900 the duty was raised to 6d., and now it was proposed to raise it to 8d. The average price of tea was 7¾d., and the duty would therefore be over 100 per cent. Considering, too, that an enormous quantity of tea sold did not fetch more than 6d. per pound, a duty of 8d. was altogether excessive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that a system of ad valorem duty was altogether impossible—that it had broken down before and that it would be impossible to put it in practice at the present time. He denied this. It would be quite easy, because 95 per cent, of the tea sold was sold by public auction, and those who dealt in it did not buy in their own name but through a broker, who delivered a contract, which could no doubt be turned into a document sufficiently adequate for the purposes of the tax; and there would be no difficulty in merchants sending, as they did now, cheques to the Customs House accompanied by a declaration that the tea had cost so much and no more. Over 90 per cent, could be checked, because it was sold in this way. The rich bought high-priced tea, and therefore the proportion of duty they paid was smaller than that paid by the poor. It was the poor who paid over 100 per cent., and this was why he considered an ad valorem duty would be more equitable. Why did they not put some of the duty on coffee and cocoa, which mainly came from foreign countries, while tea came from India and Ceylon. Here they went to their dependencies; and if for no
764
other reason than that it would bring relief to the Colonies and at the same time a great amount of relief to the tea consumers of the country, he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, after the word 'pound, to insert the words 'fifty per cent, ad valorem, but not to exceed.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page l, line 21, after the word 'pound,' to insert the words 'fifty per cent. ad valorem, but not to exceed.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he thought this Amendment was preferable to the one which had been previously moved, and really deserved the attention of the Committee. It was obvious that if they put the tax beyond a certain limit, say 8d. per lb, the tendency would be to invoice a really higher-priced tea at 8d., in order to evade the payment of the tax. In the coal trade coal under six shillings a ton was free of the export duty, and he believed that large quantities of coal worth 7s. or 8s. per ton were returned as just below the value of 6s. per ton. The system opened a way to the seller, not unnaturally and not dishonestly, to evade the tax. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendment.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he did not think that anyone, looking at this matter honestly and from an abstract point of view, could come to any other conclusion than that a tax on tea was a bad tax, and only justifiable under present conditions. If anyone were to reconstruct the financial system of England he would come to the conclusion that a tax on tea should be collected in some such way as the Amendment proposed. But personally he was no enthusiast for any tax on tea. A great number of the poorer classes of the community regarded tea as a necessary comfort. He did not doubt for a moment that it would be possible for people to subsist without tea, but if the price of that article was raised beyond the means of the poorer classes of the community, they would lose what was to them practically an indispensable article of daily consumption, and a great deal of cheer would be taken from their lives. That was true also of the moderate use of alcohol. Although in theory a tax on tea was indefensible, even the stricter school of political economists were agreed that, in its application, there was nothing in the nature of the tax which was unorthodox, even when it was not collected by the method proposed in the Amendment. He could not understand the position. Here was a burden which increased the price of a daily comfort to the poorer classes by 100 or 130 per cent.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that side of the question. The only point before the Committee is whether the tea duty should be a fixed sum or ad valorem.
  MR. JOYCE: A forlorn hope.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that undoubtedly an ad valorem duty would be the fairest if it could be fairly adjusted, because they would pay an amount of duty proportionate to the natural price of the article. But the history of the tea duty showed that the ad valorem system was open to very great objection. The system formerly pursued in this country was not a purely ad valorem one, but a compromise between fixed and ad valorem duties. The result was continual disputes between the merchants and the Customs House officials. The Customs officials naturally said
  766
  that the tea was of a higher value than the merchants sought to put upon it, and an immense amount of time was consumed in settling the points at issue. Here they had that painful contrast, which was so noticeable in all human affairs, between the ideal and the practical. Undoubtedly the ad valorem system was the ideal, but, alas, experience had proved that in the matter of tea it was not a practical system, and he should greatly deprecate any attempt to revert to that system. The average price of tea at the present time was no more than 7½d. per lb., and if the proposed duty of 8d. per lb. were imposed, the total price would be 1s. 3½d. per lb. These figures he gave on the unquestionable authority of Mr. W. J. Thompson. The hon. Member for Lynn Regis, who had made very short work indeed of the previous Amendment, showed that, looking to the point of view of the revenue, the result of carrying that Amendment would have been to cut off three-fourths of the yield of the tea duty. The hon. Member pointed out that there were luxurious teas worth as much as from 6s. to 8s. per lb., and taking into account that the average price was only 7½d. per lb., it followed that the amount of tea imported at cheap figures was enormously in excess of the amount of the higher-class teas; and the calculation was well within the mark that if this Amendment were carried three fourths of the duty would be lost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this additional duty of 2d. per lb. was expected to produce £2,000,000 and that he did not anticipate that it would diminish the amount of the imports. The total revenue from tea would be £8,000,000, and therefore if three-fourths of that were knocked off, there would only remain £2,000,000. Now, how could that £6,000,000 of a deficiency in the revenue be made up? Some hon. Gentlemen might say that the deficiency might be met by increased duties on alcohol; but his contention was that the duties on alcohol had ^already reached their maximum. If a duty was put on any article of import or Excise, the demand fell off, and the higher tax operated in the revenue obtaining less money. Therefore, the £6,000,000 could not be made up by additional duties on beer and spirits. He did not think the death duties on realty should be increased,

  767
  but he should like to see them increased on personalty. He was afraid, howeveT, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that in that event evasion would be practised to such a degree that he wou Id not get more money. Then could the deficiency be got from an increase in the income-tax? That would mean 2½d. additional burden on a very deserving class of the community who had to keep up a good appearance on a very narrow margin of income. From a national point of view, also, it would diminish the great national reserve in case of war. They did not want to hypothecate that reserve to civil expenditure. It must be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was cribbed, cabined, and confined by the present fiscal system, to which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman in his heart of hearts rose superior. Could the revenue be raised by an extra duty on publicans' licences? These duties were already mortgaged for compensation.
  MR. EUGENE WASONasked whether the hon. Member was entitled to go into this question of licences when the hon. Member for Dundee was ruled out of order in referring to them.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he did not want to argue the question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a rather wide survey of the fiscal field, and it would be better if he narrowed his comments to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he only wanted to show the effect of this Amendment, if carried, on the poor consumer; and he thought it would have been as well if another means of raising the deficiency had been suggested. After all, one must not exaggerate in a matter like this. He would compare the price of tea now with that in former times. In the year 1852 the average price of tea was 1s. 1½d., but the duty on tea was 2s. 1d. That worked out at 200 per cent, on the natural price, and he did not think that England was then in a miserable or depressed condition. In 1860, which was the year of Mr. Gladstone's great Budget, the duty was 1s. 5d., and the natural price was 1s. 6¾d.; and even in 1884 the price of tea, plus the
  768
  duty, amounted to 1s. 5¾d., which was 2¼d. more than the price which would obtain if the proposed duty were imposed. He fully believed that the working of the ad valorem system would not be satisfactory either to the consumer or to the revenue. It would be manipulated by the dealers, so that the advantage to the consumer would be lost, and the good relations between the dealers and the Customs would be seriously impaired. There would be no such profits to the public as to compensate for the loss of revenue. He was rather surprised that the hon. Member for West Islington was not yet in his place, but he took it that it would be rather dangerous for him to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport. It was possible that perhaps in a few years time these hon. Gentlemen would find themselves on that [side of the House. In that case, when the ad valorem question was raised, what would the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? He presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be either the hon. Member for Devonport or the hon. Member for West Islington. It was even possible that both of them would have to make way to the superior claims of the hon. Member for Oldham. In that event one of the hon. Gentlemen would have to console himself with the office of President of the Board of Trade and the other with the office of Financial Secretary to the Treasury. What would the Cabinet of the day then be able to do in this matter? He assumed that the Leader of the House would be the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is looking too far into the future.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that of course three years time was perhaps too long to look ahead, but he might consider his hypothesis as possible next year. In that event what would be done by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, who already controlled the House, when he was Leader of the House. What would he say if his hon. friend the Member for Devonport wished to carry out in practice the principles of the Amendment he had put forward?
  MR. RENWICK (Newcastle-on-Tyne)said he was entirely opposed to the principle of an ad valorem duty in connection

  769
  with tea. Many tea dealers were also tea growers who imported their tea into this country and lie defied anyone to prove what was the import value of these teas. He could not imagine that the hon. Member for Devonport, fresh from the contest in that constituency, had ventilated this subject there, for, if he had done so, he would have been bound to acknowledge that an alteration of the tea duty, in the direction indicated by the Amendment, would be a tax on the poor. The very fact that there was to be an ad valorem duty would be an incentive to import the lower classes of tea, and no one would say that that would be an advantage to the people of this country. The question, however, should also be looked at from the point of view of the Exchequer. When every Budget was introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was expected to tell the House what he anticipated would be the result of the imposition of certain taxes; but, if an ad valorem duty was imposed, he would be unable to say within a million or two what the revenue from the tea duty would be. An ad valorem duty was, no doubt, in theory correct, but it could not be worked properly in regard to certain articles like tea. The ad valorem system was advocated in the case of the coal duties, and coal below 6s. per ton was free from export duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must regret that that was the case, because he must know that there were suspicious circumstances in connection with the declared value of much of the exported coal. In the case of tea many superior qualities would be returned at a very low value, and the wholesale dealers would sell them to the retailers, who, in turn, would often sell them to the public as a special brand of tea at 3s. or 4s. per pound, when only 2d. or 3d. duty per pound had been paid on them. Therefore, he thought that the hon. Member, on due consideration, would find that this Amendment was not one which he ought to ask the House to accept. No hon. Member in the House objected to the tea duty more than he did. He recognised that in many respects it was an unjust tax, and he should like to see it abolished. Throughout his political career he had always denounced it; but he recognised that, owing to the action of hon Gentlemen opposite, they had already exacted a pledge from Ministers that, during the existence of this Parliament, the present fiscal policy of the country would not be interfered with.
  770
  [OPPOSITION ironical laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he thought he had heard them denounce any alteration of our fiscal system, and he believed that until we had an entirely new arrangement of our fiscal system—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the discussion of the fiscal system of the country is in order.
  MR. RENWICKsaid he did not wish to discuss the re-arrangement of the fiscal system, but there were difficulties in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopting an ad valorem duty. The tea duty could not be altered in the direction indicated, unless there was an entire alteration of the duties on which the present Budget was based; and he was surprised that hon. Members had put down all these Amendments in respect of the tea duty when they knew that they could not be enforced without a re-arrangement of the whole fiscal system. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequor was on safe ground when he maintained a uniform duty of 8d. per pound on all teas, and for that reason he should certainly oppose the Amendment.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that the hon. Member who had just sat down considered the tea duty unjust. He heartily endorsed that sentiment. It was unjust and cruelly hard on poor people; but he believed it would be much less so if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport were accepted, and a higher duty were placed on the higher grades of tea. He was not a tea grower or a tea dealer, but he was a tea drinker. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Why not? He supported the Amendment because his constituents were strongly interested in the increased price of tea which would be caused by this addition to the duty, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport, which he cordially supported, would mitigate its harsh incidence.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was one reason which, under any circumstances, would make it impossible for him to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Devonport. The acceptance of the Amendment would largely decrease the revenue whch he hoped to obtain from the tax on tea, and would thus destroy the balance of the Budget. The hon.

  771
  Gentleman himself could give no estimate of the effects of his proposal. The hon. Gentleman, who had special knowledge of the trade, must he aware that the average price of tea sold in bond in this country did not exceed 8d. per pound, and if the duty were arranged so that it would not exceed 50 per cent. of the value of the tea, that would destroy a very large proportion of the revenue which he was seeking to raise. Instead of obtaining an additional £2,000,000 by raising the duty to 8d., the effect of this Amendment would be to give them an even less revenue than was obtained from the present 6d. duty. But that was not by any means the only objection to an ad valorem duty on tea. It he rightly understood the hon. Member's argument, it was that as the percentage which the duty bore to the value of the tea in bond was higher now than it had been in the previous year, therefore the tax was more unjust, that was to say, because the price of the article had fallen the duty ought to fall too. If the hon. Member was logical, it would follow that the higher the cost of an article, even though it might be an article of prime necessity to the people, the higher would be the duty they were justified in putting upon it, and vice versa. That was surely a reductio ad abswdum.
  MR. KEAKLEYsaid his point was that the right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to put a duty of 130 percent. on an article of daily consumption.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that might have been the object of the hon. Member, but his illustrations would support the logical absurdity he had just indicated. An ad valorem duty in the case of tea was in existence up to the year 1833, when the monopoly of the East India Company came to an end. With the close of that monopoly it at once became practically impossible, without inconvenience and injustice to the trade, to levy an ad valorem duty, and from 1835 onwards there had been a fixed specific duty upon tea irrespective of value. The hon. Gentleman had said that so large a proportion of the tea now imported was sold under public auction that there would be no difficulty in arriving at its value for the purpose of assessing the duty. But the hon. Member would find that some of the biggest
  772
  importers of tea into this country imported on their own account, and no public sale by auction took place in their case.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that 95 per cent. of the tea imported was sold by public auction.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that it was not desirable that in these cases the Committee should be deprived of the power of arriving at the duty that ought to be paid by methods which were just and fair and not give rise to disputes. Some of the biggest importers of tea on their own account also acted as distributers.
  MR. KEARLEY: No, no.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had access to some sources of information which the hon. Gentleman would respect, and he was advised that some of the largest individual importers imported on their own account and their teas would not be sold at public auction. If the hon. Member for Devonport was not satisfied with his authority, he would give him another authority who was more intimately associated with the trade than himself. The hon. Member for West Islington, who had special knowledge on this subject, and who had not spoken on this Amendment, spoke in opposition to a proposal to levy an ad valorem duty a few years ago, and said—
  "If anyone would think for a moment how the tea trade could be carried on with a graduated tax, it would be enough to make him support the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such a duty would interfere with the immense trade done in tea in bond, because the seller, the second seller, or the third seller would have to produce the original invoice, so that the duty might be paid upon that. Thus he perceived the price that had been paid by all previous purchasers. It would give a most disastrous blow to the distributers of tea in England, and it would, he thought, accomplish the ruin of the grower of tea in India and Ceylon."
  MR. KEARLEY: I have converted him since then.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Member for West Islington continued—
  "He believed it would be impossible to carry on the trade under the scheme proposed by the Amendment."

  773
  That Amendment was exactly the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Devonport. What, after all, was the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite? The supporters of this Amendment felt that the poor man should not pay as high a duty on his tea AS the rich man paid on his. They assumed that the working classes generally drank the cheap and poor quality of tea, and that they would obtain the benefit of this reduction of duty. He doubted that very much.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid that the poor man did not pay the same price for his tea as the rich man.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would take his argument back a further stage. A specific duty on tea, so far as it had any effect as between one class of tea and another, favoured the use of a better class where they had an ad valorem duty. The hon. Gentleman assumed that it was the working classes generally who drank the cheaper and poorer qualities of tea, and that they would find the benefit of this reduction of duty. But he did not think it was oeconomically sound to encourage them to drink the poorest qualities of tea, even if the price were cheaper, because when the quality was taken into account he doubted whether they would get better or as good value for their money. His hon. friend the Member for West Islington, whose knowledge of questions of this kind nobody could dispute, in the subsequent course of the debate to which he had alluded, confirmed the view of his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the poor man well knew what was good tea and what was bad tea, and that he was able to purchase good tea, and did purchase good tea. The hon. Member for West Islington then said—
  "The great, difficulty about an ad valorem duty on tea in this country, or on any other article, was that it would put a premium on low qualiy. The object of the Committee ought to lie to pass such laws as would make all producers give to the people the best quality at the lowest possible price. If the Committee adopted the principle of giving a lower tax on a lower quality it would put a premium on the production of a low quality of goods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they must not assume that the poor consumed the cheapest quality. His experience confirmed that opinion. The
  774
  cheapest quality was bought by mean rich people, who gave it to their servants. The poorest people often distinguished themselves by the excellent taste they displayed, so far as tea and, he believed, other articles of consumption were concerned. If they got little, they demanded that it should be good. That was a sound principle to go upon. There was no real economy in bad quality."
  He did not always accept the authority of the hon. Member for West Islington, but he must agree with him on this question when the hon. Member spoke from wide knowledge and large experience. He did not think it would be in the interests of the consumers in this country to encourage the importation and consumption of the worser qualities of tea. He was certain that if they differentiated the tax on the values of tea they would cause great difficulties in carrying on the trade, and would destroy the revenue for which the tax was proposed. For these reasons he was unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it abundantly clear that there were difficulties in the way of this duty. Nobody would deny that for a moment. But they had to find an alternative. On the one hand it did seem obviously unfair that tea which was sold at 1s. or 2s. per lb. should bear the same tax as tea which was sold at 6d. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be under the impression that cheap tea was bought by millionaires and dear tea by the poorer classes.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the Irish peasants drank the most expensive tea.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that very often that might be the case, and he accepted the statement of the hon. Member for South Tyrone as true of Ireland. He thought that would have been a very strong reason why the Amendment moved earlier in the day from the Irish Benches should have been accepted. But the hon. Member for Devonport, who was an authority on this subject, gave contrary testimony. That hon. Gentleman had been asked whether he proposed a reduction of the tea lax during the Devonport election. He would tell the Committee that the electors of

