Sitting of 22 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]; Lothians Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Selby Urban District Council Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Zetland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Abersychan; Ashfield Magna; Baldhu; Ballachulish; Barrow-in-Furness; Bideford (three); Blackburn; Blackheath; Blantyre; Broadoak; Bronington; Buckley; Budock; Burnham; Bye Lane End; Cadeshead; Calder Vale; Cambois;
  806
  Carlton; Castle Gresley; Chorlton on Medlock; Cleator Moor; Cleckheaton; Constantine; Croston; Crow's Nest; Cwmnantvneichiaid; Dobwalls; Dolphinholme; Durham; East Howle; Eaton Bishop; Garstang; Glen Magna; Goosnargh; Great Steeping; Grimsby; Hagworthingham; Hanley (two); Heck-mondwike; Hedon Hall; Heeley; Helmsley; Hessenford; High Wycombe; Holbeach; Hollin's Lane; Holloway; Horseman's Green; Irlam; Keal; Keighley; Lancaster; Landkey; Lanlivery; Lazonby; Leicester (eleven); Leverton; Liskeard; Littlehampton; Llanfechain; Luton; Manchester (three); Marwood; Mawgan; Melsonby; Menhay Budoch; Midsomer Norton (two); Morecambe; Motherwell; Newbold; Newcastle Emlvn; Nolton; North Bierley; Northgate; Norton and Cuckney; Oakenshaw; Old Bolingbroke; Ollerton; Parkham; Partney; Pensilva; Portsmouth; Prestatyn; Quethiock; Rixton; Robinhood Bay; Rochdale (two); Romsey; Runcorn; St. Austell; St. Albans; St. Pancras; Saltcoats; Scaleby Hill; Scremby and Candlesby; Shafton; Shlldon; Shirwell; Shrewsbury (two); Skelmanthorpe; Slough; Spilsby; Stick-ford; Strichen; Swadlincote; Swim-bridge; Tamar; Taunton; Trengrove; Tievelmond; Upton. Cross; Urmston; Walesby; Walworth; Wellow; Welton le Marsh; Whalley Range; Whaplode and Moulton; Whaplode Washway; Wharfedale; Whenby; Whitby (four); Woburn Sands; Wolverhampton; and York; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Bridport; Leominster; and Newcastle on Tyne; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Leicester, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES BILL [LORDS].
  Petition from Aldeburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION.
  Petition from Blackburn, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table. 2E
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 417 (British Honduras, Annual Report for 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3188 to 3191 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Captain Bloomfield's Estate at Castle-caldwell.
  MR. SWIFTMACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of the late Captain Bloomfield at Castle-caldwell, in the county Fermanagh, which was purchased in the Land Judge's Court in 1881, for the payment of the debts of the owner at that time, T. C. Bloomfield, part of the purchase money having been obtained by a loan on mortgage from a Scotch insurance company, is in the Land Judge's Court; if so, how long has it been in that Court; is it solvent or insolvent; and whether it can be sold under the fortieth Section of the Act of 1896 or under the recent Land Purchase Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The estate is in the Land Judge's Court. The records of the Court do not show whether it is solvent or insolvent. Pimá facie the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 are applicable to the property, and the case will at once be placed in the Judge's list for his directions.

  Glasgow Sore Throat Epidemic and the Milk Supply.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the epidemic of sore throat which recently broke out at the Belvedere Hospital, Glasgow, is, like that at Woking last autumn and at Finchley early this year, attributable to the milk taken from cows out of health; and, seeing that Dr. Chalmers, the medical
  808
  officer of health for Glasgow, states that the outbreak in that city is due to teat eruption in the stock at the farm from which the milk supply was obtained, will he consider the expediency of introducing at an early date such legislation as may be necessary to insure the occasional examination by a veterinary surgeon of all cows kept for the purposes of a public dairy.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that they have Dr. Chalmers' report under consideration. As regards prospective legislation, I can add nothing to the answer given to the Question addressed by the hon. Member on 13th June to the President of the Local Government Board,† but I may point out that under the existing law a local authority in Scotland is entitled to procure a report by a veterinary surgeon on the animals in any dairy from which the medical officer has evidence that infectious disease is likely to be spread.

  Telegraphic Withdrawals from Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1903, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal; and will he also state the number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1903, was 215,416, and the average cost to depositors for each such withdrawal was about 1s. 3d. The number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day was 15,149, and the average cost to depositors about 9d. per withdrawal.

  Postal Facilities in Gweedore and Bunbeg Districts, County Donegal.
  MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1489.

  809
  has received complaints respecting the I postal service in the districts of Gweedore and Bunbeg, county Donegal; and whether he can say whether an improved service, making use of the new line of railway, will now be given.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have received application for an improvement of the postal service in the districts of Gweedore and Bunbeg. Inquiries are being made on the subject, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as they are completed.

  Fatal Accidents to Railway Servants.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the number of fatal accidents to railway servants engaged in the movement of trains during the years 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903; what has been the number of inquests held on such fatalities; in how many such cases the coroner has used his power to apply to the Board of

  Year.

  Number of servants killed.

  Number of Inquiries held by Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers, and Sub-Inspectors.

  Number of cases in which Coroner has applied for Assessor.

  1900

  583

  109

  2

  1901

  511

  89

  2

  1902

  447

  113

  0

  1903

  455

  133

  1

  Total

  1,996

  444

  5

  Darenth Pumping Station—Pollution of Water.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will say what steps have been taken towards making the inquiry prescribed by The Metropolis Water Act, 1852, into the grounds for the complaint of twenty inhabitant householders that the source of supply of the new pumping station at Darenth, Kent, about to be handed over by the Kent Water Company to the Water Board for London is visibly liable to intermittent pollution by surface drainage.
  810
  Trade for a Board of Trade assessor; and in how many such cases the Board of Trade has held an inquiry by one of the inspectors or sub-inspectors of the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The subjoined table gives the required information, so far as in the possession of the Board of Trade, in respect of all fatal accidents in which the running of trains or the movement of railway vehicles was concerned. The Board have no reason to doubt that a coroners' inquest, or in Scotland an inquiry by the procurator-fiscal or sheriff, was held in each case.
  Number of Railway Servants killed in accidents connected with the running of trains or the movement of railway vehicles during the years 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903; the number of Inquiries into such accidents by the Inspecting Staff of the Board of Trade; and the number of such cases in which the Coroner applied for an Assessor.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I recently received the reply of the Water Company to the complaint and I sent a copy of it to the complainants. As the undertaking of the Company will be handed over to the Metropolitan Water Board this week, it appeared to me better to postpone further action in the matter until this event had taken place. I will then communicate with the Water Board on the subject.

  Liquor Traffic in Bombay.
  Mr. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that on the

  811
  Soparibag Road in the city of Bombay there are within a distance of 1,640 yards fourteen shops for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and that an application has been made to the collector for permission to open another shop within the same area; whether he will state what steps will be taken to ascertain local public sentiment in the matter before the application is granted; and whether he is aware that permission is frequently given for the opening or transfer of shops without the inhabitants of the locality concerned having had an adequate opportunity of making known their objections.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have been in communication with the Governor of Bombay on the subject, and have ascertained from him that instructions were issued last year for a reduction in the number of shops in the Soparibag Road if, on careful local inquiry, they were found to be excessive. I presume that action has been taken accordingly. I am not aware that an application for permission to open another shop in the same area is pending. A licence for another shop in the Falkland Road has lately been refused. Before an application is granted, notices are posted up in the locality, public proclamation made, and residents personally informed by the Excise officers. The procedure is considered by the Bombay Government to give to the inhabitants an adequate opportunity of making known their objections.

  Sanitary Condition of Quarters of British-Indian Contingent in China-
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the military authorities in India has been called to the insanitary state of the quarters and barracks of British officers and native ranks of the Indian contingent quartered in China at Shan-hai-kwan, Tientsin, and other stations; whether they are aware that at Shan-hai-kwan nearly every British officer has been at some time or other laid up with fever, dysentery, or diarrhéa, the quarters of both officers and men being in an old yamen, the enclosure of which is the old bed of the River Shi-to and liable to be flooded; whether other foreign contingents at
  812
  Shan-hai-kwan are well housed in forts captured by the British force in 1900, and at Tientsin have superior accommodation, while those of our own troops have been reported on as in a disgraceful condition, and whether be will call for a report on the sanitary condition of the China stations, and order that measures should be taken to secure healthy quarters for our troops.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Money has been taken in the Army Estimates for the improvement of the accommodation at Pekin and Shan-hai-kwan, but there is no information at the War Office to show the exact progress made with the work. Further, no recent information as to the health of the troops has been received at the War Office as the returns are sent to Army headquarters in India, but the question is one of importance, as it concerns the health of officers and men, and I will cause further inquiries to be made.

  Alleged Annoyance of Rev. R. D Patterson, of Dublin.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rev. R. D. Patterson, of St. Barnabas Parish Church, Dublin, has on several occasions made complaints to the police authorities against certain individuals who were guilty of riotous conduct towards him by throwing missiles and calling him offensive names in the public street; and whether in view of the fact that this clergyman was compelled to prosecute two individuals a short time ago and his complaints to the police authorities seemed to be ignored, he will cause inquiries to be made in the matter, with the view of putting a stop to these proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A complaint of the nature mentioned in the first part of the Question was made by the Rev. Mr. Patterson to the Chief Commissioner of Police in February last. The prosecution referred to was undertaken by the police. Acting on the suggestion of Mr. Patterson, the magistrate inflicted no punishment on the boys, but their parents were required to give sureties for their future good behaviour. The police have since adopted special measures for

  813
  the protection of the reverend gentleman, who recently informed them that he had no further complaint to make on the subject.

  Insanitary Conditions of the Clonmel District.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTEK: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland is taking the necessary steps towards remedying the insanitary conditions of the Clonmel district, to which the prevalence of tuberculosis in that district has been attributed.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Board's medical inspector directed attention in 1901 and 1902 to the insanitary condition of this district, and the Board impressed upon the district council the duty of taking all such steps as were necessary to put the district in a satisfactory sanitary condition. The inspector will make another report at an early date and this report when received will be communicated to the local authority. The Board cannot compel the local authority to take action in the matter unless in pursuance of a complaint made to it in pursuance of the 15th section of The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896. No such complaint has yet been made to the Board.

  City Imperial Volunteers.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the total numerical strength of the City Imperial Volunteers who went to South Africa; and how many of the units comprising that force actually belonged to other Volunteer corps at the date of volunteering for service with the City Imperial Volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The total numerical strength was 1,667, and all the members belonged to other Volunteers corps, or the Honourable Artillery Company at the time of enlistment.

  Strength of Volunteers employed in South African War.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total numerical strength of the following Volunteer forces, respec-
  814
  tively, who went to South Africa, namely, one battery of Artillery and thirty-eight sections Royal Engineers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The strength of this battery was 243, and the total strength of the thirty-eight sections of Royal Engineers was 1,207.

  Strength of Volunteer Artillery before the South African War.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of batteries of Artillery Volunteers at the date of the latest Returns previous to the outbreak of war in South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Exclusive of the Honourable Artillery Company, there were ninety-nine Volunteer batteries of position at that time.

  Discharges and Suspensions in Government and Private Workshops.
  MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R. Holmfirth): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men discharged or suspended during the past twelve months from the Woolwich Arsenal; and whether he can state approximately the number of men who have been similarly discharged, or suspended, in Sheffield and other places, in consequence of the stoppage of Government work.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in consequence of the failure of Government orders for armour plate and munitions of war large numbers of workmen in Sheffield have been thrown out of employment and much distress occasioned thereby; whether he is aware that the Lord Mayor of Sheffield opened a charitable fund a few months since for the relief of this distress; and whether the Government in giving out orders will take care to avoid preferential treatment of any particular locality.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The number of men discharged during the last twelve months at Woolwich Arsenal was 1,011, of whom 575 were on reduction. I have no information regarding the condition of affairs at Sheffield and other similar places referred

  815
  to in the Questions. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that localities are not preferentially treated.

  Army Estimates—Pay of Soldiers.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what proportion of the £36,677,000 spent last year on the English Army went in the pay of private soldiers, and how much was expended in other directions; and whether he can state what were the corresponding amounts spent by France and Germany on private soldiers' pay and how much for other purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The amount expended in pay to private soldiers in the year 1902–3 (the latest year for which the accounts are completed) was approximately £7,750,000.

  Market price on 29th February 1904.

  Securities.

  Nominal value.

  Cost price.

  Per £100.

  Amount.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  2½ per cent. Consols

  258,235

  0

  4

  254,542

  2

  7

  86

  222,082

  2

  3

  2½ per cent. Annuities

  5,966

  7

  10

  6,013

  17

  7

  85¾

  5,116

  3

  7

  India 3 per cent.

  4,932

  2

  8

  5,015

  15

  1

  94¾

  4,673

  3

  11

  Canada 3 per cent.

  24,814

  7

  8

  25,438

  1

  1

  97

  24,069

  19

  0

  New South Wales 4 per cent.

  69,188

  13

  10

  80,003

  17

  0

  106

  73,340

  0

  3

  Do. 3½ per cent. (1918)

  19,000

  0

  0

  20,623

  11

  2

  97

  18,430

  0

  0

  Gold Coast 3 per cent.

  10,000

  0

  0

  9,042

  11

  0

  86

  8,600

  0

  0

  New Zealand 4 per cent.

  4,683

  15

  10

  5,015

  9

  5

  1054

  4,941

  8

  0

  Do. 3½ per cent.

  14,000

  0

  0

  15,274

  19

  3

  100⅜

  14,052

  10

  0

  Trinidad 3 per cent.

  10,000

  0

  0

  9,342

  11

  0

  91

  9,100

  0

  0

  Queensland 4 per cent. (1924)

  73,654

  16

  11

  80,604

  4

  7

  1031

  76,416

  18

  1

  Ceylon 3 per cent.

  40,000

  0

  0

  38,330

  18

  5

  93

  37,200

  0

  0

  South Australia 4 per cent. (1882–4)

  36,820

  14

  7

  69,581

  13

  5

  105

  38,661

  15

  4

  Do. (1916–36)

  26,611

  3

  1

  102¾

  27,342

  19

  3

  Transvaal 3 per cent.

  15,000

  0

  0

  14,782

  7

  10

  95

  14,250

  0

  0

  Victoria 4 per cent. (1920)

  54,216

  8

  3

  60,035

  10

  0

  105¾

  57,333

  17

  1

  Do. 3½ per cent.

  15,325

  18

  4

  16,352

  1

  1

  97

  14,866

  2

  9

  682,449

  9

  4

  709,999

  10

  6

  650,476

  19

  6

  Finances of Transvaal.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when will the promised Papers relating to the finances of the Transvaal be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I expect that the Papers will be in the hands of the Members in the course of next week.
  816
  The estimated figure for 1903–4 is approximately £5,250,000. It is not possible to give corresponding figures for foreign armies.

  Maltese Government Budget Figures.
  MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the detailed figures showing how the total of £709,999 10s. 6d. in the last Budget of the Maltese Government was arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The details of the investments of the Maltese Government in Imperial and Colonial Funds are given in the attached table:—
  Investments in Imperial and Colonial Funds on 29th February, 1904.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

    Service Rifles.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state whether, when the orders placed up to 1905 are completed, the total number of rifles for the Army, Navy, Auxiliary, and Colonial Forces will amount to 276,000 of the new

    817
    pattern and 276,000 of the converted pattern.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): 276,000 is the total number of new and converted rifles ordered up to 1905.

    Government Factories and Private Firms
    CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the distress caused by the dismissal of experienced workmen in the Government factories at Enfield and Woolwich, and the deterioration which is taking place in plant lying idle, he will consider the advisability of so distributing orders between private firms and Government factories that all the plant of the latter may be kept as far as possible in constant.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The orders have been distributed on the established principle that the resources of the trade as well as those of the Government factories must be utilised, and with the present orders available this must involve part of the Government plant at Enfield and Woolwich lying idle.
    MR. CROOKS: May I supplement that Question by asking where and when the principle was established of keeping machinery idle in the interests of contractors?
    MR. J. F. HOPE: May I ask whether it is proposed to depart from the lines of the policy in this matter laid down by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors and to increase the production of guns and military stores at Woolwich and Enfield to the detriment of private firms in Sheffield and elsewhere, and to the consequent loss of work to the men employed by those firms.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no question in this matter of the interests of contractors in Sheffield or elsewhere. The interests involved are the interests of the nation, represented in this case by the needs of the Army. The principle has been adopted because it is believed to be a sound and desirable principle, and it will be carried out by this, and, I
    818
    believe, all other Governments, on th ground that it is a reasonable principl in the interest of the Army.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: May I hope there will be no departure from the lines of the policy adopted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already stated that the principle has been adopted and is, to the best of our judgment, being applied fairly.
    MR. CROOKS: Then is machinery which is the property of the nation to be allowed to rust out in the interests of contractors?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No machinery will be allowed to rust out, but it is necessary in times of peace to leave unemployed a portion of the machinery which would be employed in times of war.

    Respective Cost of Gold Coast Railway and Natal Government Railway
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the comparisons recently made between the Gold Coast Railway and the Natal Government Railway, allowance was made for the fact that in the latter case the line was practically relaid twice with heavier rails; and whether the expense so incurred was deducted from the cost per mile which was taken as the basis of comparison with the Gold Coast Railway.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): No, Sir. I understand that the comparisons referred to were of I a general character and were based simply upon the total cost of the railways divided by the number of miles.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Do I under stand that no allowance was made for; the fact that it was laid twice over?

    Cost of Construction of Gold Coast Railway.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask I the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the original estimate per mile

    819
    for each section of the Gold Coast Railway; and whether the cost of actual construction recently given as £10,300 per mile includes administration and engineering charges in England; and, if not, how much per mile should be added to cover these and all other incidental charges and contingencies as included in the estimated cost of the railway.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Gold Coast Railway was authorised in two sections, Sekondi-Tarkwa and Tarkwa-Kumasi. The estimate for the Sekondi-Tarkwa section was £6,000 per mile. This estimate did not include the jetties and wharves at Sekondi or the additional accommodation afterwards provided at Sekondi for the traffic of the Kumasi extension. The estimate for the Kumasi extension was £5,193 per mile. But the route eventually adopted differed materially from that on which this estimate was based, and while a more direct line was secured, the difficulties of construction were largely increased. The £10,300 per mile referred to includes administration and engineering charges in England.

    Hut Tax in the Transvaal.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary o" State for the Colonies what is the amount of hut tax which has been levied upon the natives in the Transvaal under the law passed last year; in what districts has it been levied; and has the levy led to any opposition or breaches of the peace; and in that case, what are the particulars of the same as regard place, time, and magnitude.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Information on the subject is published in No. 13, see particularly p. 113, in Cd. 2025. The only later information which I have is that the collection of the tax has been giving satisfactory results, and I have no reason to suppose that the levy has led to opposition or breaches of the peace.

    Native Unrest in the Transvaal.
    THE MASTER OF ELIB ANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any telegraphic communication from Lord Milner regard-
    820
    ing the alleged unrest amongst the natives in the Zoutpansberg district of the Transvaal, concerning which he made inquiry.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am informed by Lord Milner that there is no confirmation of the rumours of unrest; that a mobile troop of South African Constabulary have been dispatched to Pietersburg to allay the fears of the white population, but that so far the utmost vigilance of the Native Affairs Department has failed to discover any signs of unrest.

    Resignation of Sir Percy Girouard.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the changes in railway administration, proposed by Lord Milner, which have led to the resignation of Sir Percy Girouard; whether it is intended to appoint an Acting Railway Commissioner; and whether this appointment will be a permanent one.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have been informed by Lord Milner that in consequence of the debates and resolution of the International Council Sir Percy Girouard has tendered his resignation of the office of Railway Commissioner which, Lord Milner has accepted. The question of a future appointment is under consideration.

    Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the repeated statements made that the majority of the people of the Transvaal are opposed to the introduction of Chinese indentured labour, and, considering that the peculiar circumstances prevailing in that colony render it impossible to ascertain the opinion of the inhabitants except by a vote by ballot, he will give instructions for a vote by ballot to be taken, first in Johannesburg, and afterwards, if necessary, throughout that colony, in order to fulfil the pledges given by the late Colonial Secretary that such importation should not be sanctioned until it should have been clearly ascertained that a

    821
    great majority of the white inhabitants were in favour thereof.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The repetition of statements which we believe to be inaccurate has not altered the decision of His Majesty's Government, which has been communicated to the House on more than one occasion, I am not, therefore, prepared to give such instructions.
    MAJOR SEELY: The Question I have asked has not been answered. The Question I asked was whether they would not settle the matter one way or the other in the only possible way it can be settled.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have said I am not, prepared to give such instructions.

    Wages of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the minimum wage for day work offered to the adult Kaffir labourer in the Transvaal is 45s. a month, and to the adult Chinese labourer indentured under the Transvaal Labour Ordinance is 30s. a month; and, if so, whether he will state if there is any substantial difference in the nature of the work performed by the adult Kaffir labourer and to be performed by the adult Chinese labourer; and whether he will represent to Lord Milner the undesirableness of permitting such arrangements as will enable the indentured Chinese labourer to undercut the Kaffir labourer doing similar work.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The answer to the first Question is, Yes. As to the second, it is anticipated that a certain percentage of adult Chinese labourers will be unable, and a certain percentage unwilling, to perform the work done by the adult Kaffir labourer, and for those I understand that work such as is done by Kaffir youths and boys, and corresponding wages, will be provided. I have already explained that the arrangement made is such as to secure that average Kaffir wages will not be unfairly competed with, or undercut. But in an ex-
    822
    periment of this magnitude the occurrence of error is possible, and we have accordingly provided, and the provision is embodied in the contract, that if the first six months working establishes any flaw in our anticipations, the minimum wage of the Chinese labourer shall be raised from 30s. to 45s.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Am I now to understand definitely that the minimum wage offered to the adult Kaffir is 45s., and that to the Chinese labourer 30s. a month.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have answered that as clearly as I can answer.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I apologise if I have not gathered the answer from the right hon. Gentleman. May I have it repeated?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The answer is yes.
    DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether the Colonial Secretary will communicate to Lord Milner the undesirability of allowing the minimum wage of the Chinese labourer to be fixed at 30s. while that of the adult Kaffir is 45s?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am afraid I spoke too tersely. I have explained that I have not considered it desirable to do that, because sufficient means in my judgment have been taken to prevent any undercutting of Kaffir wages, and if there is any flaw in the calculation and anticipations we have formed, measures have been taken to embody in the contract a provision that the minimum wage of 30s. should be increased to 45s. after the first six months. I do not understand, however, that that will be necessary.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman refuses to make the representation, and I shall have to ask the Deputy-Speaker to accept a Motion for the adjournment of the House.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley): Does the right hon.

