Sitting of 18 May 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Chesterfield Corporation (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords]; Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [Lords]; University of Leeds Bill [Lords]; Yorktown and Blackwater Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Hartlepool, Islay, and Waterford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Bonar Law.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Hartlepool, Islay, and Waterford," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 208.]
Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 8).
  Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSEreported from the Committee on Group No. 8 of Railway Bills; That Mr. Crean, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the Sitting of the Committee on Monday last.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Perth; and Brechin and Fordoun; to lie upon the Table.
  HOME INDUSTRIES BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Dreghorn; Leeds (three); Dumfermline; Preston;
  158
  Ilkley; Leicester (five); Glasgow (three); Great Harwood; Leicestershire (two); Earlestown; Broughty Ferry (two); Buckie (two); Nuneaton; Evesham; Skelmanthorpe; Muswell Hill; Edinburgh (five); Saint Neots; Bolton; Clevedon; Manchester; Royston; Darton; Bury St. Edmunds; Liverpool (three); Par; Aspatria and Brayton; Gilsland; Jordan; Looe; Altrincham (two); Montrose; Walkden; Grays; Tindale; Reading; Broadheath; Lockerley; Wigan; Coalville; Brookfield; West Gorton; Tibshelf; Berwick; Dalwhinnie; Southwark; Biggar; Bellfield; Fulham; Beith; Taunton (three); Boston; Stirchley; Gillingham; Tarbert; Bacup; Exeter; National Union for the Suppression of Intemperance; Cleckheaton; Swinton; North Devon; Haslemere; Sale and Ashton on Mersey; Ibstock; Salford; Bowmore; Maryhill; Vale of Clyde; Beaufort: Oldham; Maryhill; Newbridge; Tredavoe Paul; Brierley Hill; Darvel; Wakefield (four); Peebles; Weston-super-Mare (twenty); Ackworth (three); Buccleugh; Cardiff; Nottingham (two); Bulwell; Pontypridd; Llangerriew; Birkenhead; Wrexham; Bervie; Irwell Bank; Atherstone; Dunfermline; Heywood (two); Sunningdale; Brechin and Fordoun; Hull; Llandilo (two); Burry Port; Ossett (two) New Herrington; Lewes; National United Temperance Council; Hedon; Hornsea; East Dereham; Inverleithen; Broughton; Plymouth (three); Armley; Manor Park; Forest Gate; Islington (two); Long Sutton; Street; Walton; Banff and West Aberdeen; Stockport; Heaton Norris; Wellow; Borough Market; Torquay (two); Thurlby; Devonport and Stonehouse; Keyham; Stonehouse; Devonport; Waterbeach; Cottenham; Buxton; St. Ives; Down; Rawtenstall; Eaglesfield; Lochgelly; Coaltown of Wemyss; Methil; Aberdeen (two); Lanark; Cheshire; Little Leigh; Kensington (Brecon); Breconshire; Northwich (two); Dundee (six); Great Grimsby (three); Bristol (two); Huncote; Great Wigston; Coatbridge; Portsmouth; Blaina; Old Buckenham; Kelty; Wymondham; Newtown; Shotts; Gloucester (two); Audlem; Greenbank; Aber; Ayrshire; Bradford (two); Greyton; Nitshill; Croydon (two); New Hirst; Backworth; South

  159
  Aberdeen; Aspull; Spencer's Wood; New Clee and Weelsby; and Long Eaton; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL
  Petition from Hurlford, for extension of provisions to Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Great Yarmouth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HARBOURS OF REFUGE.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum by Commander S. C. Frederick, R.N., on the question of constructing a Harbour of Refuge on the north coast of Cornwall [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 14th May, 1904, declaring that Henry Floodgate Taffs, Principal Foreman Writer, Woolwich Arsenal, War Department, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA (No. 3, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, inclosing a Report by Mr. George J. Kidston on a journey in Mongolia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 6, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and China respecting the Employment of Chinese Labour in British Colonies and Protectorates. Signed at London, 13th May, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 609 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3164 to 3167 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of Net Public Income and Net Public Expenditure under certain specified heads, as represented by Receipts into and Issues out of the Exchequer from 1889–90 to 1903–4, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 272, of Session 1903)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH FOR COUNTIES.
  Return ordered, "showing the names of the County Councils in England and Wales who have Medical Officers of Health, with the terms of the appointments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 202, of Session 1896)."—(Mr. Frederick Wilson.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Army Recruiting.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the results of the general application of enlistment for three-years recruits recently established; what is the percentage of re-engagements required in the several arms of the service to fulfil the requirements of the Army abroad; and what percentage of men in the several arms have re-engaged.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As regards recruiting it is difficult to estimate the effect of the three years system of enlistment as it was initiated during the South African war, and as subsequently recruiting has been closed for several branches of the service, but, generally speaking, recruiting may be said to show steady progress. As regards extensions the percentage required is calculated to be as follows:—

  Infantry of the Line

  71·68

  Cavalry

  41·90

  Horse and Field Artillery

  31·23

  Garrison and Mountain Artillery

  100

  161
  The figures showing the actual extensions are not complete, as the returns from abroad have not yet been received, but percentages at home of those eligible to draw service pay on 1st April and 1st May who extended to the whole number so eligible were as follows:—

  April.

  May.

  Infantry of the Line

  13·4

  12·17

  Cavalry

  28·5

  5·64

  Horse and Field Artillery

  49·5

  29·58

  Garrison Artillery

  48·6

  33·76

  Normal Military Expenditure of France, Germany, and Russia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what has been the total military

  I.—France (Amount Voted in Military Budget.)

  II.—Germany (Expenditure as shown in Military Budget).

  III.—Russia (Expenditure as shown in Military Budget.)

  £

  £

  £

  1880

  29,396,364

  18,505,000

  21,074,000

  1881

  27,102,940

  19,805,000

  22,968,000

  1882

  26,223,788

  18,533,000

  20,388,000

  1883

  26,738,336

  18,217,000

  21,454,000

  1884

  28,242,730

  18,385,000

  22,425,000

  1885

  27,252,248

  18,583,000

  23,221,000

  1886

  25,625,128

  19,804,000

  23,543,000

  1887

  26,573,540

  28,765,000

  23,439,000

  1888

  24,565,993

  36,265,000

  23,566,000

  1889

  27,567,269

  27,065,000

  25,101,000

  1890

  28,416,262

  35,975,000

  25,346,000

  1891

  27,029,161

  28,375,000

  25,123,000

  1892

  25,830,177

  28,831,000

  26,231,000

  1893

  25,384,405

  30,128,000

  26,257,000

  1894

  25,346,123

  30,888,000

  30,742,000

  1895

  25,510,992

  27,526,000

  31,259,000

  1896

  22,978,214

  28,292,000

  32,040,000

  1897

  24,902,055

  29,549,000

  32,076,000

  1898

  24,906,056

  30,405,000

  33,162,000

  1899

  25,287,220

  32,236,000

  36,483,000

  1900

  25,767,340

  33,427,000‡

  36,838,000

  1901

  27,774,581

  34,005,000‡

  36,067,000

  1902

  28,664,000

  32,686,000‡

  35,849,000

  1903

  27,593,478

  31,880,000‡

  36,647,000‡

  1904

  27,053,196

  31,883,000‡

  40,086,000‡

  * Includes expenditure (sum not known) on Skobeleff's Central Asia Campaign.

  † Between 1896–1899 an expenditure of £6,400,000 was incurred as part of the coat of the re-arming of the Field Artillery which is not included in the above figures.

  The figures given in columns I. and II. are exclusive of sums voted for troops in the Colonies. These cannot be given.
  expenditure out of revenue or out of capital, apart from special war expenditure, of France, Germany, and Russia respectively in each year for the past twenty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is impossible to fix the act al military expenditure in all cases, as in some instances it has not been published. Moreover, in some cases the Naval Budgets make provision for certain items, such as coast fortifications, which are of a military nature. Again, expenditure regarding pensions is not shown in some of the Military Budgets. The following table gives the information available, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed:—
  Figures marked ‡ in columns II. and III. refer to estimated, not actual, expenditure.

  Sentence of Banishment on a Frenchwoman in Jersey.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case which occurred in the Royal Court of Jersey on Saturday, 7th May, in which a woman of French nationality was sentenced to five years banishment, but, being wanted as a witness in a pending case in England, was ordered to be sent to England instead of to France, Sir W. H. V. Vernon stating that she would be sent to France viâ England; and, if so, will he say what means exist of forcing her to leave England for France, and whether the attention of the authorities of Jersey will be called to the effect of such a sentence of banishment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have been in communication with the Bailiff of Jersey in regard to this case and am informed that the Court in sentencing her to banishment from Jersey for five years, ordered that steps should be taken for her repatriation viâ England. There are no means of forcing her to leave England, but it is understood that she is quite willing, in due course, to return hence to her own country. The authorities of Jersey are well aware, without further intervention on my part, of the effect of the sentence.

  Hearing of Juvenile Gases at Police Courts.
  MR TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has made arrangements in Dublin whereby one of the divisional magistrates will dispose of cases in which juveniles are concerned in a room at the Police Courts, known as the Central Hall, and that the children, whilst waiting for their cases to come on, will be kept apart in a disused room, and in Cork, whereby the magistrates will hold a special Court for the hearing of children's cases on a particular day, or at a particular hour, when young persons and their parents would alone be present; and whether he will consider the possibility of making similar arrangements in London and other large cities
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The arrangements for the
  164
  hearing of charges by Courts of summary jurisdiction are not within my control, except in so far as the Metropolitan Police Courts are concerned, and at these Courts the separation of juvenile offenders from others has been the subject of much anxious thought and consideration by the magistrates and the police. Cases in which juveniles are charged are taken first on the list of cases for hearing; and in other ways, both before and after the hearing of a charge, every care is taken to keep children apart from adult offenders. Outside London the matter is one for the local authorities, but I have no reason to doubt that they are alive to its importance.

  Female Learner in North Shields Post Office.
  MR. ROBSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a female learner has been employed at the North Shields Post Office on telegraph delivery duties since the 20th February, 1903, without any salary whatever; and, if so, will he say whether this is in accordance with the service regulations; and whether he will investigate the circumstances with a view to giving the learner a salary or an appointment.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is one female learner at North Shields who is not on the "paid" establishment and who has been in the office since 27th October, 1902; but she has not been without pay all the time, as for forty-nine weeks she has been employed as substitute for other officers, and has received pay varying from 5s. to 10s. a week while so employed. During part of this time it was her duty to place telegrams in envelopes and address them; but she has never been employed in delivering telegrams. How soon this learner may obtain a paid learnership or an established appointment will necessarily depend on the occurrence of a vacancy, and I am unable to give an approximate date.

  Delay in Completion of Telegraph Connection between Mountrath and Coolrain.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can explain the delay which has taken place in the completion of the telegraph connection between Mountrath, Queen's County, and Coolrain, in

  165
  view of the fact that the required guarantee was given and the agreement completed with the Post Office authorities last June.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The telegraph extension to Coolrain could not be carried out in last financial year for lack of funds. It is now in hand and will, I hope, be very soon completed.

  Post Office and Private Telephone Lines.
  MR. RIGG: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Department has entered into certain contracts for private telephone lines between London and provincial centres, he will explain why, in response to inquiries by other firms for similar facilities, the Department has replied that it is not in a position to quote rates or enter into fresh similar contracts; and whether he will take steps to secure that a preference in the nature of a monopoly is not thus created.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) During the last two years it has been necessary to refuse to provide long telephone lines between London and places such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow, for private use, owing to the difficulty of

  Fourth Class.

  Third Class.

  Second Class.

  Inferior.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1841

  4

  7½

  4

  2¼

  3

  9

  3

  4½

  1842

  4

  5¼

  3

  11¼

  3

  7

  3

  4¼

  1843

  3

  10¼

  3

  7

  3

  2½

  2

  8¾

  1844

  3

  10¾

  3

  5¾

  3

  1

  2

  7¼

  1845

  4

  1¼

  3

  9

  3

  5¼

  2

  9¾

  First Quality.

  Second Quality.

  Inferior Quality.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1899

  4

  7

  3

  11

  2

  6

  1900

  4

  10

  4

  2

  3

  1

  1901

  4

  7

  3

  11

  2

  4

  1902

  4

  11

  4

  4

  2

  11

  1903

  4

  8

  4

  1

  2

  10

  finding space on existing routes even for the new wires required for the public service. Estimates of the cost of constructing new routes for additional wires have been prepared, and I am considering whether it will be possible to supply long private telephone lines to all applicants for them.

  Average Price and Consumption of Meat in the United Kingdom.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the consumption of meat per head of the population in the United Kingdom, and average price paid during each of the five years previous to the repeal of the Corn Laws, and during each of the last five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) There are no means of giving the information asked for with regard to the consumption of meat per head of the population of the United Kingdom in the years named. Some information as to the present rate of consumption of meat by working-class families will be found on pp. 210–12 of Cd. 1761 of 1903. The average price of live meat (beef) at the Metropolitan Cattle Market per stone of 8lbs. (sinking the offal) in the years named in the Question, was as follows:—

  The average import value of fresh beef in each of the last five years per 8lbs. was—

  s.

  d.

  1899

  2

  9

  1900

  2

  10

  1901

  2

  9¾

  1902

  3

  0½

  1903

  2

  10½

  First Quality.

  Second Quality.

  Inferior Quality.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1899

  5

  8

  5

  0

  3

  4

  1900

  6

  0

  5

  3

  3

  4

  1901

  5

  8

  4

  10

  3

  3

  1902

  5

  9

  5

  0

  3

  7

  1903

  5

  10

  5

  1

  3

  8

  Education (Scotland) Fund.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state approximately what the charge on the Education (Scotland) Fund, provided for under Clause 38 of the Education (Scotland) Bill, will amount to under Sub-section (3) (E) and (F), of Clause 39 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The approximate estimate of the amount
  168
  which would be payable under Subsection 3 (E) of Clause 39 is £145;000. It is obviously impossible to give even an approximate estimate of the amount under Sub-section 3 (F).
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAW: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state approximately what the balance of the Education (Scotland) Fund will amount to per head of the average attendance of scholars

  169
  in schools under School Boards and under managers.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) As the balance under Sub-section 4 of Clause 39 of the Bill depends upon the amount required for eight preceding claims upon the grant, I must decline to commit myself to any estimate of the amount available per head of the average attendance.

  Normal Naval Expenditure of France, Germany, and Russia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will obtain the information necessary to enable him to state what has been the total naval expenditure out of revenue or out of capital, apart from special war expenditure, of France, Germany, and Russia, respectively, for each of the past twenty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) I regret that I am unable to meet the hon. Member's wishes, but the Admiralty cannot undertake this inquiry.