  775
  Devonport were asked whether they wanted "Dear food and cheap Chinaman.' If the consumption remained as at present the statement that there would be loss of revenue would be accurate, but he submitted that as the consumption would enormously increase, the right hon. Gentleman would not suffer the loss that he anticipated. If that were the reason why the right hon. Gentleman objected to the ad valorem duty he might propose one of 100 per cent., which would have the effect of leaving the existing duty of 6d. per lb. exactly where it now stood on cheap tea, and would impose a considerably heavier tax on dear tea, a burden which would be borne by the people in this country who did not trouble whether the price of their tea was increased. If the Amendment were to be accepted in that form, it would get rid of much of the inconvenience existing under the present tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the difficulty in collecting the tax, and had instanced what took place in J1833, but they had been told that 95 per cent, of the present teas were sold in bond by public auction. The objections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been disposed of, and there was no real or substantial reason before the Committee why the Amendment should not be accepted.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid he rose to contradict the statement made by the hon. Member for Devonport. In his constituency there were sold millions of pounds of tea by a gentleman who was one of the largest tea traders in the world, and who did not buy his tea by auction, but owned his own tea gardens. "He referred to Sir Thomas Lipton. A report in the Times of the annual meeting of the Tower Tea Company stated that the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising the duty would in no way affect them or their customers, as they had made provision in the matter. If that statement was accurate, why should different statements be brought into the House? This was not a discussion on the merits of the tea duty, but was simply an attempt to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from getting his Budget
  776
  Bill through. He had seen tea sold in Ceylon on a dull day at 2½d. per lb., which meant that a very large quantity would be put on this market at 3¾d. per lb. Where would be the revenue if the ad valorem duty were adopted? It would bring into the market the greatest rubbish; it would encourage the impecunious manufacturer to put his goods on the market at the earliest possible period, and this country would be glutted with tea that was utterly unfit for human consumption. It was the policy of the producers to supply the British public with something that would encourage them to purchase from them again. The growers of India were unanimous on the point that the duty imposed should not be an ad valorem one. No argument in favour of that kind of duty had been advanced, and lie trusted that the Committee would not agree with the Amendment.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he understood that one of the reasons why hon. Members opposite advocated an ad valorem duty was that the great bulk of tea was sold by auction and therefore the Customs officials' duty would be simplified. But what was there to prevent tea growers from sending direct to the seller and sharing the profit, and in that case how would the Customs officials be able to arrive at the actual cost? Again, what was to prevent the sellers in this country purchasing estates in Ceylon and India, and importing their own tea and selling it direct to the consumer? The object of this tax was a revenue object, and therefore the first duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer was to see how he could raise it without dislocation of the business on which the tax was imposed, and with the least cost to the country. He would point out that the incidence of indirect taxation would be changed if the Amendment were to be carried, and there was no doubt that at the present moment indirect taxation pressed very lightly on those classes who were called upon to bear it, and unless hon. Members opposite could show good reasons for accepting it, he should vote against the Amendment.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he rose to make a practical suggestion. They had heard speeches

  777
  from a number of very sound fiscal reformers, who had proved to demonstration the impossibility of an ad valorem duty. He would suggest that a member of the Tariff Commission should address the Committee and explain how a wholesale system of ad valorem duty could be put into operation.
  MR. MARKHAMwished, now that the Govern-merit had a majority, to move an Amendment to the Amendment already before the Committee. It was a well-known principle that the equality or inequality of taxation was based solely and wholly on the ability of those who had to bear it. This tax upon tea had been condemned as being a tax on the poorest section of the community, and in his humble opinion it was not a tax with which the Committee ought to agree. Whether it were proposed by a Liberal or a Conservative Government, he should always be opposed to a tax upon tea, bread, or any other necessary of life being levied on the poorest section of the community. He would therefore move to reduce the tax by the sum of eightpence.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The object of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to reject the whole clause, and that would not be in order as an Amendment.
  MR. RUNCIMANdesired to carry the debate a stage further before the Amendment was taken to a division. The proceedings of the Committee would not redound either to the dignity of Parliament or to a speedy passage of the Bill. His hon. friend had proposed an Amendment before the dinner interval with all seriousness. Since then they had had a series of speeches almost entirely from the other side of the House, some being germane to the Amendment and some quite otherwise. He did not wish to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham, whose views on this subject were so notorious in this House, but he did desire to refer to a remark made by the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury. The hon. and learned Member had informed the House that a great distributer of tea in his constituency (Sir Thomas Lipton) was a man who did not buy tea in the Mincing
  778
  Lane auction, but grew all the tea he sold. That simply showed how little the hon. and learned Member knew about the tea distributers of his own constituency. As a matter of fact, Sir Thomas Lipton's buyers were in Mincing Lane every day of the week except Sundays.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: On whose authority do you say that?
  MR. KEARLEY: On mine.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: On the authority of the hon. Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for West Islington.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I deny it.
  MR. RUNCIMANcontinuing, said he might inform the hon. Member that probably more than one-half of the tea sold by the firm of Lipton was not grown by Lipton, Limited, but was bought by them in the London auction. But the whole point which had been raised by his hon. friend who moved the Amendment was that a specific duty of 6d. in the lb., or 8d. in the lb. if this clause were passed, was a duty which fell very unfairly upon the cheap tea, which in itself was a great burden to the trade, and which placed those engaged in the trade in considerable difficulties every time the Budget came round. That was a difficulty which had been faced in many countries of the world, especially in the United States of America, and he commended to tariff reformers the example of America, which in all tariff questions they were prepared to follow. In America it had been found that specific duties were unjust, and there had been a general tendency to return to an ad valorem basis. In 1891, for instance, a Congressional Committee which sat upon the subject reported entirely against specific duties and unanimously in favour of levying duties on an ad valorem basis. That example might well be followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman was understood to be prevented from following the example of America in fiscal matters by a pledge which he and other members of the Government hid given by some vague means to the country. But members of the Opposition were also bound by a pledge

  779
  not to follow the example of the Government in fiscal matters, and their pledge would forbid them to bind themselves to the principle of levying on the poorest descriptions of tea the same duty as was levied on the more expensive classes, for the simple reason that they held that the poor, if they did not already drink the cheaper teas, should at all events, if the duty was to be increased, have an opportunity of resorting to the cheaper teas in order to escape a portion of the tax. That point of view had been entirely overlooked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was well worth the attention of the Committee. The disadvantages of the ad valorem basis were certainly very great. He would not attempt to describe the ingenuity which would be shown by tea dealers and importers if an ad valorem basis were adopted, but there would certainly be a great encouragement to them to discover means for getting round the declarations of value in order that they might, to some extent, avail themselves of the graduation for the lower values. Such a basis would also involve a greater cost of collection, and, however far the Mincing Lane auction might be considered reliable, it would be necessary to institute some means by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his officials would be enabled to check the values on which the duty was levied. On the other hand, the advantages of the ad valorem basis were great. Importers would know that the imposition of the tax was on an intelligible basis, and that the amount was in proportion to the value of the commodity in which they dealt. He could not see, however, how the simplicity of the specific duty could be secured under an ad valorem system. The ease and cheapness of collection at present was so great that, from the tax-collecting point of view, the adoption of an ad valorem basis would require greater justification than had yet been shown. He suggested that before any further decision was come to on the subject hon. Members should carefully weigh the arguments on both sides, which he had endeavoured impartially to place before the Committee.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether he was to understand that his Amendment was ruled out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member draft the Amendment 1 If he will do so, I will then consider it. I do not see how he can, but I invite him to do it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the House was a little fuller than when the discussion on this point began. He had listened to several speeches and heard the extraordinary assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury that the object of the opposition to this tea duty was to put difficulties in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in carrying the Finance Bill. He thought that that was a very considerable statement in view of what had taken place in the House since nine o'clock. He happened to have been in the House during that time, and had heard speech after speech delivered, the sole object being not to facilitate the passing of the Finance Bill but to delay proceedings in order that the Government majority might be enabled to come down from their dinner before a division was taken. He should not have said anything about the matter; but when an hon. Gentleman on the Government side of the House said that those in opposition to the duty were engaged in the work suggested, he thought it was going a little too far. In the earlier part of the discussion it was asserted that the rich bought the dearer class of tea and the poor the cheaper class. That was the argument for the ad valorem duty. That might be so in England; but the peasant in Donegal, Galway, and other places drank an expensive kind of tea, and the way the ad valorem duty would work in that case would be that the poor would pay double taxation on the tea they consumed. He was against this whole tax, and he was willing to do anything he could to stop it or to reduce it; but he was not willing to vote for an Amendment which would put a heavier duty on the poor in Ireland than that which they now paid. That was the reason why he opposed the Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought some note ought to be taken of the proceedings of the last hour and a half. Members of the Opposition for two days had been endeavouring to discuss Amendments to the Budget Bill in a reasonable spirit; and it could not be contended that they had shown any obstructive tendency or desire. But that could

  781
  hardly be said of the manner in which hon. Members opposite had conducted the proceedings since the dinner recess. Practically the whole time had been occupied by the "Toriest" Members, such as the hon. Members for Peckham, Finsbury, and Sheffield, who had spoken, not for the purpose of debating the merits of the Amendment, but simply to occupy time. [Cries of "Withdraw."] He would at once withdraw all adverse criticism if any of the hon. Members he had named would assure the Committee that they had risen to discuss the merits of the Amendment and not merely to consume time.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has forgotten the rule of Parliament which forbids hon. Members to impute motives.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would at once withdraw the statement and apologise to the three hon. Members re-
  ferred to. He was quite sure that the sole object with which they had addressed the I Committee was to convince hon. Members that the Amendment was not one that ought to be accepted. Personally he did not intend to discuss the merits of the Amendment; an observation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite sufficient to induce him to vote in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Amendment, if carried, would upset the balance of the Budget. That meant that less revenue would be drawn from indirect taxation, and that the deficit would have to be made up by the income-tax payer. That would be entirely in accord with his views as to what ought to have been the finance of the year, and, therefore, he should support the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 194. (Division List, No. 165.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lundon, W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Allen, Charles P.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Black, Alexander William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Crae, George

  Boland, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Brigg, John

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mooney, John J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hammond, John

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Cullman, J.

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parrott, William

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leng, Sir John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Levy, Maurice

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Runciman, Walter

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Young, Samuel

  Sheehan, Darnel Daniel

  Tomkinson, James

  Sheehy, David

  Toulmin, George

  TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kearley and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Forster, Henry William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Milvain, Thomas

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

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bigwood, James

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gretton, John

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bull, William James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Butcher, John George

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Carlile, William Walter

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Percy, Earl

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Piatt, Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Helder, Augustus

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Randies, John S.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Renwick, George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Russell, T. W.

  Doughty, George

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Spear, John Ward

  784

  785

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Younger, William

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Sir

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

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

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  MR. KEARLEYmoved to reduce the tea duty from 8d., as proposed by the Bill, to 4d. He said that before the duty had been raised from 4d. to 6d. the consumption of tea per head of the population had been steadily increasing, but within recent years it had absolutely declined. It was also important to bear in mind the effect this increase in the tea duty was having upon the quality of the tea sold. The production of tea of an inferior quality in countries which had not hitherto produced tea was now being encouraged. Last year the United States produced 5,000,000 lbs. of tea. Nobody would have thought that Germany was a tea-producing country, but it was a fact that last year Germany produced 504,000 lbs. of tea. Canada had also commenced shipping tea to this country. What was the explanation of this? The explanation was that the large increase in the duty had thrown the pressure of the demand upon tea of a very inferior character, which these countries supplied, and England had become the dust-bin of the world for all these cheap teas. Let the Committee consider what had been the effect upon our own dependencies. He could quote figures to show that the imports of tea to this country from Ceylon had enormously fallen off during the last few years. There had, during the same period, been a great increase in our importations from China. At one time China had almost ceased to have any influence upon the tea market, because the Indian and Ceylon tea production was sufficient to supply the demand, but this state of things had been altered. In the year 1901, 9,000,000 lbs. of China tea were imported into this country, but in 1903 our importation of teas from China had increased to 15,000,000 lbs.; whilst during the same period there had been a considerable fall in our importation of tea from Ceylon. That state of things arose from the fact
  786
  that the tea duty had been increased-On the one hand they had a large diminution in their shipments of tea from Ceylon, and, on the other hand, a large increase in their importations of inferior teas from China. That had been brought about by the pressure of the demand for very low-priced tea, and that was one of the reasons why he wanted the duty on tea restored to the condition it was in before the war.
  Why had the consumption of tea fallen off? It was because the wage-earning class had only so much money to spend and no more, and therefore when the price of tea was increased the consumption of that commodity was bound to diminish. When the price of tea went up the poor people had to buy an inferior quality. What had been the effect of this upon British trade? How had it affected the home trade? The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to pay no particular attention to this aspect of the question. Every business man knew that these continual alterations in the duty upon tea disorganised the trade. The increasing of such duties as the tea duty involved the locking up of a large amount of additional capital. He was surprised to learn the other day that in regard to the alterations made in the tea and sugars duties alone one firm had to sink £20,000 additional capital in order to carry on their business. It was obvious that this duty ought to be reduced. When the war was on none of them made any very great fuss about the tea duty being raised to 6d. because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them distinctly that it was only being raised for war expenditure, and he assured them that when the war was over the exta 2d. would be taken off again. Ho had not heard any adequate reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for placing this tax at so high a figure. He understood that one of the reasons for this tax was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer de sired to finance his Budget in such a way that next March he would have a hand some surplus. He believed the right hon.

  787
  Gentleman had underestimated the revenue, and that it would be much more than he had budgeted for.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words 'eight pence,' and insert the words 'four pence.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'eight pence' stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member suggested that he had not been nearly sanguine enough in his estimates, or that he had concealed the facts from the House with a view to obtaining an abnormal surplus for ulterior motives——
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the Chairman had ruled that motives must not be imputed; he had never made any such suggestion.
  Ms. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was glad to hear that. But the charge that he had not been sanguine enough was in direct contradiction to a good deal of the criticism made on the other side of the House. He had framed estimates, on the best advice, which he thought were not more than prudent; and a very short time ago he had consulted the same authorities, who told him that if he were budgeting at the present moment it would not be wise to estimate for a larger revenue. The hon. Member asked him to forego one-half of the revenue he hoped to raise from tea. If he did that he would be deliberately contemplating a deficit, and that was a course he, for one, would not take, whatever charms it might have for a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was anxious to avoid unpopularity. He was obliged to ask the House to agree to this duty in order to obtain the revenue necessary for the year. There was no doubt that in the last few years there had been a decrease in the importation of Ceylon tea. He thought that was in part due to some decrease in the power of consumption on the part of the people. It was certainly not wholly due to increased taxation. It was well known that a few years ago there was a great over-production in Ceylon, and that this country was supplied with a good deal of inferior tea. That brought down the prices of
  788
  Ceylon tea, and great injury was done to the tea industry of the island. The planters had been recovering from that position, and it was not unnatural that they should have sought for other markets for their products instead of sending them to this country at ruinous prices. If the increased duty were calculated to affect particularly British-grown tea, he could not understand why it should not have affected Indian tea; but each year onward from 1895 showed a steady increase in the imports of Indian tea cleared for home consumption, and since 1900 the imports of Indian tea had increased by nearly as much as the imports of Ceylon tea had diminished. In 1900 the imports of Indian tea were 138,000,000 lbs., but in 1903 they were 150,000,000 lbs., or an increase of 12,000,000 lbs. He did not think that this extra tax upon tea would be specially injurious to our fellow subjects in India and Ceylon, who were producers of tea. He observed that some of the trade journals had concluded that the consumer would be made to pay this additional duty, but whether that would be so or not his position was that he was obliged to impose new taxation. He could not accept an Amendment which, instead of giving him more money, would take away from what he had.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was surprised at hearing the figures read out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the consumption of tea, because at an earlier stage of the Budget, when he quoted identically the same figures, the right hon. Gentleman described them as being utterly deceptive. But he now found the right hon. Gentleman using the same figures to prove his case. He put down a Question yesterday and the answer repeated the figures as to the decrease in consumption. The Question asked for the average consumption of tea per head in the United Kingdom during the years 1900–1–2–3, and the answer was that the average consumption could only be adduced approximately and that calculations on the quantity of tea on which duty was paid were apt to be misleading because they took no account of the duty paid on stocks in the hands of dealers and grocers. The figures were—1900, 6·07; 1901, 6·16; 1902, 6·06; 1903.