    823
    Gentleman regard the arrangements he has described as carrying out the pledge he has given to the House that the minimum wage to the Chinese labourer should be not less than 2s. a day.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I gave no such pledge. It is true, as I said before, that I was informed that the Chinese would not come for a less wage than 2s. a day; but we afterwards found that this information, which I received from Chinese authorities, was incorrect. I never promised a minimum wage.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Yes; 21st March.
    MR. LYTTELTON: On the contrary, I thought throughout these debates that to specify a minimum wage was not necessary; but it became necessary, in the interests of the Kaffir, having regard to the amount for which the Chinese were willing to come, to prevent the average scale of Kaffir wages from being competed with or lowered. We have taken measures which we think have completely secured that end; and if on investigation, after six months experiment, we find the average Chinese wage is less than 50s.— which is the average Kaffir wage or a little more than the average wage—we have taken measures to make the minimum wage Of the Chinaman 45s.
    MR. CROOKS: Will Lord Milner fix the piece-work rate, or who?
    DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had not promised definitely on 21st March that the Chinese labourer would get at least 2s. a day?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I quite agree; and I think I said so perfectly frankly to the House the other day. When I gave that assurance, I explained the grounds on which I gave it, and I asked the House to permit me to withdraw that assurance. I explained the error into which I had fallen—owing to the information I had received. The relevancy and materiality of that assurance was made I think, perfectly clear at the time and afterwards. It was material to the question whether the standard of Kaffir wages should be unfairly competed with. I think every fair-minded man would agree
    824
    that was the materiality of the statement; and, if we secure that the average standard wages of the Kaffir are not unfairly competed with, I think the House and every fair-minded man will say that we have adhered to the real substance of that assurance. If hon. Members do not agree, they can call attention to it in the regular way.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked whether a minimum wage of 30s. did not compete unfairly with the minimum wage of 45s.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I think I am right in saying it will not be so, for this reason. I am sure no opponent of this measure would desire that a man should receive for three years a wage of 45s. or 50s. which he is not earning by reason of incompetence, neglect, or malingering, or the like. There are, I,am assured, a certain number of Chinese who will fall into one or other of these categories, and you must allow that a certain amount of inefficients from one cause or another would be included in each hundred of Chinese.
    MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): And of Kaffirs.
    MR. LYTTELTON: It is proposed that the 30s. minimum should be specified having regard to those persons, so that they should not be paid for more than the work they are able to do. [An HON. MEMBER: This is a speech.] I am unable to explain otherwise. If, as the result of that minimum being employed for this purpose, the general effect upon the wages be such that the average standard wage is less than 50s. at the end of six months that minimum will be raised to 45s., which is the average wage of the Kaffir.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESrose, but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think this matter has been thrashed out. It is now becoming a discussion.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: We have had argument and speech from the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Drawn from the right hon. Gentleman by the Questions addressed to him.
    AN HON. MEMBER: We want to have an opportunity of reply.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid when is the House to have an opportunity of granting the Colonial Secretary the right to withdraw the pledge that he has given to the House?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I presume if that question is to be discussed it could appropriately be discussed on the salary of my right hon. friend. I shall not stand in the way of that being put down as the first Vote on an early Thursday.

    Confirmation of Municipal By-Laws for Employment of Children out of School Hours.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many, if any, cases by-laws proposed by municipal councils for the regulation of the employment of school children out of school hours under the Act of 1903 have already been confirmed by his Department; what the names are of the municipalities for which such by-laws have been sanctioned; in how many additional cases are by-laws now under consideration by the Home Office; and whether he will consider the advisableness of laying, as a Parliamentary Paper for the guidance of local authorities, the Home Office model by-laws, together with a selection of the by-laws already actually sanctioned.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): One set of by-laws under the Act has been formally confirmed and is now in force, viz., for the Borough of Warrington. By-laws have also been provisionally approved for Middlesborough, Hull, Burnley, Swindon, and Todmorden, and are awaiting confirmation in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 4 of the Act. Draft by-laws have also been submitted by some thirty to forty other places and are now under consideration. As regards the last paragraph of the Question it does not seem to me desirable to take the course suggested. I think that all that is necessary in this
    826
    direction has been done by the publication in the Press and the circulation to local authorities of the model by-laws. I can assure the hon. Member that there has been no delay whatever on my part.

    Supply for Navy and Army Services.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of Supply for Navy and Army Services respectively for the year 1904-5 covered by the Consolidated Fund Act, No. 1; and what is the aggregate amount of the Supply since voted for each Service.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcester, E.): The Navy Supply for the financial year 1904–5 covered by the Consolidated Fund, No, 1, Act was £8,325,200, and the Army Supply £9,746,000. The Supplies since voted in Committee included £16,560,100 for the Navy and £2,839,000 for the Army.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Am I right in assuming that none of the money that has been voted since last March can be available for the Departments without it is covered by a new Consolidated Fund Act?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I believe that is so.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I not right in saying the total amount covered is £42,000,000?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That was not the Question asked.

    Fraudulent Spirit Blending.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a recent prosecution by the Islington Borough Council in the North London Police Court, where a wine merchant was convicted and fined for selling a blend of patent spirit and brandy as genuine brandy; and, if so, will he issue intructions to prohibit the labelling in bond, under Government supervision, of blends of patent spirit and whiskey as genuine whiskey, with a view to assisting the local authorities in putting down this fraudulent trading.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The decision does not appear to have any bearing upon this blending of patent spirit and whiskey. The law has not laid down any definition of "genuine whiskey," and the Select Committee of 1891 expressly advised that no attempt should be made to prescribe a legal definition of whiskey or to restrict the use of the name so long as the spirits added in blending are pure and contain no noxious ingredient. In these circumstances it is not open to the Treasury to issue any such instructions as those suggested by the hon. Member.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think the time has come when the Inland Revenue regulations should be so altered as to prevent these repeated frauds being carried out under Government supervision.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain what the hon. Member means by these repeated expressions of fraud. I am not aware that there have been repeated frauds, but if the hon. Gentleman has any information with which he can supply me I shall be glad to look into the matter.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I have myself asked eight or nine Questions with regard to it.

    Sunday Postal Service to Esker, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General to grant a Sunday delivery of letters from Longford post office to Esker sub-post office, in Killoe parish, for the.convenience of the inhabitants.
    THE POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, West-houghton): I have considered the question of affording a Sunday delivery to Esker, but I regret that the cost which would be involved would not be warranted.

    Postal Delivery in Killoe Parish, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will direct that the former system of daily delivery of
    828
    letters to houses in Killoe parish be reverted to instead of a four days a week delivery as is now the rule.
    LORD STANLEY: I find, on inquiry, that prior to the commencement of the present arrangement for serving the houses in Killoe parish to which the hon. Member refers, there was no official delivery at all at those houses. The letters were left at other houses on the route of the postman, and were called for by school children and others. I regret to find that the cost of the present service four days a week is so high in comparison with the revenue from the correspondence, that I should not be justified in affording a daily delivery.

    Telephonic Communication Between Padstow and Hawker's Cove.
    SIR WALTER GREENE (Bury St. Edmunds): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what further steps he proposes to take to improve the telephonic communication between Pad-stow and Hawker's Cove.
    LORD STANLEY: Since answering a Question on this subject on the 15th instant† I have seen Colonel Prideaux Brune, and I am convinced that his refusal to allow the wires to Hawker's Cove to be placed as an overhead line on the present route arose from a misunderstanding. He has now given me full leave to place the wire anywhere on his property in such I manner as to secure the best and safest route, and has further offered to defray any additional expense that may be incurred by altering the route or by placing the wire underground, if that should be found to be the best course. I am specially glad to be able to make this I announcement, in view of the honourable? connection of Colonel Prideaux Brune and his family with life saving. I am informed that his father has for a long time been Chairman of the Padstow Lifeboat Committee, and that four of his sisters have Royal Humane Society Medals; and I fully accept his assurance that nothing was further from his wishes than to interfere with life-saving operations.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Arising out of that, may I ask
    † See page 142.

    829
    the right hon. Gentleman if he will still proceed with his attempt to introduce a Bill that will Tender the recurrence of this impossible?
    LORD STANLEY: Yes, I shall ask the House to pass the Bill, but in this case it is perfectly certain that this was the result of an entire misunderstanding. Since I drafted this reply, I have discovered that Colonel Prideaux Brune has often been himself engaged in life-saving operations.

    Clonfin Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland whether he is aware that the owner of the Clonfin Estate, North Longford, is willing to sell to the tenants at twenty-one and a half years purchase of the second-term rents, but is prevented doing so by the Scottish Union Provident Assurance Company, which is the mortgagee in possession of the estate; and, if so, whether, in view of the circumstances of this estate, he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the case of these tenants, with a view to their negotiating for the purchase and resale to the tenants.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,Londonderry, N.): No application has been made to the Estates Commissioners in respect of this estate. Should such an application be made they will be prepared to make inquiries into the circumstances of the estate with a view to purchase.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question.
    ME. ATKINSON: Until an application has been received the Estates Commissioners have no power to institute an inquisitorial inquiry.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: The tenants cannot make application without the consent of the landlords.

    Cusack Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
    830
    tenant of Ireland if he will state the present position for sale of the Cusack (county Longford) Estate; whether the Estates Commissioners have yet decided to avail of the 7th Section of the Act of 1903 in regard to this estate; and, if not, will he explain why they have not done so.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Estates Commissioners have now issued a request in respect of the sale of the entire estate under the provisions of the 7th Section of the Act.

    Turbary Rights on the Granard Estate.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when signing his purchase agreement for the sale of his farm on the Granard Estate in 1893, James J. Scanlan, of Soran, had first inserted in the agreement a clause promising, on the part of the vendor, to give him his usual turbary on the Drummed Bog; and that, although Scanlan has every year since applied to the Granard Estate bog bailiff for the fulfilment of this promise, no turbary has yet been given him; and, if so, will he direct the attention of the Land Commission to this case.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am informed by the Land Commissioners that the holding in question was vested in Scanlan in the terms of the purchase agreement signed by him, and that the agreement contains no reference to turbary.
    MR J. P. FARRELL: Is the original: agreement in the possession of the Commissioners?
    MR. ATKINSON: Of course the original agreement signed by the parties is.

    Dernageas Farm, County Longford
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to advise the Estates Commissioners to purchase for striping amongst tenants of Currool-Fox, Currool Kenny, and Currool Brennan the farm of Dernageas, in the barony of Rathclive, county Longford; whether he is aware that the landlady is willing and anxious to sell this farm for the benefit of the tenants; and whether.

    831
    as Newtowncashel parish, in which this farm is situate, may be described as a congested district, he will advise the Estates Commissioners to expend money on the reclamation, fencing, and division of this farm.
    MR. ATKINSON: There is some difficulty in identifying the property referred to from the information given in the Question. If the hon. Member will communicate to me the name of the landlord further inquiry will be made.

    Evicted Tenant on Mr. Coltsmann's Estate, County Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will recommend a grant for restocking and rebuilding to Mr. Daniel Casey, an evicted tenant on the estate of Mr. D. C. Coltsmann, at Glenflesk, county Kerry, who has been restored to his old holding by direct agre ment with his landlord and without the intervention of the Commissioners; and, if so, will they cause immediate steps to be taken in the matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: The estate of Mr. Coltsmann has not yet come before the Estates Commissioners to be dealt with. When it does they will consider any application by Daniel Casey for assistance.

    Evicted Tenants in County Cork - Applications for Reinstatement.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork Count v, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of evicted tenants in the county of Cork who have up to the first day of June made applications to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in their former holdings; and also the names or titles of the estates with which these applications are connected.
    MR. ATKINSON: 495 such applications have been received. The information desired in the second part of the Question is being prepared and will be forwarded to the hon. Member.

    Galway Harbour.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    832
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Messr3. Hutchinson, of Glasgow, hold a small mortgage over the harbour of Galway; that as a result when improvements are undertaken or suggested by the Board of Commissioners difficulties are placed in the way, and that the rulings are not allowed to take effect by reason of the opposition of the Messrs. Hutchinson; and whether he can take steps to prevent this mortgage interfering with the management of the harbour by the Board.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): Messrs. Hutchinson have a judgment mortgage for over £5,000, puisne to the charge of the Board of Works, on the property of the Galway Harbour Commissioners. Any representations from Messrs. Hutchinson affecting the financial position of the Harbour are properly considered by the Board of Works. So long as their mortgage is not paid off they cannot be refused a hearing; but of course the final decision rests with the Board.

    Irish Agricultural Department.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the name, nationality, and religion of the official who has been temporarily appointed in connection with transit work under the Agricultural Department.
    MR. ATKINSON: The name of the official is Walter Gilligan. The Department have no information as to his nationality or religion.

    Police Arrangements at Millstreet.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, of the fourteen police at present stationed in Millstreet, six are in receipt of lodging-out allowances; and whether, considering that the Millstreet Barracks, when occupied by the military, accommodated two officers and 100 men, he will explain why the expenditure of public moneys occasioned by this lodging-out system is allowed to continue; and whether, seeing that the Millstreet district

    833
    has for a considerable time shown a complete absence of crime of every kind, will he state the necessity for maintaining the present force of constabulary, and does he intend taking steps to have the Millstreet and Ballyvourney stations attached to Macroom as formerly, thus effecting a substantial saving.
    MR. ATKINSON: Seven of the police at Millstreet are in receipt of lodging allowance. The reasons for granting the allowance have not been communicated to me, but inquiry is being made. The question of abolishing the station at Millstreet as a district head-quarters will be considered.

    Failure to Collect Amount of County Court Decree—Case of Mrs. Bridget Hovan.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what was the reason of the failure of the sheriff of the county of Kerry to collect the amount of a County Court decree obtained by the County Council of Kerry against a Mrs. Bridget Hovan of Minish, near Killarney; and if such failure arose from any difference in the law in such matters in Ireland and England.
    MR. ATKINSON: Under the statute 8 Anne. c. 14 (England), corresponding to the 9 Anne. c. 8, s. 1 (Ireland), goods cannot be taken in execution till the landlord's rent, not exceeding one year, has been paid or secured. The 19 and 20 Vict., c. 108, enacts that the English statute of Anne shall not apply to goods taken in execution under the warrant of a County Court. There is no similar statute in Ireland, and consequently the Irish statute of Anne applies to Civil Bill decrees.
    MR. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring about such a change in the law as to allow the county council to levy for these decrees.
    MR. ATKINSON: I cannot give any pledge.

    Belfast Anglers' Association and Ballynahinch River.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that two members of
    834
    the Belfast Anglers' Association and three water bailiffs netted the Ballynahinch river on the 6th instant, and removed a number of trout to stock one of their lakes, and that complaints were made by residents in the locality to the police who were in the vicinity at the time; and, if so, will he say whether any action has been taken in the matter; if not, will he cause inquiries to be made.
    MR. ATKINSON: The facts are correctly stated in the Question. The matter has been referred to the Department of Agriculture for investigation, the result of which will be communicated to my hon. friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether the arrangement stands that the Irish Labourers Bill will be the first order on Friday and the Irish Land Bill the second.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked what business would be taken on Monday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Water-ford whether the arrangement to take the Labourers Bill first on Friday and the Irish Land Bill second will stand, if we finish the Budget Bill to day, as I hope we shall, I see no reason why we should not. If we complete the Committee on the Budget to-day the arrangement will stand, otherwise I shall be obliged to take Friday for the completion of that Bill. On Monday we propose to take the Licensing Bill.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: In the not improbable event of the Budget not being concluded to-night can the right hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that he will give an early day when he will take the Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member knows it is our desire to pass the Bill, but the time that may be occupied with the necessary business of the session rests with others and not with me. At

835
this moment I am not in a position to give any pledge.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in pursuance of distinct and repeated pledges, give an undertaking that this session adequate time shall be given for the discussion of the Labourers Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said that both the Labourers (Ireland) Bill and the Land Bill are Bills we think ought to be passed, and I really cannot say more. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that this Bill in which he is interested has over and above other Bills been the subject of a special pledge.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Repeatedly given.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not prepared to minimise any statement made by any Minister on the subject, but it will be admitted that the Budget Bill and other Bills immediately in view are Bills the Government are deeply pledged to proceed with.
MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night the Finance Bill was obstructed by Members on his own side because Ministerialists were not in their places?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I refrain from using the word obstruction, but when I say that I have not observed an anxiety to deal with the Bill in a brief and businesslike spirit I trust I do not use an offensive expression, and I think the truth of it will not be denied.

THE RESIGNATION OF SIR CHARLES ELIOT.
MR. SIDNEY BUXTON: It is obvious we cannot carry on this discussion by Question and Answer, and may perhaps return to it in Committee; meanwhile I beg to ask a Question on a different matter. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House-he was unable to do so the other day—of the reasons which induced Sir C. Eliot to resign his position in East Africa, and whether Sir C. Eliot has asked
836
for an inquiry into the circumstances attending his resignation?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have nothing to conceal in this matter. No doubt it may be expedient to publish the correspondence, and if I do not now give a distinct pledge on the subject it is because, as I understand, Sir Charles is now on the high seas, and before publishing his correspondence I confess I should like to have, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would like to have, an opportunity of consulting with Sir Charles Eliot. If, however, those who are interested take a different view, I have no objection.

THE OUTBREAK OF BERI-BERI AMONG CHINESE COOLIES.
DR. HUTCHINSON, on private notice, asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention had been directed to the outbreak of beri-beri among the Chinese coolies who recently had arrived in South Africa; whether those who had developed the disease had been actually landed; whether those who had been exposed on board ship to infection had yet been sent up country to the compounds; and whether, having regard to the intensely infectious and dangerous character of this disease, from which South Africa is at present free, he could tell the House what steps had been taken to prevent the spreading of the disease in the colony.
MR. LYTTELTON: I have received I no report from Lord Milner on this subject. I have telegraphed, but have received no reply. I have every confidence that, judging from the admirably efficient measures taken for dealing with the out break of plague, every precaution will be taken.
DR. HUTCHINSON: After this extremely unsatisfactory answer (laughter) —I do not believe there is a single man among those who laugh who knows what this disease is—owing to this unsatisfactory answer, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance—do hon. Gentlemen laugh at such a disease—the imminent danger

837
which arises from the introduction of a new, highly infectious, and fatal disease known as beri-beri into South Africa.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This matter is covered by notices of Motions now on the Order-book. Hon. Members will dome the favour of listening to me. The proposal as to landing is covered by the Motion of the hon. Member for Bermondsey to call attention to the conditions of service and transportation of Asiatic indentured labour in South Africa. The Motion of the hon. Member for Coventry refers to the conditions of employment of labourers in British colonies and protectorates in Africa and to the high rate of mortality among those labourers.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask, as a point of order, Sir, do you seriously rule that a notice of Motion calling attention to the conditions of transport to South Africa really rules out a discussion of such a matter as the outbreak of a malignant disease of which information has just come to this House?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The words of the Motion of the hon. Member for Coventry are: "In the opinion of this House it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to take all reasonable measures to secure the health and proper treatment of all labourers in such colonies and protectorates."
MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton), as a point of order, pointed out that the Motion now proposed dealt with the danger from a malignant disease to other than labourers. The high rate of mortality referred to by the Motion of the hon. Member for Coventry was mortality in South Africa, and did not refer to labourers being conveyed.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the notice of the hon. Member for Coventry had reference to the Blue-book on the treatment of natives in mines, and had nothing to do with this last outbreak of disease. There was no intention in either notice to refer to this matter.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not, of course, know what the intention of an hon. Member may have been, but it seems
838
to me he has drafted his notice in such a wide manner that it covers this subject.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the Prime Minister, does he intend to take no steps to prevent the House of Commons -being permanently reduced to a state of impotence and prevented from discussing any matter of vital importance, however urgent in character, that may arise by the action of some obscure individual in putting down a Motion so vague, so wide in its terms, that the presiding authority in this House feels bound to rule that it practically covers everything?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will at once answer the Question, and I hope the House will treat this matter with some what less heat. I do not complain of the hon. and learned Member's Question; he practically asks me whether I propose to suggest an alteration in the Standing Orders of the House—
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Not only that, but to use influence with your own supporters to prevent them putting down these notices, and with the Whips.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And whether I will use any influence I may have to induce Members not to put down notices of Motions which may have the effect of preventing Motions for the adjournment of the House. I think he will recognise that is a matter of very great difficulty, and it is made much more difficult in that there is a widespread belief that some adjournment Motions are directed, not so much to public matters of urgency outside the House, as to the progress of business inside the House, and I have not the least doubt that some Motions have been put on the Order-book with a view to preventing adjournment Motions. I do not desire to say more than that I think nobody will criticise that action severely unless he is willing to believe that a Motion for adjournment is never moved with that secondary object I have-described. I think there have been errors on both sides, but it is impossible to ask the one side to correct its manner of proceeding unless the other side will do so. But may I reasonably say to the hon. Member who desires to make this Motion,