  Rocket and Line Apparatus on Ships of War
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that a collision occurred on the Tyne in April between H.M.S. "Immortalite" and H.M.S. "Temeraire" causing serious damage to the former which could have been prevented if both ships had been fitted with a rocket and line apparatus, he will consider the advisability of arranging that all His Majesty's ships should be supplied with a rocket and line apparatus of the most improved kind.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.)The collision occurred through a misunderstanding on the part of the officers in command of the "ImmortaHte" and "Temeraire" and not through want of a rocket and line apparatus. It is not considered necessary to supply the apparatus to His Majesty's ships.

  Rocket and Line Apparatus on Merchant Ships.
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade
  170
  whether he is aware that at the International Conference at Nantes a resolution was passed recommending that all vessels should carry a rocket and line apparatus to enable them to make communication with the shore when in I danger of being wrecked; and whether he will order all shipowners to carry such an apparatus on their vessels.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware that a Congress was held at Nantes in 1902 to consider among other matters life-saving at sea. No representative of the Board of Trade or of the British Government attended its meetings, and the resolutions passed have not come under my notice. The suggestion referred to by my hon. friend in his Question has from time to time been considered by the Board of Trade, but practical difficulties would arise in giving effect to it. Rules for life-saving appliances have been made under Section 427 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and were revised two years ago; the requirements of these rules are considered adequate. A rocket apparatus exists at various points round the coast of the United Kingdom, and does useful work in enabling communication to be made with ships in distress. It is, of course, open to shipowners to put a rocket and line apparatus on board ship; I do not at present propose to take any action with a view to compelling them to do so.

  Fitzgerald Estate, Furlough, County Mayo
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that large grazing farms situated in the Fitzgerald Estate, Furlough, county Mayo, have been sold by private treaty to graziers named Beckett; and that there are several congested areas in the neighbourhood of this estate the holdings on which range from two to six acres; and, if so, will he see that the grazing tracts in this estate are sold for the benefit of those tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have referred this Question to the Congested Districts Board who will make inquiry in the matter.

  Second-Term Rents—Case of Mr. H. Halpin of Whitesto wn.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the Land Commission, in the case of Mr. Hugh Halpin, Whites-town, Stratford-on-Slaney, county Wicklow, fixed his second-term rent to commence on 29th September, 1902. instead of on 25th March, 1902, in view of the fact that his first-term rent commenced on 25th March, 1887, and that he served an originating notice before 25th March, 1902, to have a second-term rent fixed; that the Sub-Commission heard the case at Baltinglass on 3rd November, 1903, and the order fixing the second-term rent was made on 11th January, 1904, the said order fixing the second-term rent to commence on 29th. September, 1902, instead of 25th March, whereby the tenant loses the reduction on a half-year's rent.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndhanu) Mr. Halpin served his application to have a rent fixed for a first statutory term on 28th September, 1887. The first statutory term accordingly commenced to run from 29th September, 1887, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 of The Land Act, 1887. Application was made to fix a fair rent for second statutory term on 25th September, 1902, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3, Sub-section 2, of The Land Act, 1896, the second statutory term commenced from 29th September, 1902, as stated in the order fixing the fair rent.

  Uniform of Infantry Sergeants.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that a recent Army order provides for a trimming of gold lace on the new service cap of sergeants of artillery, cavalry, and departmental corps, if he can say why the same privilege has not been extended to sergeants of infantry battalions, who possess the plainest pattern of this cap; and whether, seeing that the caps issued to the former corps have already a decoration of coloured braid, he can say when it is proposed to give sergeants of infantry battalions a uniform suitable to their rank, as is done in all other branches of the Army.
  172
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The cap worn by sergeants of cavalry, artillery, engineers, and departmental corps has always been different from that of the rank and file; that worn by infantry sergeants has always been of the same pattern as that of the rank and file; while in the case of the infantry the sergeant is distinguished by the sash, which is special to his branch of the service. There does not, therefore, appear to be any good grounds for carrying out the suggested alteration, which would involve a very heavy expenditure of public money.

  Health of 1st Hampshire Regiment— Detention at Aden
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what has lately been the condition with regard to health of the 1st Battalion Hampshire Regiment at Aden; whether he is aware that many men have died of fever and that on one occasion only one officer was fit for duty; whether the battalion has been detained at Aden beyond its time for want of a transport; and, if so, whether he will explain the reasons why a transport has not sooner been found to bring them home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There has been considerable sickness from malaria in this battalion due to service in the Aden Hinterland, and the latest returns of sickness at Aden, those for March, show ninety-nine admissions and one death; this is the only death so reported during 1904. Of the officers five were sick out of nine in March. The battalion was primarily detained for military exigencies in the Aden Hinterland, and subsequently the accident to the "Assaye" caused further delay; this ship will bring the battalion home.

  Mess Tents for Militia Regiments.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the fact that tents for the men to eat in which the War Office has supplied regularly for the past twelve years to Militia in permanent camps, have this year been refused to some Militia battalions; and, considering

  173
  the discomfort to the men of being obliged to have their meals in the small tents in which they sleep, three to ten per tent, and have to keep and clean all their uniforms, arms and accoutrements, whether he will revert to the older practice, so as to avoid injuriously affecting recruiting for the Militia.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Dining tents are still an authorised issue to Militia battalions, but there has hitherto been some difference of opinion among commanding officers as to their utility, and in many cases they have not been asked for by units. Nothing is known at the War Office of any issue being refused, as the matter is one for the General Officer Commanding concerned to settle locally.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Workmen's Compensation in the Transvaal.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the accident at the Robinson Deep Mine on 26th April last, in which, through the rope breaking and the cage falling 2,000 feet, forty-three men were killed; and, if so, will he lay upon the Table of the House the verdict of the jury at the Coroner's inquest, and say whether, under the law of the Transvaal as at present administered, the dependents of those killed have any claim to compensation similar to what they would have under the law in this country.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,: I am expecting a report from the Governor on the accident at the Robinson Deep Mine, but I am at present without definite information. I am informed that, under the common law of the Transvaal, the employer is liable for any injury sustained by his workmen, due to his own personal negligence or the negligence of any servant employed by him.

  Crown Agents' Accounts.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the audited accounts of the Crown Agents for the Colonies for the last three years.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have already promised the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire to lay the Crown Agents' audited accounts for 1902, which is the last year for which audit has been completed, and I am prepared, in response to the right hon. Member's Question, to add the accounts for 1900 and 1901, but it will entail some delay in laying the Papers.

  Transvaal Labour Ordinance Regulations.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the regulations which are now in force for carrying out the provisions of the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance, 1904, will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: Papers relating to the regulations will, I expect, be in Members' hands to-morrow.

  Native Labour in the Transvaal Mines-Vigilance Department.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Tables appended to the Report of the Transvaal Native Affairs Department, dated 31st March, 1904, show, under the heading Vigilance, that the inspectors of that department, in a period of two years, took action in thirteen cases of ill-treatment suffered by native labourers employed at the mines, and in twenty-eight cases of complaints of labourers with reference to wages, while in the same period they dealt with 3,341 cases of offences committed, or alleged to be committed, by native labourers; whether these inspectors are appointed mainly for the purpose of protecting the natives; and if he can state whether all the inspectors are acquainted with the languages chiefly used by the natives or are accompanied by interpreters, and whether there is any means

  175
  by which the labourers are enabled to recognise an inspector.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The figures given are approximately correct. The duties of inspectors are described at pages 62 and 145 of Cd. 2025, page 20 of Cd. 904, and page 186 of Cd. 1551, and it will be seen that the definition of these duties has been made as wide as possible in order that the inspector may be able to "go into all questions affecting the comfort, health and happiness of natives employed in the mines, and to afford them opportunities of consulting him or of stating their grievances." I am not aware of the precise qualification of the inspectors or how they are recognised, but I have little doubt that they are all well known to the labourers. I will, however, make inquiry on the question. The importance of a knowledge of the language is fully recognised by the Transvaal Government and Sir Godfrey Lagden.

  Wages of Chinese Labourers.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to say what are the wages which the Chinese labourers are to receive in the Transvaal; and what are the wages now paid to Kaffirs for underground labour in the mines.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The Chinese labourers will be either employed on piece work and will be able to earn about 50s. or more, the best workers should earn 60s; those not employed in piece work will receive wages according to the schedule at page 151 of Cd. 2025. If the average pay of those in the service of any employer does not equal 50s. for thirty working days within six months, the minimum rate will be increased from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per working day of ten hours. I understand from the above schedule that the present pay of Kaffirs for underground labour varies from Is. 2d. to 2s. 6d. a day.
  MR. MARKHAM: May I ask why, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the pay will be 2s. a day, the minimum wage is reduced to 30s., and why the
  176
  minimum rate of 50s. for the Kaffirs has not been insisted upon for the Chinese labourers?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: It is not correct to say that the minimum rate for the Kaffirs is 50s. It is very much less. It is a little over 30s. a month. A long time would be needed to explain the exact reasons for keeping the minimum wage at the figure now stated, but Papers will be laid on the Table of the House to-morrow. The definite position I have endeavoured to uphold in the course of the discussion with Lord Milner is that the introduction of Chinese labour shall not be permitted in any way to undercut the Kaffir wages. I think that the hon. Member will see from the Papers that this object has been achieved.
  MR. CROOKS: Are any banking arrangements being made for these poor men?
  MR. WHITLEY: Are the Chinamen to work thirty days per month?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: That is certainly not the case.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Are they to work on Sundays?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.
  MAJOR SEELY: Is it not the fact that the minimum wage of Chinese labourers has now been reduced.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: No.

  Australian Parliament and the Chinese Labour Question.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Resolutions have been passed recently by the two Houses of the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament respecting the introduction of Chinese labourers into South Africa; whether they were passed with unanimity, or, in case of divisions, what were the figures; and whether he will give the terms of the Resolutions.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: Lord Northcote informs me that the Resolution was

  177
  passed unanimously in the Senate, and by a large majority in the House of; Representatives. The terms of the Resolutions are correctly set out in The Times of 18th March, at page 3.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Why should we be referred to The Times newspaper for the terms?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Transvaal Magistracy.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now telegraphed Lord Milner for the information needful for the Return of names, ages, salaries, qualifications, experience, and previous careers of the persons appointed to be magistrates in the Transvaal, which was promised by him in February last, and with what result; and when the House may expect to be in possession of these particulars.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: Lord Milner telegraphs to me that the despatch with the information required will reach me at the end of this week. I will present it without delay.

  Native Convict Labour in the Mines.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now give the number of native convicts in the Transvaal Colony, and State how many are hired out for labour in the mines; and if he can say under what law natives, at the termination of a sentence, are sent to the mines against their will.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The total number of sentenced prisoners on 31st March of this year was 2,249. 875 were employed on the mines. I have no knowledge of any such practice as is referred to in the last part of the Question.
  MR. WHITLEY: Does not the Blue-book issued last week contain information n this very point?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I think not.
  MR. CROOKS: Who receives the wages of these convicts?
  MR.WHITLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the existence of the practice? Is it the custom after the sentence on a native has expired to hand him over to forced labour in the mines?
  MR. LYTTELTON: Certainly I will inquire. I do not think that such a practice exists; but I quite agree that if I it does it should be at once determined.

  British Guiana Ordinance
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between the India Office and the Colonial Office with reference to the British Guiana Ordinance, 1891.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have no objection to laying the correspondence mentioned on the Table, if my right hon. friend will move for it.

  Congo Free State—Case of Silvanus Jones.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are aware that Silvanus Jones, a native of Lagos, who was recently condemned to ten years penal servitude at Boma, in the Independent Congo State, had inadequate means of defence furnished him; whether the report of his trial and sentence, which His Majesty's Government have recently received, will be laid upon the Table; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking any further steps to safeguard the welfare of British subjects in the Independent Congo State.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: We will lay before; Parliament the judgment in appeal; the Court confirmed the sentence, with a recommendation for its reduction, in view of the fact that Jones had acted under circumstances which justified him in thinking he had the approval of his; superiors. While this judgment of the Court corroborates the justice of the complaints made by His Majesty's Government against the system of administration prevailing in the Congo State, we dissent

  179
  strongly from the view that the conduct; or approval of superiors can be pleaded in excuse for murders committed by their agents, but we have drawn the attention of the Congo Government to the allegation made by Mr. Jones that he had no knowledge of the charges to be preferred against him or even that he was himself to be placed on trial, and to the fact that no opportunity was allowed him of engaging counsel on his behalf, and we await explanations on these points.

  Unclaimed Dividends on Government Stocks.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any reason against the publication of an Annual Return corresponding to the Alphabetical List of Intestate Estates which accompanies the Crown's Nominee Account, such Return to give an alphabetical list of dividends on Government stocks which have not been claimed during the previous ten years.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: I have already given the reasons why the publication of the List of Unclaimed Dividends was discontinued. These reasons do not, I understand, apply with the same force in the case of the Annual List of Intestate Estates.

  Vagrancy Acts.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government will be prepared to bring in legislation dealing with the Vagrancy Acts as a whole.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am not aware that the Vagrancy Acts as a whole require amendment. The question whether the law with regard to vagrancy might not in some particulars be strengthened and extended is under consideration, but the matter is not ripe for any statement as to legislation.

  Bethlehem Royal Hospital—Violation of Lunacy Act
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the
  180
  Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mrs. Helen Meredith was detained in Bethlehem Royal Hospital from 17th August to 25th September, 1903, without being taken before or visited by a judicial authority as prescribed by Section 8 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, although she signed, immediately on her admission on the 17th August, 1903, a notice of her desire to be taken before or visited by a justice, Judge, or magistrate having jurisdiction in the district within which she was detained; and, if so, will he say who is responsible for this violation of the Lunacy Act; and what steps will lie take to prevent a repetition of it.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I understand, on inquiry, that the facts are as stated in the Question, but that the delay was due to causes for which the hospital authorities were not responsible. They forwarded the notice given by the lady in question without delay to the clerk to the justices, and it was in his proceedings for securing the attendance of a justice that the difficulty and delay occurred. I am making further inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether any steps can be taken to prevent the recurrence of such a case.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an opportunity of hearing what is the explanation of the justices?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, I will certainly communicate the answer to the hon. Member.