  789
  6·03. The explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this drop would, he admitted, be valid if it occurred only in one year, but the same tendency occurred in 1903 as in 1902, and it was conceivable there had been a still further reduction per head of consumption in 1904. This seemed to show that the heavy taxation of recent years was having an effect upon the consumption of tea, that indeed for the first time in fifty years the tendency had been downward for two years in succession. The natural inference was not that the nation was reaching the saturation point in regard to tea, but that it was reaching a point at which it would bring a diminishing return to the Exchequer. Therefore, from that point of view, the Treasury would be well advised in refraining from putting on an extra 2d. this year.
  How did this tax on tea compare with other countries? With one or two rather notable exceptions the taxation on tea imposed by the right hon. Gentleman was the highest compared with those nations with which they might reasonably compare this country. In Spain, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece, the United States, and Turkey the taxation upon tea was much less than it was in this country. The taxation of tea was heavier in Russia, whose fiscal system he understood the right hon. Gentleman wished to copy. There the tax varied from 8d. on brick tea to 1s. 11¼d. on Ceylon or Indian tea. In France tea was taxed 9d. per pound when imported directly from a country out of Europe, and 11¾d. when imported from European entrepôts. In Portugal it reached the remarkable figure of 2s., with the result that the tea there was the vilest that human being ever tasted. In Italy it was 11d., and in Austria 9¾d. So that gradually this country had reached during the last few years the standard of being, so far as tea was concerned, a heavily taxed country. The right hon. Gentleman had made reference to the complaint of the Ceylon tea producers. He held in his hand a very powerful speech made by the late Governor of Ceylon, Sir J. West Ridgeway. He did not say that Ceylon producers were well
  790
  able to bear the tax. What he said was this—
  "We are told that the loss will fall on the consumer, and not on the producer, but we do not accept that statement. We dispute its accuracy; we say that in the future, as in the past, the loss will fall both on producer and consumer. But we are told that the increased duty will not check consumption. This is a strange doctrine; but this is an age of strange doctrines."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not justified the increase of this tax except on the plea that he wanted money, that he had to obtain it somewhere, and that this was the easiest way to obtain it. If that was the principle which actuated the right hon. Gentleman it was one that he might well revise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's action in this matter would not be followed by any of his successors.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he now understood that the reference of the Chairman to the Standing Order against attributing motives was addressed to another hon. Gentleman, and not to the hon. Member for Devonport. He was sorry that he had accused the hon. Member of attributing motives.
  MR. LOUGHsaid this was perhaps the most important Amendment which had been before the Committee on the tea duty. If any of them had a difficulty in following his hon. friend on the last Amendment, he did not think anyone should have the slightest difficulty in supporting him on this. The proposal was that they should reduce the tax on tea to the amount levied before the war. The effect of carrying the Amendment would be to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of £4,000,000. He was glad to find the hon. Member for Devonport making that proposal because it indicated that, to far as he was concerned, he was willing that there should be a reduction of expenditure to that extent. He was glad to find his hon. friend supporting him in a policy of which he had been the solitary advocate on that Bench for many years. He wished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some of the interesting figures he gave on this matter were not quite accurate. The right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the tea exported from Ceylon suggested that, because our consumption of Ceylon tea had

  791
  diminished, the export had diminished. The fact was, that within the last four years there had been a large increase in the export of Ceylon tea. The exports had increased in four years by 22,000,000, so that although the imports into this country had decreased by 12,000,000, Ceylon had not suffered owing to that. That was all right for Ceylon, but how was it for this country? It meant that Ceylon tea was being shut out of this country on account of taxation. The chief country to which it was going was the United States, which had done exactly what the hon. Member for Devonport wished this House to do now. The United States had a war four years ago, and they raised the tea tax to 5d. in the pound, but when the war was finished it was taken off. It was a most extraordinary thing that during the past few years while every civilised country had been reducing the tea duty this country had not done so, though we had a most vital interest in reducing it. His hon. friend's proposal to return to the tea duty which was levied before the war was not one which should be lightly made by anybody who was not willing to face a reduction of expenditure, and to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he was to get on without the duty. The right hon. Gentleman might consider whether he could not knock off a battleship, or an Army Corps—knock off anything—in order to reduce the tea tax to the point it stood at before the war.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he desired as an Irish Member to support the Amendment. It was certainly a very strange commentary on the financial policy of the Government that in fours years the duty on a necessary food of the people should be doubled. He found, from an examination of the figures, that it really meant to Ireland an increase of £340,000 to £360,000, and that would be raised from the poorest portion of the population. He had followed the controversy between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Devonport with some interest. The figures given by the hon. Member for Dewsbury seemed to corroborate those of the hon. Member for Devonport. In 1901 when the duty was 6d. the revenue amounted to £5,960,000, and for the year 1902–3, when the duty was the same, the
  792
  revenue fell to £5,680,000, and that seemed to show that an increase in the duty led to a marked decrease in consumption.
  MR. RENWICKsaid he had with him the latest Returns of foreign import duties for 1904. He found that the duty on tea in the United States was 5d. in the pound. He did think that when they had a statement from an expert like the hon. Member for West Islington it ought to be correct.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. Member was entirely mistaken. The book the hon. Member quoted from had a blue cover, and on trade matters he was very suspicious of it. There was no duty on tea in the United States. It was removed in 1902.
  MR. RENWICKsaid he would allow the Committee to draw its own conclusion. The hon. Member had said that other countries were sweeping away the duties on tea and similar articles. In reply to that he would say that he and others who disapproved of the present fiscal policy in this country were willing to do the same thing here if the revenue could be raised in the same way as in other countries, namely, by placing a tax on imported manufactured goods.
  MR. GODDARDsupported the Amendment on the ground that the tax was excessive having regard to the value of the article. The average wholesale price of tea in this country was 7d. per lb. A tax of 8d. per lb. on that value represented 110 per cent. That in itself was enormous. But they must not lose sight of the fact that there was a large quantity of tea of a very low value imported into the country and used especially by the poor. The proportion of taxation on such tea amounted to no less, than 160 per cent., which was altogether an undue proportion. Further he remembered a Report being issued some people called "sophisticators," who took any kind of tea leaves and treated them with all sorts of colouring matter in order to give them the appearance of the genuine article. By that means an absolutely deleterious article was foisted on the public. He feared that if they unduly increased the duty now it would

  793
  be a direct temptation to the sophisti-cators to again supply the public with an article dangerous to health. He considered that the tax was a gross injustice to the poor. It was raised in the first place for the purposes of the war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, in common with everybody else, anticipated that immediately the war was over the tax would be reduced. What had been the result? The income-tax payer had had 3d. in the £1, representing some £7,000,000 taken off his burden, while the poor indirect taxpayer had not only had nothing taken off but was now to have an extra 2d. put on an article which was a necessity. In his view nothing could be more unjust.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he required the revenue. He thought he ought to recall to the recollection of the Committee the circumstances under which the additional duty was originally imposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was then
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, justified the addition of 2d. on the ground that it was purely a war tax—an exceptional tax raised for the purpose of the war. He thought, therefore, that his hon. friend was fully justified in moving that the tax should be reduced to 4d. He quite agreed with what fell from his hon. friend the Member for West Islington that the bottom element of all this was the question of expenditure. This Government had run the country into enormous additional annual expenditure, and so long as they had an extravagant Government the country would have to bear extra taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have inflicted far less hardship on the community, and far less injury on trade, if instead of increasing the burden of indirect taxation he had raised the additional revenue he required by an increased income-tax.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 201; Noes, 146. (Division List No. 166.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gretton, John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Heath, James (Staffords., A. W.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Doughty, George

  Helder, Augustus

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hoult, Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bigwood, James

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hunt, Rowland

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F (Mid'lesex

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Brassey, Albert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) j

  Bull, William James

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Butcher, John George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Keswick, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A (Worc.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.

  Grav, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Randles, John S.

  Stock, James Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Renwick, George

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Simeon, Sir Basrington

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Younger, William

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Sir

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Field, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lough, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Asher, Alexander

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Crae, George

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Black, Alexander William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) 1

  Lambert, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leng, Sir John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  796

  797

  Rigg, Richard

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Toulmin, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Runciman, Walter

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Russell, T. W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Shackleton, David James

  Tennant, Harold John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Sheehy, David

  Tomkinson, James

  William M'Arthur.

  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington should appear as a new clause.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to raise a question which he could not raise on a new clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This clause does not deal with commission. That is a separate matter.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the object of the Amendment which he now desired to move was to prevent merchants paying duty twice over. In 1900 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather annoyed because there was a great amount of forestalment; and, to prevent that, he introduced a special clause in the Finance Bill. Of course, as regarded forestalment, there was speculation every year as to whether the duty on a particular article would be increased or decreased, and there were anticipatory clearances; but he thought the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself very much to blame for the forestalment which occurred. Under the Act of 1900, if a duty were paid, and if it were subsequently increased, the Customs levied the new duty again. That was an innovation, and he thought it was only fair that matters should be restored to the position in which they originally were.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 21, at end, to add the words 'Provided that the increased duty hereby imposed shall not be levied or paid on any tea lying in a bonded warehouse licensed by His Majesty's Customs upon which the former rate of duty has already been paid.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the object of the Amendment was to repeal Section 9 of the Finance Act of
  798
  1900, which was introduced by his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol, with the object of preventing large anticipatory clearances of dutiable goods, at the last moment, when an increase in the duty was expected. He thought it would be in the recollection of the Committee that in 1900, increased taxation having been anticipated, there were very large anticipatory clearances of dutiable goods in order to escape the new duties. It was perfectly legitimate for a trader to speculate in this manner; and, if he correctly anticipated the course of events, he would make a profit, because other traders who had not speculated would be forced to raise the price of the article because of the increased duty, and the trader who had speculated successfully would, of course, also raise the price to his own profit. They could not stop anticipatory clearances altogether, but he thought the Committee would feel that nominal clearances at the very last moment by payment of the duty without the removal of the goods was not a thing which they should be bound to recognise. The law now said that the duty payable should be deemed to be the duty in force at the date of the actual removal of the goods. Therefore it was not possible for a gentleman to enter the Customs House late on the afternoon of the day of the Budget statement, and clear goods by j merely paying in his cheque, and thereby escape any increased duty that might be imposed. The trader must now be in a position to remove the goods also; and that was some little check on clearances at the last moment.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the clause was inconvenient, and did not do any good to the Exchequer.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that while he admitted that the clause

  799
  would not prevent a trader clearing goods five or six days before, it would, nevertheless, act as a check against clearances at the last moment. Under no circumstances would he make any statement that would have an injurious effect on the revenue or have the effect that any future Chancellor of the Exchequer would be obliged to prolong his Budget statement in order to talk against time for the sake of the revenue.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he wanted to suggest that this hurried enactment was not working quite fairly, and that it aimed a blow at a deserving industry. The proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were a reckless interference with business, and were of a character quite unworthy of the Customs. The effect of the clause would be to make traders feel that if they left their goods in a common ware-house they would be subject to the rule of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if they moved them to a private warehouse they would be quite safe. The clause put the business of public warehouses at a disadvantage. He did not think it would work well in the interests of the Customs, any more that it would be for the welfare of the trade. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter, and if he found he could do anything to ameliorate the difficulty he would do it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SOARESmoved to leave out Clause 1. He did not believe in the genesis of the tax conceived, as it was, in the brain of a Protectionist Chancellor of the Exchequer and born to a Government of no settled convictions in fiscal matters. He did not intend, however, to develop that theme or make a speech, as he understood an arrangement had been arrived at to report Progress if the Government were allowed to get Clause 1. The only thing he desired to do was to put a simple question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the expectation that he would receive a plain, straightforward answer. Would the right hon. Gentleman, if he had given no pledge and had a majority on which he could rely, have imposed the tax at the present time? Was this a best or
  800
  second best tax? In other words, were they being driven down a dangerous road by a coachman who had lost his way?
  MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)asked why it should be considered necessary to spend more money on naval and I military matters this year than was expended before the outbreak of the South African War. He would like to quote the words of Lord Beaconsfield: "Expenditure depends upon policy," and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what right he had to say that the working-classes of this country were in any way to blame for that war. It was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that brought it about.
  He might quote a verse bearing on this question—
  "When times are threatening, and when danger's nigh,
  'God and the soldier' is the country's cry;
  When peace is gained again and wrongs are righted,
  God is forgotten, and the soldier slighted."
  By this additional tax the lot of the soldier and his family would be made harder, and the old age of the soldier's mother rendered more arduous and comfortless. That was the return to be made by the Government for all the sacrifices of the soldiers during the late war. The hardship of the tax was that it fell with the greatest severity upon those least able to bear it, and above all, that it was an impost upon a necessary of life. No doubt the Army and the Navy had to be paid for, but surely some means might be found by which the necessary funds could be provided without placing such heavy burdens upon the poorest of the community. It would be well if the Government, before they entered on such enormous expenditure, would consider where the money to provide for it was to come from. He thought that if they realised that it was to come to so large an extent from the poorest of the poor they would be more careful.
  MR. TOULMINsaid the cause of indirect taxation levied for the purposes of the war being not only continued but increased in a time of peace, was the profligate expenditure of a Government which had lost control of the affairs of the nation. The tax, even to a small amount,

  801
  could scarcely be defended as a permanent tax, because it was essentially unjust. The poorer a person the more he was penalised by the tax. There were signs, however, that the enormous expenditure was finding opponents even within the Cabinet. The country was engaged mainly in probing that body to see if it had a backbone, and if it was found that any particular Member was supplying the necessary backbone in resisting this policy of expenditure he would receive the gratitude of the people. He objected to Clause 1 not merely because it dealt with the tea tax, but because the tea tax was an important part of the indirect taxation of the country. The Tight hon. Gentleman had claimed credit for restoring the relative proportions of direct and indirect taxation to the position occupied before the war. But those proportions were purely arithmetical; the real standard to go by would be, not the ratio of the total of indirect taxation to the total of direct taxation, but the relation of the respective classes of taxation to the ability of the persons taxed to bear them. The additional tea duty, if persisted in, would leave a sense of injustice until it was removed, and he was convinced that there was nothing that came home more to the poorest of the people than this constantly increasing burden of taxation.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid he had been surprised to find references to wages of 10s. or 12s. a week received with smiles by hon. Members on the other side of the House.
  Many Unionist representatives did not appear to realise that half a day's pocket money to them was a week's wages to hundreds of labourers in the country. Many families were actually paying in the tea duty alone three weeks' wages in the course of the year. What hon. Member opposite would be willing to pay three weeks' share of his annual income towards the expenses of the State in one tax? It was all very well to speak about pounds; they ought to consider the people whose wages were counted in shillings, and the House of Commons when levying taxes to be paid by the nation ought to have regard to the relative severity with which the burdens would press on different classes of the community. Even persons whose sympathies were with the poor scarcely realised the effect an additional twopence on a necessary of life would have upon large masses of the people. It was sometimes said that they should not drink tea, that they should take something less expensive. A family of six, out of a pound of tea at 1s. 8d. could obtain 124 cups of tea. That worked out at ·16d. per cup. Where could a cheaper beverage than that be secured? He submitted that the case which had been put forward was one that ought to receive the sympathetic consideration of the Minister in charge of the finances of the country.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 115. (Division List No. 167.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Coates, Edward Feetham

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

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gretton, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doughty, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Brassey, Albert

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hunt, Rowland

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Butcher, John George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jesse], Captain Herbert Merton

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Forster, Henry William

  Keswick, William

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

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Chapman, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Parker, Ebenezer

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Randles, John S.

  Stock, James Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macon ochie, A. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asher, Alexander

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rigg, Richard

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Black, Alexander William

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose, Charles Day

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, T. W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Labouchere, Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Crae, George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fenwiek, Charles

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

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

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Guruon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Shee, James John

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Hammond, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  William M'Arthur.

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  Adjourned at one minute before One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 13th instant discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
Radcliffe Tramways and Improvement Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the-House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.], now Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill. Reported, with an Amendment.
Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill; Brymbo Water Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
London and [North-Western Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Donegal Railway Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
Bexhill Water and Gas Bill. Read 3a with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill, Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Tynemouth Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Acton Improvement Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No, 3) Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.] so far as relates to the Walton-on-Thames Order; read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Doncaster Corporation Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Barnet District Gas and Water Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.] (Walton-on-Thames Order). Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord O'Neill be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Cranworth; read, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.] (Kingswood Order opposed); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Thames River Steamboat Service Bill; London United Tramways Bill; Strabane, Rap-hoe, and Convoy Railway Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.): E. Lauderdale (Chairman), E. Bradford, L. Clements (E. Leitrim), L. Chesham, L. Elphinstone; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Monday the 4th of

623
July next at Twelve o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3il (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1903).
  Report on the Agricultural Returns relating to acreage and produce of crops and number of live stock in Great Britain; with summaries for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries; and particulars of prices, imports, and exports of agricultural produce.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of February, 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GREEN WICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation, for the year 1904–1905. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [H.T.].
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and or to be read 3. on Thursday next.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY MEDALS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  The following Lords were named of the Select Committee: M. Bath, E. Ellesmere, L. Colchester, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Wolverton.
  The Committee to appoint their owm Chairman.