839
that I think the subject would be much better discussed on the Colonial Secretary's Vote? The Colonial Secretary has not yet any information on the subject; he has telegraphed for information, and has not received it. If, therefore, the object of the hon. Gentleman is to stop beri-beri, if that is his sole object, then he can carry it out much more effectually if he waits until the Colonial Secretary has information to give.
DR. HUTCHINSONsaid this was an urgent matter, because in the case of a disease like beri-beri every twenty-four hours made a great difference.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is after three o'clock.
MR. LAMBERTasked whether the Motion put down by the hon. Member I for Coventry, which called attention only to the colonies and protectorates in Africa, included other people who might be affected by this malignant disease.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It seems to me that the terms of the Motion are so wide that they include this subject.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I under you to rule, Sir, that no Question whatever can be put after Three o'clock because time is rather urgent, and I think, if you refer to the Standing Order, five minutes to Three is the time, after which none but urgent Questions can be asked. The Question I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is whether he has borne in mind in the remarks which he has addressed to the House with reference to blocking Motions, the fact that I have submitted to the right hon. Gentleman a Resolution, and that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to bring forward a Resolution dealing with the matter.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the only Questions which could be put after five minutes to Three o'clock were those on urgent matters, relating either to matters of public importance, or to the arrangement of the business of the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his Question related to an urgent matter. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered the terms of the Resolution which he had said he would propose to the House in order to deal with blocking Motions.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. What I said was that I would put down on the Order Paper of the House a proposed Standing Order embodying my views of the way in which we ought to deal with Motions for adjournment for the holidays. With regard to the other question I gave no pledge. I have never seen a suggestion that could with propriety be made.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether he was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman refused altogether to entertain any proposal for dealing with blocking Motions.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether it would be in order to ask the hon. Member for Coventry whether he contemplated a sudden outbreak of beri-beri when he framed his Motion.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is pretty well known that no such Question can be addressed to a private Member. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do you say, Sir, that there is a Rule of this House that no Questions can be addressed to private Members, which, in the recollection of the House, have frequently been addressed to private Members.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not to explain Motions standing in their names.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLagain rose, amid MINISTERIAL cries of "Order!'
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must-remind the hon. Member that I have called upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
MR. WHITLEYwho, owing to the noise and disturbance caused by Members leaving the House, was almost inaudible, was understood to say that the object of the Amendment which he proposed to move was to bring the second class of duties under the category of an annual tax. It was an Amendment which would not require a prolonged discussion, but one upon which the Committee might come to a decision without much argument. The principle had been argued on the first class of duties the previous day and, therefore, there would probably be no difficulty in accepting the Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 1, after the word "four," to insert the words "until the first day of May, 1905."—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said he had had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Member, owing to the movement in the House, but if he had correctly understood him he would deal with the point that had been raised; if he had failed to understand him the hon. Member would attribute that not to any want of attention on his (Mr. Austen Chamberlain's) part but to the disturbance in the House, which had rendered it impossible to hear the hon. Member. He understood that one object of the hon. Member was to pursue the line of argument and policy pursued on the previous day by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and to retain for the House the control of the finance of the year. The hon. Member was afraid that by the clause, as it stood, undue resources were placed in the hands of the Government, and conceivably it might be possible for the Government to carry on the business of the country out of the taxes voted in perpetuity, and not for one
842
year only, without having recourse to an annual appeal to Parliament. It was an extravagant proposition. The duty on tea was an annual duty although it was true that it did not conclude with the financial year, and the income-tax was an annual duty, and, if there was nothing else, those two resources alone formed so large a part of the national finances that no Government could possibly continue their administration of the country with those taxes withheld. Therefore the control of the House over the finance of the country was absolutely secure. The position with regard to the tobacco duties was this. There were certain duties on tobacco which were imposed as permanent duties, and which were always intended to be a part of the permanent financial resources of the country. Superimposed on those duties was an additional tax upon tobacco, first raised by the right hon. Member for West Bristol during the course of the late war. Those additional duties had always been kept distinct from the duties first voted, so that the sum of money at the disposal of the Government without renewal by the House of Commons was not larger than it was before those duties were superimposed.
MR. WHITLEY,interposing, said that his Amendment referred to the increases being limited to one year, not to the permanent duties at all.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid to find what the exact effect of the Amendment would be it was necessary to see how far these taxes were permanent and how far they had to be renewed. The duties imposed before the war were permanent duties, subject to the power of Parliament to revise them; the duties added during the war were for one year only, and had to be renewed each year, and then came the duties which he had had to impose. Those were special duties on cigars, cigarettes, and stripped tobacco. He ventured to say that if the proposals which he had made were to be accepted at all, they should be accepted as part of the permanent system. It would be disastrous to the trade that alterations of this kind should be made for a year, and a year only, and he would not have submitted these proposals to the Committee

843
if he had not thought that they might very properly become a portion of the permanent taxation of the House. It would be excessively unjust to have these duties for one year, and to leave the matter in complete doubt as to whether the duties would be renewed in the next year or not. It would not be in the interest of any section of the trade, either importers, merchants, or distributers, to be left in doubt whether these taxes would be permanent. He imposed these duties as part of the permanent system. The duty on cigars might be reduced, when a reduction became possible, in the same proportion as the duty on other tobacco was reduced, but the addition now proposed to be charged by this clause should be charged as part of the permanent system of taxation of the country. That was the only possible way.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid that the Amendment raised a matter of considerable interest. If it were adopted the result would be that in the present year they would first of all suffer by diminished imports, and then at the end of the year, the trade, looking forward to a probable reduction of the tax in the next financial period, would withdraw nothing from bond during the last four months. That appeared to him to be a most undesirable state of things. If a tax was proposed it ought to continue for a full year's working and that full year's working could not be obtained unless the tax was imposed up to at least 1st July of the year following. He would urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in this matter of imposition and reduction of taxes, he should adhere as strictly as possible to the old rule that a tax should be imposed on all goods cleared after the date of the original Motion.
MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)asked if the hon. Member was not now dealing with a matter which was raised by a subsequent matter.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that, as far as he understood the Amendment, it was designed to make the tax of a temporary and not of a permanent character.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid his point was that all increases should be made on the
844
same basis as the original tax. And in no case should any exemption be allowed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought his hon. friend did not apprehend the intention of the Amendment. He proposed certain alterations in the scale, and he proposed to make those-alterations permanent. If they were to-make alterations in the scale, then, in the interests of the trade itself, it was important that those alterations should be enacted once and for all.
MR. DALZIELasked whether it was in order to discuss the scale of the tobacco duty on this Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANthought the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show that it was relevant.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexpressed the opinion that it was not only relevant to, but of the essence of, the Amendment. It was because these alterations which arose in the scale concerned particular classes of tobacco, and were not a general percentage of addition on the whole scale, that he laid particular stress, in the interest of trade itself, upon the necessity of making them permanent rather than merely an annual charge.
MR.PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Par-tick)said that, if hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and withdrew the Amendment, he would sit down at once. But if with any ulterior objects he proposed to go to a division.
MR. BUCHANANasked whether it was in order for the hon. Gentleman to attribute motives to hon. Member on that side. It would be in the recollection of the Chairman that he had declined to allow motives to be attributed to hon. Gentleman sitting on the Unionist side of the House by those sitting on the Liberal side.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not, as a matter of fact, catch the end of the sentence that fell from the hon. Member, as his voice dropped. But if he was imputing any motives to hon. Members opposite in moving this Amendment, or

845
in not debating it, of course the hon. Member would not be in order.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether the hon. Gentleman was entitled to convey, as he did, that there was an intention to obstruct the business of the House.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he was afraid he had heard that observation made not on one side only. He could only repeat that it was not in order to attribute motives to anybody, and if the hon. Member was imputing motives to anybody he hoped he would withdraw the expression.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he would not attribute motives; he would only describe conduct. The Amendment, which raised an important point, was moved from the opposite side very shortly, it was then answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer pretty fully, but no notice was taken of that reply on the other side, either by the tirailleurs on the Back Benches or by those who, in the past, had been responsible for the finance of the nation. He had asked whether, since no notice was taken of the reply, it was intended to withdraw the Amendment, in which case he should be happy to sit down at once. He had added that, if a reply was not made to the speech of the Minister, he did not consider that the matter was being fairly debated. He regarded the proposal in the Bill as a permanent increase, and as a wholesome indication of the trend of opinion, which the Budget, to a certain extent, recognised. So far as it had any effect at all, it would undoubtedly increase employment in the cigar and cigarette trade.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)said this was a most important Amendment, and one which was capable of being applied to other duties. Up to the beginning of the war there were certain tobacco duties which were permanent, and which the House did not deal with annually. During the war additional duties of a temporary character were imposed, for which the sanction of the House had to be asked annually. The question was whether those duties should remain in the category of duties
846
to be levied annually. There was a kind of in and out running in connection with them. It might be that the tax was larger on one kind of tobacco than on another; but still there was an increase all round; and, therefore, he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was a class of duty which ought to be levied annually. An hon. Gentleman opposite stated that those duties would increase the trade of the country; but he doubted very much whether they would have that result. But whether that result would ensue or not would not be affected by the fact that the duties would be levied annually. It might be said that there would in that case be some uncertainty; and that manufacturers of tobacco who spent money in enlarging their works and engaging hands might be placed in a difficulty. But they would be in exactly the same position if those duties were annual instead of being permanent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day might any year propose an alteration in the tobacco duties. They were not stereotyped for all time. He thought it was not desirable on principle that the taxation of the country should be removed from the control of the House of Commons. A great principle was behind the Amendment. It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that as the tea duty and the income-tax would be levied annually, the House would have control over the Government and could stop any scheme they might have in contemplation. But he ventured to submit that all taxation should be subject to the annual revision of this House. From time immemorial this House had had full control over taxation, and the annual distribution of that taxation; and he thought it would be more desirable, instead of the House diminishing that control, that it should increase it. He hoped his hon. friend the Member for Halifax, who was an expert in these matters, and who constantly supervised the operations of the Treasury, would insist on taking a division on this Motion. It was not a Motion to be laughed out of court in the airy manner attempted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but was a matter which went to the root of the entire fiscal arrangements of the country.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that last evening they had speeches from the hon. Member for the Brightside Division, the hon. Member for the Peckham Division, and the hon. Member for Finsbury, who after an hour and a half had elapsed, allowed the discussion to pursue its regular course. That was sometimes called obstruction, and the result was that there appeared to be a competition in obstruction between both sides of the House which was certainly not to the advantage of the House of Commons. He did not know whether the Committee realised that the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the tobacco duties was cut into two parts. One portion was to be a perpetual tax, and the other an annual tax. If hon. Members would refer to Clause 4 they would find that certain additional duties on tobacco were to be paid until the 1st August, 1905, but the duties dealt with in the clause under consideration were to be perpetual duties. That appeared very strange. He was a very strong advocate of the annualty of duties. The annual revision of taxation was the basis of the control of the House of Commons. It was the power of the House of Commons; and if it w7ere taken away the House would for all useful purposes cease to exist. He knew very well the reasons which would be advanced in support of the proposals in the Bill. It would be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not want to add to the amount of the perpetual duties; and that consequently the portion of the tobacco duty hitherto annual should be kept annual, whereas the portion which was perpetual should be kept perpetual. The proper way to deal with this matter would be to make all the tobacco duties annual, and make them cease not on the 1st August but on the 1st July, for reasons which he had given in the preceding day's debate. That would give ample opportunity to the Government to pass their Finance Bill; and it would get rid of the extraordinary anomaly of having two methods of dealing with duties on one article. He did not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt that view, but it certainly was a sound view.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Government being
848
now in possession of a majority could proceed to discuss the Amendment on its merits. The question at issue was whether the additional duties on tobacco should be annual or permanent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and he himself thought there was a good deal in it, that there was a great distinction between a tax which might be temporary and a new tax. There was some force in that. It did not, however, apply to the tax on cigars, because there was an existing duty on cigars, and the new tax was only an addition to it. He confessed he could not see the logic of proposing that an addition which was enacted in 1900 should be temporary, whereas the addition now proposed should be permanent. Further the duties on cigarettes and stripped tobacco were new duties; and that fact alone was a very strong argument for their being temporary. He believed that they would be able to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would practically derive no revenue from the duty proposed on stripped tobacco. In that case it was a revenue which ought not to be permanent, and the House of Commons ought to have annually an opportunity of discussing it. There was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the House of Commons ought not to consent to diminish its control over the taxation of the country. For some years past taxes which used to be temporary had been placed in the category of permanent taxes; and the result was that the House of Commons had now only control over the tea duty and the income-tax. He thought that the House of Commons ought to exert every effort to maintain control over taxation; and on that ground, and also on the ground that the tax on stripped tobacco would be ineffective, he thought the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of reviewing those taxes annually.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was sure the last thing the tobacco trade would wish was an annual review of the differential duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to levy. Already it had been thrown into a state of turmoil by the imposition of the duty. The hon. Member for the Partick Division, he

849
thought, placed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a somewhat embarrassing position when he said he desired the differential duty to be permanent because it was more or less of a protective character, possibly opening up new sources of employment in this country, and in that sense indicative of the trend of thought in the community. He did not know where the hon. Member gathered his indications of the trend of thought in the community, but if it was to be gathered from the recent by-elections he did not think it could be said to support the hon. Member's view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might, he thought, very well rise and repudiate the false position in which the hon. Member for
the Partick Division had sought to place him. In his opinion there was nothing whatever of a protective character in this differential duty, and some other argument must, therefore, be advanced in favour of making it permanent. He was quite sure the trade did not desire that there should be a series of experiments in the levying of a differential duty, and that if there was to be a difference made between leaf and stripped tobacco it should, in the interests of stability of trade, be made once for all.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 216. (Division List No. 168.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Allen, Charles P.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Asher, Alexander

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fuller, J. M. F.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Austin, Sir John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

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

Barlow, John Emmott

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hammond, John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Black, Alexander William

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Blake, Edward

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

Boland, John

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Dowd, John

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Malley, William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Shee, James John

Burt, Thomas

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Palmer, Sir Chaless M. (Durh'm

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles. Fred.

Paulton, James Mellor

Caldwell, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cameron, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Philipps, John Wynford

Causton, Richard Knight

Joicey, Sir James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Price, Robert John

Cogan, Denis J.

Joyce, Michael

Priestley, Arrthur

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Rea, Russell

Crean, Eugene

Kitson, Sir James

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Crombie, John William

Labouchere, Henry

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Cullinan, J.

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Langley, Batty.

Rigg, Richard

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W.)

Roberts, John H. (Donbighs)

Delany, William

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Devlin, Charles R. (Galway)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robson, William Snowdon

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Roche, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Roe, Sir Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Leng, Sir John

Russell, T. W.

Doogan, P C.

Levy, Maurice

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lloyd-George, David

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Frank

Lough, Thomas

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Elibank, Master of

Lundon, W.

Sheehy, David

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Slack, John Bamford

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Crae, George

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Kenna, Reginald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Fenwick, Charles

M'Killop, W (Sligo, North)

Soares, Ernest J.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Murphy, John

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Straehey, Sir Edward

Sullivan, Donal

Wallace, Robert

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Young, Samuel

Tomkinson, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Toulmin, George

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

J. H. Whitley and Mr.

Ure, Alexander

Wilson, Fred. W. (NorfolkMid.)

Dalziel.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner James Tynte

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Malcolm, Ian

Arrol, Sir William

Flower, Sir Ernest

Manners, Lord Cecil

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Forster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Galloway, William Johnson

Milvain, Thomas

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Balcarres Lord

Garfit, William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

Morrison, James Archibald

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

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

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

Graham, Henry Robert

Mount, William Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Bignold, Arthur

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bill, Charles

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Myers, William Henry

Boulnois, Edmund

Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Bousfield, William Robert

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brassey, Albert

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bull, William James

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Percy, Earl

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Horner, Frederick William

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.)

Hoult, Joseph

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chapman, Edward

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Glive, Captain Percy A.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Pym, C. Guy

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Randles, John S.

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

Hunt, Rowland

Rankin, Sir James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Richards, Henry Charles

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Dalkeith, Earl of

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Davenport, William Bromley

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

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Denny, Colonel

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

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Loder, Gerald Walter (Erskine

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Doughty, George

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'th)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Macdona, John Gumming

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Spear, John Ward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconochie, A. W.

Stanley, Edward J (Somerset)

852

853

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

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

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

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Stock, James Henry

Walker, Col. William Hall

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

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

Stroyan, John

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Welby, Lt.-Col, A. C. E. (Taunt'n

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Thornton, Percy M.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Alexander Acland-Hood

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Valentia, Viscount

Wills, Sir Frederick

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)moved to omit the proposed increase of duty on cigars on the ground that the tax was purely protective in its character, and, therefore, a breach of the pledge given by the Government in reference to the fiscal policy. The duty on cigars was 5s. 6d. per lb., and on raw tobacco 3s. or 3s. 3d., so that there was a considerable balance of a protective character, and the present was not a time at which duties of that nature should be increased. The reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of the proposed increase were just those that would lead the Committee to regard it with suspicion. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the duty had lasted for a long time, and that when the tobacco duties were dealt with in 1865 the duty on cigars was left alone. It had to be remembered, however, that when Mr. Gladstone dealt with the tobacco duties the whole scale was avowedly protective in its character; he left one or two small items of little importance, and the question for the Committee to decide was whether they would go forward with the free-trade principles of Mr. Gladstone, and sweep away any remnants of protection, or whether they would increase duties which had a protective effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that the tax contained a good deal of "compensation for the home manufacturer," which was simply another way of saying that the home manufacturer was protected by the tax. The right hon. Gentleman had urged some curious reasons in favour of his proposal. One was that it was a luxury tax. But a protective luxury tax could not be accepted any more than a protective tax on articles of necessity. Luxury taxes, like all others, should be imposed in accordance with the principles of free trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was one of a series of taxes
854
on a process of manufacture. That, however, was no argument why the Committee should accept it, as the principle was altogether hostile to free trade. The duty imposed in 1889 on sparkling wines had been cited as an illustration, but the comparison was absurd, because, inasmuch as sparkling wines were not produced in this country, no matter how high the duty was raised it could not become protective. He suggested that a proper illustration to take would be the sugar duty. The most delicately manufactured articles made out of sugar were imported, such, for instance, as artificial flowers. If it was a sound principle that additional taxation ought to be imposed on luxuries, surely a much heavier duty should be placed on these artificial flowers than on the raw sugar, and yet the amount in each case was exactly the same. When the corn tax existed the same principle was followed. Those were very important considerations for the House to consider before accepting this proposal. He did not think that anything the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said ought to commend this proposal to the acceptance of the Committee. If they passed this clause the money advantage would be extremely small, because the tax was only expected to realise about £50,000.
What would the cost of this tax be to the consumer? That raised the whole question of protection. This clause would raise cigars by 6d. a pound, and the manufacturer would raise his prices and the community would have to pay at least £250,000 or £300,000, and the Exchequer would only get about £50,000. Considering that fact this tax ought not to be accepted. But apart from the payment by the community, which was always the result of protection, there would be another difficulty. This tax was aimed at foreign cigars and the

855
object of this was that home-made cigars, which were very inferior to foreign, should be used instead of foreign. Look at the effect that would have. He had never smoked a cigar and consequently did not know the difference, but friends of his who had smoked both kinds told him that there was a great deal of difference. Why should the people have to smoke these inferior articles? Anything which tended to diminish the stocks of foreign cigars would not, in the long run, help trade with the Colonies or anywhere else. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this tax would help the cigar trade with our Colonies.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid his remarks did not refer to this point in any way. What he stated was in reference to the drawbacks.
MR. LOUGHapologised for his mistake. He wished to remind the Committee that Indian cigars were entering strongly into competition with foreign cigars and they would also have to pay the increased duty. Really he thought they were dealing hardly enough with India in regard to the tea tax without giving her another blow by taxing cigars and tobacco. He wanted the Committee to look at this question in a different light from the amount of money involved. The greatest danger to free-trade institutions arose from the acceptance by this House in a time of slackness of principles with regard to sugar one day, the next day in regard to tobacco, and then in regard to shipping, which undermined the whole fabric of free trade. The House accepted hurriedly the sugar duty, and look at the trouble they were now in in consequence. Those engaged in the sugar industry could not get on with their business because of the great difficulties caused by this protective tariff and the wretched Sugar Convention which was set up last year. A year hence there would be difficulties quite as serious which they would have to consider in the same way. A distinguished Member of the Free Food Party objected to his suggestion that these were protective duties, and described them as a mere whiff of protection. The sum of £45,000 was only a small amount, and why should they disturb
856
the harmony of the Party opposite by such a trifle. He cautioned the Committee against accepting the beginnings of a bad principle. When an outbreak of smallpox occurred, the sanitary authorities did not say, "Oh! it is only a whiff of smallpox, and we won't pay any attention to it." On the contrary, sanitary authorities took the most urgent steps to prevent the disease spreading. On the same principle the Committee ought not to excuse this tax as a whiff of protection, but they ought to take steps to prevent if from spreading. The further they went into this clause the worse they got. They were asked now to impose 6d. on cigars and 1s. on cigarettes, and, in fact, the whole clause was steeped in protection. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give some concession to his opponents in order I to smooth matters over, and he would remember that last night the first clause was got through by making a concession. The right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself repeatedly not to introduce in this Budget any principle of protection in view of the divergence of opinion in the House and the country, and he challenged him now to carry out that pledge by accepting this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out all the words from the beginning to the word 'in.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words, 'in the case of cigars by,' stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINassured the hon. Member for Islington, that it had always been his desire to meet any serious criticisms addressed to the House in a reasonable spirit when he could do so without a loss to the revenue or without upsetting the financial arrangements of the Bill. He always tried to meet the suggestions of hon. Members with courtesy and consideration. The hon. Member for Islington was altogether opposed to this clause, but the only question before them was whether there should be any increase in the duty upon imported cigars. In his concluding remarks the hon. Member said that in opposing this Amendment he would be forgetting the pledge which had been given to the House by the Government in regard

857
to fiscal questions during the present Parliament. That pledge was that they would not invite the House to depart from the accepted fiscal principles of the nation until the country had had an opportunity of deciding the question. Though hon. Members would hardly gather it from the speech of the hon. Member, his arguments were not addressed merely to some new proposal made for the first time in this Budget, but they were arguments against the whole scheme of tobacco duties and a good deal of their Customs duties as well. He did not see why there should not be a sufficient allowance made to compensate the home manufacturer for the expense of working under Excise restrictions on account of the additional cost involved. That argument was directed not against his proposal, but against the whole scheme of the Customs duty on tobacco. The proposal which was now the subject of debate in Committee was to raise an additional sum on tobacco imported in the form of cigars. From the speech of the hon. Member, and one or two remarks made on other occasions, he would like it to be supposed that this was a dangerous innovation springing from ideas which he himself entertained, or rather was supposed to entertain, on fiscal questions generally. He said "was supposed to entertain," because a good many ideas which were attributed to him in the course of the debate were ideas which he should be sorry to adopt any responsibility for. It appeared to the hon. Member that this was a novel proposal which had no precedent in our existing arrangements. All that he proposed to do was to follow the example set by his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol. It was twice applied by him with regard to this particular tax on foreign cigars, and, as far as he himself knew, it was received by the House and the country with perfect equanimity, without a word of criticism, and without any suggestion that the disastrous consequences which were expected to flow from the extension of it now were at all likely to happen.
While he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer he had had considerable difficulty in finding means of raising revenue, and he had been severely criticised during the last two days for imposing increased
858
taxation on an article of necessity. In the particular case they had now reached they had an article which was not a necessity. However high they might put tobacco, they could not put it as an article of necessity. However high they might put tobacco, the urgency for a supply of cigars must be less than for tobacco in other forms. He could not conceive anything which was more an article of luxury than a cigar, and above all an imported cigar. Accordingly he had taken that article, following the footsteps of his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol, and he proposed to raise the duty on these imported cigars without putting any corresponding Excise upon the cigars manufactured in this country. Of course the Committee would understand how great would be the difficulty and the interference with trade, and how much agitation there would be produced if anyone attempted to put an Excise on cigars made in this country. They were not to be debarred from raising revenue on an article of pure luxury because they could not exactly adjust their Excise and Customs duties. That never had been the principle on which they had proceeded, and he could not believe that seriously, or at least he was 10th to believe, any Member, however much he might be attached to free trade as we had practised it for the past forty, fifty, or sixty years, should desire that it should be embodied in that rigid and absolute form. After all, the imported cigar and the home-made cigar were two different things. The hon. Member for West Islington seemed to have some doubt about that, but then he confessed that he had never smoked a cigar. He yielded to the hon. Member in regard to tea, but having smoked a good many cigars he could express a distinct opinion on that subject. The foreign cigar was a distinct article, and a person who wanted a foreign cigar would not take a home-made one in its place. They did not run the risk of giving protection to a home product when they increased the tax on an article of luxury which was imported as such, and paid for as such. The hon. Member two or three times over in the course of his speech said his own object in making this proposal was to protect a home industry. He never said so. He