  Sale of Adulterated Seeds.
  MR. SPEAR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what recent cases of adulteration or misrepresentation in the sale of farm seeds have been brought to his notice; and whether he has considered the advisability of some amendment in, or addition to, the law as it now stands for the better protection of agriculturists and honest seed merchants.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: A case in which certain foreign seed was sold as English clover was recently brought under

  181
  the notice of the Board. Proceedings were instituted under the Merchandise Marks Acts, and the vendor was fined £10 with 6s. Court fees and £21 towards the cost of the prosecution. This result goes to confirm the conclusion arrived at by the Departmental Committee of 1900, who expressed the opinion that there is no practical difficulty under the existing law in the way of obtaining thoroughly good and reliable seeds by those who know how to set about it; but we shall be very happy to give full consideration to any representations or suggestions which may be made to us on the subject.

  Church Attendance of Children in School Hours.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the managers of a voluntary school have (subject to the conscience clause) the right to take children to church during school hours as a part of the religious instruction given in the school, and whether they can require the teacher to conduct the children to the church.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,: My attention has recently been called to the matters referred to in the Question, and the reply must depend on the construction to be placed on Section 7 (1) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. That section allows a parent to withdraw his child from school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parent belongs; attendance at such observance does not appear to be equivalent to attendance at school, but the section would protect the parent, who alone is concerned, from any proceedings taken before magistrates for the non-attendance of his child at school on any such occasion. It follows that managers of a public elementary school have no right to take the school children to church during school hours; that religious teaching given in a church cannot be part of the instruction provided by the public elementary school, and that the teacher of the public elementary school cannot be required to conduct the children to
  182
  church in any of the hours during which the school is open.

  Aughris (Sligo) Pier.
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the pier and boatslip built at Aughris, county Sligo, are incomplete; and, in view of the fact that the completion and repair of those works cannot be undertaken by the Congested Districts Board, will he direct the Board of Works in Ireland, under the Marine Works Act or other powers, to have the pier and boatslip put in such a condition as will render them serviceable for the development of the fishing industry in that locality.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: The pier and boatslip were completed before their transference to the county authorities in 1889. An inspection made at low water last month showed that the works had suffered no damage or injury. The funds provided by the Marine Works Act have been fully allocated.

  Dungannon Disturbances.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Dungannon on the 12th instant two young men were beaten by the bandsmen of a Roman Catholic band which was parading the town; that one of the young men, named Reid, was so severely beaten that his life is at present not out of danger; and if he can state why Sergeant Montgomery, who witnessed the assault refused to make any arrests, or assist in getting medical aid for the injured man; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The assault committed on this occasion was the result of a quarrel which was in no sense of a Party character. Two men were leading a horse through a crowded street; this was apparently resented by some persons in the crowd, and one of the two men was assaulted by a person unknown. But the bandsmen took no part whatever in the affair. Sergeant Montgomery did not witness the assault; he accompanied the

  183
  man to a doctor, who stated the injury-was superficial and not serious.

  Redemption of Grown and Quit Bents, Etc.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the terms of redemption to quit rents, Crown rents, and ecclesiastical and lay tithe rents, under the Ashbourne Acts and the Land Acts of 1896 and 1903 respectively.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for information in respect of the redemption of quit and Crown rents. I am inquiring as to the terms of redemption respecting ecclesiastical and lay tithe rents, and will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

  Irish Veterinary Department.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial forwarded to the Department of Agriculture by the Catholic clerks in the veterinary branch of the Department, asking for an increment of salary, was suppressed by the chief clerk, who declined to forward the petition to the heads of the Department, and threatened that any attempt at a renewal of the application would be visited by dismissal; and, if so, whether he will state if the Department is willing to consider the alleged grievances of those officials.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The statement on which the first part of the Question is based is wholly without foundation and contains an unwarrantable reflection upon a public servant of distinguished and honourable service. The Department is at all times ready to consider the legitimate claims of its officers.
  MR. SLOAN: Are the Catholics referred to in this question Roman Catholics?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge.
  MR. FLAVIN: At any rate, they do not belong to the Custom House persuasion.

  The Memorial to Lord Salisbury.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what arrangements are to be made concerning the national memorial to Lord Salisbury; whether it is to be thrown open to competition; and who is to select the sculptor and decide on the site or the material of the statue.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this Question till after Whitsuntide.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Certainly I will do so.

  The Tibetan Mission.
  MR. LAMBERT: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the House is at present debarred from discussing the Tibetan expedition, he will give a Parliamentary day for the discussion of the new development which has taken place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no new development of which I am aware, nor can I promise the day asked for. If any real reason for discussing this question were to arise, no doubt an occasion would be found.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise his friends to remove the blocking Motion on the Paper?
  [No answer was returned.]

  The Fiscal Debate.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Amendment standing in his name to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire asking the House to express its confidence in the Administration, he will consider the propriety of giving a day for a debate of such importance?
  MR. MARKHAM: On a point of order, I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Prime Minister's Amendment was handed in after you had

  185
  left the Chair last night. Last year I handed in to the Table an Amendment which was refused on the ground that the Speaker had left the Chair. I wish to know whether it is in order for the clerks at the Table to give special privileges to Ministers of the Crown.
  *MR. SPEAKER: As the House knows, the clerks at the Table are not in the habit of making distinctions between Members of the House, and I regret that the hon. Member should have made an unfair attack upon them. I know nothing about the case of the hon. Member last year. What happened last night was that the Prime Minister brought to the Table his Amendment and handed it in before I left the Chair; but as the Clerk of the House found parts of it somewhat illegible the Prime Minister was writing out those parts at the Table more clearly when I left the Chair. In those circumstances, it would have been improper and discourteous if the Clerk of the House had refused to receive the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the Question of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, the Motion standing in my name is partly of the nature which he has ascribed to it. But it is also, and perhaps mainly, a reasoned form of putting the previous Question, for which I hope to convince the House to-night there is ample reason. Until I see further grounds for taking the course suggested by my hon. friend, I certainly could not pledge myself to adopt it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman will consider, I hope, that it is he himself who raises this question of confidence.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Sixth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SEA FISHERIES BILL [LORDS]
Read the first time; to be read second time upon Tuesday, 31st Ms and to be printed. [Bill 212.]
NEW BILLS
  LUNACY BILL.
  "To amend the Lunacy Acts," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 31st May, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]
  GOVERNMENT SHIPS BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to ships which belong to His Majesty, or are held on behalf of or for the benefit of the Crown, but do not form part of His Majesty's Navy," presented by Mr. Pretyman; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Arthur Lee; to be read a second time upon Thursday 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

MONUMENT TO THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.
Resolution reported, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right hon. the Marquess of Salisbury with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good the Expenses attending same."
Resolution agreed to.
To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

FINANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question (16th May), "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
*MR. CLANCYsaid: It was hardly to be expected, and no one has expected, that this Bill would be allowed to pass without a protest from the representatives of Ireland against

187
any measure of the kind, and without at the same time an attempt on their part once more to induce reasonably-minded Englishmen to assist them in removing the extremely serious grievance under which they conceive their country to labour in the shape of over-taxation. But, however this may be, it is simply impossible for Irish Members anxious to do their duty to their constituents to enough, coming from him, to arouse neglect such an opportunity as the present every Irish Member to a sense of the of denouncing that grievance as forcibly as they can, for they believe it to be largely responsible for the stagnant condition of all Irish industries and for the appalling emigration which, to all appearance, threatens in a space of time easily measureable to leave the land of Ireland—one of the most fruitful on the face of the earth—all but a desert. The Irish people are often told that what they ought to do is to keep quiet and encourage English capital to flow into Ireland. Such talk seems to them simply impudent mockery. They would not, to their thinking, require a shilling of English capital for the ordinary purposes of industrial enterprise if this Parliament did not rob them of Irish capital in various ways and by various devices, amongst the most effective of which, as they believe, is the device of over-taxation. Taking this serious view of the matter, we are bound, on every available occasion, in season and out of season, to do what we can by discussion in the House to put an end to so fruitful a cause of national disaster and ruin. But, if we were tempted or inclined to forget or ignore this vital subject at other times and under other circumstances, there are two facts which would prevent us from lapsing into such a dereliction of duty on the present occasion. Only a few weeks ago the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself reminded us all of this financial grievance in words which were so apt that we cannot soon forget them, and by which he plainly admitted that the taxation of Ireland for Imperial purposes had begun to reach the danger point at which it should not be increased. The only difference between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves on this point is that, whereas he thought Imperial taxation was only beginning to reach the danger point in Ireland,
188
we hold that it has long since reached that point and passed it, and that we are at this moment, and have long been, feeling the effects of—to use the mildest language—such reckless disregard of Irish interests as successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have shown. The admission made by the Chief Secretary, even though it did not go far enough, is surely enough, coming from him, to arouse every Irish Member to a sense of the deadly peril in which Imperial taxation has placed his country.
But the second fact is not less but rather more disturbing. It is presented by this Finance Bill which, as usual, is framed to meet the needs and interests of Great Britain and without a thought of Ireland, and actually proposes, after all that has been said, not to mitigate but to increase the grievance of which we complain. I will now turn to what has actually happened, and, to avoid going into what is called ancient history, I shall begin with the last financial year with which the Royal Commission on Financial Relations dealt in its Report. According to the Treasury Returns the true revenue from Ireland for 1893–4 was £7,568,649. From that time onward it has steadily increased, almost every year, till in 1902–3 it reached the unprecedented total of £10,205,500. In 1903–4 it fell, owing to the decrease in the taxation carried by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, to an estimated total of £9,925,500. This year, on the best estimate I can make, the revenue extracted from the Irish people will be the largest recorded— namely, £10,378,000. To this enormous increase almost every tax has contributed. No class of the Irish community has been spared. The Irish landlords and the other so-called loyalists of Ireland fear, or profess to fear, that they would be plundered under Home Rule. I wonder that they do not see that they are being pretty well fleeced under British rule. For example, the proceeds of the income-tax rose from #653,417 in 1893–4 to £1,201,000 in 1902–3; that is to say, the produce of this tax has about doubled in ten years. In the present year it will, as I calculate, stand at £1,000,000. The death duties produced £473,927 in 1893–4, since then they have fluctuated considerably, but the

189
tendency has on the whole been upward, and last year they produced about £200,000 more than ten years ago. In my opinion, if the members of the propertied classes in Ireland who cling to the Union as their sheet anchor only continue to do so for a few years more they will find themselves stripped to the skin by their supposed protectors against their own countrymen. Altogether, the direct taxation of Ireland rose steadily, with few fluctuations, from £1,375,944 in 1893–4 to £2,252,000 in 1901–2, and fell, as I calculate it, to only £1,847,000 last year. This year it will be about £1,870,000, or about £500,000 more than eleven years ago, and the increase has been mainly brought about by increases in the rates of taxation.
But it is when we turn to the record of indirect taxation that the addition to our burdens becomes really alarming, because indirect taxation is borne in Ireland chiefly by the poor. In 1893–4 the indirect taxes produced £5,267,775; in 1902–3 they produced £6,890,000 —an increase of £1,622,225 in less than ten years. Again, this increase was mainly caused by increased rates of taxation on the very articles most consumed by the poor, and as the poor, relatively speaking, largely predominate in Ireland, it has in that proportion more affected Ireland than England or than Scotland. In raising the tax on tea, for instance, the one part of the three kingdoms which is most severely hit is the poorest Province of Ireland, namely Connaught, because tea and bread have come there particularly to supply the place of dearer food, such as meat, which the people cannot purchase. Moreover, this injustice is aggravated because, when the tax on tea was raised, that on coffee was left as it was; coffee, relatively speaking, being much more largely consumed in England than in Ireland. In the case of tobacco the increase also hit the poor more than the rich, because they were less able to pay for it, and therefore, for the reason I have just given, hit Ireland much more severely than Great Britain. Even when the tax on tobacco was reduced in 1897–8 from 3s. 2d. to 2s. 8d., to prevent the poor throughout the three kingdoms, and therefore Ireland particularly, from getting the full
190
benefit of the reduction, you reduced the extent of moisture allowed—that was, you made the cheaper kind of tobacco dearer than it would otherwise have been. As to the tax on alcohol, that has not been increased in the last ten years, confessedly because it could not have been increased with profit, but the injustice of the past in regard to this matter has been maintained, that is to say, as the result of half a century of legislation drink for Englishmen has been cheapened and drink for Irishmen, who are and have been the less bibulous and the more sober nation of the two, has been about quadrupled. In fact, some British drinks, such as cider and British wines, which before 1830 were as heavily taxed as beer, have not been taxed at all since that year.
But let us come back to the result of the last ten years taxation operations. That result has been to add about £3,000,000 a year, speaking roughly, to our total taxation. To put it in other words, while at the beginning of the late reign the taxation was at the rate of 12s. lid. per head of the population, it was about £2 16s. 2d. per head in 1902–3. Surely no just or fair-minded Englishman can regard such a development as that without some qualms of conscience; surely no Irishman can regard it with equanimity. Does anyone really believe that Ireland can endure it for very long? And where is the process going to stop? If this country, in the real or supposed interest of the Empire, chooses to embark in another great war within the next few years, and if, as a consequence, fresh-taxes are imposed and the taxation of Ireland is thereby increased by another £3,000,000, does anyone really think that the result to Ireland will not be disaster felt throughout the whole field of her industry and commerce? Let me give a few illustrations of the magnitude of this yearly addition to the taxation of Ireland. It more than equals the whole liability incurred during the last twenty years in providing dwellings for the working classes in both urban and rural districts inlreland. It is more than five times the agricultural grant voted in 1898. It is more than sixteen times the amount of

191
the development grant of last year, to which we are looking so much for improvements in our social system. It is nearly seventeen times the revenue of the new Agricultural Department, which we have been bidden to regard with reverence as the great fount of our material regeneration. It is more than thirty times the revenue of the Congested Districts Board, whose special care is the relief of congestion and the perennial poverty caused by congestion in the West of Ireland. It exceeds many times all the other grants made to Ireland since 1890, including the produce of the local licence duties, the estate duty grant, the Customs and Excise duties grant of 1890, and the Exchequer contribution of 1891. It exceeds the aggregate of all the grants put together, and all voted moneys devoted to other purposes in Ireland than those of law, police, and Dublin Castle. The Government hands over to us considerable sums for local purposes, for which it is admitted that money must be found, and after they have done so they deliberately put their hands in our pockets, and unscrupulously take out again not only all they have put in, but several times as much besides, protesting all the while that they are our generous benefactors, and that Ireland which is thus fleeced is the unreasonable and insatiable spoilt child of the Empire. I call all that mere thieving, tempered with hypocrisy. But the worst feature, of course, of the whole exasperating business is that this addition to our taxation has been imposed on a country whose population and whose wealth have both been declining. We all remember how the Government of the late Transvaal Republic used to be, denounced by the representatives of the mining industry on the Rand, and by their representatives in this House, both on and off the Government Benches, because it increased the taxation on that industry in proportion to its gains. But in the case of Ireland what has been done is to increase its taxation in spite of its losses in men and money. In 1893–4, when oar total taxation was, as I have stated, £7,568,649, the population of Ire- land was 4,500,599. Last financial year, when our taxation had, as I have shown, risen to all but £10,000,000, our population had still further declined to about
192
4,430,000. Is not this single fact in itself the severest condemnation that could be passed on the so-called system of equal and indiscriminate taxation? What a sarcastic comment it is on all the talk we hear about the advantages of a poor country being linked with a rich one, especially when the rich one chooses to embark in wars of aggression, and drags the poor one after it in its costly enterprises?
The decline in the population of Ireland is the most unmistakable proof that can be adduced of material retrogression. No country on the face of the globe which is really prosperous is losing its population. No really prosperous country has ever suffered such a loss by emigration as Ireland has endured during the last half-century, and is still enduring. During the last three years, despite your agricultural grants, development grants, and new Departments, the emigration from Ireland has been twice as great as that from Scotland, and eight times as great as that from England. People in the prime of life, such as are the great majority of Irish emigrants, do not fly from prosperous conditions; they fly because they see no chance of success in life in the land of their birth. But the steady decline in the population of Ireland and the never-ending tide of emigration are not the only infallible signs of its increasing poverty. The statistics of pauperism are very startling. In 1864 the daily average number of paupers was II per 1,000 of the population. In 1894 it fiad risen to 21 per 1,000. In 1903, the last year for which we have Returns, it rose to one in every forty-four. Can any one possibly mistake the significance of such figures as those? What a startling refutation they are of the theory that, though the emigration has been great, the lot of those who have remained behind has improved! And pauperism in Ireland is not of the same kind and does not arise from the same causes as in England. In this country it is both spasmodic and sporadic. It is caused by sudden fluctuations in industries and disappears with the restoration of the normal conditions of trade. In Ireland it is produced by the normal conditions of society, and is a grim and permanent feature of Irish social life.