  CHANTREY TRUST.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONrose, in accordance with notice, "to call attention to the administration of the Chantrey Trust; and to move for the appointment of a I Select Committee of this House to inquire into the matter, and, if necessary, to make recommendations." He said: My Lords, the subject of the Motion which I have placed on the Order Paper is very different from the matters which usually occupy your Lordships in this House, and it has nothing whatever to do with current politics. I offer no apology, though, for bringing it forward, because it is a matter of great national importance which has aroused considerable interest in the country of late, and one with which your Lordships are very specially qualified to deal. The case I have to present is that of a very generous legacy which has been left by a private individual in trust for the nation, but which has been administered in so partial and narrow a sense that the nation has not reaped the full benefit of his generosity. I do not come here, my Lords, as an art critic, and I have no intention of giving to your Lordships a lecture upon the merits or shortcomings of particular artists or their work. I shall endeavour, so far as I can, and it is not altogether easy to do so, to confine myself to points which would be worthy of your consideration if the subject of the Trust were any other subject than that of art.
  For nearly twenty years now the administration of this fund has been the subject of comment and criticism in art circles. I have no new facts to offer, and I do not base my case upon any recent I event of special importance. My justification for bringing the question before Parliament at all rests upon three grounds —(1) the accumulation of evidence over i a series of years to the effect that the intentions of the testator in this matter I have not been fully carried out and

  625
  that the interests of the nation and of art generally have been sacrificed to those of the particular association of artists who belong to the Royal Academy; (2) the growing tide of hostile criticism which at the present moment is finding vent in almost every organ of public opinion in the country; and (3) the continued refusal of the Royal Academy to meet any of the charges which are brought against them or to give any explanation of their conduct, and their repeated assertions that they are responsible to no one, and that probably those who criticise them are actuated by motives either of wounded vanity or jealousy. When the administration of a public fund is attacked upon public grounds and when evidence is produced in support of the attack, I hold that the administration of that fund should be submitted to public investigation, and to make such an inquiry there is nobody in the country more competent or better suited than a Committee of your Lordships' House.
  I do not ask you to-day to express any opinion upon the merits of the question. I do not ask the Government to take any steps on their own account. I only ask that when you have heard some facts which I shall place before you, you will say that the Royal Academy, in so far as they are in the position of trustees of the nation, shall not be allowed to evade responsibilities which would be required of any other body placed in a similar position, and that you will allow the whole matter to be inquired into and investigated in a judicial, impartial, and thorough manner by a Committee of this House. Though many of your Lordships are probably familiar with this question, I think it is necessary that I should first of all explain exactly what the Chantrey Trust is. Sir Francis Chantrey was an artist and sculptor who died in the year 1842, leaving the greater part of his life's earnings for the encouragement of art in this country. The interest of the money which he left, which amounted to about £2,000 or £3,000 a year, was entrusted to the President and Council of the Royal Academy for the purchase of works of fine art in painting and sculpture of the highest merit which had been executed in this country.
  626
  The will is expressed in the clearest possible terms, and both the powers and the limitations of the trustees are very clearly set forth, but as I have here a copy of the will itself it would perhaps be better if I quote Sir Francis Chantrey's own words. He says—
  "And the clear residue of the same monies shall be laid out by the President and other members composing such Council for the time being, of the Royal Academy, or of such other society or association as aforesaid, when and as they shall think it expedient in the purchase of works of Fine Art of the highest merit in painting and sculpture that can be obtained, either already executed or which may hereafter be executed by artists of any nation, provided such artists shall have actually resided in Great Britain during the executing and completing of such works, it being my express direction that no work of art, whether executed by a deceased or living artist shall be purchased unless the same shall have been entirely executed within the shores of Great Britain.…. And my will further is that such President and Council, in making their decision, shall have rogard sololy to the intrinsic merit of the works in question, and not permit any feeling of sympathy for an artist or his family, by reason of his or their circumstances or otherwise, to influence them. And I do hereby further direct that such President and Council shall not be in any manner obliged to lay out and expend in every or any one year, either the whole or any part of the monies so paid over to them for the purpose aforesaid, or any accumulations that may arise therefrom, but that the same respectively may from time to time be reserved and accumulated for a period not exceeding five successive years, if such President and Council shall see occasion.…. And I furthor declare my will to be that the President and Council of the Royal Academy, or of such other society or association as aforesaid, do and shall within the succeeding year next after any work shall have been purchased by them as aforesaid, cause the same to be publicly exhibited for the period of one calendar month at the least in the annual exhibition of the Royal Academy, or in some important public exhibition of Fine Arts, the same to be selected by such President and Council, subject to such regulations as they shall think fit and proper."
  Now, my Lords, you will see from the passages I have read that the trustees are at liberty to purchase the work of any artist who has lived and worked in this country, whether he is at the time alive or dead. They are charged to have regard solely to the intrinsic merits of the works in question, and to buy for no other reason. They are. to exhibit the pictures after they are purchased, and they may accumulate their monies for five years, if they so desire, in order to be able to afford to purchase a really first-rate picture. In

  627
  all these particulars the will is clear and precise. It was a fine idea of Sir Francis Chantrey's that the money which he had made in art should go back to art after his death. He hoped and believed that in time his name would be associated with a collection of the finest works of art which have been executed in this country. His conception was that of a truly national gallery of British art. Think, my Lords, what an opportunity was there. Think of the great artists who have worked and lived in this country, of whom we are so justly proud, men whose works might have been collected together for the benefit of posterity and associated for ever with the bountiful generosity of Sir Francis Chantrey. It was a great opportunity, and yet we have to contrast with that ideal the reality of actual fact. The name of this great patron and benefactor of art has come now to be associated with a collection of pictures which, in the opinion, I may say, of almost everyone, is a mere byword and mockery. There is one other passage which I think I ought to quote from the will with reference to the housing of these pictures—
  "And it is ray wish and intention that the works of art so purchased as aforesaid shall be collected for the purpose of forming and establishing a Public National Collection of British Fine Art in Painting and Sculpture executed within the shores of Great Britain in the confident expectation that, whenever the collection shall become or be considered of sufficient importance the Government or the country will provide a suitable and proper building or accommodation for their preservation and exhibition as the property of the nation, free of all charges whatever on my estate."
  This generous man had a simple faith in the generosity of others, and he never doubted for a moment that his action in this matter would be recognised and would be followed up by the Government of his country. His expectations in that respect were realised, but not from the quarter to which he looked, and it was left to the generosity of another private individual, Sir Henry Tate, to give money for the erection of a building in which the works purchased with Sir Francis Chantrey's money could be housed. About ten years ago, when the Tate Gallery was built, the pictures which h d been purchased out of the Chantrey Fund were handed over by the Academy
  628
  to the Tate Gallery, and it is on the pictures which hang now in the Chantrey Rooms in the Tate Gallery, and on those which do not hang there but which might be expected to hang there, that the whole case against the Academy is founded.
  This is not a matter of taste alone. If it were, I should not bring it before your Lordships. Parliament can do a good deal, but even Parliament cannot compel the Royal Academy or any other body to have good taste, and Parliament is not a body qualified to decide as to who has and who has not good taste in this country. But I think I can prove that Sir Francis Chantrey's intentions have not strictly been carried out either in the letter or the spirit. In the first place, as I read from the will just now, only pictures of the highest merit were to be bought, and I think I can prove that that at any rate has not been carried out. Even if the principal pictures in the Gallery painted by Royal Academicians themselves, for which very high prices were paid, were works of the highest meritr—and I shall prove in a moment that a good many of them were nothing of the kind—still it would be impossible to say the same of a large number of very stupid little pictures bought for paltry sums of from £20 to £50. I could read to your Lordships a list of a dozen names of artists whose works are in the collection which I think your Lordships will never have heard of before and which are unknown to art critics and connoisseurs in this country. Is it likely that, if these pictures were of the highest merit, if they were the best works of art existent in this country, the names of those who painted them would not even be known to art connoisseurs in the country?
  The will says the works of dead as well as of living artists may be bought, but only in one instance has this been done. In every other case hasty purchases from the exhibition of the year have been made. The one case in which the work of a dead artist was purchased was a large sacred picture by Hilton, which was bought in the first year that the Trust came into operation. Hilton was an artist who; died in 1839. His picture is not one of great importance. It cannot have added very great interest to the collection. But if an indifferent picture by Hilton may

  629
  have been bought, why might not masterpieces by, say, Cotman, Constable, Turner, and other artists who were alive at the time of Hilton have been bought also, and, to go back further, pictures by Raebura, Crome, and others, who were alive at the same time as Hilton, and who died only a few years before him. In fact, the purchase of that picture is one of the mysteries of the collection, and it is not clear precisely on what grounds it was bought. With the whole range of works of art executed in this country to choose from, in almost every case have purchases been made from the exhibitions of the Royal Academy. The exceptions are few and are interesting as showing what the trustees—the President and Council of the Royal Academy—might have done if they had been so disposed; but in twenty-seven years there are only four exceptions to this rule. One is the picture of an Academician, two others are pictures of men who subsequently became Academicians, and the fourth of an outsider.
  Conceive a private collector who had £2,000 or £3,000 a year to expend in collecting pictures. Suppose one of your Lordships were fortunate in having that money to spend on that object. Is it likely that you would content yourself with going to the exhibition of the Royal Academy year after year and buying, let us say, the best picture there, without going to a single sale and without in fact visiting any other institution? Is it possible that you could get together in that way a collection of pictures which would be in accordance with the instructions and wishes of Sir Francis Chantrey? By this policy, from which they have only departed in four instances, this fund left by Sir Francis Chantrey has come to be used as a sort of prize fund for the exhibition of the Royal Academy. Your Lordships will understand how dependent they naturally are for their very existence on the success of their annual exhibition. Well, when they make it known that they do not intend to purchase out of this fund pictures exhibited anywhere else, they naturally give a very strong inducement to artists to send their pictures for exhibition at Burlington House. I do not say whether this policy has arisen from misunderstanding of the terms of the will or by intention. That is a point
  630
  which the Committee, if appointed, will have to go into; but, whatever their motive, the result is the same. The result is that these pictures which now hang in the Chantrey Rooms of the Tate Gallery, instead of being the finest works of art produced in this country, are nothing ing more or less than a selection of the exhibits for twenty-seven years in the Royal Academy.
  Not even in every case have the best pictures of the Academicians themselves been bought. That is rather a difficult question to go into here, but I may mention one or two cases which I think will prove what I mean. I suppose really the most notorious instance was the picture of the late President of the Royal Academy, Sir John Millais, the picture probably known to all of your Lordships called "Speak, speak." I doubt if there are any people in this country who would say that that was the best picture Millais painted, or if there are many who would deny that it was the very worst. Then, again, there is the case of a man called North, a very well-known water-colour painter, a man who for many years has painted excellent pictures in water colours, none of which have ever been purchased. But a few years ago he was elected a member of the Royal Academy, and subsequently one of his pictures was bought out of the Chantrey Fund, not, however, one of his well-known and admirable water colours, but a large picture in oils of a very indifferent character. Now, my Lords, I ask: Was it probable that the best picture of a man who was famous as a water-colour painter should have been a work in oils?
  I may quote one other instance, one of their purchases is a landscape picture by a very well-known portrait painter, an Academician. Probably it will be as well if I do not mention the name; it is not very essential to my point. He is a portrait painter, and this was a landscape picture which was bought for £800. The companion picture to that, also a landscape painting of the same character, size, and merit, was commissioned by a picture dealer for £400, half that which was given out of the Chantrey Fund for the picture in question. Some years later that picture came into the market at an art sale, and was bought by a private

  631
  individual, who, knowing that £800 had been given for the companion picture by the Chantrey Trustees, thought he was making a very good bargain when he purchased it for £100. Since that occasion this picture has twice again come into the market, once soon after it was purchased, but it was bought in for £90, and the last time was last summer when it came up for sale at Christie's and was bought in for £20. I understand Christie's have offered £30 as approximately the value of the picture. Have we any reason to suppose that the nation made a better bargain when it bought the one picture for £800 than the private collector when he bought the other for £100, and could not get rid of it for £20?
  But if their purchases have been strange, the pictures they have not bought have been stranger still. Whilst they have purchased pictures by men whose names would probably be unknown to your Lordships, those whose works they have not bought include men of the highest reputation, the most famous artists who have worked in this country during the last fifty years. What would Sir Francis Chantrey have said if he had lived to see this national gallery of pictures after twenty-seven years without a single work by Burne-Jones, Rossetti, Madox Brown, Holman Hunt, Legros, Alfred Stevens, Whistler, and many other artists I might name? There is not a single example of these artists in the collection. I am well aware that pictures of some of these artists when they were first painted were not received very favourably; in fact, that they had very few admirers ', indeed. But my point is this, that there must have been since that date many Councils of the Royal Academy containing men who did admire those works, men who have publicly said that they admired them. It cannot be said that they have no admiration for this school, because one of the first purchases they made was a picture by Rooke, who was at that time an assistant to Burne-Jones. If, therefore, they will buy the picture of a mere assistant of that school, is it not strange that they should not buy some of the pictures of the master himself?
  My point, therefore, is that there have been men on the Council of the Academy who have admired these pictures, and I ask why have they not bought them?
  632
  The only explanation which fits the facts is that these artists did not exhibit their pictures at the Royal Academy. There are other explanations which have been put forward, but they cannot be sustained. In the first place, it has been alleged that the trustees were obliged by the terms of the will itself to buy pictures from the Royal Academy. I would not refer to that except that it has been set forward by an Academician himself in defence of the action of the Academy, but I have read to your Lordships the terms of the will, and there is no sort of obligation on the trustees to buy out of the Royal Academy, or out of any other exhibition. All that Sir Francis Chantrey laid down, and very properly laid down, was that when the pictures were bought they should be exhibited in order that the public might have an opportunity of seeing them. It has also been suggested that pictures by these men were not available for purchase, but any reference to the records of the sales at Christie's and elsewhere will immediately dispose of that contention, for it will then be found that pictures by these artists have come up for sale over and over again, and in almost every case at prices well within the range of the fund, and considerably lower than those which have been paid for some of the pictures which are included. There have been plenty of pictures available for purchase had the trustees been so disposed, but they have preferred to patronise their own exhibition and to buy at top prices pictures which, if they were now placed on the market, would probably not fetch half what was paid for them.
  I shall be asked, What can now be done? What could a Committee do if it were appointed? I may be sanguine, but I am inclined to think a good deal could be done. I have not very much sympathy, not very much patience with those who admit that things are bad and then refuse to take any steps to remedy them. I am inclined to think that a Committee, if appointed, could do a good deal. In the first place, they could secure some answer from the Royal Academy to the charges which have been brought forward, some explanation of the methods which they have hitherto adopted. That in itself would be interesting and desirable. Then their next

  633
  business would be to examine the charges which have been brought forward to see whether they are justified, and when they have done that I believe they will find that the narrow groove into which the trustees have settled down for many years is the result of circumstances which are avoidable, the result of conditions which they have imposed on themselves, which prevent them from attending sales and going about the business as any art connoisseur on his own account would do, and which prevent them from taking a wide and generous view of their duties. I think that a Committee could make recommendations which the Royal Academy themselves would be quite prepared to carry out. I think they would clear up many misunderstandings and much uneasiness which prevails at the present moment in art circles, and that the result of their deliberations and Report would be that this fund would be administered more efficiently in the future. I will only say, in conclusion, that if the cause of art is to flourish in this country, if generous acts like those of Sir Francis Chantrey are to be encouraged, then Parliament should show itself ready to investigate alleged abuses and to watch over the distribution and the use which is made of monies left for a very definite purpose. Therefore, I finally appeal to your Lordships, in the name of the public, and in the interests of art generally, to accept my Motion.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the administration of the Chantrey Trust; and, if necessary, to make recommendations."— (The Earl of Lytton).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise now because I believe that what I am authorised to say will tend to greatly shorten this discussion. My noble friend, no doubt, knows of this little book which I hold in my hand. It is an indictment by Mr. MacColl of the Royal Academy, and in this book there is set out the will of Sir Francis Chantrey. The noble Earl has not read the beginning of it. The first passage of importance is to this effect, that his estate shall be devoted to the encouragement of British fine art in painting and sculpture. Therefore, it
  634
  is for the encouragement of British art, and not for the purpose of making a collection of English pictures that the Trust exists. The charge against the Royal Academy amounts to this, that bad purchases have been made, that they have missed chances which they might have embraced, and that they have not purchased pictures of painters who ought to have a place in this collection. As regards bad purchases, I have no doubt many of your Lordships, as picture collectors, could recall occasions when your purchases in after years scarcely stood the test of time and inspection. Who is there who can say he has never made bad purchases, or that all his purchases are to his satisfaction? As to missing chances, we all miss chances to buy at the right moment. On one occasion I myself lost the chance of securing a work of Albert Dürer for £120 which was subsequently sold to the Berlin Gallery for £5,000. These are the sort of chances individuals lose, but when it is a case of a body which has to be got together to consider the purchases the case is more difficult.
  The main charge brought by my noble friend is that painters who ought to be included in this collection are not represented. I have been to the Tate Gallery lately, and I quite admit that there are many pictures there which have been bought under the Chantrey Bequest which I certainly did not like, and which probably ought not to have been bought; but when this inquiry, assuming it is granted, takes place, no doubt good reasons will be given for the purchase of pictures which generally would not be popular. I thought it right, being interested in art, to put myself in communication with members of the Royal Academy in connection with this question, and I think it much better than giving any ideas of my own that I should give to your Lordships the results which I have jotted down of the conversations I had with members of the Academy as to the non-purchase of pictures and the missing of chances. This is what they say: The conditions of the will make purchases difficult. No commissions are allowed: that is to say, they cannot order a picture from a painter, they cannot buy until the picture is exhibited. Thus pictures