859
had said the exact contrary. He had said that his object was to obtain revenue when he set out, and from that point of view, having found a tax that appeared to him to be easily collected, which inflicted no hardship on anyone, and which was paid only by those who indulged in a luxury and who could well afford to pay, it would be absurd to debar himself from taking advantage of that source of revenue, because, incidentally or theoretically, there might be some infinitesimal possibility of protection to a small home industry.
MR. LOUGH: What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the duties as they stood before he touched them provided a larger measure of compensation—I quote his exact words—than Mr. Gladstone intended or the home producer actually needed. My argument is that he has increased that compensation, and therefore he has done it deliberately, and must be willing to give a larger measure of what he himself described as protection.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member referred to the scale fixed by Mr. Gladstone which included the other rates not specially applicable to cigars. That was not the only passage in his speech. He spoke of the object of protecting the home industry. That was not his object in now proposing the duty. His object, as he had said, was to obtain revenue. It appeared to him it would be absurd that they should debar themselves from obtaining this revenue not very large, but still not to be neglected in days when it was so difficult so obtain it from anything which could be obtained in perfect harmony with the fiscal system they had had in force in the past. It was only a development of the precedent twice set in the taxing of tobacco by his right hon. friend which gave revenue on an article of luxury, and which was in no sense a necessity of the poor. They should not be deprived of revenue from that source by the fear, which he believed to be wholly illusory, that any substantial protection would be given to a home industry in this matter. It had been suggested that there was a certain amount of wine produced in this country which the Exchequer should turn its
860
attention to. [An HON. MEMBER: You do not call it wine?] Well, it was so called. They justified an extra duty on sparkling wines because they were as distinct from other wines as imported cigars were from home-made cigars. Sparkling wines were more articles of luxury than the other cheaper wines, just as cigars were a greater luxury than the smoking of ordinary pipe tobacco. It seemed to him that that illustration was not an inapplicable one in the present case. It strengthened his argument that the course he was now proposing was one in harmony with that which had been sanctioned by the House on many previous occasions.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that some of the fiscal views which were attributed to him had not always been accurately ascribed to him. It would be a matter of interest to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would give them his views on fiscal questions about which, except in regard to the celebrated postscript, they were somewhat ignorant. The right hon. Gentleman based his proposal on two grounds—in the first place that this was a tax on what was admittedly a luxury, and in the second place that he had to look about to find revenue, the state of the finances being such as they were. He had no fault to find with the tax on the ground that it was a tax on a I luxury if it were one that would really I produce revenue. If it were a tax which was not merely put on one portion of a particular trade or industry he for one would have no special objection to it. If this were a tax on cigars he did not think anyone would object to it being a very high tax indeed. But the drawback of the tax as now proposed was that it appeared to have at all events a strongly protective flavour about it, and merely to call it a luxury tax was not to prevent it being protective. The question was whether the tax on its merits was protective or not. The right hon. Gentleman had told them with great truth that taking the Budget as a whole it was a free-trade one. But there was this particular clause which many of them contended had a considerable flavour of protection in it, both in regard to cigars and cigarettes, and more

861
especially with regard to the question of stripped and unstripped tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman said he was really following up the action of his predecessors, but when this mattter was under discussion before he admitted that there was a slight protective element in this tax. Those who wished to act on freetrade lines did not say that they ought to have exactly the same duty on imported articles as they might have in the shape of Excise on articles made in this country. Obviously in regard to Excise they must give certain allowances, but the whole question was whether the Excise and the Customs duties were on a fair level. In this case there was no Excise duty at all, and obviously any duty put on the imported article must be of a protective character. The Committee should remember that this was not the first addition to the duty on manufactured cigars. There was a start made to enable the home manufacturer to compete on the same level with the manufacturer of imported cigars. At the present moment there was a duty of 2s. 6d., which was largely protective. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to increase that to 3s. He remembered when the Committee was discussing the corn duty of 1s., which was protective in its character but not protective in practice, he asked the Prime Minister if a 1s. duty would be regarded as protective. The right hon. Gentleman replied in the negative. He then asked the right hon. Gentlemen if a 2s. duty would be protective, and he gave a similar reply; but when he was asked what about 4s. the right hon. Gentleman declined to be catechised further. The position was exactly similar in connection with these duties. He thought the particular duty under discussion was to a certain extent protective. The real point to his mind was, was it worth while raising the question of protection for the amount of revenue that would be received? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his original speech in introducing the tax that his object was to get revenue; and he talked to-day a great deal on the question of revenue. Did the Committee know what was the amount of the revenue that would be obtained from this tax which had this protective tendency? The total amount was £45,000 a year, which was a paltry
862
sum out of a total amount of additional taxation of nearly £5,000,000. He thought that there would be a greater loss to the trade and to the consumer than the amount which the revenue would gain An addition of this kind involved the alteration of prices, the providing of new price lists, and a general disturbance in the trade, which would be a great loss to the trade and to consumers generally. Under existing conditions, it was their duty to protest against any step in the direction of protection; and he also protested against the tax because it would result in such a small amount of revenue as would not justify the disturbance in the trade that would ensue.
MR. KEARLEYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a very extraordinary statement. He said that there was no competition between imported cigars and home-made cigars. That showed that the right hon. Gentleman had no knowledge of the commercial interests involved in this question. Anyone who knew anything of the trade knew that cigars from Holland, Belgium, Borneo, and India entered into the closest competition with home-made cigars. He wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman could justify his statement. When he was a member of the Kitchen Committee of the House he remembered perfectly well there was great competition between home-made cigars and foreign cigars. As business men they did not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pick and choose for them; they wanted to be left alone. Now apparently those foreign cigars were to be excluded by putting on what was more or less a protective duty. Further, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no competition between home-made and foreign cigars was erroneous, and must have been made because of lack of information on the subject.
MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Elland)said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that they regarded this taxation as a novel proposal, whereas it had been adopted and enlarged by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. It was perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol raised the duty on cigars, and that it was

863
not suggested then that any disastrous consequences would ensue; but the simple reason was that, at that time, no one suspected that the Government were tending in the direction of protection. The situation now was entirely different. They had before them the experience of the bread tax. When that was introduced it was justified on the ground that it was supported by Mr. Gladstone in the sixties; and that was put forward as a reason why free-traders should support it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the Committee to act similarly in connection with this tax, but the situation was now different. The bread tax was brought in as a little innocent free-trade measure; but after a year they found it was made a handle for a great protectionist campaign. He feared exactly the same thing in connection with this tax. They were bound to regard it as a protective tax because they knew it would be so used. Already the cigar manufacturers of Leicester and Nottingham were memorialising the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a greater increase; and, just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division talked of a duty of 4s. or 6s. on corn, the cigar manufacturers, with the little incitement given by the tax, were asking for an additional duty of 4s. on cigars. He was, therefore, justified in regarding the tax as a protective tax. Another reason why they should be suspicious of it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised the fact that it was purely a revenue tax. It had been already pointed out how small was the amount of revenue that would be derived from it; and the returns showed that the result of the additional duty imposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was to reduce instead of increase the revenue. That did not look as if the present proposed increase would be of any value to the revenue. He should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol, who had so much experience, whether he anticipated that, if the tax were imposed, the Government would be able to realise the increased duty they expected. The figures showed that the last increase did not bring in any additional revenue. The duty was in the main a protective duty; and he could not regard it as being of any other character.
MR. BARRAN (Leeds, N.)said he had heard it asserted so often that this was a free-trade Budget that he began to wonder whether there was not some meaning in the repetition of the phrase. This tax needed careful scrutiny because it was particularly significant in its relation to protection. They would not be giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for even ordinary ability if they did not understand that he appreciated the use of which this particular part of the Budget was going to be made in the future. The hon. Member for Cambridge University dissipated the theory of a free-trade Budget on the clause that was under consideration on the previous day, and showed that the added tax possessed the possibility of great use in some future campaign. This clause, he ventured to say, was expected to be more useful to the Government in the future politically than financially. The argument would be used that by putting on this further duty it would tend to give further employment to our own people instead of to those of other countries. On this question of employment it might be that the amount at issue was quite insignificant, but there was much in it that might be used as illustrations from which other deductions might be made; and they would be quite as effective as illustrations which had been taken in relation to "jewellery from Morocco," or "pearl buttons." Another point was the imminent danger they had to face in this, as in every other form of protection in which they embarked, i.e., the possibility of strengthening the power of the trusts of the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look at the figures and make any calculation as to what amount of this duty would be paid by certain firms, and what amount of additional money would go into the hands of certain syndicates, he would see that he would add great strength to some of the most powerful syndicates which had grown up in England in recent years, syndicates which to-day almost monopolised the trade. So much as the duty was increased, by so much would the syndicates hold that monopoly against all comers. Other countries had had to face this question of trusts. He did not propose

865
to leave the narrow limits of this Amendment to touch upon other items of duty, but he would say that if it were not the actual object of this added duty, at any rate the use to which it would certainly be put would be the argument that it would create greater trade in this country. On the other hand it would be an example to be avoided, in that if they were to put duties on any articles, whether luxuries or necessities, and if they excluded the labour as well as the products of other countries, they were enabling a limited number of manufacturers in this country to make a strong trust that could practically control the whole trade. He hoped those who voted in favour of this increased duty would feel that they gave a vote to a system which, if carried further, would add additional cost to the consumer without giving additional revenue to the Government, and would put the cost on the consumer out of all proportion to the amount going into the Treasury. He opposed every item of this clause on those two principles. It was brought forward with the absolute knowledge that the arguments of increased labour were going to be used unfairly in the future, because, this being an article on which taxation had always been placed, the injury would not be so apparent as if it had been put upon some item which they historically considered as an unsuitable subject for taxation.
SIR ROBEET REIDwas sorry to see the House so listless and exhausted in regard to this subject, because its importance could not be measured by the amount of money involved. This was the first item upon which of late years a duty had been proposed that had an avowedly protective effect, although to only a limited degree. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not dispute that the effect of this tax would be protective, and one could not help regarding it as
the basis of some propaganda which the country would in due time be asked to accept. Then, again, it came in under the guise of a luxury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very judiciously based his argument that luxuries ought to be taxed. Luxuries could not be taxed to produce a large revenue and yet people would go about the country and say that the luxuries of the rich man ought to be taxed in order to relieve the burden from the poorer classes. He agreed that if they could tax luxuries without doing any harm that course should be taken. He had no feeling whatever from either an economic or personal point of view against putting a tax upon this or that luxury in itself, but it was very dangerous to use the argument of luxury as the first step to protection. It was an argument introduced under most insidious aspects, and was likely to captivate many persons who would not have accepted it on its real merits. The consequences of it were apparent. It was not an argument to be confined merely to tobacco or to this increased duty, but related to all taxes of the same kind. If they applied protection to this trade other trades would claim the same privilege. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he did not intend to interfere with the principles of free trade in any proposal to the present Parliament. He ought not to have imposed this tax, as they would see this instance and this clause quoted in support of protection. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of protection he (Sir Robert Reid) had not been able to gather, but he thought they ought to take this opportunity of protesting against the introduction of this principle.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 242 Noes, 183. (Division List No. 169.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bignold, Arthur

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balcarres, Lord

Bill, Charles

Aird, Sir John

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

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Boulnois, Edmund

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

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

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Arrol, Sir William

Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

Brassey, Albert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Percy, Earl

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Helder, Augustus

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pym, C. Guy

Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Randles, John S.

Chapman, Edward

Horner, Frederick William

Rankin, Sir James

Charrington, Spencer

Hoult, Joseph

Reid, James (Greenock)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Coates, Edward Feetham

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Richards, Henry Charles

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

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Coddington, Sir William

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hunt, Rowland

Robinson, Brooke

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Davenport, William Bromley

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Denny, Colonel

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dinisdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Doughty, George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Douglas, Bt. Hon. A. Akers

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside

Duke, Henry Edward

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

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Spear, John Ward

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lowe, Francis William

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stock, James Henry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Macdona, John Cumming

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stroyan, John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Malcolm, Ian

Thornton, Percy M.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Manners, Lord Cecil

Tollemache, Henry James

Forster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Middlemore, J. Thorgmorton

Valentia, Viscount

Galloway, William Johnson

Milncr, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Gardner, Ernest

Milvain, Thomas

Walker, Col. William Hall

Garfit, William

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

Graham, Henry Robert

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds

Mount, William Arthur

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Gretton, John

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Hall, Edward Marshall

Myers, William Henry

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

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Nicholson, William Graham

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Harwood, George

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Younger, William

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Parkes, Ebenezer

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Alexander Acland-Hood

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pemberton, John S. G.

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

868

869

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Dowd, John

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gilhooly, James

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

O'Malley, William

Allen, Charles P.

Grant, Corrie

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ambrose, Robert

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

O'Shee, James John

Asher, Alexander

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hammond, John

Parrott, William

Austin, Sir John

Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th

Partington, Oswald

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayden, John Patrick

Paulton, James Mellor

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Price, Robert John

Bell, Richard

Holland, Sir William Henry

Priestley, Arthur

Black, Alexander William

Horniman, Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Blake, Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Boland, John

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Brigg, John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Rickett, J. Compton

Broadhurst, Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rigg, Richard

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Joicey, Sir James

Roche, John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Russell, T. W.

Burke, E. Haviland

Joyce, Michael

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Burt, Thomas

Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kitson, Sir James

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

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Shackleton, David James

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Langley, Batty

Sheehy, David

Causton, Richard Knight

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Loamy, Edmund

Slack, John Bamford

Cogan, Denis J.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leng, Sir John

Soares, Ernest J.

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Maurice

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

Crombie, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Cullinan, J.

Lloyd-George, David

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lundon, W.

Sulivan, Donal

Davies Alfred (Carmarthen)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Devlin, Charles R. (Galway)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Crae, George

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Fadden, Edward

Tomkinson, James

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Toulmin, George

Doogan, P. C.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Ure, Alexander

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morley, Charles (Breeonshire)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dunn, Sir William

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Edwards, Frank

Moss, Samuel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Elibank Master of

Murphy, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Newnes, Sir George

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Field, William

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Young, Samuel

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Kearley and Mr. Trevelyan.

MR. DUNCAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Otley)moved to reduce the proposed increase of duty on cigars from 6d. to 3d. He said he did not intend to pursue the arguments as to the protective character of the tax—although recognising its pro-
870
tective character he believed a reduction of the tax would be an advantage—nor did he propose to refer to the opportunities which such a tax afforded to the advocates of preferential duties. The object of the Amendment was to place

871
the levying of the tax on a more just basis. Many cigars were sold at a very low price, and the additional duty on each cigar could not be reckoned in a coin of the realm. Consequently, the duty would have to be paid by the manufacturer or retailer, unless it were placed in a grossly aggravated form upon the consumer. But if former increases of duty were taken into account, it would be found that the total tax worked out at nearly Id. on each cigar, and this was met by the use of inferior material. Manufacturers aimed at producing the best quality cigars possible at a given price; consequently, when they had established any particular commodity on the market, such a tax as that now proposed seriously interfered with the conduct of their business for very inadequate results. The Amendment would leave it open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to levy a higher duty on the better quality cigars, And to allow the cheaper cigars to be sold at the standard of price which the manufacturers had had in view. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the principle of an ad valorem duty, a sufficiently high duty could be placed on the better cigars to compensate for the loss of revenue on the cheaper article. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words 'six pence' and insert the words 'three pence.'"—(Mr. Duncan.)
Question, "That the words 'six pence' stand part of the clause"
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Amendment as moved would not effect the object the hon. Member had in view. It was perfectly true that small alterations of duty were always an inconvenience to the trade concerned, that they rendered necessary adjustments of prices and so forth, but the mere reduction of the additional duty from 6d. to 3d. would not do away with any of the inconveniences involved. The object behind the Amendment, however, was really to raise the question of an ad valorem duty upon cigars. Regarded merely as a question of theoretical justice, ad valorem duties were very attractive; but the difficulties in the way were very great. Ad valorem duties always provided opportunities for fraud, and made it difficult to check the true amount of duty that should be paid; and though he did not say that under no circumstances ought they to be enforced, he thought it desirable wherever possible to have a specific rather than an ad valorem duty. If he undertook to bring up a scale of ad valorem duties on cigars, he would probably find that he had merely jumped out of the frying-pan into the fire, and that the new proposals would be even more fiercely attacked than those now before the Committee. He was unable, therefore, to accept either the Amendment or the proposal which he understood to be behind it.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 179. (Division List No. 170.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bill, Charles

Coates, Edward Feetham

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Boseawen, Arthur Griffith

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. K.

And, Sir John

Boulnois, Edmund

Coddington, Sir William

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F.(Middles'x

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Brassey, Albert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Arrol, Sir William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bull, William James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

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

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Balcarres, Lord

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

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Davenport, William Bromley

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

Denny, Colonel

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Dickson, Charles Scott

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Chapman, Edward

Dimsdale, Bt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Charrington, Spencer

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Bignold, Arthur

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Randles, John S.

Doughty, George

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

Rankin, Sir James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Duke, Henry Edward

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Richards, Henry Charles

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Roberts Samuel (Sheffield)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lawson, John Grant (York, N R)

Robinson, Brooke

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

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Eareham

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Long Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Long, Ht. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Forster, Henry William

Lowe, Francis William

Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

Garlit, William

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

Macdona, John Gumming

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Goulding, Edward Alfred

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Smith, HC. (N'orth'mb. Tyneside

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Spear, John Ward

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Majendie, James A. H.

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Malcolm, Ian

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Gretton, John

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stock, James Henry

Gunter, Sir Robert

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hall, Edward Marshall

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Stroyan, John

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Milvain, Thomas

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Midd'x

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Thornton, Percy M.

Harwood, George

Morrison, James Archibald

Tollemache, Henry James

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mount, William Arthur

Valentia, Viscount

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath)

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

Helder, Augustus

Myers, William Henry

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

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Nicholson, William Graham

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Hoare, Sir Samuel

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Horner, Frederick William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Hoult, Joseph

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

Percy, Earl

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Platt-Riggins, Frederick

Younger, William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, Ernest George

TELLERS for the Ayes—Sir

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Alexander Acland-Hood, and

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Pym, C. Guy

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Burke, E. Haviland

Ambrose, Robert

Bell, Richard

Burt, Thomas

Asher, Alexander

Black, Alexander William

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Blake, Edward

Caldwell, James

Austin, Sir John

Boland, John

Cameron, Robert

Barlow, John Emmott

Broadhurst, Henry

Causton, Richard Knight

Barron, Rowland Hirst

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Cawley, Frederick

874

875

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Joicey, Sir James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cogan, Denis J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Price, Robert John

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Priestley, Arthur

Crean, Eugene

Kitson, Sir James

Rea, Russell

Crombie, John William

Labouchere, Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford>

Cullinan, J.

Lambert, George

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Dalziel, James Henry

Langley, Batty

Rickett, J. Compton

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Rigg, Richard

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

Delany, William

Leamy, Edmund

Roche, John

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Leng, Sir John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Doogan, P. C.

Lloyd-George, David

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lundon, W.

Sheehy, David

Dunn, Sir William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas R.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Frank

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Elibank, Master of

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Slack, John Bamford

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

M'Crae, George

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts,)

M'Fadden, Edward

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Kenna, Reginald

Soares, Ernest J.

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

Fenwick, Charles

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Sullivan, Donal

Field William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Moulton, John Fletcher

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Flynn, James Christopher

Murphy, John

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tomkinson, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Newnes, Sir George

Toulmin, George

Fuller, J. M. F.

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gilhooly, James

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Ure, Alexander

Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wallace, Robert

Grant, Corrie

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

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

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Dowd, John

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Malley, William

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Young, Samuel

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C

O'Shee, James John

Yoxall, James Henry

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

Parrott, William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Partington, Oswald

Tellers for the Noes—Mr.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Paulton, James Mellor

Hastings Duncan and Mr.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Charles Allen.

SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name. He did not think there was any proposal in the Bill so serious as the one he asked the Committee by this Amendment to eliminate. This tax would be unproductive to the Exchequer and there was no justification for putting on a tax of this kind when the revenue was not going to benefit by it to any appreciable extent. They might get a paltry sum of £20,000 a year by this proposal, and therefore as regarded productiveness the tax was hardly worth considering.
876
Only a small amount of foreign cigarettes were manufactured in this country, amounting to about 500,000 lbs., and that would bring in about £20,000 a year. If the full amount continued to be imported the tax would bring in about £25,000, and even that was a very small sum in the Budget. There was reason to believe that this would be a diminishingly productive tax as regarded revenue. The impression was that this tax would keep out foreign cigarettes. The Chairman of the United Kingdom Association of Cigarette Makers had said that sooner or later it would keep out foreign cigarettes

877
altogether, and it would protect the home manufacturers to such an extent that there would be no foreign competition. Any measure which brought about a condition of things of that kind was not likely to benefit the consumer. The amount raised by this tax was so small that it was not worth the disturbance it would create in the trade and the expense of collecting it. While it would be unproductive to the revenue it would be unjust to the public and to the consumer, upon whom it would fall very heavily. It would take out of the pockets of public a much larger amount than it would put into the Exchequer. That was a great fault in any tax. No tax could be justified which did not give an adequate return to the revenue, and at the same time fairly tax the consuming public. To be fair and just a tax ought to bring money to the revenue and at the same time ought not to oppress the people, but this proposal had the opposite effect and it was likely to prove very oppressive. When he spoke upon the Second Reading, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had produced an ingenious argument on orthodox lines to show that this tax would have a protective effect, and replied by referring him to the cigarette manufacturers. That was a very ingenuous reference, because they were the last people he should ever think of appealing to because they were the people most likely to benefit by it. It had been stated that 10 per cent., or more probably 5 per cent., of the total consumption of cigarettes came from abroad. If the effect of this tax was to raise the price of home-made cigarettes, what would be the effect on the consumer and the trade? Taking the low estimate of 10 per cent. that left 90 per cent. or 4.500,0001bs. manufactured at home. In that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive some £20,000 or £25,000 a year, and the trade by raising the price of the home-manufactured article would put into their pockets £225,000 a year. If they took the percentage at 5 per cent. they got a still more serious state of things. for raising the price by the amount of the duty on 95 per cent. or on 19,500,000lbs. would put £475,000 per annum into the pockets of the trade while the Chancellor of the Exchequer
878
would get on the 500,000lbs. of foreign cigarettes only some £20,000 a year. It ought not to be allowed in the interest of trade morality, and in the interest of consumers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, had conjured up these dangers, and that such a condition of things was not likely to arise. The right hon. Gentleman said then that cigarettes were not likely to be increased in price. His answer was that already they were increased in price. If the right hon. Gentleman would apply to various retailers for information on the subject he would find that in many instances the price of home-made cigarettes had gone up ls. per lb., which proved that the effect of the duty was already being anticipated by the trade. It was perfectly true that it was difficult to get increased profit on penny packets of cigarettes, but it had already been pointed out that the trade was intelligent enough to lower the quality, and in that way put a profit into their pockets. In this direction, he understood, something had already been attempted, and it had been suggested that more cigarettes should be made out of an ounce of tobacco. The contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the price of the cigarettes would not go up. Since that statement was made a good many meetings had been held of tobacco sellers in various parts of the country. The price of the foreign-made cigarettes —Egyptian and Turkish—had gone up by ls. in the £. That was the natural result of the duty'. In some instances the increase was more. The price of homemade cigarettes had gone up about 3d. a tin of 100 in some cases, and fifty in others. In these instances the additional price was already equivalent to the duty. At a meeting of the Dublin retail trade in connection with this matter it was suggested that ½d. should be put on the half ounce and the one ounce packet of cigarettes. That would bring about ls. in the pound. which was the duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to levy. At Leicester the tobacco people held a meeting and agreed that it was necessary to add ½d. to the 3d. packets; at Swansea a resolution was passed that ½d. to ld. per ounce was the amount they

879
would require to add to the price of the article vended to the public; at Liverpool the United Kingdom Alliance of Tobacconists had determined that the 2½d. packets should be raised to 3d. That would bring something more than the duty to the trade. Afterwards they suggested that another device should be entered upon, namely, that the number of cigarettes should he increased to twenty-eight or thirty per ounce so that they might still be sold at five a penny. At Walsall the increase was ½d per ounce, and 3d. on the tin of fifty cigarettes; and at Nottingham it was ½d. per ounce, which would bring in 8d. per pound. It was also suggested that at the last mentioned town ½d. should be added to the price of the smaller packets. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suggest that these alterations in prices were due not so much to the cigarette duty as to the duty he proposed to put upon the tobacco leaf when stripped. If so the duty on the tobacco leaf stripped was altogether condemned by the fact that it had already produced so great a change of price in the trade.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the competition in this country was too great between the cigarette manufacturers to admit of any alteration in price then he would say that the competition in this country was by no means as free as many people would like to see it, and that there was nothing more calculated to benefit the tobacco manufacturers than this tax, which would put half a million of money into the hands of successful monopolists. Half the tobacco trade was in the hands of a single company. It could be seen, therefore, what possibilities were open when half a million was to be scrambled for. It showed the danger of dabbling with protective duties in the face of a big monopoly growing up in the country. This system of taxation would do great harm to the retail dealer, because he would be cut out by monopolists who would go into the retail trade and take the profits that could be made out of the retail custom. The United Kingdom Alliance of Tobacconists, speaking through the Chairman, Mr. Parry, said that one of the objections to this particular form of taxation of cigarettes was that it would play
880
into the hands of the Imperial Tobacco Company and encourage monopoly. On that account the proposal now before the Committee was one which would be injurious to the retail dealer. It was estimated that 100,000,000 of cheap cigarettes were sold every week.. They were sold mostly in ld. packets.. There were, as could be seen, enormous chances for large manipulators of the market to make out of these sales the profits which were at present derived by the small retailers. No small manufacturer or retail trader could stand against such a monopoly. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would play into the hands of the great trusts and do harm to the retailers. He pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interest of these retailers, to reconsider this tax. It was not a tax which could be defended very keenly for it would bring in such a small sum to the Imperial revenue. Some people said that it was a part or an. example of a protective tax. If so, he did not think they could desire a better object lesson as to the evil which would result from protection. He believed it would work harm to the retail trade of the country, that it would play into the hands of the monopolists, bring in little to the revenue, that in ten years time it would yield no more than £10,000, per annum and that in the meantime it wou'd do irremediable mischief.
Lastly, this tax was put on in a, gratuitous frame of mind by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The tax was wholly unnecessary for the protection of British trade. British cigarette manufacturers were perfectly safe from foreign competition. That was proved by the fact that when the American Tobacco Trust attempted to capture the British market it was found that the then existing duty of 10d. was sufficient to prevent the flooding of the market with American cigarettes. There was, therefore, no need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put this additional shilling duty on. It might be inferred that he was in favour of anything that would contribute to the consumption of cigarettes. That would be a mistake. He believed the consumption of cigarettes was working much harm to the juvenile population, and he would be very glad

881
to see the pernicious habit of cigarette smoking among the young checked. He did not think it was likely to have any very bad influence on his hon. friend the senior Member for Northampton', who seemed to be immune from the influence of tobacco in the shape of cigarettes, but the growing youth of the country were by no means likely to escape, and he should be very glad if any method could be devised by which this growing habit of consuming cigarettes by the younger members of the population could be checked. He did not believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal would check it, because the increased duty only applied to foreign cigarettes. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would add to the tax and would consent to put on an Excise duty equivalent to the Customs duty so that the increased tax was levied on home-made as well as on foreign-made cigarettes, he would support his proposal, because it would do something to diminish the use of this form of tobacco. That suggestion was not his own; it came from the Economist newspaper, the highest financial authority in the country. On the grounds he had set forth he commended the Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out from the word 'pound' to the word 'and' in line 3."—(Sir 1Valter Foster.)
Question proposed, "That the words ' and in the case of cigarettes by' stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in substance the proposal now before the Committee was very similar in principle to the one which had just been discussed; and it was, therefore, open to the same criticism. He perfectly admitted that the objection which the hon. Gentleman took to the additional duty on cigars applied to the additional duty on cigarettes. The first objection was that it would bring in very little to the revenue. That, of course, was the case. There was not a very great weight of cigarettes imported into this country, and accordingly an increased duty of Is. per lb. would not bring in a large
882
revenue. It was a question whether it was worth while to impose any new duty or raise an old one when the return to the revenue would be small. The temptation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to avoid any adjustment of an existing tax, however fair, equitable, and justifiable it might be in itself, because when the revenue to be derived from it was small he felt that that was hardly compensation for the Parliamentary struggle in which he might be engaged in proposing it. But that objection might be carried too far; and Finance Ministers had been prone to carry it too far, if they refrained from doing things which were highly desirable in themselves because they would be opposed in Committee. He did not think that because the revenue to be derived from a tax was small that that was in itself sufficient for its rejection. But the hon. Gentleman went on to say what would be a more serious thing if it were true—that the revenue to be derived would bear no sort of proportion to the amount which the consumer would have to pay. At the last discussion the hon. Gentleman made an estimate as to the cost to the consumer which he thought so extravagant that he did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would have repeated it on this occasion; but instead of that the hon. Gentleman had gone one better and had doubled his estimate that the new tax would bring in only £25,000 and that it would cost the consumer £450,000.
Sin WALTER FOSTERsaid that he had given two sets of figures. If the estimate of the consumption of foreign cigarettes was 10 per cent. of the total consumption, then the new duty would bring some £20,000 to the revenue, and the I public would pay to the trade £225,000 more; but if the estimate of the consumption of foreign cigarettes was 5 per cent. of the total, then, while the revenue would still only obtain £20,000 or £25,000, the public would be mulcted to the extent of over £450,000.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he thought the estimate of £225,000 was extravagant. But the hon. Gentleman now seemed to think that that was entirely an understatement by one-half as to the cost of the new tax to the public. That was not the view

883
placed before him by the foreign cigarette importers. He had had a very interesting interview with a deputation of these foreign cigarette importers in regard to this Budget proposal. They said that the article which they imported was an entirely different article from anything which could be made in this country; and it became perfectly clear from what they said that the public would demand these imported cigarettes and that they would pay the increased duty upon them. What the deputation were afraid of was that fraudulent imitations of the foreign article would induce the public to purchase English-made cigarettes under the impression that they were getting the foreign cigarettes. He was convinced that there was no real competition between the genuine imported cigarette and the home-made cigarette—each under its own proper description. The imported article was admitted to be an article of luxury, and it seemed to him to be the very article to tax. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, speaking on a previous Amendment, said that, on principle, he did not object to a tax on luxuries, but that it was difficult to obtain a large revenue from them, and that to tax them would be a prelude to protection. The hon. and learned Member did his ingenuity great honour.
The hon. Gentleman's arguments were not consistent. The hon. Gentleman said that this tax would be ruinous to the manufacturers; but then he also said that it would be a highly protective tax which would have the effect of raising the price of the article without increasing the cost to the manufacturer. Further, the hon. Gentleman defended himself against any suspicion that he was an advocate of cigarette smoking among the youth of the country; but he also said that hon. Gentlemen had arrived at such an age that they might smoke cigarettes without injuring their constitution. He also stated that the tax would have the effect of checking consumption, which he would be glad to see checked; but later the hon. Gentleman said it would not check consumption. He himself never pretended that it would. He thought the hon. Gentleman was more correct when he said that consumption would not be effected and that the price would
884
not be raised. He did not think it possible in a trade like this that because they placed an additional duty on an imported article, distinct in character from a home-made article, therefore it would be possible for the home-manufacturers to raise their price to an equivalent extent. The hon. Member for Ilkeston had refuted his own arguments. If the tax was unfair to the retailer because he could not recover from the consumer the additional cost thrown on him, then that destroyed the argument that the consumer would pay. The hon. Gentleman could not have it both ways. He could not say that the consumer would have to pay ten times or twenty times the amount of the tax, and that the retailer could not recover from the consumer a tenth or a twentieth part of the increase. He thought the hon. Gentleman's arguments taken as a whole answered themselves very well and dispensed him from the necessity of making an elaborate reply. The hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the tax would be to play into the hands of the great combine which had been formed in the trade; but if the effect of the tax would be to cause a great combine to invade to a greater extent the retail trade, it could not be that the retailer's business would be rendered unprofitable by the tax, because in that case it would not attract the combine. The hon. Gentleman's arguments were mutually destructive. His last observation was that the tax was needless, because it was not required for the protection of the tobacco trade. He had never himself presented this tax to the House as a protective tax or sought any support for it on that ground. But he could not but be struck by the suggestion of the hon. Member that the trade needed no protection because the taxes already in force had enabled our tobacco trade to defeat a great American combination which tried to acquire it. Did the hon. Member mean the Committee to understand that we should be unable to maintain our own tobacco trade without a duty which he considered protective? He did not put the tax forward on protective grounds, he did not argue for it on those lines at all; but he thought the hon. Gentleman's desire to attack the tax had led him to advance arguments which were dangerous from the hon.

885
Gentleman's point of view. He would not pursue that; this was, he thought, almost the first time that, under many temptations in that discussion, he had allowed himself for a moment to depart from the questions which were immediately before the House. He submitted that the tax was one which would certainly not have the injurious effect on the import trade in these foreign-made cigarettes which the hon. Gentleman feared, that it was a tax which would give them some revenue, though not a large amount, and that it was raised wholly from an article of foreign production, and would be levied without unfairness and harshness.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he could not understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should talk of a tax on foreign tobacco as a luxury tax. It was all nonsense. Why was it supposed that a person should pay more for a foreign cigarette than an English cigarette as a matter of luxury? Did the right hon. Gentleman understand where and how cigarettes were made? Cigarettes came from Russia and were called Odessa cigarettes, but the tobacco of which they were made was raised, not in Russia, but in Turkey, and was sent to Odessa to be worked up, precisely as it was sent to England at the present time. Hon. Members thought that what they called Egyptian cigarettes were made from tobacco grown in Egypt, but as a matter of fact it was grown in Turkey. The question as to whether a cigarette was good or bad depended to a certain extent on how the water was thrown on the tobacco before rolling, secondly on the rolling itself. A cigarette rolled in this country was a better cigarette-a better rolled cigarette—than one rolled in Turkey, Egypt, or in any other part of the world. Another mistake made was that there was something injurious to the constitution in smoking. That was the biggest mistake ever made. His hon. friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire had told them that the rising generation would be absolutely ruined unless it was weaned from the habit of smoking cigarettes. He looked round at the rising generation in that House, including even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he
886
saw no cause for such a statement. If they went all over the world, to Spain or to South America, they would see children smoking cigarettes. And what was the result of smoking? His belief was that all that system of microbes which was so injurious to health was done away with in childhood. In the course of his life he had been unwell, and had sent for a doctor, who shook his head and told him he must stop smoking, upon being informed that he indulged in the habit. Upon asking him later to have a cigarette he found his sage smoking like a chimney. No one had ever yet found that a cigarette did harm to man, woman, or child. Almost all those who had reached a ripe old age were strong smokers, and he did not believe in the theory put forward by the hon. Gentleman. Did his hon. friend smoke?
SIR WALTER FOSTER: Yes.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid it was his hon. friend's precept and not his practice that they were invited to follow. But let them leave the matter to the people and not ask them to believe that the rising generation would be ruined if they did not refrain from smoking cigarettes. The hon. Member should not, after making such a statement, suggest a reduction in the duty on cigarettes. He expected to hear the hon. Gentleman propose a heavy Excise or Customs duty, but instead of that he wanted the Committee to reduce the duty on foreign cigarettes. Why should the poor cigarette and tobacco smoker be regarded as a fair beast of burden for the purposes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? This was a poor man's tax. He believed that crime was lessened in proportion to the number of cigarettes smoked. He was not in favour, of the consumption of alcohol because under excitement people did foolish things, but the cigarette, on the contrary, calmed one's nerves. If an hon. Member felt indignant he had only to retire and smoke a cigarette and he became as calm as possible. He was glad to see in any town or village a poor man or child smoking, because he thought that not only was that person preparing himself for a ripe old age, but also that he was not likely to swell the list of the criminal classes, and instead of being guilty of some crime his xcitement would

887
evaporate. It was almost like reading the Bible in its physical effect in reducing all species of excitement. Under all the circumstances he did not know which way to vote. He gathered that his hon. friend at one moment wanted something, but the next moment he was arguing against it. Then a moment later he wanted something else, but followed that up with arguments in opposition. Under the circumstances he should not vote at all, but should go out of the House and smoke a cigarette.
MR. SPEARhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not yield to the arguments put forward in support of the Amendment. They all felt that the imposition of this tax was generally welcomed, and it was accepted on all hands as an exemplary duty from every point of view. Members of the Opposition were constantly bringing forward schemes involving increased expenditure, but whatever proposals were made for meeting that extra expenditure they opposed. He had supported the increased duty on tea with considerable reluctance, but how any hon. Members could object to the tax on cigarettes or on tobacco in any form he could not understand. Tobacco and cigarettes were luxuries, and it was surely more desirable to raise money for the public service from luxuries than from necessaries of life. But while hon. Members opposite had opposed every suggestion of the Government for raising money, they were perfectly ready to cause the imposition of fresh taxation upon agriculturists by discontinuing the Agricultural Rates Act. He earnestly hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment. Those who indulged in smoking ought to be able to pay the tax; if they could not they should give up the habit. The proposal to increase the taxation on cigarettes was popular in the country; he regretted the proposed increase was not larger, hut, such as it was, he accepted it with gratitude, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would resist any proposal for its reduction.
MR. BUCHANANsaid it was perfectly true that Members on that side of the House had opposed all the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; they had consistently opposed the scheme of expenditure of the
888
Government, and consequently were justified in objecting to the various proposals for raising the extra money rendered necessary by extravagant expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that the foreign cigarette was a totally different thing from the home-made cigarette, but to that the hon. Member for Northampton, an authority on cigarettes, had given an absolute denial. If his hon. friend was correct, the arguments of the mover of the Amendment held good, and the hon. Member for Northampton might fairly have decided to support the Amendment. From the financial point of view the present proposal afforded the strongest case against one line of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman was on the look out for money, but it was hardly worth while to introduce an alteration of taxation which would yield only about £25,000. The present additions would alter substantially the scheme of tobacco taxation. Hitherto cigarettes had not been specifically assessed for duty; they had been included under the general heading of "other sorts of manufactured tobacco." Tobacco taxation had always been difficult to follow, but it would now be even more confused. On cigars there was a duty of 5s. under the Act of 1898; the Act of 1900 imposed another 6d.; and the clause under discussion proposed the addition of 6d. more; hence the cigar duty would be distributed over three Acts of Parliament. With regard to "other sorts of manufactured tobacco," the duty under the Act of 1898 was 3s. 5d.; 5d. was added by the Act of 1900; and now an additional ls. was proposed with regard only to a part of the tobacco thus described. Therefore, there would be a duty of 4s. 10d., with a small residue of "other sorts of manufactured tobacco "upon which the duty would continue at 3s. 10d. These variations, coupled with the new scheme of drawbacks would render the plan of tobacco taxation more complicated than it had ever been. On the face of it this proposal was unreasonable, unwise, and impolitic, and the Opposition were not to blame if in regard to this duty some of them gave expression to the belief that, after all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making

889
so unprofitable and small an alteration of this duty, rendering it still more complicated, must have had some other object in view. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that these suggestions were never made against former proposals of the kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to recognise that they could not shut their eyes and their ears to events which had been going on and the position which the right hon. Gentleman occupied in the present Government. It was impossible on the general grounds of good financial administration and the general reasons which had actuated Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past to justify this alteration, which combined all the worst faults and brought in a very small sum to the national till.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member opposite stated that he supported this proposal because it was a tax on luxury. That was not so, but that was not the point. If this was a tax all round on a luxury nobody would oppose it. It was not merely a tax for revenue purposes, but also for protective purposes. It was estimated to produce £25,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman said the fact that it raised only a small amount was no condemnation of the tax. It was, however, a condemnation if the tax was simply imposed for the purposes of revenue, because it was one of the axioms of taxation that you should not impose a vexatious little tax which would dislocate trade unless it was justified by the amount of revenue derived from it. This tax was not imposed for revenue but simply as an object lesson in protection, and it was not a bad object lesson at all, for while it brought only £25,000 to the Exchequer it produced £250,000 for the manufacturers. That was the object lesson the Chancellor of the Exchequer was giving them. This proposal had been made as the result of the inquiries made by a Departmental Committee before which evidence was given.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Departmental Committee did not deal with that question.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid this strongly protective tax was the result of
890
evidence given before that Committee by people in the trade. [" No, no! "] That evidence at any rate must have influenced the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and why should the House of Commons not have the same opportunity of judging as the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That evidence ought not to be kept from the Committee. His hon. friend had given instances showing that the trade had already taken advantage of this protective tax in order to raise the price of the home-made article by something like three-quarters of the amount of the duty. The duty was one shilling, and the trade had already imposed 9d. as an addition to the cost of the article. That was exactly what they might expect if protective duties were applied to any other industry. Supposing they put a similar tax upon ron and steel. The result would be that the Exchequer would get by a 10 percent ad valorem duty £130,000, but £3,000,000 would be imposed as an additional cost upon steel, which was the raw material for many of the important industries of this country. He trusted that the Committee Would take into account what had happened already as a. complete proof of what protection really meant. It did not mean additional wages for the employees but more money for the huge tobacco trusts and manufacturers.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the Committee desired to have the Report of the Departmental Committee they could have it. He was anxious to publish the whole of the evidence, but he would first like to inquire as to the conditions under which the inquiry was held. He thought the Committee would see that this was only fair, because it was dealing with trade processes, and he had first to ascertain from the witnesses whether the evidence they gave referring to their particular businesses was private or not.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it would be a great convenience to hon Members if a copy of the evidence could be left in the Library where it could be referred to.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not quite certain whether that could be done. He could not say more at present than that it was his desire to meet the convenience of the House.
MR. LOUGHsaid the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both in regard to cigars and cigarettes, was that he was following precedents, and that he was making no violent alteration in the scheme of the tobacco duties of this country. His hon. friend had shown that it was impossible to take up that stand with regard to the proposed cigarette duty. It had been said that this was a very small duty, but that was a great mistake. It was a very large duty. The amount of money to be obtained from it might be small, but it was a big burden. The duty at present was 3s. 10d., and it was proposed to make it 4s. 10d. That was an increase of 25 per cent., and surely that was a very great experiment to make. It was an astonishing thing that the tax was now producing revenue extremely well. The revenue of the cigarette tax for the year ending 31st March, 1903, was £10,000 more than in the previous year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not plead any precedent for the present proposal. He was acting on his own account, and altering the whole scheme with regard to cigarettes. The increase in the tax would bring very little money. Why was he doing this at the present time? They would not object to it as a luxury tax if put on fairly. Let an Excise duty be put on, and the whole objection to the proposal would disappear in an instant. The right hon. Gentleman calculated that he would get £20,000 out of this increase in the duty. His motives for proposing the change had not been fully explained to the Committee, and he should state his full mind on the matter. He was making a great change, and they had a right to ask —" Why is not an Excise duty put on to correspond with the Customs duty? As the proposal stood, it was a protective tax of a very bad kind. When the tax on manufactured tobacco was increased not long ago there was a falling off in the revenue got from it, and it was possible that a similar result might happen in the case of cigarettes. He believed' great principles were raised in connection with this matter, and he hoped a further answer would be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he should like to ask certain
892
hon. Members opposite who held free trade views whether they would support the Amendment. The point which had been raised in connection with cigars was not nearly so indefensible as this proposal in regard to cigarettes. As had already been pointed out, this proposal, if carried out, would only produce £20,000 to the revenue, while as the result of the imposition of the increase the manufacturers would pocket £225,000. The consumer would be called upon to pay not for the purpose of revenue but in order to help certain classes of manufacturers in this country. Those who held free-trade views believed that a great impetus had been given to trusts and organisations on the other side of the Atlantic by the protective system there. If the proposal now before the Committee were carried into effect that system would be accentuated in this country. Already the manufacture of cigarettes in this country was largely in the hands of one combination—the Imperial Tobacco Company—who produced about 50 per cent. of the total cigarettes made in this country. That company would benefit to the extent of £115,000 a year, while the Exchequer would only obtain £20,000. Surely free-traders ought to recognise what an important step this was in connection with the fiscal system. It seemed to him that, as the Government had claimed that they were not adopting the system advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, free-traders ought to object to any alteration in the fiscal system, which the Government were pledged not to make. There was no doubt that the effect of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be that in future the penny packet of cigarettes would be limited in number, that their quality would be depreciated, or their size decreased. In any case the consumer would be hit in no uncertain way—not for the benefit of the Treasury but for the benefit of a particular section of the tobacco industry. It would encourage those combines and trusts which had done so much harm in other countries. He would vote for the Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if this extra duty proposed to be levied on