193
Let me take one test more. The income-tax is not one of the best tests, but it is some test. It is surely a remarkable fact that in 1893–4, when the rate of income-tax was only 7d. in the £., 1d. yielded over £93,000, while in 1902–3, when the rate was raised to 1s. 3d., the yield per Id. was only £85,400. When my hon. friend the Member for West Islington, two or three years ago, brought out this striking fact out of the fulness of his knowledge, of this whole subject, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer affected to answer him in three ways. He said first that a certain amount of income-tax was lost by reason of large estates which paid the tax being broken up by sales under the Land Acts into small estates which were exempt; and he relied so much on that statement that he repeated it a year later. But it will not hold water. When money is substituted for land the owner does not cease to pay income-tax. Right good care is taken that he will continue to pay it on the dividends received from his investments. But there is an even more conclusive answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. The income from trades and professions is a rough test of the material condition of any country. Take my own profession—that of the law. If business outside the Courts improves, it inevitably happens that business inside the Courts improves too; and vice versa. It is, therefore, most significant that the income assessed under Schedule D in Ireland, in regard to which nothing has happened similar to that which has occurred in the case of income from land, was in 1903 less by more than £1,000,000 than it was ten years before, while the income assessed under Schedule C—the income from funds—declined from £723.000 in 1893 to £616,000 in 1901. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, again, said that landlords in Ireland paid on a lower basis than landlords in England, because, while English landlords paid on their rents received, the Irish landlords paid on the valuation, if it was lower than the rent. That, again, will not hold water. It is notorious that rents of agricultural land in England, without any Land Act, have been brought down by the absence of competition
194
for the land lower than any rents in Ireland or than even the valuation where that was lowest. The Member for West Bristol said, finally, that the exemptions and abatements made in recent years accounted largely for the decline in the yield of the income-tax in Ireland; but, even that cannot be admitted, for there is a larger gap in Ireland than in Great Britain between the large incomes which were always taxed and the small incomes which always escaped, and so the decline in the yield remains without any adequate explanation but one, namely, that the country as a whole is steadily suffering an increasing loss in every element of wealth.
I dare say we shall have once again the old argument s based on the increase of deposits in the banks and the receipts of the railways. It will not now avail. It is threadbare. As to the increase in the bank deposits, it is perfectly notorious that it is a sign not of progress, but of retrogression. The money of Ireland would not be in the banks at such rates of interest as 1½ and 2 per cent, if Ireland were prosperous; it would be invested in industrial enterprises at 5 and 6 per cent., and the difference between the case of Ireland and that of Great Britain in respect of this matter is that, whereas the English bank deposits represent surplus capital, in Ireland they represent practically the whole capital of the country, an insignificant fraction excepted. Then there are the everlasting railway receipts which,, we are told, are increasing. Yes, they have been increasing. But at what rate? While the receipts from the railways in Great Britain have increased from a little over £22,000,000 in 1870 to nearly £43,000,000 in 1903, the receipts from the Irish railways increased in the same time from £1,000,000 to only a little over £1,500,000, and, moreover, I suppose those receipts include the large sums paid out of the rates in aid of the guaranteed lines. The argument based on this increase in railway receipts in Ireland reminds me, in fact, of the plea of the baby-farmers. The children whom they starved to death developed, it is true, during their brief lives; they actually weighed more when they were dead than they did when they were born; but they would not die so

195
soon if their physical development were in the natural healthful ratio.
But what need have I to resort to Blue-books or statistics, or figures? Is not the evidence of our eyes sufficient without those aids? When I go through this country and behold its countless hives of industry, its palaces, and mansions, and comfortable cottage homes, its teeming millions producing wealth greater than that of "Ormuz or of Ind," its ports crowded with ships trading between England and all parts of the world, and then turn to my own country and observe the grass-grown streets of many of its towns, the dilapidated buildings, the idle mills, once the scene of thriving business, its thousands of acres going to waste or remaining in pasture while tens of thousands of people are in need of land, and its principal ports crowded weekly with thousands of able-bodied emigrants flying as if from a plague, I begin to think that all statistics are useless or misleading in face of the proofs, huge as a mountain, open, palpable, of the nation's decay. The truth is—and no arguments, however, specious nor statements however sophistical, can hide the fact— that you have not only been increasing enormously the taxation of Ireland, but that you have been doing so with full knowledge of the fact that she has been, unlike England, growing more and more unable to bear it. In point of fact, economic decay is the natural and inevitable result of excessive taxation in every country which is over-taxed. Over-taxation depletes the wealth of a country, paralyses trade and industry, disheartenes the people, takes away hope and expectation alike, and induces every man of enterprise to fly to some land under happier conditions. Notwithstanding, however, this enormous addition to our taxation, we shall be told, as we were told in 1902 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that our proportionate contribution to Imperial expenses has been greatly reduced. It is something like one-fiftieth instead of one-twentieth, said that right hon. Gentleman, and surely that is not too much to ask Ireland to pay. Although, by the way, if that were the correct figure, it would be higher than we ought
196
to pay according to the greatest statistician in these kingdoms, Sir Robert Giffen, who in 1886 estimated the taxable capacity of Ireland, which was greater then than it is now at one-fiftieth that of Great Britain.
But before I give the obvious answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, let me offer a. protest once more against the jugglery in figures by which Ireland's proportionate contribution is set down in the Treasury Returns. That contribution is made out by debiting to Ireland expenditure which is really laid out here and ought to be debited to Great Britain. When the Treasury wants to find out the amount of money spent on Ireland the rule adopted is to account as expenditure on Ireland what is spent there. But when it is desired to find out the amount spent on England this rule is discarded. For example, almost every penny spent on the Army and Navy, in works of construction and in the manufacture of arms and ammunition, is spent in Great Britain, and the result has been the creation of industries which give continuous employment to tens of thousands of skilled and ordinary workmen. If the Treasury followed the rule they themselves have laid down in the case of Ireland, all that expenditure would be regarded as English expenditure. But what they actually do is to put all this vast expenditure to the account of the Empire, and thus it is that they bring out the final result of making it appear that England has millions less spent upon her than is actually the case and, therefore, contributes millions more in proportion to the Empire than Ireland. But let me take the figure set down as correct. Can anything else be expected than that Ireland's proportion of contribution to Imperial expenses would go down with an increase in the taxes on the basis of what is called equal and indiscriminate taxation? It stands to reason that, as long as Ireland is the poorer country of the two, that must be the case. If I wanted authority for this proposition I have it here in the words of the Chief Secretary spoken on the occasion to which I have already referred. The right

197
hon. Gentleman is reported to have stated in this House—
"He had heard it said by hon. Members sitting for English constituencies, that considering the proportionate contribution of Ireland for Imperial purposes, she was not entitled to any exceptional treatment; but that argument would not bear the test of examination. He contended that the allocation of the savings effected in the course of Irish Government to Irish purposes was based upon economic facts—upon the fact that Ireland's arrested development was not only an evil for her, but deprived her of all financial elasticity, and it so happened that Ireland's proportionate contribution was smaller than it might otherwise have been. If the same taxes were imposed in both countries, Ireland, being the poorer country, would produce a relatively smaller amount for those taxes than they would produce in England. Again, if higher taxes were imposed, such as a war tax, the returns from England would quickly respond; but in Ireland they were beginning to touch the danger point at which taxation ought not to be increased"
In point of fact, the existing taxation might be increased to such an extent that Ireland's contribution would appear a minus quantity, although we should be actually paying much more than we are paying at present. I think I may leave this point now, and I hope we shall hear no more about it in defence of the system on which Ireland is taxed.
I come next to the question of relative taxable capacity and the extent to which Ireland is now over-taxed as compared with Great Britain. But I need not dwell much on that point. The Royal Commission over which Mr. Childers presided has practically settled that point for ever. That Commission comprised the most distinguished financial experts whom Great Britain could produce when it was appointed. But that fact has not saved it from the sneers of persons from whom sneers might have been least expected. The criticisms passed upon its work, however, have been absolutely irrelevant. I call attention to this fact, that what has been assailed in its Report is not the accuracy of any statement made in that document but the fact that, in accordance with the terms of the reference made to it, it dared to consider Great Britain and Ireland as separate fiscal entities for the purposes of the inquiry which it was appointed to conduct. It might have been wrong
198
in doing so, though it is hard to see how it could have been; but if the House supposes it to have been right in taking the cases of England and Ireland separately, not only is there no answer, but none has even been attempted, to the main conclusion—that Ireland was over-taxed in 1894, in comparison with Great Britain, to the extent, at least, of something between £2,500,000 and £2,750,000 a year. Most Irishmen thought it an under-estimate; but let it stand. What the exact figure ought to be now I will not attempt to say; but it requires no argument to show that, if the over-taxation of Ireland reached nearly £3,000,000 in 1894, it must now necessarily largely exceed that amount, since no one in this House or out of it who is not a fool will venture for a moment to deny that, while Ireland has declined in the last ten or eleven years in every element of wealth, Great Britain has advanced in the opposite direction by leaps and bounds. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate yesterday was that the country was progressing, and that it was better able to stand the strain of taxation than in former times. Of course the right hon. Gentleman meant Great Britain when he made that statement.
The Prime Minister in the concluding speech yesterday stated that while expenditure had increased since 1864, Great Britain was far better able to sustain the increased expenditure now than it was to sustain the low expenditure of forty years ago. What is the answer to this indictment? I am almost ashamed to examine once more the threadbare pleas of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. To notice them once again seems to attach to them an importance which they do not possess. Everyone of them has been answered again and again, and notwithstanding that fact they are put forward on every fresh occasion as if they had never been answered at all. It is said that, the same taxes being imposed throughout the three kingdoms, no grievance can exist since all are thus taxed alike. In past years Irish Members have contended, and I myself especially have contended, that that was exactly Ireland's grievance,

199
and the head and front of Great Britain's offending, for by the Act of Union this Parliament is bound not to tax Ireland on the same level as Great Britain till the circumstances of the two countries have become similar—which has never been the case. The late Chancellor the Member for West Bristol more than once affected to deny this proposition, and would not hear of such an interpretation of the Seventh Article of the Treaty of Union. I always thought his denials were unworthy of him, and I have never heard them supported by more than the right hon. Gentleman's ipse dixit. Consequently, I for one will never give up the Irish argument based on the Act of Union. It is in my opinion absolutely unassailable. But let me discard it for this occasion, and take the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and those who agree with him on their own ground. Let me admit, for the sake of argument, that there is no warrant in history or legislation for separate treatment for Ireland in the matter of taxation. Is indiscriminate taxation, therefore, necessarily just? Does identity of the rates of taxation necessarily imply an equality of burthen? Will the present Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously maintain that neither Egypt nor India would be injured if precisely the same rate and kind of taxation as prevails in England were imposed on those two countries? Would the same tax on wines in France and England mean the same thing to France as to England? But it is absurdities like these which are involved in the assertion so glibly and confidently made that there can be no injustice to Ireland, because the same taxes are levied there as in Great Britain. When articles more generally used in Ireland than in England, such as whiskey, are taxed the same throughout, Ireland is hit and England escapes pro tanto. When an article like tea which is used more amongst the poor than amongst the rich is taxed, the poor are hit and the rich escape pro tanto, and Ireland again is specially hit because she has more poor in proportion than England. When tobacco is taxed, the burden again falls with greater severity on the poor than on the rich, and Ireland again, because she has more poor in proportion than Eng-and, is specially hit. Suppose, again
200
that an equal tax were levied throughout Great Britain and Ireland on exports of coal and iron. Here, too, there would be equal, indiscriminate, and, according to the English contention, just taxation; yet in this case Ireland would altogether escape and Great Britain alone would be hit, for the coal and iron industries are British industries, and Ireland, fortunately or unfortunately for herself, can boast of neither of those' industries. In point of fact, the plea drawn from this system of so-called equal and indiscriminate taxation is patent nonsense and founded on falsehood.
I may be told—we have always been told—that this is an English grievance also, as there are poor people in Great Britain as well as in Ireland. I might answer, as I have answered on previous occasions similar to this, that the Act of Union, by which England so jealously stands in other matters, guarantees the Irish people immunity from it, even though the English people themselves choose to endure it and suffer from it; but I shall not use that argument now, though I will never abandon it. Let it be that the poor in both countries suffer. But surely it is plain that the suffering is not equal. Here the poor amongst the teeming millions of prosperous people are a comparative few; in Ireland they are, practically speaking, almost the entire nation. Here there are poor districts, no doubt; but they are surrounded on all sides by rich districts which maintain them and by numberless industries to which they can resort; whereas, in the greater part of Ireland, the poverty is unrelieved by any such admixture or any such accompaniment. In some districts along the western sea-board the annual family budget foots up scarcely to a score of pounds sterling. The nearest field of employment is England, and in times of distress the rate for the relief of the poor mounts up to such figures as seven and eight shillings in the pound and is paid by people many of whom are themselves on the verge of poverty. It is, therefore, absolute nonsense to talk of equality of suffering; besides, the fact that there are poor districts in England which are specially hit by the present system of taxation is no reason for continuing to injure