  635
  have not been got that they would gladly have bought. Alma Tadema's pictures were always purchased before they were exhibited. Burne-Jones's pictures at his best time were always painted on commission, and he had on commission more than he could execute. Whistler rarely exhibited work of first importance. Everyone is not agreed as to his position as an artist, but I think all will agree that his etchings are splendid. Rossetti and Madox Brown practically ceased producing purchasable works before the Chantrey Fund was available. Alfred Stevens painted few pictures. A portrait of his was bought for the National Gallery. Now, as to the management, this is their explanation: The Council is a shifting body. What one set of men might consider desirable another might object to. The Council for the time being is the final authority Purchases have been made elsewhere than at the Royal Academy—namely, at Grosvenor House and the New Galleries; but the best men, as a rule, send pictures to the Royal Academy, and purchases consequently are best made there.
  The Council of the Royal Academy are accused of a breach of trust and of jobbery. If they were really good jobbers they would purchase only pictures painted by Royal Academicians, yet out of 105 purchases named in the book I hold in my hand only twenty-seven were the work of Royal Academicians. I do not think that can be called jobbery. The Royal Academy, so far from being opposed to inquiry, court it, and are most anxious that this should be gone into. Whether my noble friend I when he gets his Committee will get any noble Lords to serve with him I cannot tell. Personally, I should be sorry to serve on it. For what have the Committee got to do? The members will have first of all to go to the Tate Gallery and consider every picture there, and take a vote probably on some as to whether or not they would have purchased them themselves. Having settled that point, they will then have to find out now. many pictures they might have preferred to those purchased in the course of fifty or sixty years. Some of those pictures with which a comparison would be necessary may have gone to America, Australia, New Zealand, and other coun-
  636
  tries; so that if the Committee fulfil I their duty, which is entirely one of comparison between what has been purchased and what has not, they will have to travel all over the world. If, however, there is to be a Committee, I hope a good Committee will be appointed, and I wish them joy of the work before them.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, being one of the trustees of the Chantrey Fund, though I have nothing to do with the functions of the Royal Academy, it is, I think, right that I should say a few words, because as the Motion is framed I understood it to be an attack on the administration of the Chantrey Trust. I ought to point out that Sir Francis Chantrey's will vested the residue of his property in trustees, of whom I have at present the honour to be one, but the duty of the trustees is confined to taking care of the funds and of handing over the income each year to the Royal Academy for the purchase of works of art, as the noble Earl has described. The amount of the fund is, I think, a little over £2,000 a year, and your Lordships who are in the habit of buying pictures know that if you went to Christie's and invested in pictures of the best known and most celebrated masters of the British school, living and dead, £2,000 a year would not go very far. It is true that the Royal Academy may request the trustees to accumulate the money till a large sum is obtained, but they do not conceive that to be the best mode of executing their trust.
  What I desire to point out to your Lordships is that Sir Francis Chantrey vested the selection of works of art absolutely in the Royal Academy, or, rather, I should say, in the Council of the Royal Academy. I do not doubt that the noble Earl and any Committee over which he presides would make a. much better selection and execute the discretion which Sir Francis Chantrey vested in the Royal Academy better than they have done; but I venture to ay that that is no reason for displacing the Royal Academy, and I am glad to gather from the noble Earl's remarks, that the Committee which he asks your Lordships to appoint is a mere Committee of inquiry to make recommendations which the Royal Academy may or may

  637
  not adopt, and that he has no intention of altering the disposition of Sir Francis Chantrey's will, which could only be done, of course, by an Act of Parliament. I am not able to go in detail into the questions brought forward by the noble Earl, but I think there are two or three observations which he omitted to make. In the first place, he did not draw attention to the clause in the will which the noble Earl below me mentioned, namely, that no works are to be bought on commission. Commissions cannot be given to any artist to execute works for the Chantrey trustees. Your Lordships are aware that the greatest painters of the present time, at any rate, generally work on commission, that their works are ordered and are purchased long before they leave their studios. That is almost invariably the case with artists who are most celebrated at the present time, and the Council of the Royal Academy have been advised that not only can they not order a work on commission, but that they cannot even purchase an unfinished work in the artist's studio. That advice may have been wrong, but it is advice they have received from legal persons competent to give it. No doubt the works of the greatest masters of the English school from time to time come into the market, but in order to purchase at Christie's or elsewhere, where these pictures are sold, you must have the money in your pocket, and the prices for which works of this character are sold at Christie's are rather beyond the comparatively modest means of the Chantrey Fund. It would require the accumulations of some years to pay such prices as one sees in the newspapers and knows from one's own experience are given for the works of the greatest artists in the British school.
  There are two conceptions of the way in which the Chantrey Trust could be carried into effect. One way would be to form a gallery of the greatest masters of British art. The Royal Academy did not conceive that that was the best mode, in the interests of art, for executing the trust reposed in them, and they did not think, having regard to the amount of money at their disposal, it would be wise to confine themselves to the purchase of a comparatively small number of the works of the greatest artists. The other
  638
  way in which the Chantrey Trust might be employed consistently with the terms of the will was in the encouragement of British art by purchasing the pictures of promising young and unknown artists. The noble Earl shakes his head, but I venture to say that in my opinion that would be in perfect consistency with the trust which is reposed in them, and the Royal Academy in most cases have executed their trust in that way. They have bought from time to time what they conceived to be works of the greatest merit from artists who are comparatively unknown.
  I have seen and enjoyed a good many pictures in my time, and have been fortunate enough to buy a few of my own, but I do not pretend to be an art critic, and I should be the last person in the world to take part in a discussion as to the comparative merits of one artist over another. I myself am acquainted with the Chantrey collection, and I certainly think that, whatever the opinion of the noble Earl may be, he used rather an extravagant expression when he called the Chantrey collection a byword and a mockery. I must say I think that was an extremely exaggerated expression, and that it was not one which on reflection the noble Earl would be prepared to abide by. Nor do I think he was accurate when he said the Chantrey Trustees had not fulfilled their trust either in the letter or the spirit. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, and I certainly should not be disposed to ask your Lordships to express any opinion on that point.
  As the noble Earl below me has told your Lordships, the Royal Academy are perfectly prepared to meet an inquiry if your Lordships think fit to appoint a Committee, and, indeed, will welcome one, because they are satisfied that they will be able to give a satisfactory account of their proceedings. But I must say the inquiry seems to me to be of a difficult character. The noble Earl opposite, I gather, does not propose that it should end in bringing in a Bill to alter the Chantrey Trust, and when one thinks of the sort of evidence that the Committee will have to inquire into one does not envy the position of noble Lords who will serve on it. They will, of course, have

  639
  complaints that pictures of some particular artist have not been purchased. I ought to tell your Lordships that the Trust has only been in existence since 1877, and that 105 pictures have been bought. It will be said by gentlemen who are interested in galleries other than the Royal Academy, that pictures ought to have been bought out of their galleries instead of out of the Royal Academy;, and you will have other persons, amateur art critics, who will come forward and explain their views on the shortcomings of the Royal Academy. As, however, no opposition is offered on the part of the Royal Academy to the appointment of this Committee, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships further.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I think my noble friend behind me may be satisfied in having brought a question before your Lordships which is of very great interest, certainly, to those who are concerned with the position which modern British art should hold relatively to the modern pictorial art of the world. I do not propose, in the very few remarks I have to offer on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to follow my noble friend in the first part of his speech, in which he, I think, with great skill navigated the deep waters between what I may call the shoals of individual taste and the rocks of authority. It is a neighbourhood which I do not wish to find myself in, as very keen controversies are easily aroused near it. But the question which presents itself to the Government is really this: Has the noble Earl in moving this Motion made out a prima-facie case for some inquiry? The Government have no intention whatever of attempting to pre-judge this question, nor of expressing any opinion as to the merits or demerits of the actual works which have been brought under the Chantrey bequest. The point which they have to express an opinion about is whether, as I have said, a prima facie case has been made out for some inquiry.
  The noble Earl opposite submitted a list of reasons given to him by members of the Royal Academy for the course they have taken while on the Council, and while responsible for the carrying out of
  640
  the Trust, and I venture to think that this very list of reasons justifies my noble friend behind me in bringing the Motion before the House. There are matters, which I think a Committee of this House would clear up, quite unconnected with the duty which the noble and learned Lord opposite playfully suggested that the Committee would have to undertake. It is perfectly clear that it has been in the minds of members of the Royal Academy Council that it was necessary that pictures bought under this bequest should be pictures exhibited in the Royal Academy. I venture to think that a Committee appointed by this House might with perfect propriety make it clear that under the terms of the will the Council of the Royal Academy were taking too narrow a view of their duties, and that there really were not those limitations upon their choice which they have, no doubt, perfectly honestly believed existed.
  There is another instance I would give. I do not throw it out as a suggestion, because I have not got to make suggestions, but it has been said that the Council of the Royal Academy is a shifting body, that the whole Council has to come to some agreement, and that it is very difficult in those circumstances to make a choice in any way the same as anindividual with knowledge and authority could make. Why should not the Council of the Royal Academy appoint a managing director? What happens in a company of directors? They do not lessen their authority by any such steps as that. They do not lessen their responsibility, but they appoint one who looks into matters for them, and whose advice they naturally pay particular attention to. I cannot see any reason why the Council of the Royal Academy should not appoint one eminent artist who would give his particular attention to carrying out the terms of Sir Francis Chantrey's will, and who might give most valuable advice to the Council, who otherwise are likely to take the line of least resistance, and perhaps buy pictures, not because they are particularly admired, but because they are not very strongly objected to.
  Certain difficulties have, no doubt, presented themselves to the Council of the Academy in carrying out this Trust. In their rules and regulations they have

  641
  possibly put unnecessary limits to their choice, and in the interests of Sir Francis Chantrey's own wishes, in the interests of British art which this collection is meant to encourage, it is perfectly possible, I think, that a Committee of this House, on inquiry, may be able to persuade: the Council of the Royal Academy to take a broader view than they have done hither to of the duties which have been handed over to them. I have no more to say on behalf of His Majesty's Government except that they do think that a prima-facie case for an inquiry has been made out by my noble friend, and that they do not propose to oppose the Motion which he has made, and which I am glad to hear those who have been specially speaking for the Royal Academy have no intention of opposing either. I trust and believe that, however difficult may be the task which is set them, my noble friend may be enabled to appoint a Committee which will be able to come to conclusions and to offer suggestions that it will not be out of the power of the Council of the Royal Academy to adopt.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I should not wish to detain the House were it not that the noble Earl who moved this Motion wrote an article in a e weekly paper, a copy of which was sent to me, and which other noble Lords no doubt received, in which he made a statement which I think ought to be corrected. He said—
  "Since it was taken for granted by Chantrey that some trouble would be expended on the work of selection, an additional sum of £300 a year was bequeathed to the President for his £ pains."
  I think anyone who reads the will of Sir Francis Chantrey will see that this bequest to the President had nothing c: whatever to do with the administration p of the Chantrey Trust. It was made specially, without any condition whatever, for his own absolute use and benefit. It was made at a time when there was no salary attached to the office of the President of the Academy, and what a points this out more strongly is that a subsequent bequest of £50 to the Secretary hi of the Academy had the condition of looking after the affairs of the Trust attached to it. At the death of Sir Francis Chantrey the Academy paid over
  642
  this salary of £300 to the President, who enjoyed it for thirty years before the Trust came into operation. Therefore, I do not think it can be fairly said to have been given for the administration of the Trust. I think that this mistake illustrates a little the spirit in which this inquiry has been made. It seems to me that it has assumed so hostile an attitude that it is likely to a considerable extent to do away with the good which this Committee may effect.
  I quite agree with the noble Lord in thinking that this Committee may do considerable good in assisting the work of the Council of the Academy, and possibly in enabling them to do away with some of the regulations they have made. But I cannot think that this Committee can possibly alter the character of the work. It cannot possibly make a Committee of the Academy other than academic. It seems to me extremely natural that the Council of the Academy should prefer academical works to others, not necessarily because they "job," but because they believe them to be good, The Academy are supposed to elect into their body the best painters and to hang on their walls those pictures which they consider to be best, and you can hardly expect them to pass a vote of censure on themselves by buying something which is exactly opposite to what they like. I very much agree with some, at all events, of the criticisms made by the noble Earl; but I do not know what will be gained by putting them forward. He tells us that numerous works that are universally admired now were not bought, but if the trustees of the Chantrey Bequest or any other public body had bought those works when they were painted they would have been met by universal execration by the organs which now complain of the administration of the Trust. Some of the critics of the administration have gone so far as to say that works by Holbein and Vandyck might have been purchased under the Trust, but that surely is to reduce the argument to a reduclio ad absurdum. Surely Sir Francis Chantrey cannot be supposed to have intended old masters to be bought out of his bequest. It seems almost common sense to suppose that it was contemporary art that he meant to encourage.

  643
  As to the criticism with regard to the prices paid, the noble Earl surely cannot have noticed that portion of the will in which Sir Francis Chantrey says expressly that the prices to be paid shall be liberal and shall be wholly in the discretion of the President of the Council of the Royal Academy. The noble Lord has told us what Sir Francis Chantrey's intentions were. We can only judge them by the will. He took great pains to say that it was to be in the hands of the Academy. He was an Academician himself, and knew all about the Academy; and not only did he put the Trust in the hands of the Academy, but he provided that if that body ceased to exist the Trust should be administered by such other society as might be formed by its last members. It was plainly Sir Francis Chantrey's intention to leave the administration of the fund in the hand of the Academy, and I do not know exactly, if your Lordships' Committee object to that, into whose hands you would put it. It is a very doubtful question. I hope this Committee will succeed in the objects which Lord Windsor has put before it, but I think it would be well that in starting their labours they should not hope entirely to alter the character of the bequest.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, there is other important business before the House, and I think we seem to be all of one mind with regard to the Motion of the noble Lord. I do not, therefore, intend to take up your Lordships' time. I think we are all indebted to the noble Earl for having brought this subject before the House. It is one which has attracted a great deal of public attention lately, and the noble Earl has treated it in language of great moderation, and has been careful to avoid any imputation of unworthy motives to the Council of the Royal Academy in the manner in which they have discharged their duties. On the other hand, it is impossible to exaggerate the strength of the feeling which prevails in favour of some inquiry into the manner in which those duties have been performed, and it is satisfactory to know that the Council of the Royal Academy itself desires that such an
  644
  inquiry should take place. I think, therefore, we have every reason to anticipate that the inquiry will be productive of useful results. I was not at all alarmed by the gloomy forebodings of the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, who described to us the hopelessness of the task which we were assigning to the members of this Committee. He drew a picture of them reviewing not only the purchases of the past, but lost opportunities of purchasing which have now become merely historical. I venture to express the hope that if this Committee is appointed they will concern themselves with the future rather than the past, and that they will not, if I may use the expression, break their teeth upon lost opportunities, or upon purchases which in the eyes of many people have been of a disappointing character. I desire to say only one word with regard to what fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite. I understood him to suggest that the scope of the inquiry should be in some way or other limited. I do not know whether that will be the case. The noble Earl has not formulated the exact words of his Motion, but I gather that he intends to move that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the administration of the Chantrey Trust, and, if necessary, to make a recommendation. [The Earl of LYTTON assented.] If that Motion be put to your Lordships and carried, I take it that the Committee will be able to make their inquiry and to offer any recommendations they please without restriction. It will be when we have those recommendations before us that we shall have to consider in what manner they should be dealt with.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  THE WAR OFFICE RECONSTITUTION COMMITTEE.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORDrose to call attention to the Report of the War Office Reconstitution Committee, and to ask for information. He said:—I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the Report of the War Office Reconstruction Committee. Many of the recommendations of the Committee have already

  645
  been acted upon by the Government, I but we are not aware if it is their intention to adopt the whole of the Report. Business-like in its brevity, the Esher Committee spares details. Consequently it requires explanations which can be best elicited by questions. I agree with the Committee that their scheme of administration must be taken as a whole, and that, loyally worked, it will succeed, but that "interference with the principles upon which it is based will necessarily destroy its benefits." I sincerely trust that the Government may be able to inform your Lordships that it is their intention to adopt the Report in its entirety —a hope not inconsistent with a wish for information and for assurances on certain points which seem to call for safeguards.
  I must remind your Lordships of the sequence of important events which preceded the appointment of the Esher Committee. First, the outbreak of war in October, 1899; then the general election which took place in November, 1900, when the Ministry was recast, Mr. Brodrick succeeding to the War Office. In December, 1900, the Clinton Dawkins Committee was appointed to inquire into the administration of the War Office and they reported in May. 1901. A year after, in May, 1902, peace was declared. The Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the military preparations and other matters connected with the war in South Africa in September, 1902, reporting in July, 1903. I find in the Report of the Royal Commission on the South African War the following reference to the Report of the Clinton Dawkins Committee—
  "The recommendations of the Clinton Dawkins Committee can hardly be said to have been carried out until the permanency on which it insisted is more fully secured."
  That reference is made especially to the War Office administration. The Commissioners, referring to the whole military system, express regret that—
  "they are not satisfied that everything is being done to place matters on a better footing in the event of another emergency."
  Added to the Report are two notes, one by Lord Esher suggesting the reconstruction of the War Office, and one by Sir George Goldie. Sir George Goldie writes—
  "I heartily concur in the hope expressed in paragraphs 270 and 272 of the Report that the
  646
  state of affairs in 1899 cannot recur. This hope on my part is a wish and not an expectation."
  The opinions I have quoted were recorded nearly four years after the commencement of the war, and two years after the Report of the Clinton Dawkins Committee. It is clear that the War Office needed reconstruction, but that, if left to the War Office, reform would be postponed till that convenient season which always comes too late. July, 1903, when the Royal Commission reported, was not a moment when the nation could sit down and rest. Last summer signs were not wanting of the storm which has now burst in the Far East and will revolutionise all the problems of naval and military strategy in that quarter of the world. Under these circumstances the Government decided to tolerate no further delay, but at once to rebuild the War Office on a cleared site. I cannot agree with the criticism that the Government has acted with undue haste. On the other hand every single circumstance called for immediate action, and I desire to thank the Government for their promptitude.
  Coming to the Report itself, I would begin by referring your Lordships to Table A, which is on the third page of the third part of the Report. Table A is described as a diagram showing the proposed system for dealing with questions of Imperial Defence. Commencing at the very head, we have the Sovereign, Parliament, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister (President of the Committee of Imperial Defence), then the Committee of Defence with its two sub-headings. The first sub-heading gives the members representing the. Army, the Navy, India, and the Colonies, etc., the etc. opening a wide door. The second sub-heading shows the secretariat for the collation of information for the Defence Committee, and for the maintenance and custody of records. The evidence given before the South African War Commission has, of course, a very direct bearing on the changes proposed by the Esher Committee. One of their most important recommendations, and one which has been adopted, is the abolition of the office of the Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Brodrick, in his evidence before the South African War Commission, expressed the opinion that this office must be retained, and that