893
foreign cigarettes was of a protective character, it was really so small as to be quite a negligible quantity. Therefore, although he was as much opposed to protection as hon. Members opposite, he would not oppose it when it was taken in this homoeopathic dose. But when they came to discuss the matter of stripped tobacco, that was a very different matter. He thought that hon. Members opposite ought to have reserved their forces in order to object to that proposal. If there was to be a division on this question he would support the Government.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that he was strongly in favour of taxing cigarettes, but the question he wanted to ask was, why had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer placed this tax on all cigarettes? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted revenue his obvious course was to turn into the Treasury the £225,000 a year which would now go into the pockets of the manufacturers of the home-made cigarettes. He was surprised that that question had not been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would have been prepared to support an even larger increase in the duty on all cigarettes. When the Government had to raise money for the expenses of the South African War why did they not choose cigarettes for increased taxation? His impression was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have put a stamp duty on every packet of home-made cigarettes, and that would have brought in a larger revenue and would have equalised the duty all round. He could not see any great difficulty in the way of imposing a stamp tax on cigarettes. The trade was now so largely a monopoly that the cost of collection would not interfere with the amount of the revenue that would be brought in. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, if the free-traders on the other side were prepared to take protection in small doses they would find that it would be a poison which accumulated in the system. There were some poisons which could be got rid of, but there were others which accumulated in the system, and this particular poison was not of the class which could safely be taken in small doses.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he did not think this was a homoeopathic Amendment; it was of a more drastic character, and therefore he would support it. The hon. Member for the Tavistock Division had protested against the conduct of the Opposition in moving Amendments to the Finance Bill. The hon. Member seemed to think that the opposition of the Opposition was of a reprehensible character and ought not to be pursued. But it was not the business of the members of the Opposition to fall into the trap so cunningly laid for them by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were not responsible for the enormous expenditure of the Government, and the supporters of the Government ought not to blame Members on that side of the House for opposing that increased expenditure, and the necessary increase of taxation, as unjustifiable. In regard to the Amendment, he thought that his hon. friend had pressed home the case for it with remarkable success. They, on that side of the House, had two objections to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place it was a peddling, nibbling tax which would bring in a very small sum to the Exchequer, it would cost the community a large sum to collect, and it was protective in its character. The objection to it as a protective measure had been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was a protective tax? It was a tax which protected the home manufacturer by the imposition of an import duty on foreign goods. The Committee would remember that when a duty was laid on cotton goods entering India with no corresponding Excise duty, the Lancashire manufacturers and the House of Commons protested so strongly against the proposal that the Indian Government were compelled to levy a corresponding Excise duty on the Indian-manufactured cotton goods.
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 2:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 2, line 2, to leave out from the word pound,' to the word and,' in line 3."—{Sir Walter Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words and in the case of the cigarettes by' stand part of the clause."
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that before the adjournment for dinner he was proceeding to argue that the tax was protective in its character. How far it might be said to be protective was, of course, a matter of opinion. According to his hon. friend, only £20,000 would find its way into the Exchequer, whereas the consumer would have to pay £225,000 or £250,000 owing to the rise in the price of cigarettes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the figures were exaggerated; but he did not give any estimate of his own as to what the cost to the consumer would be. It would be very interesting to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimated the consumer would have to pay in order that the Treasury might benefit to the extent of a mere bagatelle of £20,000 or £25,000. His objection to the tax was that it was a step in the direction of protection. It might be modified protection; but as a free-trader he objected to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was a distinct character about foreign cigarettes which could not be mistaken; but foreign tobacco made up into cigarettes in this country was absolutely indistinguishable from cigarettes manufactured abroad. With the right hon. Gentleman's permission he would present him with a certain number of cigarettes, and ask him to say which were foreign and which were British; and if he met the occasion he thought they had the proper man as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. RENWICKssid he was surprised that objection had been taken by hon. Members opposite to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the duty on imported cigarettes. It had been said that there was something of a protective character about the proposal, but, even if that were the case, he would not be inclined to take exception to it on that ground, since, if the benefit of the doubt was to be given at all it should surely be given to the British manufacturers, and he certainly would rather see English girls employed in the East End of London and else where in the making of cigarettes than know that French and Italian girls were being employed abroad for the supply of our markets. It was said that a large 'proportion of the increased cost which would fall on the consumer in consequence of the duty would go into the pockets of the manufacturers. That was always said when such taxes were proposed, but whether it was the case or not, he maintained that more than one class of the community would be benefited. The interests of the country as a whole should be considered, and, even if there was a falling-off in the revenue derived from cigarettes, he would not object, because much cigarette smoking, especially by boys, was an undoubted evil. There was a striking circumstance in connection with that debate. Nearly all hon. Members who had opposed the tea duty were teetotalers. He believed, however, that hon. Members who were opposing the Chancellor's cigarette duty were nearly all smokers. That seemed to him to be extremely suspicious. It was said that the effect of the duty would be to increase the cost of cigarettes. Well, only that afternoon he went into a shop and bought a well-known brand of cigarettes for 4d., though when the duty was first proposed the price was raised to 5d. It was only human for anyone—manufacturer, shopkeeper, or working man—to get a little bit extra when he had the opportunity, but he did not think the proposed small increase in the duty would have the result of permanently increasing the price. If it was desired to see cigarette smoking checked he could not understand the objections to the proposal. The debate showed the absolute necessity for the entire revision of the fiscal system of the country.

  897
  It had been said that the income-tax I payers should be saddled with a greater proportion of the deficit to help to remove which the duty on cigarettes was proposed. He did not think that would be popular. Hon. Members opposite were disciples of Mr. Gladstone, who always believed that the income-tax ought to be abolished.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to enter upon a discussion of the income-tax.
  MR. RENWICKsaid that if the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was defeated the money needed would have to be obtained from some other source. Hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested a few ironclads might be dispensed with, but he did not think that would be popular in Devonport or anywhere else. At present £13,000,000 was raised from tobacco, but, large as the duty was, and though it had recently largely increased, the consumption of tobacco had also increased. Under those circumstances, was it likely that a simple proposal like that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tend to decrease the consumption of tobacco? He did not believe it, and he trusted the Committee would reject the Amendment and accept the Government proposal.
  MR. BULLsaid that whatever the opinions of the Committee might be with reference to taxation, it was clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing his first Budget, had an enormous task to perform. He had to find a very large sum of money; and to place it as fairly and equitably as possible on the right shoulders. He was rather surprised that the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division should have moved this Amendment. One would have thought that an hon. Gentleman of his knowledge and attainments would have been one of the first to discourage cigarette smoking. A friend of his who had returned from India after twenty years service, when asked what was the chief alteration he had noticed in London, said it was the increase in cigarette smoking. There were men who smoked fifty or sixty cigarettes a day; women now
  898
  carried their cigarette cases; and children were continually to be seen with fags in their mouths. That was a very serious state of things; and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified in increasing the duty. There were some directions in which his right hon. friend might have made the Budget more popular; but he declined to follow them. He had looked into the matter and he was satisfied that all the cheap forms of cigarettes were of foreign manufacture. In Holland, Belgium, and America children under fourteen vears were not permitted to smoke; and he was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division should, in all the circumstance, shave proposed his Amendment.
  MR. HARRISsaid he had listened with very considerable interest to some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, which no doubt would be received with considerable approval by the schoolboys of this country, because, according to the hon. Member for Northampton, cigarette smoking would not only do them good but also make them good. The question was raised whether this tax was or was not a protective tax. For his own part he thought that, although possibly the tax might have in it a small element of protection, that was a matter which they might disregard under present circumstances. The hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs said that while the Treasury would only derive the small sum of £25,000 from the tax, some £225,000 would be received by the manufacturers as extra profit on the cigarettes they sold. But hon. Members lost sight altogether of the competition which must inevitably occur between the various manufacturers. They forgot that the country was permeated with manufacturers of cigarettes, who would be certain to compete with each other; and that competition would have the effect of reducing the price. It had often been demonstrated that when production was increased, the cost at which an article could be produced was decreased, and the reduction in the cost of production also reduced the net cost of the article sold. What had been said with regard to tobacco applied equally to iron and steel.
  MR. WHITLEYasked, on a point of order, if a tariff reform lecture was in order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have had some free-trade lectures, but I suggest to the hon. Member that, although he may refer to iron and steel as an illustration, he would not be entitled to go far into the subject.
  MR. HARRISsaid the only reason he referred to iron and steel was that certain conclusions had been drawn from them by the hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he only quoted them as illustrations, and not as arguments.
  MR. HARRISsaid that he thought he, too, might refer to them as illustrations; but he would not continue that part of the argument. The most remarkable thing connected with the debate was the appeal of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden to hon. Members to vote against the Government. He was astonished at his credulity. Even free-trade Members on that side of the House would not be caught in such a flimsy trap; and he was, therefore, quite sure that all his hon. friends would support the Government.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he was rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not attempted to refute his figures. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was merely confined to endeavouring to show inconsistencies between different parts of the arguments he had advanced. There were, however, no inconsistencies whatever. The right hon. Gentleman said that the retailer would not suffer by the imposition of the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took a superficial view of the question when he said his argument was inconsistent with the distribution of £225,000 among the trade. It was not inconsistent for the reason that the retailer was at the mercy of the manufacturers. He received his articles in certain packages at certain prices. A penny packet of cigarettes would still be sold at that price whatever duty might be imposed. The retailer
  900
  would not be able to raise his price to the public, but the manufacturer, on the other hand, might put four instead of five cigarettes into the packet, or by altering the size he would get back a profit equivalent to the shilling duty. It was a very hard case for the retailers, and the same argument applied to the duty on strips. It could not be denied that monopolies by lowering prices could force the retail traders into a combination or drive them out of the trade altogether. The right hon. Gentleman was placing a weapon in the hands of a monopoly that held 50 per cent. of the tobacco trade of this country, and the result might be to keep down prices for a time, and then the monopoly would go into an El Dorado and receive as the benefit of this tax a sum of at least £250,000 a year extra profit by raising the price of cigarettes equivalent to the amount of the duty. It was because he recognised the danger of this leaning towards protection in its worst form that he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to stick to the duty. It would only bring in £20,000 a year, and they would run the risk of putting a power in the hands of a monopoly which would be disastrous, and would alter the fiscal system of the country. If he could ask any Government to give an object lesson I that the public would appreciate as against the Tariff Reform Commission he could not seek a better. It was bad for the revenue; it would encourage the creation of trusts and monopolies, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to withdraw a tax so little lucrative to the Exchequer of the country.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that if this debate had had no other effect it had been the means of enabling the House to listen to hon. Members who did not often take part in debate, and the only reason he could put forward for the pleasure they had been given was that certain hon. Members had come to the conclusion that the protectionist side of the argument had not been properly submitted from that side of the House. So far as he could see, until the protectionist speeches were delivered hon. Members were content to rest satisfied with the debate that had already taken place

  901
  and with the explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the speeches that had been lately delivered had introduced a new element into the debate, and he could only hope that the new points which had been raised would evoke some sort of reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, probably at two or three o'clock in the morning, would ask the House to sit a little later to debate the question. They had had a speech from the hon. Member for Newcastle, who was so satisfied that nobody could reply to his argument that he left the House immediately afterresuming his seat. That hon. Member said that this cigarette proposal would help towards the building of two new ironclads. He (Mr. Dalziel) was afraid ho must be wrong in thinking that the hon. Gentleman came from Newcastle otherwise he must have known that £20,000 would not go far towards the expenditure upon two new ironclads. Then they had an hon. Member opposite who gave them his reasons for supporting this tax. The hon. Member had boldly announced that this was a protectionist tax, and he was distinguished by being connected in a prominent manner with the Tariff Reform League. It was curious to understand the reasons why hon. Members on that side of the House supported this proposal. Some supported it because it was a free-trade proposal; some because it only contained a little bit of protection. The hon. Member for King's Lynn came under the latter category, and his arguments almost reminded him of the man who declared he could not get intoxicated because he only took his drink out of liqueur glasses, and therefore only took a very little at a time. Then another section said that this was protection pure and simple. He did not know amongst so many pleas which one might be correct, but he was inclined to think that there was more protection in this proposal than in any other proposal except that, perhaps, relating to the tobacco duties. The wholesale manufacturers were delighted with this idea and it seemed to him to be nothing more or less than a protectionist proposal. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Shropshire had not availed himself of the opportunity for expressing his opinions, and surely the hon. Member for West Bristol would not allow this debate to close without giving them the benefit of his views. The right hon. Gentleman was an expert, and
  902
  no one in the House had more authority to speak on this matter than he. Could it be that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with this protectionist proposal, or was he content to let the House go to a division without expressing his opinions upon it. In conclusion, he wanted to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer had he made any calculation with regard to the increased cost of collecting this new tax, and secondly whether it was his intention that there should be a Government stamp on these foreign cigarettes? In his judgment no case had been made out for a stamp to be affixed, and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of America such a step had created a great deal of objection and dissatisfaction.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not propose to put a special stamp on foreign, cigarettes, and he did not anticipate that there would be any increased cost in collecting the duty because it was not a case of imposing a new duty.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid he had appealed to the Member for North Bristol earlier in the day on the question of cigars, and he would like to appeal to him, or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now in the case of cigarettes. No answer had been given to his inquiry regarding the increase of duty last imposed upon manufactured tobacco by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. When that duty was imposed there was a fall in the returns of duties from manufactured tobacco. In 1898–9 the amount received was over £800,000, whereas the duty received last year was only £776,000, and it appeared to his untutored mind that the effect of raising the duty would be to exclude so much foreign-manufactured goods that the duty so far from being of any value to the Treasury would actually result in decreased returns. He suggested that this was merely a protective duty and certainly it came within that category.
  SIR FREDERICK WILLS (Bristol, N.)said he had boon called upon by hon. Gentlemen opposite to answer a question as to the taxation of foreign cigarettes. If it were a matter that assumed the form of protection, as a free-trader he should

  903
  feel it his duty either to vote against it or certainly not to vote for it, but he might point out that the foreign cigarettes imported were not of such a nature as to compete with the cigarettes that were made in this country for the simple reason that they were manufactured in such a way and of such materials as would not be allowed to be used here, and that the manufacturers would not use even if they
  were allowed. Therefore in his opinion the foreign cigarettes would not compete in any way with the cigarettes made in this country. They were of a different flavour and different nature altogether.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 171.)

  AYES.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Randles, John S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard Hanley

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Bigwood, James

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bull, William James

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Butcher, John George

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Keswick, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Spear, John Ward

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

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

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur) Ormskirk)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Denny, Colonel

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.:

  Doughty, George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tritton Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tuff, Charles

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund, Lyne

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hammond, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parrott, William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Austin, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rea, Russell

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bell, Richard

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Blake, Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John

  Roland, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Broadhurst Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shackleton, David James

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Lambert, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Burt, Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehy, David

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cameron, Robert

  Leamy, Edmund

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Moss, Samuel

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Dowd, John

  William M'Arthur.

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Munro Ferguson)—put, and agreed to.

  MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said the object of the Amendment which ho rose for the purpose of moving was to do away with the proposed new duty of 3d. per pound on tobacco strips. The protective character of the proposed tax had been recognised by Unionist free-traders, who had dismissed it with a phrase. There was said to be "a whiff of protection" about it. It was quite true that the amount of revenue involved was not large, and that the number of persons affected by the tax was small, but if it could be shown that the tax possessed the worst vices of a protectionist impost, that it disorganised trade, that while it enriched a few men it impoverished others, that it would ulti-
  906
  mately bring in no revenue, and that it was a breach of the formal pledge of the Prime Minister, he hoped free-traders on the Government side of the House would agree with him that it was a tax to be condemned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had justified the tax on two grounds—first, that our existing Customs regulations were at fault; and, secondly, that the existing duties were an anomaly. The right hon. Gentleman's exact words were—
  "These regulations had actually driven employment away from our shores."
  And that—
  "It was an anomaly in our tobacco duties that leaf and strips should be subject to the same charge."

  907
  It would be noticed that the first ground of objection depended exclusively upon the insufficiency of the existing drawback. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the drawback allowed upon stalk taken from the leaf had been insufficient, but the appropriate remedy for the defect in our Customs regulations was to amend the drawback, and inasmuch as the light hon. Gentleman proposed to effect such an Amendment in the present Bill that particular argument disappeared. With regard to the second ground of justification the case put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the existing tobacco duties were on a rising scale of protection, that protection was given varying in degree according to the amount of manufacture involved. The right hon. Gentleman stated that stripping was a part of the process of manufacture, and that it alone in the whole series of processes did not receive protection from the duties.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: did not use the word "protection."
  MR. MCKENNAthought the right hon. Gentleman, with a smile, used the word "compensation," in order to avoid the word "protection." His words were—
  "But the principle of the scale being that there should be a rate for raw tobacco, with a correlative but increased rate for each form of the manufactured article, it has always been an anomaly that the first process of manufacture or treatment which the leaf goes through is marked by no corresponding rate in our scale."
  And—
  "The result is that the home manufacturer, making for home consumption, has a larger measure of—shall say compensation—than Mr. Gladstone had intended."
  From the inquiries he had been able to make into the processes of manufacture, he (the hon. Member) had been unable to find any justification for the theory advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. The general rate of the duty on manufactured tobacco was 3s. 10d. per pound. Whether the tobacco was spun into roll, or pressed and cut, or cut loose as in the case of shag, there was no difference in the amount of duty. There were exceptions to the rule, but not at all ranged on any scale of manufacture. The
  908
  exceptions were Negro Head and Cavendish, charged at 4s. 4d: and cigars, charged at 5s. 6d. In the case of cigars, the principle was that a pound of tobacco did not make a pound of cigars, and that consequently it was right and proper that a pound of cigars should be charged a heavier rate than a pound of tobacco. As regarded Negro Head and Cavendish, there was a difference in the rate according to whether they were manufactured in bond or when imported, but the reason for the difference was not to be found in any Act of Parliament so far as he had been able to discover. It was beyond all dispute that the existing duties on manufactured tobacco were protective, but it was to be remembered that the protection of manufactured tobacco dated back to the days when England was a protectionist country. Mr. Gladstone found the trade in tobacco protected, he did not altogether take the protection away. But that was no reason why a new element of protection should be introduced, by which a branch of the industry which for sixty years had not received protection should be protected now. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an admission that the duty of three pence on strips was protective of the industry of stripping. Stripping was unskilled labour, done by negroes in the United States at a charge of about ¼d. per 1b. If the work were done in this country, it would probably be performed by girls at wages of from 6s. to 10s. a week. The total value of the industry if no more strips were imported could not exceed £60,000 a year. That was the industry for the sake of which the tobacco trade was to be disorganised, and a first sample of protection re-introduced into the country. Every freetrader believed that if the industry of stripping was protected and caused to be carried on in this country instead of in the United States, some other service or industry by which we paid for the work now done in the United States would no longer be done here. Every free-trader believed this, and every protectionist avowedly or implicitly denied it
  After the speech of the Prime Minister at Sheffield, he should have thought that it would not have been necessary to raise the argument in this House, but unless the tax were withdrawn the argument would

  909
  have to be raised, because the tax was a protectionist tax, introduced on protectionist principles, and in contradiction of the pledge given by the Prime Minister.
  One special and overwhelming objection to the tax was that it embodied something which was absolutely new in our fiscal policy and which ought to be utterly condemned. There were in this country large stocks of tobacco held in bond. The amount was approximately 200,000,000 pounds, or enough to last upwards of two years. Those stocks were owned partly by manufacturers and partly by merchants, and they were partly held here by merchants on commission for American owners. Hitherto the duty on leaf and strips had been the same—3s. per 1b. A differential duty was now to be introduced. What would be the; effect? Hitherto a manufacturer who wanted to buy raw tobacco had gone to the merchant owning the stocks in bond, and purchased from him either leaf or strips, according to his requirements, and having purchased what he wanted he took the tobacco out of bond and paid the duty. Under the present proposal the duty on the leaf would be 3s., and on the strip 3s. 3d. The two commodities were practically the same. Leaf could be converted into strips for the cost of stripping, which in this country was less than a halfpenny per pound. What would be the consequence? A manufacturer who went to a merchant to buy would be offered the strips at, say, 6d., and the same quality leaf at 5d., the difference being largely due to the defective drawback. The manufacturer would have to pay 6d. for the strips and 3s. 3d. duty, or 3s. 9d. in all. But leaf lie would get for 5d. and 3s. duty, or 3s. 5d. in all, a difference of 4d. The cost of stripping being a halfpenny, the manufacturer would be able to buy leaf and strip it at the total cost of 3s. 5½d., and naturally he would never buy strips at 3s. 9d. The effect of the proposal had been to render the large stocks of strips absolutely unsaleable. That was the new principle. The owners of leaf had had a great run on their commodity. Lucky owners of leaf! The owners of strips possessed a commodity which was a drug in the market; their stocks were unsaleable unless they would offer them at two pence or three pence per pound cheaper than before the Budget. Unfortunate owners of strips! It was an
  910
  absolutely new principle in our taxation that we should distinguish between two kinds of property in this way. They could not make the nation rich by taxes: all they could do was to transfer money from the pockets of one set of men to the pockets of another set.
  He would not have ventured to make these statements on his own authority; he had with him a number of authorities to quote to the Committee. The Monthly Journal of Tobacco stated—
  "The differentiation between leaf and strip tobacco with the idea of transferring the work of stripping from negro labour in America to British working people in this country is in the abstract estimable. But in practice to have induced the trade to import strips because of an inadequate drawback allowance on the stalks and stringent moisture regulations, as that an accumulation of two years' consumption of strips is stored in the bonded warehouses, and then to depreciate the value of this immense stock by legislation, is, in the most moderate language, unfair."
  The same paper also stated—
  "The threepence imposed on strips has widely different effects. While it is most injurious to the importers of American tobaccos, which have formed the bulk of the consumption, it will be most beneficial to importers of substitutes, whose business has been stagnant for years. While it gives a decided pull to Irish manufacturers, who have always been large users of leaf, it almost ruins the smaller North Country trade of brown roll, for which strips is exclusively used."
  On the occasion of a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Maxwell, the representative of a large and important firm, said—
  "Strips had been used in this country for the last 100 years, and whenever there had been a change of duty strips and leaf alike had been affected,"
  and he used the argument to show what a thunderclap the proposed differentiation was upon the owners of strips who had accumulated large stocks in bond, which stocks were now unsaleable. Mr. McLeod, another representative of the trade, said—
  "The trade had always considered leaf, whether stripped or unstripped, as raw tobacco, and merchants would never have thought of accumulating strips to the extent they had if there was any possibility of strips alone being penalised."
  "The imposition of a differential duty without any modification would cause most serious loss to importers and merchants who had large stocks of strips on hand in the natural course of their business. It would pay the manufacturers much better to use leaf at 3s. than strips