201
Ireland; and, accordingly, whether we look at this system of so-called equal and indiscriminate taxation from the point of view of the historic and legislative rights of Ireland, or as a means specially calculated for plundering the poor for the benefit of the rich, it seems from the Irish standpoint equally unjust and infamous.
It is said, again, that Ireland is exempt from some taxes which are levied in England. I wonder why those who make that point are not ashamed to do so. For what do those taxes amount to which are levied in England and not in Ireland? I have totted them up, and altogether they amount to £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, or one-fortieth part of the total revenue of Great Britain and Ireland. Supposing that those taxes were enacted for Ireland, how much does the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagine he would get out of them? I venture to say that their produce would not pay a quarter of the cost of collection. Imagine a tax in Ireland on armorial bearings. We have not got any armorial bearings. England took them away when she took away the Irish Parliament; and if we had any I am certain England would tax them as in this country. It is said again that there is a set-off in the shape of excessive expenditure in Ireland. The answer of Ireland to this plea has been made again and again and has never been answered in turn. Let me repeat it as briefly as I can. In the first place, if expenditure could be a set-off to taxation, no country in the world could be said to be over-taxed, and even Turkey must, on this hypothesis, be free from such a reproach. The hypothesis is intrinsically absurd. But in the case of Ireland it is not only absurd, but audacious. For what are the objects of the Imperial expenditure in Ireland? Broadly speaking, the bulk of that expenditure is and has been necessitated by the attempts of this country to govern Ireland without its consent. The money is spent in dragooning and corruption. England holds Ireland by force and by bribery, and it is thus the money goes. But what audacity is required to describe expenditure of this nature as a set-off. Of recent years, it is true,
202
money has been devoted to other objects. But whose money? Take the revenue of the Congested Districts Board. Almost the whole of the capital at the disposal of that body is drawn from the Irish Church Surplus. The funds of the new Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are mostly drawn from the same source. The endowments of the Intermediate Education Board and of the Royal University are supplied from the same fount. Even the pensions of the Irish national teachers are in great part similarly provided. The Agricultural Grant, the Estate Duty Grant, the Customs and Excise Grant, and the Development Grant of last year are the equivalents of similar grants made first in England and Scotland and are in no sense British money. If they had not been made, Ireland would now be contributing the aggregate of all those grants in aid of English and Scotch local purposes. So that it comes to this that, so far as the monies voted by this House for useful or reproductive Irish purposes are concerned, all come out of Irish pockets. Even the bonus of £12,000,000 provided by the Land Act of last year for the purchase of Irish land is to be got by taking the whole amount out of grants already made to Ireland for other purposes. You call this British liberality; you count it, forsooth, as a set-off; but you will not impose on the Irish public at least by such tricks of debate. The English Parliament may over-tax because it has the power. But it has not the power to make black white, and this plea of a set-off cannot be made to look to Irish eyes as other than an imposture.
Now, all this I call a very shameful record. England has a giant's strength as regards Ireland, and it has been tyrannous enough to use it like a giant. It has had a small and weak nation completely in its grip, and while it has been glad enough to use the services of its sons on every field of battle, it has not been ashamed to requite that nation for those services by robbing it, as if it had just conquered Ireland in war and were exacting from it a ransom. What strikes one most about this story is the unintermitted persistence in wrong-doing. Since the amalgamation of the Exchequer in 1817

203
there has scarcely ever been a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has not been engaged in one or more predatory expeditions in Ireland. In whatever other field of administration or legislation misgovernment of that country may have been modified; in the field of finance, England has consistently acted for nearly a century in a manner which suggests that the object nearest the hearts of successive Governments was to bleed the Irish people to death. I have heard virtuous protestations in this House against such charges or any charges involving deliberate malignity to Ireland on the part of British statesmen, and I suppose we shall hear similar protests again to-day. I could understand those virtuous protestations if it could be shown that English statesmen in the past were not made aware of the real nature of the results to Ireland of over-taxation. But it is too much to ask the Irish Members to believe in their sincerity, in face of all that has been written and spoken on this subject by Irishmen, and even by some Englishmen, in the interest of Ireland during the last half century. But for argument's sake let me put deliberate malignity out of the case. What remains? What remains is nearly as reprehensible; for the only alternative conclusion is that England has thought exclusively of British interests, has wholly disregarded Irish interests, and has cared not a jot whether Ireland sank or swam, provided England was safe. It appears to me at least that the latter accusation is only a shade less serious than the other, while the result to Ireland has been the same. The saying of Grattan, like so many of his sayings, has been verified to the letter—
"A nation that loses its liberties, loses its revenues."
And whether this result has been brought about deliberately, or without thought, it is one which to all Irishmen must be a source of indignation. "Evil is wrought by want of thought as well as want of heart." To the Nationalist majority at least this financial grievance appears large enough to justify an insurrection, if an insurrection were possible, and we, the representatives here of that majority, should be more or less than men, if, while it remained unredressed, we did not continue
204
to denounce it as an infamous wrong, without even a rag of justificatiou or excuse.
*Mr. WALDRONsaid that if the expenditure of this great country had reached a figure to cause alarm to her statesmen and economists, what must be the position of Ireland in relation to her share of such expenditure? The British expenditure, however great, however dangerous to her financial stability, however disorganising to her credit, was at any rate sanctioned by her Parliamentary representatives, or the great majority of them. It was undertaken for objects of which Englishmen in the main approved, and it was possible—though personally he held the opposite opinion—that it might in the future improve the markets for English manufacturers' exports and so to some extent be justified. But it had been incurred for purposes objected to at every step by the majority of the representatives of Ireland, for purposes which they held conferred upon that country no benefits of any sort. They practically had no manufactures, no articles to export save cattle, sheep, and horses, and the vast military and naval expenditure to which, in the face of their reasonable and repeated protests, they were compelled to contribute, opened up no new markets for agricultural produce. When the Financial Relations Commission issued its Report in 1396, the Irish taxation was £8,031,000—for the year ending March, 1901, it was £9,500,000, and for the year ending March, 1905, it would be over £10,000,000. The Financial Relations Commission was appointed because Mr. Parnell said that the fixed Imperial contribution of £2,500,000 was excessive, and now, after eight years, with about 170,000 to 180,000 less of population, they found the Imperial contribution raised undoubtedly by £:500,000. What was to be the end of this system—for what purposes were such monstrous taxes raised? He was acquainted with the doctrine of the set-off, but he thought it had been so often expressed that it was hardly necessary for him to say more than a few words about it. It consisted in setting up as a counterbalance to these taxes the fact that about £7,000,000 was re-spent in Ireland. Yes,

205
but how? In continuing, against the wishes of the great majority of the people, a system of law and police, the most expensive, in relation to the population of the people, in the world, by a Civil Service comprised for the most part of non-representative non-elected boards. These things were not required in Ireland, and they were increasingly and justly protested against. Let him give a few figures to illustrate his meaning. In Belgium with a population of over 6,500,000, law and police cost only £1,400,000, while Ireland, with 4,500,000, cost £2,200,000. He believed that some of the economies for the Land Act —indeed, most of the £250,000— was to come off that, but even after that abatement it would stand at some £500,000 above Belgium. Further, it was treated as an Irish charge, when no one would deny that probably one-half of it was fairly an Imperial charge. And so they could go on through the whole weary list of items.
It might be asked how this system was to be altered as regarded taxes levied under the general law of the country. He confessed he had very little hope, unless a fixed Imperial contribution was arrived at. Even if such fixed contribution was taken at the sum, found to be admittedly excessive, of £2,500,000 in this year, if there was a method of putting Irish savings to separate Irish funds for Irish purposes, they would still be some £300,000 to the good. He should have thought that every Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the very nature of his studies, would have been in favour of economy. Could he conceive of a system less likely to develop it than the one which prevailed now? There was no incentive to save. It was a commonplace of Irish life that they should get as much as they could out of the Treasury, though he thought the Treasury was much better able to protect itself than was the Irish taxpayer to raid the Treasury. If this were done, he for one would welcome the government of Ireland, without any Party representation, by what was called, in the language of the day, a great pro-Consul. He believed that any capable administrator of the type of Lord Cromer or Lord Curzon or Sir Antony MacDonnell—he thought, even
206
for financial justice, they should not care to have Lord Milner—given a fixed Imperial contribution, would provide Ireland with nationalised railways and nationalised waterways, and save in addition £1,000,000 for other useful purposes in Ireland. If they would not give to Ireland the right to manage her own local affairs, they were bound to take some steps to prevent her being taxed to death. Ireland, if she paid a fixed Imperial contribution of, say, £2,000,000 a year, would then be at liberty to do what, in his opinion, she herself, or whoever was responsible for her financial management, ought to le able to do—viz., to think parochially, to turn from the standard of this wealthy country to the modest arrangements of Switzerland, or some other small agricultural European country. If that were done, he believed that Irishmen who thought that the Union was best for Ireland, or those who, like himself, thought they should be left to manage their own local affairs on their own soil, would both find their country wealthier and happier.
*Mr. LOUGHsaid the situation was an extremely interesting one; no English Members were present, and they might almost imagine that this was an Irish Parliament with certain limitations. He believed that every Irish representative knew that whatever he said, and however cogent his arguments or reasonable his demands, nothing would come of it, and the whole combined representation of Ireland would find itself quite powerless to influence the Government in this matter. His hon. friend had sketched a rather large programme, and he would remind him that there was an agitation on foot to diminish the number of Irish Members. The hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green had said. "Sweep them all away." They might as well be swept away for the power they exercised in Parliament. The hon. Member had asked that a pro-Consul should be appointed for Ireland on the lines of government adopted in Switzerland. He could well understand a Nationalist Member making such a proposal if it were only to call attention more forcibly to the most infamous system of government in the world.

207
For three or four years nothing had been said on this financial question, and a great many people thought that because they had been silent the question was dead. But that was not so, for it was very much alive, and the only possible way to kill it was by dealing with it. The form of the debate that day was different to what it was in the past. Generally speaking, Irish Members had been induced to allow the Budget to go through upon being promised a day for an academic discussion of this question. A change had now been made by which Great Britain got two-thirds of the time allotted for this question, and one-third was given to Ireland. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would try to treat this question seriously, for he was Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland as well as for Great Britain, and he occupied that position in a separate capacity. At the time of the Union there was a separate Irish Chancellor, but when he was abolished there was an understanding that the British Chancellor should do justice to Ireland. They had now a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted he would be able to say something reassuring. They had not got the figures upon this question, and those quoted by his hon. friend stopped at the year 1902. He thought this was a little hard, because when they were dealing with Great Britain they were furnished with the figures for the present year. They were now dealing with the vital affairs of a nation and the absence of those figures gave a sort of unreality to the whole business. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might easily tell them how his proposed taxation would fall upon Ireland just as he had done in the case of Great Britain.
There had been an interval of three years since this subject was discussed, and an interval of ten years since the Royal Commission met. What had happened in the interval? Great Britain had been through a war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably tell him that the taxes had been imposed on account of the necessities of that war. There were two other great wars during the 100 years of the Union, and no doubt he would say the same thing as his predecessors said after the Crimean War and after the Battle of Waterloo, that for
208
various reasons the war taxation could not be reduced. In the present instance it had not been reduced in England. But the case of Ireland was not the same as that of England. The latter was a progressive country with a growing population and increasing wealth; whereas Ireland had a diminishing population and no wealth. Yet, although the circumstances were so different, the same system was applied to the two countries. Since this question was last discussed the dream of Imperialism had arisen before the British mind, and a large majority of the House of Commons was pledged to the policy of expansion. The protest against that policy, even on the Opposition side of the House, had been to him rather disappointing. When challenged during recent debates by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state what items of expenditure they would reduce, the reply of the Liberal leaders had not been very clear. Personally, he had never concealed his views on the matter, and was always ready to go into the division lobby in support of them. As far as Great Britain was concerned, he would reduce expenditure all round—on the Civil Service as well as on the Army and Navy. The policy of Imperialism required money, and the extra funds necessitated by this purely British dream were being dragged out of poor starving Ireland. It was a gross injustice. The Navy, the greatest branch of our extravagance, was said to exist for the purpose of protecting the vast commerce of the country. But Ireland had no commerce, and therefore did not need the protection, but still her declining population of peasants had to pay for the insurance of the commerce of the richest nation in the world. Looked at from that point of view, it was singularly unjust that so large a proportion of the increased taxation should be dragged out of Ireland-Another point that should not be lost sight of was that, whereas the expenditure: had increased by £50,000,000 during the last ten years, £40,000,000 was spent on the Army and Navy, and the whole of this money was spent in Great Britain. Although the Irish situation would not be relieved by a portion of the money being spent in Ireland, he thought it was a fact that ought to be considered. It was frequently said that

209
a kindlier feeling was growing up between England and Ireland, but no reflection of that feeling was to be found in the financial policy of the Government.
What were the results that were being achieved by this policy? It used to be the custom to blame the House of Lords for the mis-government of Ireland, but the real seat of oppression was the House of Commons. Irish questions were settled, not by Irish opinion, nor by Irish Members, but by an Assembly in which, to one Irish Member there were five British Members, who knew nothing of the situation, and had not passed through the starvation and ruin which the Irish people had had to endure. Let us look for a moment at the results which had been achieved in this financial department. In 1860, a new chapter in Irish oppression was opened, and what had Great Britain got out of it? The taxation of Ireland was doubled during ten years, and according to a Treasury Return, Great Britain got an Imperial contribution of £5,400,000. At first, therefore, the oppression paid. But ten years later the contribution had fallen to £4,400,000; in 1880, it was £3,200,000; in 1890, it was £2,600,000; and in 1900, it was only £1,600,000. Why had the contribution so diminished? Because, as the patient bled to death, expensive restoratives had had to be applied, and the cost of governing Ireland had continually increased as new exactions were made. The hon. Member for Dublin had pointed out that the Imperial contribution had increased during the last four years by £1,000,000. But that £1,000,000 had been secured only by increasing the taxation of Ireland by £2,000,000, the other £1,000,000 being to a large extent wasted. The only other fact needed to fill in the miserable storv was that since 1860 the population had diminished from 6,000,000 to 4,400,000. Thus there was the awful tragedy, probably unparalleled in history, certainly unequalled in the present day, of a country with a constantly decreasing population having to pay constantly increasing taxation. The profit of the policy was small, and showed a tendency to diminish. But if the results to Great Britain were bad, to Ireland they were simply ruinous. Irish ports were
210
crowded, as they had been for fifty years past, with emigrants hurrying away from the tyranny enforced of this House, but the people who remained, instead of being better off, were more miserable than before. In Great Britain pauperism had halved; but in Ireland it had doubled. There was a complete stagnation of industry in the country. Why should the House of Commons take so much interest in the Transvaal and West Africa and so little in Ireland? The white population in the Transvaal was only 200,000, and in West Africa it was probably under 20,000; ought not a little consideration to be given to the 4,400,000 in Ireland?
There was also the unconstitutional aspect of the question. Irish Unionists sympathised with Nationalists on the question of taxation, and yet, although Irish opinion was practically unanimous, it was powerless to effect the slightest alteration. Surely the cry of a united people ought to be listened to by the House of Commons; or the responsibility of refusing such an appeal when made would be extremely grave. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what he would like to have the Irish Members do which they had not done in this matter? They had convinced their own country-they would never convince this-they had been patient, a tribunal had considered the question, and judgment had been pronounced in their favour. What more were they to do? What recourse was left open to Ireland if the demands of the Irish Members were so constantly neglected in the way they had been for the last 100 years.
He might be asked to state what the remedy was. In his opinion the remedy was that Ireland should be allowed to take full charge of her own financial matters. Ireland was the only part of the Empire outside Great Britain in which Great Britain interfered in financial matters. We did not interfere in the Isle of Man or in the Channel Islands nor in any colony as we did in Ireland, and what was the result? Those communities prospered, while Ireland was ruined. The treatment meted out to Ireland was the exception to that meted out to other parts of the Empire,