  647
  there is no possible substitute for the supreme power of the Commander-in-Chief. In the right hon. Gentleman's own words—
  "The sentiment of the Army is and always has been to look to the Commander-in-Chief."
  I altogether dissent from that view, and I cordially concur with the emphasis laid by the Esher Committee on the allegiance of the Army to the King. It is the King whom the Army serves. It is the King's Commission officers hold. It is the King's shilling that recruits accept. It is to the King alone that the Army looks as its national Commander.
  Alike to Crown and Parliament the Secretary of State for War is responsible. But has not that responsibility which Parliament demands from the Secretary of State for War been affected by the recommendations of the Esher Committee. In the first place it is affected by the interposition between Parliament and that Minister of the Imperial Defence Committee, of which, so far as I can make out, he is not necessarily a member. I say "not necessarily" because the Esher Committee insist on the absolute discretion vested in the Prime Minister as to the selection and variation of the members of the Defence Committee. (Report, Part I. p., I.) In the second place it is affected by the association of the members of the ArmyCouncil with him as colleagues. I quote paragraph 5, page 5, and Part II. of the Report—
  "The responsibility of the Secretary of State for War to Parliament and to the country for the administration of the military forces will in no sense be diminished, but it will be shared by the members of the Council."
  How can the military members of the Army Council share the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War to Parliament? No doubt the Secretary of State will speak with his military colleagues at his back, and this association will strengthen the authority of his utterances. The point is whether this addition to his authority has not been secured by dividing his responsibility. We all desire decentralisation, but decentralisation must not lessen the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War to the Crown and Parliament. I trust that the Government will be able to assure your Lordships that none of the changes impair the constitutional safeguard that the Secretary
  648
  of State for War is individually responsible to the Crown and Parliament for every detail in the administration of his Department, whether he knew the facts or was ignorant of them.
  Parliament alone can determine the question of the principles of our military policy. All depends on this. It is a point which has baffled the War Office in the past, and will, if not decided, baffle it in the future. To illustrate my meaning I cannot do better than quote the evidence of General Sir Coleridge Grove, before the Royal Commission—
  "One thing I hold to very much is that whatever is determined should not be a confidential matter between the Government and the War Office authorities. It should be a thing that is received and adopted by the country and is known in exactly the same way as we have the naval programme."
  The position to-day is that we have no settled military policy at all. All is uncertainty, indecision, inconsistency. In March, 1901, Parliament accepted Mr. Brodrick's view of home defence expressed in these words—
  "In the first place, when talking of homo defence, let us not confuse our minds by considering the position and action of the Navy. The Navy is obviously our first line of defence, and if in matters of war there could be any certainty we might dispense with an Army for home defence altogether. It may be that invasion is an off-chance, but you cannot run an Empire of this extent on an off-chance."
  The right hon. Gentleman then asked the sanction of Parliament to the maintenance of military forces here at home amounting to 680,000 men, 435,000 of whom were enlisted for home service only and could not be sent abroad. That was the military policy of three years ago, based upon the principle of not confusing the mind by considering the position and action of the Navy. In March, 1904, Parliament agreed to the Prime Minister's opinion of home defence stated as follows—
  "It is true indeed that many of us have come to the conclusion that invasion of this island by a large Regular force capable of undertaking its conquest is, if our home forces are kept in anything like an adequate state, and, above all, if the Navy is kept in anything like an adequate state, for after all this is really a naval question, that invasion is a dream, an illusory danger, and not one of the contingencies against which it would be right or proper to ask this country to make costly provision."
  That is the military policy of to-day, which calculates the naval and military

  649
  resources of the country not upon their respective but upon their joint merits. It is idle to expect economy, efficiency, or reform in War Office administration until Parliament sanctions a well-defined military policy and accords to that policy the same measure of continuity which has been allowed during past years to the naval programme.
  Continuing down Table A, I come to the Cabinet. I assume that nothing can alter the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, and that no Committee of the Cabinet appointed for a particular purpose can have any responsibility separate and distinct from that of the whole Cabinet, and if this applies to the new Defence Committee it can have no responsibility of its own. The Cabinet, as a body, has not the time for continuous consideration of questions of Imperial defence. For this reason Lord Salisbury established the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, presided over by the Duke of Devonshire. From the first an air of mystery hung about the meetings of this body. We have it in evidence from the late Director of Military Intelligence, General Sir William Nicholson, that he was never summoned to attend its meetings; that, in his own words—
  "So far as ho was aware, nobody attended them, and he knew nothing of the Committee, except that he believed the Duke of Devonshire to be its President."
  The new Defence Committee created by the present Prime Minister will discharge very different duties. It is to foresee Imperial strategical requirements, to harmonise naval and military policies, to co-ordinate Imperial defence in relation to such different Departments of State as the Admiralty, the War Office, India, and the Foreign and Colonial Offices. It is by far the most important outcome of the Esher Committee. At present we do not know very much about the constitution of the new Defence Committee. The Prime Minister is the President, and he can summon to its meetings any Minister or servant of the State, apparently at his absolute discretion, although it seems that associated with him on this Committee are the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. We are not aware, however, if the Foreign
  650
  Secretary is a member or not, but we do know that diplomacy and military and naval preparations ought to be interdependent. It would be well that the country should be informed what Ministers, if any, will attend the meetings of the Defence Committee ex officio regularly and as a matter of course. It would seem that to this Committee will be summoned members of two kinds, namely, Ministers who are members of the Cabinet, and members of the Defence Committee who are not Cabinet Ministers. I presume that members of the Defence Committee, not being Ministers, cannot vote on the decision of any question, but will merely state their views as expert advisers.
  Our Imperial strategy is far more complicated than that of any other country, and therefore the Esher Committee proposes to attach to this Imperial Defence Committee, which not only varies with each change of Cabinet, but may fluctuate with the predilections of its President, a permanent secretariat, and this proposal has, I believe, been accepted by the Government. The secretariat is composed as follows:—(1) A permanent secretary, appointed for five years and renewable at pleasure. (2) Under him, two naval officers, two military officers, two Indian officers, with, if possible, one or more representatives of the Colonies, their appointment being limited to two years. In reference to the two Indian officers, are they to be necessarily officers of the Indian Army or officers of the British Army in India, or may they be what is known in India as military civilians?
  I recognise the need for a Defence Committee and the very great advantage of having the Prime Minister at its head. The problems which the Defence Committee will have to consider involve not only naval and military questions, but also Colonial, Indian, and international questions. Naval strategy is a question for the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty. Military strategy is a question for the General Staff, but national strategy, in its broadest, most comprehensive aspects, is a matter for the Imperial Defence Committee. In theory, then, the duties of the Defence Committee appear distinct and self-contained.

  651
  but in practice it will not be easy to draw a line between military requirements which appertain to the Defence Committee and military requirements which are the particular province of the Army Council. Hence there seems to me some danger that this staff of the Defence Committee will overlap and conflict with the Chief of the Staff of the War Office. Will the dividing line be drawn by the Prime Minister (President of the Defence Committee) and the Secretary of State for War, for would it not be dangerous to leave the definitions to their respective subordinates?
  I am puzzled to know how the Defence Committee and the Army Council will work together. Lord Esher's Committee organises for war and not for peace. Assume therefore that before a campaign the Defence Committee requires plans from the Army Council. The Army Council submit a plan, which I will call plan A. The Defence Committee reject plan A on international and diplomatic grounds and require another plan from the Army Council. A second plan is submitted, plan B which the Defence Committee accept. War ensues, and plan B proves to be a failure. With the wisdom which comes to us after events, we see clearly that plan A ought to have been the course adopted. Where would the responsibility for the adoption of plan B rest?
  I now pass beyond Table A and come to the Army Council. The Army Council which has been appointed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, consists of four military members and three civilian members. I accept with confidence and without any question the allocation of duties made amongst the military members by the Committee. It is to the changed position of the three civilian members to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. Beginning with the Secretary of State, I gather that the Secretary of State is no longer the dictator but merely a colleague presiding over colleagues. He can no longer overrule his Council, which, from evidence before the Royal Commission, appears to have happened in the past. If he dissents from a decision taken, has he to resign office as the other members are expected to do in accordance with para
  652
  graph 7, Part II, page 5, of the Report? This paragraph reads—
  "The decisions taken will stand, and the Council's orders will be issued in the name of the Council as a whole. It thus becomes the duty of any military member or members of the Council, who may dissent from a decision taken, either to resign or to accept a share of the responsibility for the action involved. While, therefore, loyalty to the service should prevent any member from retaining office if what he considers the vital principles of the policy is contravened, loyalty to colleagues will prevent the opinion of individual members from becoming known outside the Council room. Dissent by any member, who does not thereupon resign, is by that fact annulled and he must accept his share of the consequent responsibility."
  By whom are the members of the Army Council appointed? If the Secretary of State for War recommends them for appointment his colleagues are really his nominees. By whom are members of the Army Council removed? There are failures everywhere, and there must inevitably be some upon the Army Council. I cannot accept the doctrine of the infallibility of the Army Council. What, then, is the procedure by which an inefficient member can be removed?
  The Under-Secretary of State, who has not apparently hitherto taken any active part in the War Office administration, now becomes the civil member of the Army Council. In the words of the Report of the Committee—
  "The absence of any administrative duties must be exceedingly distasteful to any energetic Under-Secretary, and, where a capable and experienced occupant of the post is available, force is unnecessarily wasted."
  I am sure your Lordships will agree that that paragraph is highly applicable to the present Under-Secretary of State for War. As regards the Financial Secretary, he is now transferred into the finance member of the Council. But I doubt whether in practice it will be found that the Financial Secretary becomes the mere colleague of the other members of the Army Council and that he ceases to occupy his former position, described in the Report as that of—
  "an independent critic with special powers of access to the Secretary of State."
  I cannot help thinking that he will remain, in spite of his change of name, the Financial Secretary. I am sure that the following paragraph is full of importance, but as I cannot make out its meaning I

  653
  must refer to the noble Earl for an explanation—
  "The Finance Member is the equal of his colleagues on the Council, his subordinates are those of all other members as their subordinates are his."
  It reads more like a creed than a constitution.
  We learn from paragraph 13, Part III. of the Report, that the Army Council as a whole is responsible for the welfare of the soldier. At the same time I note the reply given by the Secretary of State for War to a Question put to him in Parliament before Whitsuntide regarding the tent accommodation for the Militia. Nothing affects the comfort and the welfare of men in camp more than the character of the tent accommodation. But the Secretary of State for War replied that that was a matter for the general officer to settle locally and that nothing was known about it at the War Office. Here is an instance of decentralisation relieving the Secretary of State and the Army Council of all responsibility in a matter concerning the welfare of the soldier. If the Army Council is to be really responsible for the welfare of the soldier there must be a link between them and the men in the ranks. I suggest that that link should be supplied by means of District Advisory Boards composed of Commanding Officers, whose duty would be to report through the General Officers Commanding in Chief to the Army Council any circumstances concerning the welfare of officers and men under their command which, in their opinion, should be brought directly to the notice of the Council. Reports so made should be forwarded by the General Officers Commanding in Chief with comments, but without alteration or delay.
  At first sight I admit that the need for such Advisory Boards is not obvious. I therefore support my suggestion by quoting from the evidence of General Sir John French before the South African War Commission. General Sir John French, when asked his opinion by the Commission as to the value of the present cavalry sword, replied—
  "I think the present cavalry sword is the very worst that could be used for any mounted troops at all."
  Sir John French had commanded a regiment, but as Commanding Officer he
  654
  had never disclosed his opinion of the weapon on which the men under his command would depend in action. It would not have been consistent with his duty as a Commanding Officer to have said to his superior officers that which he stated in evidence before the Commissioners. Is that desirable in the interests of the service and of the men? I submit that it is not. Hence my suggestion for bringing officers commanding regiments into close touch with the Army Council.
  Admirable as Lord Esher's scheme is from an administrative standpoint, we must not forget that our Army is a voluntary one, dependent for its existence upon its popularity with the people of this country and with the men serving in the ranks. We learn from the Report who is responsible for the various items which make up Army administration. But we learn nowhere who is responsible for making the Army and the conditions of service popular. But until the Army is made popular with the friends and relations of soldiers—and it is not so now— you stand a chance of having created a brilliant and elaborate military administration for the purpose of administering a numerically insignificant Army.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGH-MORE): My Lords, I think no one in your Lordships' House will deny the right of the noble Duke who has just addressed us to raise this subject, and I desire at the outset to personally thank him for the kindly spirit towards the War Office which he has displayed. The noble Duke prefaced his remarks by expressing a hope, which was also expressed by Lord Esher's Committee, that the Government would adopt the Report which they had made in its entirety. It may be convenient if I state briefly how far we have been able to carry out that Report up to the present time. Of course I do not wish it to be understood that the Government regard the Esher Report as a written constitution for the War Office, but in its broad principles we have been able to carry it out to a very great extent. Inside the walls of the War Office we have practically organised the institution upon the principle recommended in the Report.

  655
  The Defence Committee has been constituted on the lines recommended by the Esher Committee, and the nucleus of a permanent secretariat has been appointed. What has not been done, and what cannot be done as yet, is to organise the local staffs of the Army on the lines recommended by the Esher Committee. That organisation depends on a larger question still under the consideration of His Majesty's Government—the organisation of the Army itself; and until a decision has been come to on that point we are naturally unable to proceed with the organisation of the district staffs, But a small start has been made. Three brigadiers have been appointed to the Aldershot command. There are some exceptions to the recommendations of the Esher Committee. One is the arrangement for the organisation of the Auxiliary Forces, and the other is the decentralisation of the work of the Military Secretary at the War Office. The latter decentralisation cannot take place yet, for the obvious reason that the new district staffs do not yet exist. But a Committee has worked out the scheme of decentralisation in detail, and their Report is now under consideration.
  The noble Duke asked whether the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War has not been affected by the interposition between him and Parliament of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The answer is most emphatically No. The Defence Committee is a Committee of the Cabinet which assembles to permit the whole intelligence of the nation to be placed at the disposal of the Prime Minister, who is, and always must a, be, the real Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister is the Chairman of this Committee of the Cabinet, and the Secretary of State is a member of the Cabinet; and his power, therefore, cannot be unduly interfered with. As to whether the responsibility of the Secre- tary of State will be weakened by the association of the members of the Army Council with him as colleagues, the reference to the Esher Committee was to organise a system at the War Office on the lines of the present Admiralty system. Broadly, the Government will certainly follow that system. The Board of Admiralty is constituted by Letters Patent, which would tend to take away
  656
  the responsibility of the First Lord by making his colleagues share it with him. There is however an Order in Council giving to the First Lord of the Admiralty certain powers and assuring him of pre-eminence among his colleagues. That system has always worked well. At the War Office there is a patent naming the seven members of the Army Council and the Secretary of State as President of the Council. It is proposed to have an Order in Council for the War Office which will do nothing to affect the administrative responsibility of the Army Council. All orders will be issued in their name, but nothing will be done to impair and everything will be done to preserve the sole responsibility of the Secretary of State.
  The Order in Council is now in draft, but its final form has not yet been determined. I am authorised to say, however, that in that Order in Council the Secretary of State will have preserved to him certain specific business and a general supervision of all business and he will be empowered to distribute the business at the War Office among his colleagues. I cannot better explain the object we have in view than by reminding your Lordships of Part I., Section 2, paragraphs 9 and 10, of the Esher Report, which I will read—
  "The Hartington Commission stated (§ 82) that 'the complete responsibility, to Parliament and the country, of the Secretary of State for the discipline as well as for the administration of the Army, must now be accepted as definitely established.' At the same time, it was premised that, in practice, the responsibility of the Secretary of State appears to be still, in some aspects, less real than that of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is now clear from the evidence given before the War Commission that real power ha3 been divorced from responsibility, with results injurious to the military advisers of the Secretary of State, and fatal to his authority with his colleagues in the Cabinet.
  "We consider that, as a first step in the reconstruction of the War Office, the position of the Secretary of State should be placed on precisely the same footing as that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that all sub-missions to the Crown in regard to military questions should be made by him alone."
  We adhere to the policy suggested here and fully intend to carry it out.
  In the past there have been certain statutory powers vested in the Secretary of State and in the Commander-in-Chief