  911
  at 3s. 3d., and it would be impossible therefore to find a market for the present stocks of strips. It would be difficult to exaggerate the seriousness of the position."
  The case was also fully stated by Mr. Goodwin, the representative of one of the oldest firms in the leaf import trade, who declared that many of the firms went back over a century, and that during the whole of that time leaf and strips had been subjected to uniform rates of duty; that was to say, that even during the most protectionist period of the country's history there had never been any differentiation between the two commodities. Mr. Goodwin went on to say that—
  "He desired to put one fact before the Chancellor as showing the way in which his proposal would operate. Ten days ago he had a considerable amount of strips in offer, and had partly arranged to sell 120 hogsheads at 4£d. per lb., but a binding contract was not entered into. On Tuesday the Budget announcement was made, and when he saw it he knew that the transaction must fail through. The intending purchaser told him that he had estimated the effect of the proposed differentiation very carefully, and that when he was prepared to take 2Jd. per lb. for his strips he might offer them again.
  The Chancellor would therefore see that the effect of the Budget was to depreciate his property by nearly 50 per cent. There was another point. Strips had for the last century been a negotiable security with bankers. How was that security to be classed in the future if it was liable to a depreciation of from 25 to 50 per cent, in the market? The foundation of business was confidence, and if bankers lost confidence in an article like tobacco it would be impossible to conduct business; it would be impossible to negotiate with firms if the security offered was subject to such a sudden and heavy fall. There were plenty of precedents for the course which they asked the Chancellor to take. There were the cases of the coal tax and the corn tax, in both of which rebates were allowed, and he was told that in the publican's compensation Bill the Government had laid down the principle that it was unfair to have confiscation without compensation. It seemed to them that in the tobacco trade the events of the last ten days had to a very great extent confiscated the value of their property."
  Upon the other aspect of the question, the rise in the value of leaf, he would quote only the Secretary of the Liverpool branch of the Tobacco Dealers' Alliance, who, at an interview, stated that—
  "in consequence of the shortage of stock the Western leaf has been withdrawn from sale, and common filler Western leaf has fetched close on 5d. per 1b. between merchant and manufacturer, whereas a few days ago it would be bought at 3d. The situation is causing
  912
  much uneasiness among manufacturers, importers and wholesalers."
  Such was the summary of the case presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the first introduction of the proposal. In the course of his reply, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "They represented to him that in the first instance it [the new duty] would fall only on the shoulders of some twenty houses in the country with no possibility of recovering it elsewhere and with no compensation for this added charge. [Hear, hear.] He was glad to hear that concurrence in his description of what they had said; at any rate, it showed that he appreciated what the point was that they wished to bring before him. It was in itself a reason for the course which he had indicated to them he should take—namely, that before saying anything further he should wait to hear what other people had to say in this matter. His correspondence had been extensive and varied; it came from every section of the trade, and he observed that each section of the trade assured him that the whole of the new tax would be borne by them exclusively.
  The right hon. Gentleman then went on to give them his amusing and ingenious reply, in which he told them that they could not all bear the whole of the tax. There were two points which he desired to observe in the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had remarked that not a few of them welcomed the duty. Of course they did; but if the right hon. Gentleman had been cautious that statement ought to have put him on the alert. The members of a trade did not usually welcome a tax on the commodity they were producing. The owners of leaf welcomed the duty because it was giving them a bounty, and business men would naturally welcome anything that would give them a greater profit in their business. But, so far from being on his guard, the Chancellor of the Exchequer welcomed this approval as evidence of the beauty of his proposal. Was it wise for Parliament to encourage business men to combine in wealthy leagues to promote the taxation of their fellow-citizens? Taxes of this character encouraged men to subscribe to those leagues, and however inefficient and ineffective their efforts might be, they were never in want of funds. The second point to be observed was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was under the impression that he appreciated the case brought before him by the owners of strips. He likened their case to

  913
  that of the manufacturers, the wholesale dealers, and the retailers, and he told them that they could put up their price And get the duty back from their buyers. He had already shown that the merchant who owned stocks of strips had no chance at all of putting up his price. The manufacturer would not buy his strips because he could get the leaf stripped himself at about one-halfpenny per lb., and why should he buy strips and pay 3d. extra duty? The essence of the merchants' case was that the tax was on strips and not on leaf. The grievance which the owners of strips had got was that they could not sell their stocks except at a grievous loss, and the complaint he made against the right hon. Gentleman was that he never seemed to appreciate that the effect of his duly would be to give a bounty to the owners of leaf and reduce the value of the strips. Of 40,000,000 1bs. held in bond by merchants about half was owned by them or held on commission on terms that they had advanced almost the whole of the money, therefore a loss of at least 2d. per pound would fall on the owners of 20,000,000 1bs. of tobacco—something like a loss of £200,000 on a few merchants in the country, who, without notice and without power of redress, had this serious loss illegitimately inflicted upon them by this Budget.
  When this subject was raised earlier in the session there was considerable doubt in the House as to what the effect of the duty would be, and he remembered very well that when he referred on a former occasion to the Board of Trade Returns for the month of March, he was subjected to two forms of attack, one from hon. Members who believed that he was entirely wrong in his view that the Budget had been anticipated, because anybody who had anticipated the Budget would not have imported leaf, but would have imported strips and taken them out of bond. He was also subjected to another form of attack from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the altogether erroneous ground that he had imputed personal dishonour to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Needless to say it was not, as he explicitly stated, and it never had been, and was not now, his intention to impute the faintest personal charge against the right hon. Gentleman. He did not believe that
  914
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood the meaning of the tax when he proposed it. He did not, however, think that that was sufficient ground for the subsequent attack made upon him—an attack which, although not continued in consequence of a letter he wrote, had never been withdrawn. He was bound to say for himself that he had never been able to understand how the Prime Minister was able to evade one or other of two courses. He had never been able to understand why, if he believed him in what he wrote in his letter to him, he did not withdraw the charge made against him, and if he did not believe him why he did not continue the attack. He should be most unwilling to say anything offensive or disagreeable to the Prime Minister, because apart from this particular incident he had always treated him, as he treated everyone else, with the greatest courtesy and fairness; but he ought to have remembered that when he made an attack upon a private Member of this House all the organs of the Press up and down the country reported his speech in full, giving the widest publicity to every charge made against a humble individual like himself, whereas any reply that he might make did not receive, ho would not say equal attention, but scarcely any attention at all. The right hon. Gentleman, whose name was written so large in the book of chivalry, should not have allowed that letter to be characterised as an appeal, and the writer to be represented by some organs of the Press as going down on his knees in an appeal ad misericordiam. If the circumstances were brought to his knowledge the right hon. Gentleman should surely have taken an opportunity to relieve him from the stigma of that charge.
  When quoting the Returns of the import of strips in March he argued, as any man of ordinary business acumen would argue, that somehow somebody had anticipated what the Budget would be. In March the importation of strips was 3,400,000 1bs. or 43 per cent; of unstripped, or leaf, 4,600,000 1bs. or 57 per cent; whereas before the Budget was anticipated the proportion of stripped was 77 per cent. and of unstripped 23 per cent. In April the stripped imports were 2,700,000 lbs., and the unstripped 5,000,000 lbs., or 65

  915
  per cert In May the stripped dropped to l,600,0001bs.and the unstripped amounted to 3,800,000 1bs., or 71 per cent. What would become of the revenue if strips were no longer imported? There were certain stocks of strips held by British manufacturers in the United States before the Budget was introduced, but once those stocks were exhausted not a single pound of strips would come to this country, for no man would pay 3d. duty on strips over and above the leaf when he could strip the leaf for one halfpenny a pound. Two years hence this revenue would disappear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be in office then. He would have left his mark as a protectionist, but he would have left no revenue for his successor. If he had put the duty on the leaf and strips alike how different would the result have been! The revenue would have been permanent, he would have avoided a cruel injustice to the owners of strips in bond and he would have been faithful to the pledge of the Prime Minister that the question of protection should not be raised in any form in the present Parliament.
  Upon the subject of this pledge he proposed to quote, not the Prime Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He did so because one of the qualities which he admired most in the late Colonial Secretary was that they never had any doubt as to his meaning. What he admired most in the statements of the Prime Minister, on the other hand, was that he was always successful in leaving his meaning in doubt. Both right hon. Gentlemen had their duty to fulfil, and when he wished to know what the pledge of the Prime Minister was, he naturally turned to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He would quote his interpretation of that pledge which at the time was approved of by the Prime Minister. It was given on the occasion of the Motion moved by his hon. friend the Member for Banffshire on the 18th of May last. Then the late Colonial Secretary said—
  "I understand that, following the repeated statements of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and following also what has always been my own opinion with regard to the propriety of this matter, we do not desire that the question should be discussed, and we do not believe it could be practically discussed in the present Parliament. We say you may raise
  916
  the fiscal question if you please, and you may say what you will about it upon a private Member's abstract Resolution; but the Government have pledged themselves not to raise it in any form."
  Upon the statements which he had ventured to bring before the Committee, which he believed that he had supported with sufficient testimony, he submitted that this duty was a protective duty upon the industry of stripping. He could not conceive that the Prime Minister would say that, inasmuch as there was already a protective duty upon manufactured tobacco, it was no departure from our present fiscal system to introduce a new protective duty upon another process dealing with tobacco. He could not imagine that the Prime Minister would say ^that, because such an argument could only be characterised as a quibble. The process of stripping had never before been protected in this country, and to protect it now was to introduce a new protective duty. It was not relevant to assert that there were other processes which were protected. This duty raised the whole fiscal question. It was a protective duty, and if it was imposed he submitted that it would be a breach of the pledge given by the Prime Minister. That pledge was given to the whole world, and it was open to even the humblest Member of that House to call for its unreserved fulfilment. Ministers had relied upon that pledge in the course of this very debate for their protection, and they, too, were entitled to rely upon it now for protection. He argued that if the Government fulfilled that pledge they would have to give up the protection of the industry of stripping. The industry which the duty would protect was one which we could well do without, but, even if it was an important industry, the preservation of Ministerial faith was of far greater importance.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member had been good enough to say that he had no suspicion of his honour, but had suggested that he had been duped by somebody more clever and less honest than himself.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he did not impute dishonesty to any business man who, in the furtherance of his own business,

  917
  desired to get a tax that would benefit him at the expense of others.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out from the word 'pound,' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
  Question proposed. "That the words 'and the duties payable under the same section or' stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was trying so to frame his remarks that there would be no necessity for contradiction or interruption. The hon. Member had repeated the allegation that this duty was anticipated by a person, or by persons, who had an interest in the knowledge which they obtained, and who profited by it to import an unusual quantity of strip tobacco. He was glad to say that the hon. Member had mentioned no name. On the first occasion the hon. Member associated this charge with a reference to Mr. Gallaher, a manufacturer of Belfast, who, he said, was a member of the Tariff Commission. If the hon. Member wished to call attention to the unusually large importation of strip in the month before the Budget statement was made without imputing or making any suggestions of improper conduct against any one, all he could say was that the hon. Member worded his speech imprudently, and he made a misapprehension of his meaning almost inevitable. He had given him no hint that he was going to call attention to these figures or to the particular case of Mr. Gallaher at the time, and naturally he was not prepared to reply at once on the figures which were given. He did not think it would be right for him now to give the exact figures with reference to each particular merchant or dealer in any particular dutiable article, but Mr. Gallaher's name having been introduced, and suggestions having been made concerning him, he thought it was right to say a few words as to his importation. The suggestion made was that Mr. Gallaher was a great user of leaf tobacco, that he had some knowledge of what the Budget intended which enabled him to import largely in the month of March.
  MR. McKENNAinvited the right hon. Gentleman to read what he said if he wished to quote him. What he actually stated was that Mr. Gallaher was
  918
  a large owner of stocks, that the importation of March would have been a mere trifle to Mr. Gallaher, that he personally had not the faintest knowledge who had imported, and did not inquire, but that someone had imported largely, without doubt.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that the hon. Member did not say that. [Cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "Read."] It was a question of fact. If there was no intention to insinuate that Mr. Gallaher had taken advantage of his connection with the Tariff Commission or with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of a supposed connection between both, to secure this alteration of duty for his own purpose, why was his name connected with this large importation? There were three statements he could put in a few words which he thought the Committee ought to know. The importation of strips by Mr. Gallaher in March a year before the Budget was more than four times as large as it was in March immediately preceding the Budget. His average importation over the twelve months preceding was more than three and a half times as much as it was in the month before the Budget. If any further answer was needed to the suggestion that Mr. Gallaher or any one else obtained knowledge of his intention and that the increase in the stock of leaf was made in the month before the Budget, he thought that it would be sufficient to say that his first suggestion of this duty on strips was made in answer to an inquiry of his addressed to the Board of Customs in the month of April. The fact of the matter was that owing to the wet season in America, or from other causes, the usual imports of leaf had not taken place in the closing months of last year and the early months of this year. There was accordingly a greater quantity in the month of March last. Even making allowances for that, the importation of whole leaf during the months from September, 1903, to March, 1904, were over 1,250,000 lbs. less than they were in the preceding; year. He must apologise to the Committee for dealing at such length with this side of the question.
  Now, perhaps, he might be allowed to deal with what, after all, was the pleasanter subject of the merits of the tax itself. There were two questions

  919
  raised—whether it was right to differentiate between strips and whole leaf, and whether, if so, the difference proposed was proportionate to the difference between the values of the two articles. The theory on which our tobacco duties were worked was that the duty on the manufactured article should be greater than the duty on the raw material from which it was produced. That was admittedly reasonable, for the manufacturer in this country must have some compensation for the restrictions to which he was subjected if he were to carry on his trade at all. The hon. Member said that there was no differentiation between spun and twist tobacco. But neither of these was a process in the manufacture of the other. They were two separate articles produced from the same raw material; but strips were a stage in the process of manufacturing raw tobacco for sale to the public. The principle of marking the different stages of manufacture by separate duties found expression in the Customs tariffs of many of our Colonies, and of most foreign countries. It was not considered illogical by the trade itself. A correspondent writing in the Journal of Tobacco, from Richmond, Virginia, the centre of the industry which the hon. Member supposed to be most injuriously affected by this proposal, said—
  "The opinion is freely expressed on this side that it is a wonder that the tax on strips has not been adjusted in this way years since."
  On 1st June the Journal of Tobacco, which he did not cite as a supporter of his proposals, declared that there were sound reasons for the differentiation of the duty. He thought that those who had carefully followed what he had been saying and who were interested in the merits of the question would have seen that the distinction he proposed to make in the present Budget was not an artificial distinction. It was not a distinction unknown to people in the trade, and it would not be peculiar to this country. It was a matter of surprise among those who were most conversant with the subject that we had not adopted it long ago in our own country.
  Coming to the question—Is this differentiation protective he thought the whole of the Committee must see that if the duty on a raw material and the duty on a manufactured article requiring con-
  920
  siderable time and labour and elaborate appliances for its manufacture should be exactly the same, the home manufacturer of the finished article would be at a disadvantage as compared with the foreign importer. The home manufacturer would have to pay his duty on the raw material before the process of manufacture, and he would have to stand out of the duty for the whole of the time during which the process was going on. Therefore it was not true that prima facie there was reason for the duty being the same on a manufactured article as it was on the unmanufactured article. Prima facie the reasonable thing was that the duty on the manufactured article should be higher than the duty on the raw material; and, if that were true of a manufactured article which had undergone many stages of manufacture, was it not true—not to the same extent, indeed, but equally true in principle—of any stage or process in that manufacture? The result of our present tariff was to penalise any manufacturer who attempted to do the stripping in this country. He did not want to protect anybody and he was not attempting to protect any industry which could not exist on perfectly fair terms by itself. He had not said one word in support of this tax which was based on protectionist grounds as the strongest free-trader interpreted them; but he would ask the strongest free-trader whether he thought that it was part of the sacred doctrine of free trade, as he understood it, that our Customs duties should be so drawn as to make it practically impossible for a manufacturer to carry on a particular manufacture in this country. Was it really essential to the safety of our present fiscal system that we should maintain our duties in such a condition that the employment of British labour was actually penalised and discouraged by these duties? If that was the attitude which they were taking up, they were striking the heaviest blow at free trade, as it had hitherto been practised, that had ever been struck at any point of the fiscal controversy.
  The primary reason for the action that he was now taking was in order to obtain revenue, but, that being so, he confessed that he thought it no disadvantage of his tax that it would not protect a British industry against foreign competition,

  921
  but relieve it from the disability and burden under which it at present laboured in competition with the foreign trade. He was not attempting to place it in any privileged position, but to place it in a position of equality in competition with the imported article. The hon. Gentleman continued to be of opinion that, quite apart from anything in the scale of duties, there was some essential condition of nature which would necessitate this work being done in America and not elsewhere. That was not his opinion. For certain purposes, especially for cigar making, the manufacturers in this country would much rather have the whole leaf than the stripped. They could then get a better article for their purpose and make a better article, but they were actually prevented by the present state of our duties from importing the whole leaf where they would wish to do so. The stripping of leaf abroad, he was also told, was on the increase, and certain classes of leaf which had hitherto been always imported as whole leaf were now being imported as stripped, in spite of the fact that it would be better for the trade itself and for the natural course of trade that the stripping should take place here. He received a letter the other day from a large manufacturer in this country who used about two and a half times the quantity of stripped tobacco that he did of unstripped in which he said that he would like to import tobacco direct from the United States to this country, but at the present time he had to import it to Holland and then to bring it in here. He was, therefore, not asking the Committee artificially to stimulate an industry which could not exist in this country without stimulation, but to remove from that industry artificial disabilities which were prejudicial to it.
  SIB JAMES JOICEYasked whether he was right in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the difference of duty in the cases of stripped and unstripped tobacco represented only the actual cost of stripping.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEKLAINsaid that was the question to which he was coming. He hoped to be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that matter before concluding. If he had carried the Com-
  922
  mittee with him in showing that it was natural that there should be a distinction, and that the absence of a distinction did not promote the natural course of trade, the question arose whether the distinction which he proposed was fair and reasonable. The hon. Gentleman's allegation was that he had by this proposed differentiation greatly appreciated the price of leaf and depreciated the price of strips. He did not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figures from. He had with him the monthly tobacco circular shoving the prices of leaf and strips on 31st May compared with 31st March. For strips there were nine or ten quotations given for each month. There was absolutely no difference between the prices quoted for 31st May, after the Budget, and the prices quoted for 31st March before the Budget.
  MR. McKENNA: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that there has been any dealing in stripped tobacco at all?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was proceeding stage by stage. For the present he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that; according to this tobacco circular there was absolutely no variation in the price quoted for stripped tobacco before and after the Budget. But then the hon. Gentleman said the whole leaf had greatly increased in price. There were ten quotations for the whole leaf in the two months, and the only one which had changed was the quotation for medium to good Western leaf, which stood on 31st March at 4½d. to 5½d., and on 31st May at4¾d. to 6d. Was not that rather a shadowy foundation for these imputations of a vast and illicit transfer of property from one class of the community to the other, owing to the misfortune of having an ignorant and unskilled Chancellor? As regarded the sales he would make a comparison with a year ago. The Tobacco Trade Review of 1st June contained particulars of actual sale:—
  "Virginia strip, 1903, 5½d. to 10d.; 1904, 5½d. to 10 7d."
  There was accordingly no change.
  "Virginia whole leaf. 1903, 5d. to 6½d.; 1904, 4d. to 7d."

  923
  As to strips, the price in 1903 was 5d. to 6½d.; in 1904,4d. to6½d. The price of whole leaf was—1903, 4d. to 5½d.; 1904, 4d. to 5d. These figures referred to the actual sales which had taken place. He thought, therefore, he had not made the great difference in the value of the two articles which the hon. Gentleman suggested. He had tried to make some calculation what the actual value of strips compared with leaf of the same character should be, or in other words what were the saleable articles produced on the one hand from imported strips and on the other from imported whole leaf of the same character, and what the amount of duty paid per pound of the article as sold would be. On an average of some twenty-four samples, after making certain allowances—among them allowances for the extra cost due to Excise restrictions, and the loss owing to the greater amount of moisture—the duty cost on tobacco made from the whole leaf, imported as whole leaf, would be 3s. 2½d.or a little over. On black Virginia the actual amount that would be paid in duty if the whole leaf were imported would be 3s. 4d., as against 3s. 3d. which would be paid if the manufacturer imported the strips and manufactured the tobacco. There seemed to be great apprehension that the value of strips would be adversely affected by this duty. As a matter of fact, the differentiation made between whole leaf arid strips by the duty of 3d. on strips was only enough to put whole leaf and strips on an equal footing, and that it was entirely the convenience of the manufacturer which decided whether he should work with strips or with whole leaf. The Western Tobacco Journal of Cincinnati—a quarter which could not be considered prejudiced in his favour, for, of course, it was its interest that the duty should be reduced rather than increased—stated that dealers in strips were needlessly alarmed, and it advised holders of strips to continue to hold their stocks, for the time would come when strips would again be wanted. This was his conviction also. The time would come when the present uncertainty would be put an end to by the House affirming the duty. Strips would be then demanded and holders would be able to clear their stocks without loss.
  He apologised to the Committee for the length at which he had spoken, but this
  924
  matter had assumed what he thought was perhaps an exaggerated importance. His desire was to put the Committee in possession of his views in regard to the matter. There was only one other point to which he wished to refer. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had said that the imposition of the duty on strips was a violation of the pledge given by the Government not to raise any new fiscal issue in this Parliament. In his opinion it was nothing of the kind. It was no part of our fiscal system that the course of trade should be unnaturally diverted against the interests of our manufacturers and labourers. That mistake would be rectified by the imposition of this duty. The hon. Member seemed to think that there would be no revenue derived from the duty. But if strips were only imported because they were given an unfair advantage over whole leaf, the inequality should be removed and both be placed upon the same fair basis. That was what he was now doing in proposing this duty. He believed that strips would continue to be imported and that additional revenue would be obtained under this very proper, simple, and natural duty, which in no way interfered with our present fiscal system.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the Committee was indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his very lengthy, considerate, and lucid speech. This was a very complicated and technical subject. There were the complication of prices, the operation of drawbacks, the variety of the classes of tobacco and the processes through which the tobacco passed. There were all the actions, reactions, and counter-reactions which took place by the operation of these different factors, the one or the other. It was satisfactory, therefore, to the Committee that they had had two speeches with a high degree of technical knowledge, and they had been able to follow the whole subject with the utmost clearness. He confessed that he had been led to a. perfectly definite conclusion on the subject. It appeared to him quite obvious that this tax was vicious in principle, though, perhaps, it was not vicious on a great scale. It might be protection with a hypodermic syringe.