211
There was no question of religion or of race involved in the matter because all classes alike supported it. We should give to Ireland financial autonomy, subject to her paying a proper contribution for a fixed period-say seven years. Let the finances be left in her own hands. What was the use of the Irish being economical; they derived no benefit from any economy, it only went to swell their contribution. Switzerland flourished because of the cheap and economical government of the country. Ireland failed because of the extravagance of its government. He denied that there would be any difficulty in setting up a Customs House for Ireland. He saw no difficulty whatever for the reason that so few articles affecting this country would be touched. The matters to which attention had been drawn were very grave, and it was unfortunate that more British Members of the House were not present to consider them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in picking out tea for an increased duty had picked out an article which hit Ireland far harder than Great Britain. One-seventh of the revenue derived from this tax would come from Ireland, instead of one-twentieth, which was all to which the Exchequer was entitled. The right hon. Gentleman got one-seventh from this poor country, which had not one-seventh of the population of this country nor one-seventieth of its prosperity. That was the system which had been adopted towards Ireland throughout the past century and he thought the right hon. Gentleman now, on behalf of the Government, should at least order some large inquiry into the matter, in order to discover a remedy for it. In his opinion, the Irish representatives were well entitled to bring the matter forward.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that now the question of Irish land was in a fair way of settlement he thought this was by far the most important of the Irish questions which the House could discuss. The House had been listening during the past few days to the complaints of English Members as to the general expenditure. If the representatives of a rich country like England were crying out against expenditure, surely the representatives of a poor country like Ireland had a double right to do the same thing. What was the case of Ireland in
212
this matter? The population of Ireland was a diminishing one, and not only that, if hon. Members looked into the Emigration Returns they would find that the very best of the population was leaving the country. He was curious to look at the ages of emigrants, and he found that the overwhelming majority of the people who had left Ireland during the last twelve months were men and women between the ages of seventeen and thirty years. The country was being bled to death. A people passionately attached to their native land, as the Irish people were, did not leave it without cause, and it was the duty of this country to investigate the cause and try to bring about a remedy for this state of things. There was thus a diminishing population, and the people that were left, instead of getting richer, were getting poorer. The pauperism of Ireland a few years ago was at the rate of eleven per 1,000; at the present time it was twenty-two per 1,000. The pauperism of England was steadily diminishing; that of Ireland was steadily increasing. It was the duty of the Government to go to the root of the matter, and see what it really meant. While in Ireland the population was diminishing and pauperism was increasing, the taxation was going steadily on. Surely that was a good case at least for inquiry. He thought an inquiry absolutely necessary.
What was the case of England as against that? Every year this subject of the financial relations was discussed; the same statement was made that the matter was all settled in 1819, when the principle of indiscriminate taxation was adopted, that the people of Ireland were not taxed any more heavily than the people of England, and that if there were poor in Ireland then there were also poor in England. That was the English case as set forth from the Treasury Bench upon every occasion that this question was raised. Then, in addition to that, they told the Irish people to look at the set-off, and said it was true that Ireland paid £10,000,000 of general revenue per annum, but what was expended in Ireland must be considered. It was the question of the set-off that he wished to touch upon; and the first thing he wished to point out was that nobody in Ireland under the present system had

213
the slightest interest in economy at all. "The more money spent in Ireland the better," was what the people argued. One gentleman to whom he spoke on the subject said his great complaint was that the Government were reducing the constabulary, which was one of the only professions left in Ireland. The Irish people had got into the way of thinking that the spending of money was to the advantage of Ireland, but they seemed to be ignorant of the fact that the money spent came from Ireland itself, not from England. He had looked into the Appropriation Accounts and had endeavoured to compare Ireland with Scotland. Ireland was a poor country, Scotland a rich country; Ireland had no mineral resources, Scotland great mineral wealth. For the three items Supreme Court of Judicature, County Courts, and law charges, not including the Irish Land Commission, Ireland paid £421,687 last year, while Scotland paid only £259,373. There was more crime in Scotland than in Ireland. Ireland was absolutely a crimeless country, because agrarian crime had practically disappeared. Notwithstanding these facts that Scotland had far more crime aid law business than Ireland, it managed to conduct all its legal business for so much less. What did it all mean? Scotland and Ireland had equal populations. Everybody who knew Ireland and Dublin knew perfectly well that the business of the country could be effectually done by half the number of Judges in the High Court. As to the County Court Judges, there could be no doubt that counties could be amalgamated for this purpose, and at least the services of a quarter of the County Court Judges could be dispensed with. Nobody, however, had the slightest interest in promoting economy, because Ireland would not get the benefit of it. The Local Government Board in Ireland cost £79,875 per annum, in Scotland it only cost £15,825. He had never heard that the local government business of Scotland was ineffectively conducted; it was probably better conducted than that of Ireland. This was, therefore, a very striking difference. The money was all spent on officials of one kind or another. Nobody had any interest in reducing the number of these, because Ireland would
214
not get the benefit of the reduction; it would go to swell the Imperial quota. Take the Registrar-General's Department in Ireland. That cost £22,913. The same Department in Scotland cost £12,239. The Valuation Department cost £32,000 in Ireland. There was no such Department in Scotland or England, as the work was done by local assessment committees without any charge at all. The office of the Secretary of State for Scotland cost exactly the same amount as the Chief Secretary's office in Ireland, the cost in the case of Ireland being £41,650, and in the case of Scotland £41,678. But a still more flagrant matter was the case of the police Ireland, which was actually devoid of crime, was governed by a gigantic system of police, who had nothing to do. What was the position of agrarian crime? The Chief Secretary had actually given notice that he was no longer going to publish the quarterly Returns, for they were not required. The legislation passed by the House had told upon the land question, and agrarian crime had disappeared. There were about half-a-dozen black spots kept black by landlordism and nothing else, but for all practical purposes agrarian crime had disappeared. There was very little ordinary crime. Yet the cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary for the year came to £1,412,429. Add the sum of £156,785 for the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and they got a total of £1,569,214 for policing a practically crimeless country. Ireland was not a country of large towns. It was not a country where there was great mining or anything of the kind. But Scotland had large centres of population, and everybody knew that large centres tended to breed crime. Well, the police cost in Ireland £1,569,214, and, according to the local taxation account for Scotland, Scotland was policed last year for £529,116. Was this not a monstrous state of affairs? Surely a Government that was responsible for the government of Ireland ought to face these facts. The least that could be done was that there should be an inquiry.
The hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin-his own representative in that House-made a most admirable speech, and certainly the hon. Member was a distinct acquisition to Irish debates so far as finance was concerned. Supposing the Chancellor of

215
the Exchequer, convinced that a case had been made out for inquiry, came to the conclusion that really this House could not settle this Irish difficulty of finance. So far as Englishmen and Scotchmen were concerned, they showed no interest whatever in this question. Why should they not have what the hon. Member for Islington called financial autonomy in Ireland? They had financial autonomy seventeen years after the Union, and therefore the question of the Union and separation could not be raised. If they could have a separate Irish Exchequer and financial autonomy with a reasonable amount fixed for the Imperial quota he did not indicate the amount, but it should take into account the condition of Ireland and Great Britain and fixed on the Scotch basis, they would be able to save, according to the figures which had been given,at least £2,000,000 sterling per annum, and nobody would be a bit the worse but everybody would be better off. Why should this not be done? Look at the state of the House of Commons at the present moment. Where were the Ulster Unionist Members? If there was a Coercion Act to be maintained they would all be there fighting like grim death. If there was anything to crush individual Irishmen down they were always on the spot and on the job. Where were they to-night, when this question which was crushing the life out of their constituencies was being discussed? Why were they not there to impress upon the Government the necessity for action? [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Because Moore wants a job.] Everybody in Ireland wanted a job. That was the crying curse of the whole thing. If they took thirty men out of the Library of the Four Courts they would find that all the rest were there in the sure and certain hope of something turning up, or they would not be there at all. The whole thing was done in jobs in Ireland, and the sooner it was brought to an end the better. He did not in the least doubt the good intentions of the Chief Secretary in this matter. He was perfectly persuaded that he knew that things could not go on as they were. Did anybody imagine that he did not know all about "jobs"? He knew a great deal better than
216
many hon. Members. He thought it was a reasonable proposition which had been put before the House by the hon. Member for Islington. There ought to be an inquiry into the taxable capacity of Ireland and. into the question of a set-off and how far it affected the Irish people. If that inquiry was granted it would produce a great benefit for Ireland.
MR. T. M. HEALYthought it was very unfair of the hon. Member for South Tyrone to quarrel with the Ulster Members. Did he not know that the Chief Secretary had given notice that he intended to reduce the number of Judges and reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? The Unionist Members were now considering that proposal, and unless they could get a proper assurance on the subject, they might vote against the Government tonight. Just as on the University question, if Dr. Traill had not been appointed Provost of Trinity College the Irish Unionist Members would have voted against the Government on Chinese labour. That was how Government majorities were made up. He intended to support this proposal to reduce the number of Judges and the salary of the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, for anything calculated to turn the denizens of the Library of the Four Courts into a Ribbon lodge was known to make Unionists and Loyalists in Ireland absolutely discontented, and therefore he should give the measure his cordial support. He did not believe that when the measure had been passed there would be one intelligent supporter of the Government left in Dublin. The hon. Member had asked why they could not have financial autonomy in Ireland, and he had told the House that in 1817 they had a separate Chancellor of the Exchequer.? On looking in the Dublin Gazette about six or eight months ago, just after the financial rumpus in the Cabinet and the changes in the Ministry, he was greatly surprised to find that Ireland still had a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the name given was "Mr. Austen Chamberlain." He confessed that he never had such a shock in his life, and he asked himself at once, "Why am I not the Mayor of Birmingham?" He possessed all the

217
qualifications for that office, for he was only in Birmingham once, and then only for a single night. He knew nothing whatever of Birmingham or its finances or its debt, he cared nothing about its people or whether its industries went up or down, or whether its guns were no longer what they were. Accordingly, he had every qualification for being placed in charge of Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, and they went through the tragic farce of appealing to him on that occasion, as they had appealed to his predecessors for the last quarter of a century. Every one of them knew that if the right hon. Gentleman was to listen to their arguments he would not be allowed to hold office for long, and if he were to make a sympathetic speech about Ireland, or to agree that Ireland was over-taxed, his colleagues in the Cabinet would fire him out. It would not be the right hon. Gentleman's fault, but he would that night repeat the speech which the Treasury had prepared for eight or nine of his predecessors, whom he had heard deliver it in that House. It was part of the farce of Irish representation in that House, and it ought to be put an end to.
What Ireland wanted in the first place was a Government. He did not care whether it was an Orange Government or what sort of a Government. It wanted an Irish Government. It wanted some man in Dublin who would keep a diary, a ledger, and a profit-and-loss account, and would see that Ireland was fairly treated. How could they expect the right hon. Gentleman to do anything? He (Mr. Healy) knew nothing about England, though he had lived there off and on for thirty years. And what could they expect him to know? When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary to the Treasury there was a little Bill called the Derry Central Railway (Ireland) Bill. The Government had lent it some money; he (Mr. Healy) did not know what the figures were, but he would suppose it was £100,000. The railway was worth £300,000. The Government could not get their money. The little railway was not paying. Accordingly the Treasury sold the whole thing to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company.
218
He said "You ought not to destroy the chance of competition. You ought to dandle these little railways on the knees of the Treasury." The railway had hardly been sold, thereby confiscating £300,000 or £400,000 of these people's money, than the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway sold it, stock, lock, and barrel, to the Midland Railway. That was what came of these petty Treasury manœuvres, and the right hon. Gentleman was as unconscious that he was doing Ireland any wrong, as he was unconscious to-day, he himself was satisfied, that the English connection was doing Ireland any harm in Ireland. He was much in this House in what he would call his Radical days. He used to think that Ireland was misgoverned by England out of a spirit of malignity. It was nothing of the kind. The English did not hate the Irish. He wished the Irish could return the compliment. They were simply absolutely indifferent, and they were satisfied in their smug self-satisfaction that anything they had done must be right, and that it was the privilege of the Irish to grumble at it. Now he had sadly come to the conclusion that it was almost beyond the wit of one Parliament, one statesman, or even one generation to undo the misfortune of their system in Ireland. It had taken the English 730 years to fasten themselves upon the country in the way they had done. There was no power in that House to a large extent to undo it. If they did it in that House by some great political cataclysm, such asMR. Gladstone tried to organise, it would be put an end to in the House of Lords. They had no Government now. What had happened? Some Englishmen were discontented, and he saw a grumble in The Times newspaper because His Majesty the King made some speeches in Ireland. His Majesty was lectured by The Times for having been civil to the Irish people. Why did the Irish people receive the King? Because they thought he was a King, and because they thought he could do something for them. The Times pointed out their delusion, and said he could do nothing for them, because he was entirely in the hands of Ministers. When the Irish made a treaty with the British they never accepted the British Constitution. Government by a king in Ireland would be far preferable to