  657
  A Bill will shortly be presented to Parliament to bring those statutory powers into accordance with the new order of things.
  With regard to the Government's policy of home defence, we adhere absolutely to the declarations of the Prime Minister; and I am authorised to say that in principle we shall adopt the suggestions made by the noble Duke as to the reduction of the Regular Army at home. We hope to compensate for the reduction of numbers by an increase of efficiency. The question of the Auxiliary Forces I cannot enter into now, as the situation has been considerably altered by the Report recently presented. It would be unreasonable to ask His Majesty's Government to make a definite pronouncement at the present moment. As to the constitution of the Committee of Defence, the freedom of action of the Prime Minister in summoning the Committee will be preserved. There will be no regularly attending members of the Committee at all, except the Prime Minister, and he will be free to summon anyone he likes to the meetings of the Committee. It is inconceivable that anyone having special knowledge of a subject about to be discussed by the Committee would not be summoned to the meetings. As to whether members of the Defence Committee who are not members of the Cabinet will be able to record their opinions, the opinions of individual members of the Committee are not recorded now, but only the decisions of the whole Committee. The decisions of the Committee as such have no legal force, but only when they become the adopted decisions of the Cabinet. It is now intended to appoint only one Indian officer to the Committee, and I cannot say how this officer will be chosen; we shall take the best man wherever we can get him.
  The noble Duke has suggested the danger of disagreement between the secretariat of the Defence Committee and the Chief of the Staff at the War Office. But that is not a probable danger. On questions which do not concern the War Office there can be no risk of conflict and on questions that do concern the War Office it is impossible to suppose that the Chief of the Staff would not be I present at the meetings of the Defence
  658
  Committee. There will be, I know, no legal obligation to summon him, though it is difficult to imagine that the Prime Minister would refrain [from doing so. The Chief of the Staff when present as a member of the Defence Committee, being allowed to give his opinion, is on a perfect equality with the other members of the Committee. There are two purposes served by the secretariat—first, to record decisions, and, secondly, to place specialised knowledge of previous proceedings at the disposal of the Committee. There are hardly any opportunities afforded for the quarrelling to arise. But I do not deny that if General Smith and Mr, Jones in the future want to quarrel they will doubtless be able to find opportunities, and no possible safeguards that you could provide could prevent it. The hypothetical case put forward by the noble Duke is not one likely to be forthcoming. If any particular plan is rejected by the Defence Committee that rejection gets no force whatever unless it is endorsed by the Cabinet, and the Cabinet have a perfect right to override a decision. The Cabinet are responsible, and it is right constitutionally that they should be.
  It was asked also in respect of the Army Council whether in the case of dissent from colleagues the Secretary of State should resign. I think not. There are two precedents that can be argued from. In the case of a difference in the Board of Admiralty the members of the Board resign and not the First Lord, and in the case of the Cabinet the Prime Minister does not resign, though his colleagues do. I imagine that the same rule will obtain in the Army Council. The noble Duke asks by whom the members of the Army Council are appointed. They have been appointed by Letters Patent, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, who is thus the mouthpiece of the Cabinet. I presume that if it ever becomes necessary to dismiss a member of the Army Council, the proper procedure will be to issue Letters Patent revoking the previous issue, or to issue fresh Letters Patent containing different names. As regards the Financial Secretary, I know that in that particular we have departed from the precedent of the Admiralty, but we

  659
  believe that the arrangement we have made will work perfectly well, and that it will be of assistance to us to have the Financial Secretary at our meetings as a colleague. So far, I can assure the noble Duke there has been no friction between us such as he appears to fear may arise in the future. As regards the sentence quoted by the noble Duke, that the Finance Member is the equal of his colleagues, and so on, I confess I have some difficulty in satisfactorily explaining that somewhat cryptic phrase. What I imagine it means is this. I can conceive two possible explanations of the sentence. One is that, individually, members of the Council have no authority whatever. We do, I confers, sometimes give decisions off our own bat, but everything is done in the name of the Army Council, and all subordinates in the War Office are subordinates and officials of the Army Council, and not subordinates and officials of any particular member of the Army Council, although for the purpose of transacting the business they are put in certain departments under certain definite heads. That, I think, is the meaning of the sentence in the Report to which reference has been made. Possibly some more ingenious person may be able to find another explanation, but it has not struck my mind up to the present. Your Lordships will understand that the Financial Department at the War Office has been considerably split up. Every member of the Council now has a financial official to whom he can refer all financial questions. Technically, it might be said, therefore, that whilst, let us say, the financial department connected with the department of, say, the Adjutant-General consists of a number of individuals who are the subordinates of the Adjutant-General, at the same time they are subordinates of the Financial Secretary, because they are in the financial department, the financial department being very firmly linked on the military side to the Department whose affairs they have to look after. It is possible that I that proposed reform may have been in the mind of the Commissioners when they wrote that sentence, and that is a reform which is being carried out.
  The last point raised by the noble Duke was as to the difficulty of maintaining the popularity of the Army in the country,
  660
  and he suggested a system of District Advisory Boards. My Lords, I hope that such a system will not be necessary. According to the recommendations of the Committee, the officers will be circulating a great deal more between the War Office and the districts than they have hitherto done. Moreover, it will be the duty of the Inspector-General to go about the country, to be "our eyes and our ears" as it has been said, and he will be able to keep us thoroughly informed of what is going on in the districts. That, combined with the ordinary intelligence of members of the Army Council—which I am sure the noble Duke will not deny to us, although he denies us infallibility—should ensure our being kept properly in touch with the Army, and I have no fear myself that any system of District Advisory Boards such as he has advocated will be necessary.
  I think I have now dealt with all the points raised by the noble Duke. I should like, in conclusion, to say a word on a matter purely personal to myself. The members of the Esher Committee have recommended some great and far-reaching reforms, especially in the Financial Department, and they have given as a reason for those recommendations a picture of what I might call "financial irritation," of the existence of which I have not been able to find any great evidence. They have said some very hard things indeed about the Civil Department of the War Office. Though I am very grateful to the Commissioners for outlining the particular scheme which we have been able largely to carry out, I wish to dissociate myself from the reasons they have advanced for the reforms recommended by them in the Financial Department of the War Office. I have been at the War Office but a short time. and I confess that when I went there last October I had ringing in my ears the stock statement that certain unthinking people are only too ready to make, condemning the civil side of the War Office, and maintaining that every useful reform must necessarily be met with a solid block when it reaches that Department. A very few days at the War Office convinced me of the absolute error of that view. I found, if possible, more keenness for reform on the civil side than in any other part of the Office. When you have a body of intelligent men, selected from

  661
  the best you can get by the stiffest examinations, and when they find that they are part of an institution not organised on the most businesslike lines, surely it is but natural that they should be only too eager to alter the system of administration with which they are connected. Bearing in mind the belief that certainly exists in many quarters that the officials connected with the civil side of the War Office are not a body of devoted public servants who make the public service their chief interest, I thought it would be wrong of me to allow this opportunity to pass without dissociating myself from the statements to which I have referred.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I think the House will be very grateful to the noble Duke for having raised this question, and for the way in which he has dealt with it. He touched on some of the most important points connected with the Report of the Esher Committee; he asked for information and explanations with regard to those points; and I think I may also say that the House listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, who endeavoured, in an extremely frank spirit, to reply to the questions of the noble Duke, and gave a great deal of very interesting information for which both this House and the public outside will be grateful. I cannot quite accept the optimistic views of the noble Earl as to how the details of the new scheme are going to work, but I think I may most fairly express the opinion of all of us when I say that we are very glad to recognise the spirit in which the Under-Secretary spoke as testifying to the general spirit in which the Government are about to give effect to the Report of the Esher Committee. We were also very glad to hear the remarks of the noble Earl with regard to the financial side of the War Office. I also felt that undue criticism and condemnation was passed on the civil side of the War Office; I know that it has caused very great soreness—I think justifiable soreness—and I cannot help believing that the remarks made by the noble Earl, speaking, as he does, as the representative of the Government, will do a great deal to alleviate that feeling and to facilitate the working of the Department in the future.
  662
  I should like to ask for a little more information on one or two further points. This Esher Committee is the answer to the Report of the Commission presided over by my noble friend Lord Elgin. It is really an acceptance of the Report of the Commission; it represents the acceptance of the views put forward by Lord Elgin and his fellow-Commissioners; and the Esher Committee was appointed in order to find a remedy for the condition of affairs which Lord Elgin's Commission found so seriously to demand the attention of the country and of the Government. But the Esher Committee was also something else. It was an admission of the failure of the system of Army organisation suddenly adopted when we were still in the throes of war. The basis of the recommendations of the Committee is, as stated by the noble Duke, the adaptation to the War Office of the system in vogue at the Admiralty. I have no doubt that there is great justification for such an adaptation, as the Admiralty has undoubtedly worked much easier and better than the War Office. But I do not think that you can quite assume that because a certain system has worked well in connection with the Navy it must necessarily work well in connection with the Army. You must always remember that there exists an enormous difference in the conditions of service in the Army and in the Navy. In the Navy the spirit of the service is the spirit of the service as a whole. The Navy is not divided, as is the Army, into regiments, garrisons, and so on. The spirit largely proceeds from the fact that so long as officers and men on a particular ship are together, they work together loyally and frankly and cling together, but when the ship goes out of commission and they cease to be attached to that ship they have no longer the sentiment of the ship: they are again merged in the service as a whole. Then there is another point. In the case of the Navy, you have your officers and men continually serving under conditions similar to those that they would experience in war. They are continually running the same risks, and they are continually having thrown upon them vast responsibilities for the non-fulfilment of which they would be visited, and most properly so, with the severest penalties. That

  663
  is a condition that you cannot obtain in the same way in the Army. Small expeditions there may be from time to time, but the great bulk of the Army in time of peace cannot be subjected to the tests to which officers and men would be subjected in time of war. Consequently it is much more difficult to select men, to give responsibility to the people who deserve it, to get out of the groove of promotion by seniority, and to give full weight to good service and proved capacity properly to discharge duties. Therefore, while I welcome the adoption of the pattern of the Admiralty, I wish to put in a word of caution against the idea that because a particular system is adopted therefore all will go well in future.
  Now, my Lords, there are two or three points to which I wish to refer, one of which has been dealt with by the noble Duke and also by the noble Earl, while the other two have not. The first point is the question of the supremacy of the Defence Committee. I thought the noble Earl in that respect drew rather too glowing a picture of the absence of friction that was certain to be found in it, and that he somewhat minimised the amount of responsibility which might be taken off the shoulders, not only of the Secretary of State for War, but also of the First Lord of the Admiralty—because, I take it that the Defence Committee will be just as influential with regard to the desires and actions of the Admiralty as those of the War Office. If you establish this most important body— and it is evident that the Esher Committee think it most important, because it crops up continually throughout their Report—if you strengthen it, put upon it all important Ministers, make the Prime Minister its chief, and appoint to it permanent chosen members representing the Army, the Navy, the Colonies, and India, it is quite evident that all really important matters both of the War Office and of the Admiralty will be taken to the Defence Committee for consideration and ultimate decision, or at any rate for approval. But if that is the case, will not some responsibility necessarily be taken off the shoulders of the Minister at the head of the Admiralty and of the Minister at the head of
  664
  the War Office? In the very nature of the case it must be so. The responsibility will no longer be as between the particular Minister at the War Office or at the Admiralty and the Prime Minister; it will be with the recommendations of the War Minister or the recommendations of the Naval Minister as accepted or modified by the Defence Committee, and the responsibility will lie with the Defence Committee when that decision is accepted by the Cabinet as a whole. I quite admit that you keep your Cabinet responsibility. I do not dispute that; but I do think that the individual responsibility of the Ministers of the two particular Departments concerned must necessarily be affected, as I think for the worse, and that it will make them, in some cases, less careful of decisions to which they may arrive within their own Departments.
  Then the noble Earl scouted the idea of possible quarrelling between the secretariat or the permanent department of the Defence Committee and the War Office. There again I do not take so cheerful a view. By your scheme the Prime Minister is to be the head of all these matters—head not merely as head of the Government, but as head of the Defence Committee. He will be the person with whom all this permanent staff of the Defence Committee will be in constant communication. Is it not likely that when a plan is proposed or is about to be proposed by, say, the Admiralty, that the secretariat of the Defence Committee will have some sort of views on that particular subject, and that it will go, in the first instance, direct to the President of its own Committee—that is, of the Defence Committee—with its views before the Admiralty itself has had an opportunity of putting forward its side of the case? And in the same way with regard to the War Office. Then supposing you had a subject taken up by the War Office and the Admiralty together, you might have the secretariat differing, and I cannot but think that there would be considerable friction in the daily working of the scheme. I am not in love with the idea of making the Prime Minister ex officio President of this Committee. It may be that from time to time you will have a Prime Minister who is interested in Defence matters, but in other cases

  665
  you may have a man who is not only not interested in them, but who looks upon questions of defence as questions to be decided only in one particular way. I do not think that that would lead to smooth working between the Defence Committee and the two Defence Departments. It would be far better to keep the Prime Minister in his present position of supremacy over the Cabinet, as being the last authority to whom reference can be made when matters of dispute arise. For instance, supposing there was a difference between the Admiralty and the War Office and the Defence Committee. To whom would you refer the question? The Prime Minister, as President of the Defence Committee, would necessarily take the view of the Defence Committee. Hence there would be no independent appeal at all from these three bodies supposing a difference of opinion arose. Personally, I think that the greatest blot on the Esher Report is to be found in the proposals for the constitution of the Defence Committee, and particularly in this proposal that the Prime Minister should be the perpetual President.
  Now, my Lords, I pass to a subject which the Under-Secretary of State put aside on the ground that there was another Report on the matter before your Lordships' House, namely, the Report of the Norfolk Commission. But the question of the Auxiliary Forces was also an important subject dealt with by the Esher Committee, and the part of the Report already adopted and acted upon; has made a great change with regard to the position of the Auxiliary Forces, a change of which I, for my part, am not at all disposed to approve. It is rather a curious fact that on the 17th February of this year the Auxiliary Forces were for the first time given an independent representative at the War Office. Within a few weeks—I forget the exact number—the Report of the Esher Committee came out, and the privilege which the Auxiliary Forces had enjoyed for only a few weeks, but which even in that short time had been a great advantage, was taken away. Under the recommendations of the Esher Committee the Auxiliary Forces were deprived of this special representative and were put back under the Adjutant-General.
  666
  The whole history of the management of the Auxiliary Forces by the War Office shows that there is always great friction between the representatives of the Auxiliary Forces and the Adjutant-General. The Adjutant-General is a professional soldier, and for the greater portion of his time he is obliged to look at the work of the professional soldier from a professional soldier's point of view. The Volunteers and the Auxiliary Forces, however, are not professional soldiers, and must be regarded from a somewhat different point of view. In the first place there is an enormous difference between the conditions of one Volunteer regiment and another. You have one regiment formed of clerks in a great city; you have another composed of artisans; a third consists mainly of labourers in a county, with the various companies scattered over a large area at a vast distance one from another. You cannot apply one general rule to the Volunteers, or lay down one particular way in which to deal with them. There must be great elasticity with regard to the requirements imposed upon Volunteers. There is, for instance, the question of camps. It was laid down that all Volunteers were to go into camp for fourteen days in the year. That is an excellent thing provided you can get them there, and provided they can afford to go there, but to make that an absolute condition of efficiency involves the loss of large numbers of good Volunteers who would prove themselves extremely useful. You must not deal with Volunteers on any hard and fast lines. The proper system to adopt is to judge them by results. Let the commanders of the various volunteer regiments bring their regiments to a proper state of efficiency by whatever means they choose, provided they do bring them to a state of efficiency. If they can produce their men properly efficient and properly trained I do not think you ought to hamper them by strict regulations as to the particular number of days they are to spend in camp, or as to how they shall attain that efficiency. The Volunteers are the cheapest of all our forces; I believe they cost less than £7 per head per annum. The encouragement of the Volunteer Forces becomes all the more necessary in consequence of the Report of the Norfolk Commission. That Report not darkly