  925
  but it had undoubtedly a protective flavour about it. The money went into the Exchequer, there was no doubt about that; but the burden was not equally distributed over the tobacco trade. Some people were enthusiastic about the tax, but a considerable injury was inflicted on those tobacconists who did not derive any advantage from it. It had been quite clearly shown that this tax practically amounted to a bounty on the tobacco leaf and a corresponding drawback and disadvantage on stripped tobacco. Anyone who wanted to make money before the tax was introduced had only to find out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to introduce it. They could buy leaf and import it in considerable quantities, and they were in a position to be made rich by a mere vote on the Budget Resolutions in the House. Before the Budget was introduced, the average importation for many years was 77 per cent, stripped and 23 per cent. leaf. In March, a month before the introduction of this Budget, which made the importation of leaf profitable, the importation of stripped fell to 43 per cent, and the importation of leaf rose to 57 per cent. It was no good being indignant about this. That was the fact. No one was making any charges against the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Member suggest that that was due to the leakage of my intentions to alter the duty on tobacco?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHTLLsaid he suggested that the alteration in the percentages was due to some person or persons unknown importing in the month of March a very unusual percentage of leaf, and not importing so much stripped tobacco as they had imported during the last few years. He knew the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was due to the wet season in America. Those who found that a satisfactory and adequate answer would no doubt console themselves with the fact that the wet season of America altered the percentages from what they had been under the influence of recurring wet seasons during many previous years and the continuance of the wet season now, so that the importation of stripped of stripped was no longer
  926
  profitable and had fallen to nearly 29 per cent, and leaf had risen to 71 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to know what he actually suggested. He suggested that a deplorable scandal was the only adequate explanation of these figures. He put it perfectly plainly. The suggestion of his hon. friend so much resented by the Prime Minister on a previous occasion was not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone about making some corrupt bargain with other people for his own personal and sordid profit. Nobody had ever made such a suggestion, and the indignation manifested by the right hon. Gentleman was not, he thought, wholly due to the fact that any intention to make such a charge was believed. He ventured to hope that we should never reach the stage when charges of that kind could be readily thrown against the Ministers of the Crown. His right hon. friend on the previous occasion got out of this amazing discrepancy in figures by defending his own personal honour. To-night he endeavoured to get out of it by defending Mr. Gallaher's personal honour. He had no more intention to make charges against Mr. Gallaher's personal honour than against the right hon. Gentleman's. If a volume were compiled on Parliamentarv tactics, he would certainly suggest that the Prime Minister should write a chapter on how to turn a charge against personal honour to Party advantage. No one was more capable of conveying a rebuke for a pretended crime, and he said in all seriousness that the attacks made on his hon. friend, with an air of moral indignation, on the day hon. Gentlemen came down to the House to see him receive a castigation, were greatly more diverting than they were impressive or deserved. In answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's inquiry, what he suggested plainly was that information must have leaked out about his intention. He could not put it more plainly than that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to repeat what formerly said? My intention could not have leaked out under any circumstances in time to enable importations to be made, for my intentions were not formed, or even suggested, until April.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid it was quite obvious that before the right hon. Gentleman's intentions crystallized into action he must have been considering all sorts of subjects of taxation—the Prime Minister need not leave the House. He was not going to allude to preference—and that someone connected with the tobacco trade must have had some cause for knowing what was likely to be done. Through whom did the information leak out It must have been either from the officials of the Treasury or it was due to the deductions which trade experts, whom the right hon. Gentleman consulted, drew. Which was the more probable He had no hesitation in declaring his opinion. He entertained the very highest opinion of the officials of our public Departments, and, above all, of the Treasury officials. It was a thing of which the country could be justly proud that, when many thousands of pounds might easily be made by anticipating the decisions of Chancellors of the Exchequer and when details of a coming Budget must be known to twenty or thirty men in receipt of small salaries, no leakage had taken place enabling traders to take advantage of the fiscal changes intended. He did not believe that the leakage had been through the officials, and therefore he was driven to the conclusion that trade experts whom the right hon. Gentleman consulted or approached, directly or indirectly, drew their own conclusions as to which imports were likely to be profitable and which, in fact, did prove profitable. It was a very great honour to a business man to be consulted on any business matter, for he was expected to be actuated by a high sense of honour, and if he used his knowledge, either directly or indirectly, to make a farthing out of it that man was dishonoured. But that had been possible because this tax was vicious in principle and in character protective. With taxes of a complicated and protective character there were scores of ways by which individuals could make profit, and the inevitable strain was too great for human rectitude. Protection had a corrupting effect, and now that taxation schemes were on foot they ought not to overlook this sinister feature, which had crept in in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman tampering with protective experiments in the tobacco duties.
  SIR FREDERICK WILLSsaid he was 10th to intervene in the debate, because it might be suspected that as a member of the Tobacco Company he was anxious to trundle his own wheelbarrow. He should like, however, to ask his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the calculation which he had set before the Committee as to the difference between the price of stripped tobacco and leaf tobacco he had charged 3d. per lb. more for duty on stripped tobacco If the right hon. Gentleman had done that he could understand the result at which he had arrived.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that he had included the duty in his calculation. The manufacturers were out of pocket on the raw material and for the expenses they were put to by the Excise regulations.
  SIR FREDERICK WILLSsaid that the proposal of his right hon. friend was that there should be a differential duty between stripped tobacco and leaf tobacco. No doubt the manufacturers were quite able to look after themselves, but there were merchants in London, Liverpool, and Glasgow who had in their hands large quantities of stripped tobacco which was at present practically unsaleable. These gentlemen stood to lose between £300,000 and £400,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to get half a million of money from this duty, but he was perfectly sure that the right hon. Gentleman never contemplated that he was going to take £300,000 or £400,000 out of the pockets of twenty men in order to obtain that revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend that; but that would be the effect of his proposal. In most cases, the tobacco was not the property of the merchants. In the ordinary course of business, shippers in America sent tobacco over to this country, and the merchants advanced from 70 per cent, to 75 per cent of its value. The shippers dictated to the merchants the price they should ask; and the merchants then tried to sell the stock on commission. If the merchant could not sell at the shipper's price, he asked the shipper for the return of his money; but in many cases the shipper was not in a

  929
  position to return the money; and then he told the merchant to sell at the best price he could. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that people were going to buy stripped tobacco at an addition of 3d. per lb., he was particularly sanguine. His right hon. friend was at one period Postmaster-General—a position which he filled with very great credit to himself and with great advantage to the public. His right hon. friend had then in his employ many thousands of young women who were paid from perhaps 15s. to 30s. a week. In the firm with which he himself was connected, the young women, if paid 3d. per lb. for stripping tobacco, would earn £A 10s. a week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that stripped tobacco was worth 3d. per lb. more. His own opinion was that tobacco could be stripped at ½d. per 1b.; and that the girls employed in it would even then earn a substantial wage. This £300,000 or £400,000 would be borne by some twenty different firms, and he would like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain why they should be fined in this manner. It was not right, in the interests of the country at large, to impose this fine. He appealed not only on behalf of the manufacturers, but also for the retailers, upon whom a great deal of the loss would fall, because the latter had, in many cases, to sell at certain fixed prices and could not go beyond them. Hon. Members opposite must bear in mind that it was impossible to adjudicate a tax imposed by the pound in order to distribute it by the ounce or half-ounce, and that when an added duty of twopence per pound was imposed it was difficult to say how the half-ounce was to be assessed.
  MR. EOBSONwas glad to be relieved of the technical points raised in the course of the debate, but there were one or two points that ought not to be left unanswered. One had reference to the name of Gallaher and to the question of upon whose advice the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted in seeking to impose this tax. It had not occurred to any previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the present one had gained a certain amount of credit for finding a new subject for taxation. Ho (Mr.Robson) had looked through the pages of the
  930
  Tobacco Journal, and he found that Mr. Gallaher had been informing the public upon the Budget proposals and that he claimed the credit of putting his views before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was not touching the question of fore stalling the Budget. He thought a man of business was entitled to use his intelligence and run a certain amount of risk in seeking to forecast events relating to duties on the goods in which he dealt, but he did not think that any tradesman occupying a high position on the Tariff Commission was entitled to go before a Departmental Committee and advise the imposition of a tax without informing the Committee that it would operate to his benefit and private interest. He should be glad to learn whether Mr. Gallaher, in suggesting this tax, informed the Committee that it would be an admirable thing for him and would put many pounds in his pocket. If that gentleman had made such a suggestion he (Mr. Robson) would be prepared to inscribe his name on the roll of British patriots, but if he had withheld it Mr. Gallaher must be prepared to hear more of the matter later. This kind of thing could not be limited to any particular article, but would happen in the case of other taxes. Who would suggest such protective taxes? The consumer Certainly not. These taxes were going to be suggested by those who meant to make money out of them, and it was in the highest degree instructive that this tax should be traced home to one who was to make money out of it, and who yet put his advice before the Committee without informing them of that circumstance. This matter, although it was most material to, had a bearing far beyond, the scope of the present discussion. He protested against the attempt to obscure the important public bearing of this part of the case by introducing questions of personal honour. Never in the history of the country had the question of personal honour been introduced with less excuse than when the right hon. Gentleman attempted to extract from the remarks of the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire an attack on his personal honour which was not only not intended but expressly repudiated. He begged the House and the country not to allow any such cloud to obscure the true bearing of this part of the question—namely the interest that

  931
  manufacturers had in going before Departmental Committees and Chancellors of the Exchequer who were not acquainted with the technical details of the trade, and using pleas of more employment, British labour, and other false hypocritical and discreditable pleas in order to get money out of the pockets of the British taxpayer. None of these trivial and unworthy attempts to import questions of personal honour would prevent him from endeavouring to trace back every one of these protectionist suggestions to its proper and its corrupt source.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Who does the hon. Gentleman suggest has been corrupt in this case?
  MR. ROBSON: say it is corrupt to go before a Departmental Committee and advise a tax which will put money into the pocket of the witness without so warning the Committee.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: understand the hon. Member to say that he has traced home corruption to Mr. Gallaher. All wish to say in connection with Mr. Gallaher is that have had no personal communication with him.
  MR. ROBSON: never said you had.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: He did not suggest the tax, and the only indirect communication have ever received from him was that if had read his evidence before the Departmental Committee should have seen that my proposal was a mistake and should not have made it.
  MR. McKENNA: That referred to cigaret'es.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, it referred to the duty on stripped tobacco.
  MR. ROBSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was seeking again to introduce the question of personal honour. He would be delighted, and he would be surprised, if it was found that Mr. Gallaher, in advising this tax, warned the Departmental Committee that he was personally interested. If he did not he did a wrong thing. With regard to corruption, his view was that almost every
  932
  one of these protective taxes had an origin, which, speaking from the point of view of fiscal morals, was justly called corrupt. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the protectionist party justify the conduct which he had been denouncing?
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman call Mr. Gallaher corrupt outside the House of Commons?
  MR. ROBSON: Whatever say inside the House my hon. friend will hear me say outside. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer defend outside the House or inside the conduct am denouncing?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman asserts that Mr. Gallaher before the Departmental Committee advised the imposition of the tax, and that that is the corrupt origin of the tax. deny it absolutely and entirely.
  MR. ROBSONsaid it was the right hon. Gentleman who was now attacking Mr. Gallaher. It was Mr. Gallaher who said that he suggested the tax. He said—
  "In my evidence before the recent Committee outlined this idea, and my views were generally accepted."
  That was his authority—Mr. Gallaher. Was he to understand that the right hon. Gentleman was charging Mr. Gallaher with making an untrue statement So far from charging Mr. Gallaher with dishonour or corruption, he thought that gentleman was quite entitled to put before the Departmental Committee ideas which more distinguished persons preached in the country. All he asked of him was that he should warn the Departmental Committee of his interest. Mr. Gallaher talked about trusts, and said,
  "If the independent manufacturers are squeezed out of the trade by the trust octopus. will take care that the British Government become their own manufacturers."
  That was what he threatened to do. They were not, however, going to be deterred from discussing all the bearings of this protectionist attack upon the taxes, resources, and means of the people by any attempts to import questions of personal honour into them.
  He would now deal with the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had

  933
  made that evening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had represented that all he had tried to do in repaid to stripped and unstripped leaf was to establish equality for the purposes of manufacture. He had listened with surprise to that representation. This was the first time that he had heard that the prices of unstripped leaf had nut moved. The Committee had heard what the hon. Member for North Bristol had said upon this point, and without any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to say that, in a matter of trade technique, the Committee would be rather more disposed to take the word of the hon. Member for North Bristol than the price list given by the right hon. Gentleman, who had given them such an extraordinary story about the prices not having moved. He had heard from some eminent importers that since the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget they had not sold one ounce of stripped leaf. When the right hon. Gentleman came down to the Committee with this price list, and wished the Committee to believe that prices had not moved, where did he get his information, and where did it come from? He would like to know that. The Committee knew that in this matter they were not dealing with the right hon. Gentleman, for he came down to the Committee with the in formation supplied to him. What did hon. Members know about tobacco? Upon this subject they all depended upon information which they received from others, and it was important when a statement was made involving such a very serious contradiction of fact as that raised by the right hon. Gentleman, that they should ask who were his advisers He had a shrewd suspicion that the gentleman from whom the information was derived would probably: be found to be not without interest in the tobacco trade. They had got to look back a long way in dealing with protection. There was no foundation in fact for the supposition that this tax had not affected prices. If a person seriously told him that they could put a tax of 50 per cent, upon an article without affecting the price he should not believe him. Such a tax must affect the price. The right hon. Gentleman had had a deputation of importers before him who were honourable men of high standing, and they told him that this tax meant a depreciation of something like £10 a cask. Now, on 135,000
  934
  casks in bond that represented a depreciation of £1,350,000, These gentlemen had made these statements to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and did he think they were lying The right hon. Gentleman had swept their testimony aside and he came down to the Committee with this price list, which showed an utterly impossible state of things, and he asked them to reject the testimony of men of honour in the trade. For his own part he did not accept the price list which had been put before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman having by his Budget stopped sales, the old prices had been carried forward in the price list and he was glad to hear that in that view he was confirmed by the hon. Member for North Bristol. Upon whose behalf did the right hon. Gentleman put in this trade list? Who were they They did not desire to treat this Committee fairly whoever they were, or at any rate they did not desire to treat; the Treasury fairly. He should be the last man in the world to say anything against the Treasury, because there was no Department stood higher in the public estimation than the Treasury, both for vigilante and purity, but even the Treasury, like the rest of them, had to depend upon information which they received from others.
  Taking advantage of the information which the right hon. Gentleman had given them, let them consider what had happened? There had been a cessation of sales. Why? Because this was not merely a protective tax but a prohibitive tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he desired to make the two classes of tobacco equal. Now there were two ways of doing this—either they could put a tax upon stripped tobacco, or they might adopt Mr. Gladstone's method and put the same tax on both, giving drawback to the unstripped leaf in order to put it on a parity with the stripped leaf. Now that was what he proposed. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the disadvantages attached to the unstripped leaf, and therefore he said he must put a tax upon the stripped leaf. In another part of his Budget he arranged drawbacks which, if adequate, completely deprived the unstripped leaf of any disadvantage whatever. The differentiation now established by this proposal

  935
  amounted to 600 per cent. That was establishing what the right hon. Gentleman called a parity, and putting the two classes of tobacco upon an equality. He denied that Mr. Gladstone committed an ' error in this matter, for he did not establish any anomaly. What Mr. Gladstone said was that he would put these two kinds of raw material on the same footing by allowing a drawback on the unstripped leaf. Therefore, as things now stood, unstripped leaf was at some disadvantage as compared with stripped leaf. That was an anomaly which the right hon. Gentleman was going to correct by an additional drawback so that the anomaly which he pleaded as an excuse for the taxes was one that he had amply and adequately corrected. That only made the tax the more ridiculous. Mr. Gladstone's plan was perfectly clear and simple, but it had worked somewhat disadvantageously for this reason, and he begged the Committee to note the reason. When a manufacturer had taken the stalk out of the leaf he was entitled to take it back to the Customs and ask a rebate. But before giving him the drawback they compelled him to put the offal through an elaborate and troublesome process to test it for moisture, and in order to ascertain the proper amount of the drawback. That cost money, and the Customs allowed for that something like a penny on the amount of the duty. The manufacturers had said that was not an adequate allowance, and the right hon. Gentleman was going to correct that by an increased allowance. The importation of stalk hitherto had involved some loss to the manufacturer or importer, and it had also involved some loss to the Custom. By the proposal the Committee were now considering the right hon. Gentleman was going to increase the loss to the Customs, and yet what was it he told the House when he introduced the Budget He made a statement in which he pointed out that the revenue gained by the importation of stalks. The revenue did nothing of the kind. The revenue never had gained by the importation of stalks. It had always lost from the importation of stalks. Who on earth would have supposed that from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman He must have been aware that there was a drawback on stalks. Why
  936
  did he tell the House that it was to the advantage of the revenue to encourage the importation of stalks Hon. Members who called themselves Unionist freetraders understood this to be a revenue tax. It was nothing of the kind. It was a prohibitive tax. There was no-duty on stalks if the manufacturer chose to bring them back to the Customs. Of course, all stalks were not brought back for the purposes of the rebate. There were some tobaccos in which the stalk was used. Was it the right hon. Gentleman's object to make the working men of the country smoke stalks instead of leaf tobacco Not at all, and, therefore, the only ground on which he could hope for an increase of revenue from the importation of stalks did not exist. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely misinformed on this, matter. That remark was not made in order to say anything disagreeable about the right hon. Gentleman. They recognised the courtesy with which he had conducted the debate. They felt strongly on the question.
  He wished for another reason to draw attention to the misapprehension under which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the tax. It had a bearing on a wider question. If one so careful and painstaking as the right hon. Gentleman was thus easily misled by, he dare say, advisers whom he never saw but who had an interest in misleading him, what were poor free-trade Members on this or the other side of the House to hope for if they had to deal with a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a protectionist Government? What had happened in this case showed that the House was peculiarly unfitted for dealing with the technical details of a business which the bulk of the Members did not understand. The Prime Minister-had very often said that the House was unfit to deal with ecclesiastical matters He did not know how that might be, but, he was quite certain that the House was-unfit to deal with the technical details of a business of this kind. They got the most conflicting statements from persons who had a financial interest in the matter-How was the House to decide on those conflicting statements How was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anybody else, to avoid being misled by statements which he had pot not technical konwledge to check or correct? The might well

  937
  tremble if the fortunes of trade were to be put to such risks as the tobacco trade had had to undergo during the past few weeks. It would give a terrible shock to the confidence of every Englishman in the trade he carried on. The object of taxing anything was as far as possible to throw the burden OH the consumer. It was never intended by any Government, acting fairly, to put the burden so that it should fall on a particular section of the community. It was intended to put the burden on any section in such a way that that section would be able to transfer it to the rest of the community. How was that possible in connection with this tax? It would punish those who had existing stocks, but it afforded no prospect of revenue for the future. It was not a continuing tax. It was a tax which would disappear when the existing stock was taken out of bond. From the point of view of revenue this was not a continuing tax. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would devote further attention as to what free-trade objects were, and he would see that this tax was useless for the purposes of revenue, and unjust to a very deserving class of traders.
  MR. DUKEsaid that a remarkable circumstance of this debate was the opportune way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite had discovered a case of corrupt misconduct due to what they called protection. The debate had been of a progressive character. The hon. Member for Monmouth had pointed to the large increase in the amount of leaf tobacco imported relative to stripped, and thought that that required considerable explanation. The hon. Member for Oldham said that the facts disclosed amounted to a great public scandal, but that he made no charge against Mr. Gallaher. Now, his
  938
  hon. and learned friend who had just sat down had denounced Mr. Gallaher as the corrupt author of a protective duty.
  MR. KOBSONsaid he must protest against the meaning which his hon. and learned friend put upon his words. He did not say that Mr. Gallaher was the corrupt source of a protective duty. The expression he used was that all protectionist taxes were likely to come from a corrupt source.
  MR. DUKEsaid he was in the recollection of the Committee. He did not know whether his hon. and learned friend's enthusiasm had carried him beyond what he intended to say, but when he was challenged from the Ministerial Benches as to whether ho would repeat outside the House that direct imputation of corruption, he said he would not hesitate to repeat anywhere the charge he had made.
  MR. ROBSON: Not that charge.
  MR. DUKEsaid that if this was not the hoped-for necessary case of corruption, what had they been spending the last three or four hours about? The progressive charge had reached its utmost development, and now his hon. and learned friend repudiated it as soon as he came to appreciate what it meant. It was said that Mr. Gallaher had given evidence with a corrupt object, and with a design to get a protective duty for his own benefit, and additional discredit had been fixed upon him by stating that he was a member of the Tariff Commission. Nobody in the House knew what evidence Mr. Gallaher had given except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assured the Committee that Mr. Gallaher's evidence would have led not to the imposition of

  939
  this tax but to the rejection of the idea of a protective duty. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] That was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke on his responsibility. He believed that hon. Members on that side of the House would accept the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was said that Mr. Gallaher had perpetrated a concealment from the Committee that he was interested in the trade as between stripped and leaf tobacco and that he had done so corruptly for private gain. In what character did hon. Members suppose Mr. Gallaher had been examined as a witness. It was said, again, he had used his knowledge of the intentions of the Government, for his personal profit. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Mr. Gallaher had imported less leaf tobacco in the early months of this year than he was wont to do. He ventured to say that when charges of this kind were, without an atom of evidence in fact, fixed upon men who had endeavoured to serve the public interest, the scandal did not lie with the men upon whom the charges had been imposed, but it lay elsewhere. When charges of this nature were put forward in the House of Commons with levity—charges which were exploded on the shortest possible examination of the facts—there was a distinct danger of political life in this country being lowered.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he wished to support the appeal of his hon. friend the Member for North Bristol to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a concession to the holders of depreciated stocks of stripped tobacco. He agreed with every word that had been said by his hon. friend;
  940
  and if some concession were not made the holders of these stocks would be subjected to something approaching confiscation, as their property would be practically unsaleable. He had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the proposal should not apply to any stocks held on 20th April; and he should be glad to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would favourably consider a concession in that direction. If not, he would he compelled to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that, in view of the interest taken in this branch of the Budget, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to report Progress.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was anxious that the question should be disposed of to-night, as it would be generally seen that the uncertainty under which the trade laboured rendered the transaction of business difficult, if not impossible. If, however, hon. Gentlemen felt unable to finish the question to-night he would accept the Motion to report Progress. He hoped that his readiness to meet the wishes of the Committee in the matter would be recognised when the discussion was resumed. He would then deal with the points raised by his hon. friends.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after One o'clock.