219
government by Parliament. Government by Parliament in Ireland was a curse. They could get nothing out of Parliament. The Irish Members came to the House year after year. From time to time there were new Chief Secretaries. He had seen a score of them. His hon. friend the Member for Dublin said, "Send us Lord Cromer." Why! he, himself, would welcome Lord Milner. He would welcome a potentate from Japan. But give them government by the Irish, whether Orangeman or Papist, Unionist or Nationalist. Give them something in the country that would work.
It was said they had a Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was amusing himself while the debate was going on in trying to find out whether they had a Chief Secretary or not. What was the Chief Secretary to-day in Ireland? Absolutely nothing. Let them take the clock and divide it into twelfths, the whole clock representing Ireland. Over how much of the area of that clock had the Chief Secretary any power?The first five minutes represented, let him say, the Army. Had he any power to move a single soldier or to make barracks? No; he had nothing to do with the Army. Let. them take the next five minutes-that represented the Navy. What had the Chief Secretary got to do with the Navy? He could neither appoint nor dismiss a coastguard. He had nothing to do with the Navy. Then as to the next five minutes. Had he got anything to do with the revenue in Ireland? No; the revenue officers were independent of him. He could not appoint a man of them The next five minutes represented the Inland Revenue, a most important Department, because they had officers all over the country making the most important decisions affecting Irish land. The other day they decided that when a man sold his farm he should pay stamp duty He became a peasant proprietor, having to pay his instalments for the next seventy years to the Government. The tenant-right would be perhaps £100 or £200, and would be satisfied by a 10s. stamp duty. But the Inland Revenue said when he sold his little patch of land he would be compelled to pay, instead of 10s., a stamp duty of £5. Could the Chief Secretary
220
alter that? Nothing of the kind. The next five minutes he would devote to the Post Office and its army officials. The other day there was a great row in his constituency in Dundalk. The people there said to him-" When you became Member for Dundalk we had an Irish postmaster, and out of fourteen or fifteen officials there were ten or eleven Catholics." Now in Dundalk the last postmaster was an Englishman, and he had changed the Catholic officials, so that instead of the proportion being ten or eleven Catholics to three Protestants, it was the other way about. That was because they appointed a man at Dundalk who was brought from Plymouth or Birmingham or some English town. So it was all over the country. Every little office was given to some Englishman or Scotsman who was imported. He only wished the Chief Secretary would lay down for his British colleagues the law or rule which the Lord-Lieutenant in a most admirable letter laid down the other day to the Galway County Council when they appointed a Catholic doctor to the lunatic asylum board. The Lord-Lieutenant said that promotion in those cases should go by seniority. The Irish members whether in connection with the Post Office, Inland Revenue, or any of the other Boards were always told that seniority was beside the question, and that the real thing was that the best man should be selected for the office. He came now to the next five minutes. Where was the Treasury in Ireland? Why, the Chief Secretary lived in a house and in a park over which he had not the smallest control. It was governed for him by what was called the Board of Works and every member of the Board of Works was appointed from London. Two out of the three at the present moment were Englishmen and the third was brother of the Treasury Remembrancer. He had heard from former Chief Secretaries that if the Chief Secretary for Ireland cut a peach or a bunch of grapes in his own garden he was debited with it. He did not know whether that was true; but the right hon. Gentleman did not deny it. Fancy a country like that. Fancy the Chief Secretary of the country having no power over his conservatory, which was managed from London by the Board of Works. Then

221
the next five minutes represented the Board of Trade. All their railways, all their canals and all their tramways were managed for them from London. When they had an inquiry in Dublin as to whether a tramway was going ten or eleven miles an hour, the Government officials brought a man from London to decide it, and he brought a Birmingham speed indicator in his pocket. This grievance affected the railways themselves. When a great accident took place in this country more precautions for passengers were ordered to be introduced. It was proper that the London and North Western Railway Company should adopt special methods for the safety of the travelling public, but in a go-as-you-please country like Ireland these were not matters for the Board of Trade at all. The other day there was a dispute on the Kingstown Line as to whether the Kingstown Company was to pay a certain rent to the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company, and they had a great meeting in their board-room and the thing was solemnly decided in this way. "Resolved that under our Act which we got last year, we sever connection with the Kingstown Company and we appoint the Board of Trade to act as arbitrator between the two bodies." That was what the English system had brought the country to. Two small Irish railway companies invoked, in regard to this arbitration, the Board of Trade, although no Englishman practically knew a tithe as much about the matter as the ordinary inhabitant of Dublin. Then there was the Woods and Forests. In buying a foreshore property or a pier it was necessary to apply to the Woods and Forests, and strange to say any money that was contributed in Ireland to the Royal Revenue was invested in England in purely English securities for the benefit of the Royal family, so that the Irish quit rents were withdrawn from Ireland in globo year after year. What remained? The right hon. Gentleman could appoint a policeman, could direct prosecutions, and the way in which many of the prosecutions had been made had been demonstrated by the fact that the Crown prosecutor had prosecuted a Scotch sailor for marrying his mother-in-
222
law. It was only in Ireland that jokes of that kind could be perpetrated.
With regard to the set-off he should like to make a suggestion. The question of home manufactures was agitating Parliament; he would point out that the handcuffs at present used in Ireland were made in Germany, that the batons with which police struck Irish heads were imported from Norway. Could they not make a beginning with Irish industries and make them at home? He had spent some years of effort in the House trying to have the Royal Irish Constabulary and coastguard uniforms made in Ireland, and he had never till then realised the cunning of the contract system-he did not blame the Englishmen-he dared say Irishmen would do the same-of the way they managed to put Ireland out of a share in these contracts. The Prime Minister was sympathetic, but he was also absolutely paralysed! He said that the Treasury insisted that indigo was the best dye for stuffs of this class. Now, all new industries connected with fabrics of that kind used chemical dyes, and it did not pay manufacturers to dye their stuffs with indigo. It did not pay any manufacturer in Ireland now to put down an indigo dyeing plant, and consequently only some four or five English manufacturers were able to comply with the Government specification. Irish Members were allowed three out of the twenty one allotted days in Supply. Accepting that proportion there ought to be £20,000,000 of expenditure in Ireland. Instead of that they got practically no expenditure. Actually the other day the merchant tailors of Dublin met in a body to protest against the fact that the War Office were secretly sending out circulars ordering young subalterns to order their clothing from houses in London. The matter was raised in that House, and answered with some of the usual official lies. They said that the adjutant's lette of instruction was not official, that the War Office knew nothing about it. It was like when a landlord in Ireland had to be shot. Nobody ever knew anything at all. The "hard word" was passed; and the Irish uniform trade was practically killed because the War Office knew nothing whatever about it. The hon. Member for West Bristol used to ask why

223
Lord Iveagh should not pay income tax just as Lord Rothschild did. But he never contracted to pay it. If they had no income-tax in Ireland, Irish families instead of going to the Channel Islands and places in France where they could live cheaply—even Irish landlords—would be induced to stay at home. It was easier for a man with an income of £5,000 to pay a 1s. 3d. income-tax, than it was for a man with an income of £500, consequently the poor country was much harder hit than the rich one.
They were told that if they gave up drinking whisky their grievance would disappear. But what would happen if they gave up drinking whisky. There would be a tax on salt. The mild Hindoo did not drink whisky, but he ate salt and could not get on without it, and so his salt was taxed. If the Irish ate or drank stirabout it would be taxed. They were in the position of having no Government to deal with but a series of changing and fluctuating officials passing along that Bench opposite like shadows. What between the Rules of the House, the existence of the House of Lords, want of time, and indifference, they were powerless to do anything, and so year after year, and generation after generation, they had this Irish exodus and this misery going on, and practically without any benefit to England. They told the mountaineer and hillside man of Ireland to think Imperially, and consoled him with the reflection that his money was going for hunting the Mad Mullah in Somaliland, and told him the flag was waving high at Lhasa or Gyangtse. These were the prospects held out to the Celtic imagination. He wondered they did not send lantern slides of the Mullah hunt to comfort the Irish people. Could any man on that Front Bench bring a conscientious investigation to the subject? Not a man thought it worth while to study it as they did the case of 200,000 white men in the Transvaal. It was not a reduction of Irish Members that was wanted but their abolition; and the abolition of the rule in Ireland of this Parliament; and if they were not to have a Parliament of their own set up, at any rate let them have some system of government which would be Irish in thought and spirit.
Mr. POWERsaid that they could not speak of Ireland in this connection without alluding to the poverty which undoubtedly existed in that country. The House must bear in mind that in considering any financial question they were on the one hand considering the finances of one of the richest countries in the world, and on the other they were considering the finances of one of the poorest countries in the world. It was no consolation to Irish Members to know that there was a great deal of poverty in England. The poverty which existed in Ireland was the direct result of the government of Ireland by this House. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for North Dublin that it did not require statistics to prove the difference between the conditions which existed in England and in Ireland. In England, no doubt, there was a great deal of poverty in some of the large towns, but a great deal of that poverty pertained to the Irish population. But who was responsible for that? The English Government did not educate the Irish youth properly, and they were compelled to come over to this country and compete with English labour; and consequently Irish Members held England responsible for the great deal of poverty that existed in these English towns. It was true that poverty existed in this country, but it was not so noticeable beside the immense prosperity to be witnessed on all sides. Anyone who crossed the Channel to Ireland would find a transformation scene of the most hideous description, for there they would see decay and people flying from the land. However they looked at the connection of Ireland with this country, they would find that it had been fruitful of nothing but disaster. Take the last twenty-five years—they had had a great famine where over 1,250,000 people died of starvation, and in 1880 there was another famine averted only by the charity of the world. Other comparative famines followed in 1886, in 1892, and in 1896. On the last occasion of the famine in 1896 they were told that there was no necessity for anything to be done, but one month after that statement the Government were compelled to institute relief works in the West of Ireland, and they paid the magnificent wages of 6s

225
per week, and at those starvation wages large bodies of able-bodied men were prepared to work. A greater proof of poverty than that could not be found. Local and Imperial taxation was increasing in Ireland at an extraordinary rate, whilst the population was decreasing. As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, a large percentage of those left in Ireland were old men and women and young children, because the people who ought to be the mainstay of the country had emigrated.
When the Union was established, one of the great advantages claimed for it was the beneficial financial effects which would flow from it. That prediction had been falsified, and those who predicted ruin had proved to be correct;MR. Curran once said that the Union would mean the emigration of every man of consequence in Ireland, and simply the participation of Irishmen in British taxes without British trade. Time had since shown that they had participated to the full in the taxes and no increase in trade had taken place. Again,MR. Curran said that their scanty means had been squandered as profusely as their best blood had been wasted in the madness of England's aggression. There again his words had proved true, for had not the South African war thrown enormous burdens upon Ireland? and some of the best blood of Ireland had been spilt in South Africa. Between the years 1851 and 1884 no less than £28,000,000 were sent to Ireland from the United States, including South America, and excluding Australia and elsewhere. But without that vast sum of money from the United States the condition of Ireland would have been very much worse. Again and again they had brought forward this question of over-taxation with little or no effect. He wished to join in paying his tribute to his hon. friend the Member for St. Stephen's Division for the masterly statement he had placed before the House, although he was not very sanguine that it would have very much effect upon the decision of the House. Some time ago an equally able statement was made by his hon. friend the Member for Longford, and no step whatsoever was taken to rectify in the least the case which he made out, and which as a matter of fact was unanswerable. He would not go over
226
the ground which had been traversed by his hon. friend, but he wished to read to the House a quotation which appeared in the Report of the Committee of 1865, which was drawn up by Sir Stafford Northcote, and which inquired into this subject. Sir Stafford Northcote quoted the evidence of a witness named Senior, who said—
"The taxation of England was both the heaviest and the lightest in Europe, the heaviest as regards the amount raised and the lightest as regards the ability to bear that amount. Perhaps in the case of Ireland it is heavy both as regards the amount and as regards the ability to contribute. England is the most lightly taxed and Ireland the heaviest, though both are nominally liable to equal taxation. I do not believe that Ireland is a poor country because she is over-taxed, but think she is over-taxed because she is poor."
What would be the result of this debate He was not very sanguine about anything tangible being done for Ireland, and he thought they had great reason to complain of the way in which the decisions of the Royal Commission had been treated. He had heard some suggestions that afternoon as to further inquiries being necessary on this subject. As far as his own humble judgment was concerned, he thought the Government had plenty of information before them, for they had had inquiry after inquiry and if they wished to do justice they had plenty of data at their disposal. What was their complaint? The Royal Commission recommended that Ireland should not be called upon to pay more than one-twentieth of the taxation of Great Britain. For the sake of unanimity that decision was arrived at. But many of those who signed that Report believed that far from being able to bear a proportion of one-twentieth, Ireland was not actually able to bear more than one-fortiy-sixth of the total taxation. That Commission was composed of Englishmen principally, and when the Repot first appeared there was an inclination on the part of English Members to ridicule that Commission and its findings; but so overwhelming was the evidence produced, that they issued this Report in which they stated that, according to their opinion, Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £3,000,000 a year. What had been done to remedy that? Here was a Commission appointed to inquire fairly and squarely into the financial condition of the two countries, and they

227
found a verdict. What was the Government going to do with that verdict? Were they going to give effect to it? Not at all it was to be a dead letter because the verdict was against this country. He would like to know what would have been the result if the verdict had been the other way. Had the Commission said Ireland was under - taxed, within twelve months another tax would have been clapped on, and because Irish representatives called attention to these things they were said to be always cavilling. He was not surprised at the action the Government took, because Ireland had never been granted anything except as the result of considerable and long-sustained agitation, and until this matter was brought home to the Government in a very forcible manner there would be no redress. The treatment of Ireland in this respect was characteristic of the treatment of Ireland all through by this country.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that everyone must realise the undoubted difficulties presented by the association of a poor country with a prosperous, ambitious, world Power like England. The Amendment had an important bearing upon the whole question of expenditure. After reading the Report of the Financial Relations Commission, no one could deny that a strong case was made out in almost every page, and that everything in it tended to be progressively aggravated by every increase in the general rate of expenditure throughout the country. He believed that it was a fact that the cost of Irish government was greater in proportion to the area of the country than any similar national area. No doubt a great disparity existed between the cost of the services in Ireland aid Scotland. He should like, however, to see a Return presented to that House, so that they might be able to discover the true relationship between the cost of the two administrations. He ventured to think that some curious anomalies would be revealed. He had been much impressed with the high salaries of the Irish law officers. The Lord Chancellor, for instance, had £8,000 a year salary with £4,000 a year pension. That was the scale under which Lord Ashbourne
228
was remunerated for taking part in the deliberations of the British Cabinet.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that £3,000 of that is for performing his duties as Speaker of the Irish House of Lords?
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLwould be sorry to say that Lord Ashbourne had not as good a claim in respect of that important office as in respect of any other duties he performed. That salaries of this scale should be paid was a hideous anomaly when they reflected that it was quite impossible for anyone to earn at the Irish Bar (so he was told) anything like a sum approaching £8,000.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Not one half.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: They knew how difficult it was to keep down expense in this country, but in Ireland it was only natural that the whole spirit and sentiment of the people and of the Government and the officials themselves should be exerted in favour of multiplying offices, keeping up salaries, and generally increasing the cost of administration. Irishmen knew that any economy they might make in internal administration only went to swell the Imperial Exchequer, which might be used, and very often was used, for purposes from which the representatives of Ireland totally and completely dissented. It was evident from the Report of the Committee that sat on National Expenditure that the control of the Treasury was much more likely to be effective against new proposals for expenditure than against old continuing items. As he listened to the debate he said to himself, "Thank God we have no financial relations with our Colonies." This money question was the root of all the existing bitterness. The discontent that prevailed between England and Ireland arose not so much from differences of religion and race as from the belief that the English connection was not a profitable nor paying one. If Ireland were more prosperous she would be more loyal, and if more loyal more free. He knew it would be said that this was not the time to forego revenue, but it should be a matter for consideration whether they did not