  667
  hinted that we should have to fall back on conscription. The Government at once stated that they had no idea of conscription, and that they were not going to propose it. That being the case it is all the more necessary to make the Volunteers as numerous and as efficient as you can, and to give them all the encouragement possible. A great deal can be and I hope will be done for the Volunteers. Proper ranges and sufficient ammunition with which to practise, the opportunity of organisation in units, local training grounds near the particular parts of the country to which they would be sent in time of war—these are the sort of things which ought to be done for the Volunteers. They cannot be done without money, but I believe the first thing you have to do, if you are to give permanence and encouragement to the Volunteers, is to see that they are properly represented at the War Office, and that in the War Office they have a department of their own, presided over by a man who understands their condition as well as the ordinary routine of the professional soldier. I go even further, and say that the Volunteers have a right to have a representative on the Army Council itself. It may be that it is not possible to add to the number of professional men on the Army Council. If that be so, I would suggest that you take one at any rate of your civilian members—say the Under-Secretary of State—and let him represent the Volunteers on the Army Council, so that they may have a representative on that important body in the future.
  There is one further point of criticism which I think is a sound one, because it is a matter in which you have departed from the precepts of the Admiralty, and that is in regard to promotions. It seems to me that it is an extraordinary thing when you have formed this new Army Council, having upon it four military men carefully chosen as the most capable men available for the purpose, together with the Secretary of State, the Financial Secretary, and the Under-Secretary of State, that from that Council should be withheld altogether the question of promotion. That is not the case at the Admiralty.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): I beg my noble friend's pardon. The First Lord of the Admiralty is solely and exclusively responsible; for promotions.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: But that is not so here. In this case you have a special committee. The difference is this. In the Admiralty there is no special committee appointed to deal with promotions. In the case of the Army, what is now proposed is that four generals-commanding and the Inspector-General shall deal with promotions. In the case of promotions under the rank of major, the generals commanding in the various districts will deal with the promotions. Consequently you will have the general commanding a particular district responsible for the promotions in the regiments under his charge which may be abroad. In cases of promotion over the rank of major, the duty is given to s committee formed of the four generals commanding, plus the Inspector-General. It does seem to me to be a curious thing that you should give the control of the Army to this new board, and take away from it the whole duty of the rewarding of merit, and the duty of making itself acquainted with the value and the respective merits of the different soldiers in. the Army. As I understand it the present system is that in the case of the higher promotions, the Military Secretary sends three names to a specially appointed committee of three officers, and that committee recommends to the Secretary of State who is eventually responsible for the appointment. Under the system recommended by the Esher Committee, the system I have just described is the method of promotion. It departs from the method followed in the Admiralty, and as it seems to me it departs from that method to no advantage, because it will diminish the authority of the Board by setting up an imperium in imperio.
  I do not pretend to have put forward any very connected criticism of the Report which has been laid before us, but I hope what I have said has been in a fairly reasonable spirit. I assure your Lordships that it has beer, said

  669
  entirely with a desire to facilitate the working of the War Office under its changed conditions, and not in any way with the object of putting stumbling blocks in the way.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am sure the House is greatly indebted to the noble Duke for having raised this discussion, and I believe the country will profit considerably when it reads the very practical remarks which have been made from both sides of the House. I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. I wish merely to ask one or two practical questions with regard to the constitution of the Army Council. I understood the noble Earl to say that in the first place the constitution of the Council is defined by a patent and that the distribution of the duties is hereafter to be laid down by an Order in Council. That, at all events, was the recommendation of the Esher Committee. I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will consider the matter very thoroughly before they pass an. Order in Council distributing the different kinds of business to different members of the Council. Observe what will happen. If you distribute the work in this way you will stereotype the exact position of individual members of the Council. I believe the practice at the Admiralty is—I know it used to be— that the distribution of the business to the members of the Board depends entirely on the First Lord, who can distribute business to or take business away from any particular member and attach it to another, according as it seems best to himself. I think the position to be given to the noble Earl the Under-Secretary is that of supervising fortifications.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No, new barracks.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The supervision of new barracks, and, I believe, of chaplains. I am quite sure the noble Earl will supervise barracks with the same ability that he will manage chaplains, but I would venture to suggest that it would be far better to leave it to the Secretary of State to divide the business in the War Office as he thinks
  670
  best, and that he should not he bound hand and foot by an Order in Council.
  Then, my Lords, there is another point on which I would ask for information, and that is with regard to the financial position of each member of the Council. I The Esher Committee attributed great importance to the fact that each member of the Council should be able to expend; his own Votes, and, as I understood the noble Earl to-night—and I think it was proposed by the Esher Committee—that he should be able to send for financial assistance if he required it. Of course it is a much simpler thing that an individual member of a board should have complete control over the money matters connected with his Votes, and under such a system business would naturally proceed much more rapidly. It is apparently intended, or at all events it is possible I under this proposed plan, that there should be no financial check on any member of the Council in regard to the Votes I with which he is charged. I merely wish to know whether that is the plan which it is proposed to adopt. I do not think it is the system prevailing at the Admiralty at the present time; I know it used not to be. In former days when any proposal was made for, say, an increase in the number of men, or for raising the boys, or for anything of that sort, it was for the Naval Lord to put forward his proposal, then the Civil Lord, it being a matter of personnel, had to say where the money was to come from, and that enabled the Board to arrive at a decision I as to what should be done. The difference according to the plan now proposed, if I am correct, is that a certain member I of the Board would be able not only to I make a proposal, but also to carry it out and to spend the money involved without consulting his colleagues unless he should see fit to do so. I merely put the question; I daresay I am wrong; but I want to know exactly what will be the financial position of each member of the Board.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not propose to go into all the important subjects which have been raised tonight, but there is one point upon which I wish to express my opinion, and it would probably be fairer that I should do so before my noble friend opposite replies. There is very little to add to

  671
  what has been so well said by my noble friend behind me in respect of the question upon which I wish to make a few observations, viz., the proposal that the Prime Minister should always be the President of the Defence Committee. I have not a word to say against the Prime Minister being President of the Committee when he chooses to take upon himself that position, but having, unfortunately, lived to see a great many Prime Ministers, I have not discovered that the majority of them would either have desired that position or perhaps been very fit to take it. Putting aside a great soldier like the Duke of Wellington, I really do not remember any Prime Minister in my lifetime who would have had a particular taste for the special duties involved in the position of President of the Defence Committee except Lord Palmerston and my noble friend Lord Rosebery. That being so, is it desirable that you should by a regulation or Order in Council, or whatever it may be, tie down the Prime Minister to take this position, thus imposing upon him very j grave and responsible duties? I think not. In my opinion, it would be far better to allow the Prime Minister, who must have a controlling hand over this and all the other business of his Cabinet, to decide for himself whether he should take that position or not. The position of the Prime Minister in the present day is one of extreme difficulty. The amount of labour thrown upon him is very great indeed, and it is almost impossible for him to exercise that general supervision over the whole administration of the country which it is so very desirable the Prime Minister should exercise. I doubt whether the duties of the Prime Minister in respect of that general supervision have been fully discharged as they ought to be since the time of Sir Robert Peel. We know that Sir Robert Peel himself said that he found it almost impossible to discharge the duty. It is true that Mr. Gladstone in his first Government carried out that superintendence to a large extent, but, so far as I know the manner in which public affairs have been conducted, I do not think that since that time the supervision which is so essential for the proper working of the Government of the country has been exercised by the
  672
  Prime Minister, or that it possibly could have been. If there be anything in these remarks, surely it is not wise to enact that the great labour involved in the position of President of the Defence Committee should necessarily fall upon the Prime Minister. I understand that that is the proposal. I doubt whether in any case the Prime Minister would be the best person for the post, and I am certain that the holding of the position would inevitably interfere with the discharge of his proper duty, viz., that of the general superintendence of the administration of the country, in which, of course, is included the administration of the Army and Navy. On these grounds I venture to express the gravest doubt whether you will promote good administration, either generally or in the Army and Navy especially, by providing that this duty must necessarily be undertaken by the Prime Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lord, my noble friend beside me dealt so fully and sufficiently with the points raised by the noble Duke behind me that I do not propose to travel over the same ground. I wish, however, to notice a few of the observations that have fallen from noble Lords opposite since my noble friend addressed the House. In the first place, I wish to say a word as to the question of promotions, on which the noble Lords opposite made some remarks. I understood him to express considerable alarm at the idea that promotions up to a certain rank were to be handed over to general officers commanding districts. I understand that the decentralisation of the work which has hitherto been performed in the Military Secretary's office has not yet been carried out, and that for the present that work is being done at headquarters. But, whatever is done, I think the noble Lord, may take it that the business of the officers who command in the districts will be not so much to make actual promotions as to recommend officers to the Secretary of State for promotion. However, the point is one which has not yet been finally disposed of and I do not, therefore, desire to say more upon that subject.
  The noble Lord spoke with great conviction of the necessity of adequately

  673
  representing the Auxiliary Forces at the Secretary of State, and it is certainly our War Office. I think there will not be two opinions on that point in the House; and I am almost tempted to remind the noble Lord that when I had the honour of being connected with the War Office I was responsible for the appointment of an officer, who, I believe, was eminently persona grata to the Auxiliary Forces— General Turner, and who has enjoyed their confidence for some years past. I cannot, however, agree with the noble Lord that it is desirable that the Auxiliary Forces should have a special representative on the Army Council. I think that proposal argues a certain want of appreciation of the principle upon which the Army Council is formed. The Army Council represents the whole Army. The work is divided according to the subjects—the different branches into which Army work naturally falls — but the Army Council does not consist of members who can in any sense be regarded as the representatives of different arms or sections of the Army. On the other hand, in the new organisation, provision is made—I think adequate provision—for the representation of the Auxiliary Forces. There is to be a high official under the Adjutant-General entitled the Director of Auxiliary Forces, and that high official is given direct access to the Secretary of State in regard to questions concerning the Auxiliary Forces. Under him are three subordinate officer representing respectively the Yeomanry, the Militia, and the Volunteers. I am able to add also that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to appoint a certain number of officers belonging to the Auxiliary Forces to serve on the general staff as well as in the department of the Quartermaster-General. I think, therefore, that the House may rest assured that the interests of the Auxiliary Forces are not likely to be overlooked.
  Now, my Lords, for a moment I pass to what has been said with regard to the position of the Secretary of State. I think it is fair to say that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the language of the Report of the Esher Commission upon that subject; but there is no doubt in our minds as to the position which should be assigned to the
  674
  Secretary of State, and it is certainly our intention that nothing in these new arrangements should in any way derogate from the responsibility which belongs to him as a member of the Cabinet and as a Minister of the Crown. He will not be merely one member of a Board with six colleagues, but he will be, as, indeed, is the First Lord of the Admiralty, in a position of well-defined and assured superiority. I thought that the noble Lord opposite was correct when he told us that it did not follow necessarily that because a particular system succeeded in the administration of the Navy that system was bound to succeed equally in the administration of the Army. There are points of essential and deep-seated difference between the two services, and it does not follow that because a certain arrangement is good for the Navy it must therefore prove successful in the case of the Army. But there is this undoubted fact, that the Admiralty system has worked well, and has inspired a great amount of public confidence; therefore I think it was only natural that the Esher Commission should recommend that the Admiralty system should, so far as possible, be adopted in connection with the Army.
  Noble Lords opposite have expressed considerable apprehensions with regard to the results of the existence of the Committee of Imperial Defence. They will remember that the Defence Committee has been for nearly ten years in existence, but I take it that the particular point to which criticism is directed is the fact that the reconstituted Defence Committee is to be given a small permanent secretariat of its own, which will give it a continuous corporate existence which did not belong to the old Defence Committee. It is, in the first place, apprehended that the existence of such a Defence Committee, with its permanent secretariat, will create friction between the Committee and the two great Departments of defence—the War Office and the Admiralty. The idea seems to be that the Prime Minister, fortified by the assistance of a body of experts who will be placed immediately under his direction, is likely to override the two Departments which have hitherto had the management of military and naval questions. As my noble friend said, if you

  675
  have tactless and quarrelsome officials you will have friction and bad blood. But I do ask your Lordships to consider whether there is not another aspect of the case which should be taken into account. So long as the Admiralty and the War Office and the Treasury were not brought together in this way, you were always exposed to the kind of sparring which goes on between rival Departments which are not brought into close immediate contact. It seems to me that the great advantage of this newly-invented machinery is that it brings together at one table, under the presidency of the Prime Minister, representatives of the Treasury, the Admiralty, and the War Office. The different members of the Government have really a very much better chance of obtaining fair and full discussion for their proposals than they had so long as these controversies were carried on upon the old lines of inter-Departmental discussion and correspondence, terminated perhaps by a hurried conversation round the Cabinet table. I feel bound to say, so far as I have been able to observe the new machinery at work, that it promises not to increase friction, but to diminish it, and to conduce to a much more effective conduct of public business. The noble Marquess who spoke last told us that in his opinion it was most undesirable that the Prime Minister should be President of the Defence Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I said it was undesirable that he should be necessarily President.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Well, I think the answer to that is that I am not aware that it is necessary that he should invariably be President of the Committee, though I hope he always will be.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The Esher Committees say it is.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I must ask the noble Marquess not to assume that every proposal within the compass of the Report of the Esher Committee necessarily represents a proposal of His Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess will remember that for a time
  676
  the noble Duke on the Cross Benches (the Duke of Devonshire) was President of the Defence Committee; and it may be that at some future time the Prime Minister of the day may prefer to devolve those duties on some colleague rather than assume them himself, but that is a matter as to which I will not undertake to prophesy. I quite agree with the noble Marquess that the calls upon the time and attention of the Prime Minister are enormous, and that we should shrink from taxing his powers of work so far as we possibly can spare him, but I do not know that of all the important duties which the Prime Minister has to perform any is really more important than the work which this Committee has to undertake, and unless for personal reasons, owing to his particular idiosyncrasy, he feels himself unfitted for work of the kind, I for one shall continue to believe that that work is more likely to be performed with advantage by the Prime Minister himself than by anyone in a less responsible position.
  Now I must ask your Lordships to bear with me while I say a few words in support of what was said by the Under-Secretary of State for War at the close of his speech in reference to that part of the Esher Report which describes, or purports to describe, the relations existing at the War Office between the military and the financial officials of the Department. I find that the Report of the Esher Committee states that the existing arrangements have led to the control of military policy by the civilian branch of the office; that the financial department has wielded the power of finding available funds when a policy is favoured, and of suggesting difficulties in other cases; that the War Office is divided into two camps whose occupants regard each other with mutual suspicion; that the responsibility of the military heads has been rendered nominal, and that the Secretary of State has been led to give decisions upon a partial presentment of a case. My Lords, that picture is one which I regard as a distorted one, and which has been much resented by, I believe, both the camps to whom reference is made. It is naturally most resented by the members of the financial department, and upon two grounds. In the

  677
  first place, I suppose, owing to the circumstances under which the inquiry was conducted, no evidence was produced in support of these complaints, and in the second place these complaints were accompanied by the proposal that a large number of the gentlemen thus attacked should be deprived of their position in the War Office. I have had some opportunity of watching the manner in which these gentlemen have been in the habit of performing their duties, and I say unhesitatingly that nothing has, at any rate of recent years, been further from their thoughts than to claim any right of controlling the military policy of the War Office. But to quote the opinion expressed by the Dawkins Committee, which has been referred to this evening, it is absolutely necessary that the Secretary of State should have under him a staff for the purpose of watching and controlling the military expenditure. If that staff is really to assist the Secretary of State it seems to me most unadvisable that its action should be fettered by too pedantic an insistence on the necessity of all civilians abstaining from any criticism of what can be described as in a sense military policy. It is not, after all, so very easy in all cases to draw a sharp and clear line to show where financial policy ends and military policy begins. The most important questions are often mixed questions, and have to be decided with reference not only to military, but also to financial considerations; and considerations of the latter class have to be very much borne in mind when we remember the manner in which our military and naval expenditure has been growing during the last few years. Now, I believe that it would be very detrimental to the interests of the public if you altogether barred the civilian side from offering their criticism upon the ground that that criticism touched, in no matter how slight a degree, questions of military policy.
  After all, in the past—and it is in regard to the past that this complaint has been made—just consider what has been the position of the soldiers and the civilians in the War Office. You have had distinguished soldiers brought in to take up these headquarters appointments after, no doubt, a very brilliant military career, but in many cases without any special aptitude
  678
  for or experience of administration in the proper sense of the word. On the civilian side you have had men who have perhaps been fifteen or twenty years in the office, highly trained officials, thoroughly knowing both the military and the financial side of the work, who have been able to point out the pitfalls with which all schemes of Army reform are surrounded, and who have naturally felt it their duty, when they were able usefully to do so, to warn or to make suggestions. I fear that if we interpret too strictly the desire to exclude the civilian element from all voice in these matters the military side of the office will lose much useful guidance and the public will suffer. There is yet another consideration. You may make what arrangements you please, but you cannot get away from civilian control at the last; and if that control is not to be found within the War Office it will have to be found outside the War Office, at the Treasury, which is much less sympathetic and a much sterner taskmaster than any Accountant-General at the War Office, and which certainly will not allow itself to be warned off on the ground that its criticisms involve some slight inroad on the domain of military policy. I can only say, so far as the personal question is concerned—and I am sure I shall be borne out by others who have served in the War Office—that the officials on the financial side—I will mention particularly the Accountant-General, Mr. Marzials, and his subordinates—were gentlemen not only of the greatest ability and financial knowledge, but also of great tact and of the most considerate character, who were quite incapable of obtruding their criticisms as to military matters, if the ever made them, in a manner in the least aggressive or offensive to their military colleagues. That is the way, moreover, in which they were regarded by their military colleagues who served with them and who, as I have said, read with considerable regret the charges made against these gentlemen in the Report of the Esher Committee. I can only express my hope that under the new system the Army will be as well and as faithfully and tactfully served by those entrusted with its financial administration as it has been

  679
  in the past. I will not further occupy your Lordships' time, but I felt that I could not do otherwise than say a few words in defence of gentlemen whose excellent services I for one have had many opportunities of appreciating.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next half-past Ten o'clock.