229
lose in pauperism, in lack of initiative, and social friction more than they obtained by the exertions of the tax collector. He fully admitted that, starting on the basis that Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom the case for the Treasury was unanswerable. If they assumed that the area of ground was exactly the same no matter which side of the Channel it was, there was no sort of case which could be presented for the treatment of Ireland as a separate taxable area, but to do that was to ignore all the differences of race, of religion, of interest, of occupation, and of history. If the argument had to be sustained upon the basis that Ireland could only be treated as a mere group of English counties without any individuality or identity, it was absurd and would not bear investigation. It would be hard to increase taxation in Ireland while at the same time it was proposed in some quarters to reduce its representation. The question of a separate Exchequer for Ireland, a fixed Imperial contribution, and correspondingly autonomous power to regulate the expenditure of money raised for Irish purposes, was one that could not fail to be brought much nearer the arena of practical politics. In so far as the Irish would lose in Imperial representation in that House they would gain in the same proportion in autonomous authority in their own country, and if any extension of financial autonomy could be made it should be carefully made to the Irish people as a whole, and not to the particular section who happened to support a Conservative Government. These were doubtless problems which would not concern the present Parliament, but the steady rise in the general expenditure of the country, and the distressing effects which high taxation undoubtedly caused to the Irish people, brought these problems much nearer to practical politics, and they would have to be dealt with by those who sat on the right of the Speaker after the next general election.
MR. FLYNNsaid the hon. Member for North Dublin had brought out two striking facts-first, that the grievance recognised by the Royal Commission in 1894 had been intensified
230
in the years that had since elapsed and, secondly, that although Ireland contributed considerably more than she did ten years ago, her proportionate contribution was smaller. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not follow the somewhat ungenerous example set by his predecessors of making light of the Royal Commission. That Commission might appear to have been appointed ad hoc in connection with the Home Rule Bill, but though its Report was strong, the official facts and figures were even stronger. The Commission reported in 1896 that Ireland was contributing about one-eleventh of the total revenue. The amount then drawn from Great Britain was £75,796,000 and from Ireland £7,568,649, or 9–08 per cent. In 1899ߝ1900 the revenue drawn from Great Britain was £117,385,000, and from Ireland £8,664,000, a percentage of 7 38, or less than one-thirteenth of the total. In 1902–3 the total expenditure had risen to £146,000,000, towards which Ireland contributed £10,205,000, a percentage of 6–98, or less than one-fifteenth. Thus there was the strange anomaly that while Ireland paid more and. more her grievance seemed to diminish. She was now paying £3,000,000 more than ten years ago, and yet her proportionate contribution was smaller. Under the new system an effort was being made to reduce the extravagant expenditure in Ireland, but it should never be forgotten that extravagant expenditure was no justification for excessive taxation. To put the matter in another way, the revenue drawn from Ireland ten years ago amounted to £1 8s. lOd. per head of the population; six years later it was £1 18s. 2d; in 190–3 it was £2 6s. 1d; and for the current year it would be about £2 16s. Against that might be set the condition in Denmark, a country in keen competition with Ireland. There was a population of 2,465,000, the revenue was £4,209,000, or only £1 14s. per head. Under these circumstances, it could not be considered surprising that Irish representatives should persist in calling attention to the disastrous financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer would doubtless adduce the old argument that the same kind of taxes were levied in Ireland as in Great Britain, it might be

231
useful to remember that, in giving evidence before the Royal Commission on that point, Sir R. Giffen said—
"The amount contributed by Ireland to the Customs and Excise revenue. … is only evidence that in matters of taxation Ireland is virtually discriminated against by the character of the indirect taxes which happen to hit articles of special Irish consumption.… It is quite possible for a Government so to adjust its taxes as to take 10 per cent, of the taxable income of one community and 20 per cent, of the taxable income of another community, although the taxes are the same in each case."
Identity of taxation did not necessarily mean equality of burden, as a community could be discriminated against by the selection of the articles upon which a tax was to be levied. For instance, if Great Britain were financially incorporated with France, a tax on wines would hit France very severely while it scarcely touched this country. The question of the financial relations of Ireland had been debated again and again without any beneficial result; once more an unanswerable case had been made out, and doubtless once more it would be ignored.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: Several hon. Members have already presumed that when came to reply to the various criticisms which have been made should do little more than repeat the arguments which my predecessors have used on previous occasions. I confess that I do not think I can add very much to the fulness of the information which the House has already in its possession. I might say that by those who have supported the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the debate, very little has been added of a novel character to the speeches with which the House is familiar. The hon. and learned Member for Louth, in one of those speeches which always delight the House, travelled over a wide field which I thought had very little relevance to the Amendment which would have been moved had it been in order, and to reply to it would carry me far beyond the discussion of the financial relations between the two countries. The main portion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was concerned not so much with the financial relations of the two countries as with the
232
general character of the government of Ireland at the present time. The question of Irish administration, and of the distribution of powers in relation to Irish affairs is scarcely germane to the particular matter before the House with which we are dealing, and that is the financial relations which exist between the two countries, and the contribution which is exacted from Ireland for purposes which are common to the whole of the United Kingdom. I said just now that a greater part of the arguments have travelled over ground familiar to the House, and have not added anything novel to our debate. There has, however, been one speech which, I think, touched something of a new note, and which certainly excited my own interest and that of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary; I mean the speech of the hon. Member for St. Stephen's. He had some practical proposal to lay before the House. I will refer later on to the points which the hon. Member has raised, but I wish to say now that his speech took a very distinct line from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the debate and from several of the subsequent speakers. The hon. Gentleman recited facts in relation to Ireland, unfortunately only too true, regarding her economic and social condition, and he spoke of her comparative poverty and the diminution of her population which has been going on from year to year. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept this as an answer, but I wish to point out that the facts which the hon. Gentleman related are not peculiar to Ireland. They are common to all those parts of the United Kingdom where the circumstances are similar to those of Ireland; and, as between individuals or classes on the two sides of the Channel, there is no injustice in our present system and there is no tax which bears more hardly on the Irishman than on the Englishman or aggravates conditions in Ireland in a way which is not equally true of those portions of Great Britain where the conditions are similar.
After listening with great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the discussion, was left without any clear idea of what he thought the financial relations between the two countries ought to be, or whether

233
he was of opinion that Ireland ought to contribute anything to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. If we extracted wealth from Ireland for our common purposes out of proportion to the wealth of that country, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would have a very strong case for a revision of our fiscal arrangements. But is that anything like the case? We raise in Ireland a considerable amount of revenue. [An Hon. Member: How much?] As regards the current year I have not the figures, but I will endeavour to get them for the hon. Gentleman. The question is, do we take from Ireland a greater contribution than is, on any possible argument which has been put before the House, an unfair proportion of our common expenditure? The hon. Gentleman looks only to the amount of money raised and refuses to consider the subsequent expenditure of that money.
Mr. CLANCY: Oh no, I do not.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the hon. and learned Member brushed aside any argument with reference to the set-off, and argued that we were not entitled to place against the contribution of Ireland the cost of local administration in Ireland.
MR. CLANCY: I hope the House will not take the right hon. Gentleman's account of my argument as correct.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I confess that I had some difficulty in ascertaining what was the line of argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman took up.
Mr. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman must not take me as assenting to the proposition which he has expressed. I had no proposal to offer for remedying this Irish grievance. I carefully Refrained from making any suggestion of the kind for the simple reason that I have no power to carry it out and no responsibility for making any such proposal.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course I accept my right hon. and learned friend's account of his speech and his reasons for not putting forward any
234
proposals. I am only anxious to as certain what is the line of argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman followed, because, after all it is to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am particularly anxious to address myself, for I do not want to be beating the air, putting forward reason to which they attach no importance. May I invite the House to consider what has been been the contribution of Ireland for common purposes, say, during the last ten years, and how the expenditure authorised for the purposes of England and Ireland severally has affected that contribution during that time? I am asked to accept the finding of the Royal Commission that the taxable capacity of Ireland is not more than one-twentieth of that of Great Britain, and I assume, as I think I am entitled to assume, that it is fair in the circumstances to say that Ireland may rightfully be asked to contribute not more than one-twentieth of our common expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: That was done year ago.] Yes, that was done years ago. To make that contribution to our common expenditure Ireland would have to provide a revenue over and above her expenditure equal to 4·8 per cent, of the total revenue obtainable for Imperial purposes. Ten years ago, in 1893–4, she contributed not 4·8 per cent, but 3·24 per cent. Year by year from that time until the changes in taxation which followed the outbreak of the South African War, the percentage of her contribution steadily diminished. When the new taxes were raised for the war her percentage came in 1902–3, on the old basis of calculation, to 2·66 per cent.—far lower than it was in 1893–4 and lower than, on the basis adopted by the Royal Commission, she could pay. Though I have not received the actual figures for 1903–4, I think I shall be right in saying that on the old basis of calculation Ireland's contribution is 2·50 per cent. But the methods by which these contributions are arrived at are open to considerable doubt, for the statistics for calculation are obtained for a short period and upon imperfect data. The calculations are founded on observation of the trade between the two countries during a period of four months. They are taken from four months observation of a portion only of the

235
trade in dutiable goods which passed between Ireland and Great Britain. Of course it is obvious—I am speaking now of indirect taxation—that you cannot merely take the amount of duty paid in Ireland, because a great deal of duty may be paid on goods in London which are subsequently removed for sale and consumption in Ireland, while, on the other hand, a certain amount of duty is paid on articles—tobacco especially— in Ireland, which are subsequently removed for consumption in Great Britain. Accordingly an attempt was made to ascertain the real consumption in each of the two countries; but it has always been felt that the basis of calculation has been formed on too narrow an observation and examination of the facts, and that the results arrived at are not wholly trustworthy or reliable. Last year a serious attempt was made to arrive at more accurate figures, and instead of observations being confined to four months of the year they were extended; over the whole twelve months in order to eliminate miscalculations from seasonable movements of trade. The House can readily understand that trade in some dutiable articles is often brisker at one season than another, and precautions were taken to secure as far as possible an accurate account of the revenue produced by indirect taxation in Great Britain and Ireland respectively.
MR. LOUGH: Was this done by the Customs?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was done by the Customs with the assistance of railway companies and carriers between the two countries. The result has been to show that the figure which have given as the proportion of Ireland's contribution to our common expenditure, namely 2·50 is too high. It is now calculated that Ireland contributes: £340,000 less than was assumed on the old basis. That, no doubt, is in part due to the lessened population to which the hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen have referred, but it is partly due to the proportion of Ireland's consumption having been over-calculated on a previous occasion. This over calculation of consumption in Ireland was especially true in regard to tea, so that the
236
hon. Member for Islington will at least have the consolation of knowing that when he finds himself compelled to oppose the increase of the tea duty the hardship will not fall so specially on the Irish people as he has supposed. The old calculation was that in Ireland the consumption was 8lbs. per head of population, as compared with 61bs. per head of population in England. It would appear from the further observations which have now been been that the consumption is a little over 61bs. in both Great Britain and Ireland, slightly less in the latter country. Without pledging myself to their absolute accuracy, the figures in pounds appear to be 6·245 in England and 6·115 in Ireland.
MR. LOUGH: Are these figures a correction of the Treasury Return?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not attempt to correct the figures for 1902–3, but I give the figures as nearly as I can for 1903–4, and subject to fuller correction before they are laid before the House in the next Return which will be presented during this session. Of course, the further back we have gone from 1903–4 the less can the figures be compared, for they were calculated on a different basis and did not conform to the existing state of affairs. It would appear that the proportionate contribution of Ireland for 1903–4, instead of being 2·5 is only 2·14. In other words, while Ireland contributed a thirtieth of Great Britain's contribution in 1893–4, she only contributed a forty-sixth of Great Britain's contribution in 1903–4. In 1893–4 the total revenue derived from taxation contributed by the United-Kingdom was £96,856,000, and in 1903–4 it was £146,803,000, an increase of nearly £50,000,000. Towards this increase Ireland contributed £2,041,000, or 4 per cent., and Great Britain yielded £47,906,000, or 96 per cent. Turning to the other side of the account and looking at local expenditure, find that in 1893ߝ94 in the United Kingdom the total amount was £36,221,000. In 1903–4 it was £51,770,000, an increase of £15,549,000. Of this increase there was devoted to Ireland £1,974,000, or more than 12¼percent, and to Great Britain £13,575,000, or nearly 87¼ per cent. The balance of the revenue contributed by the three kingdoms

237
which was available for Imperial expenditure in 1893ߝ94 was £60,634,000, and in 1903–4 it was £95,033,000, an increase of £34,399,000. Towards this increase Great Britain contributed £34,331,000, or practically the whole, and only £68,000 of the annual expenditure had fallen on Ireland. The hon. Members who have spoken, with, think, perhaps, the single exception of the hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green, have been disposed to repudiate, as far as could ascertain, Ireland's liability to contribute to Imperial expenditure at all.
MR. LOUGH: I have not done so.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not speaking of the hon. Member for Islington, I am speaking rather of the speeches which have come from the Irish Benches in which most of the Members disassociated themselves from all interest in the Empire, or in our common possessions and dependencies, or in the Navy and Army, or in the purposes for which these services are maintained, or in the country's position and power and strength in the world. They are entitled to take that line if they think fit, but they will not expect a Chancellor of the Exchequer—
MR. CLANCY: May I ask to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring? I never said a word on the subject, nor I do remember that any of my colleagues have done so.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I think heard references in these speeches to the Navy, the Army, and to colonial and foreign policy generally as being matters in which Ireland has no concern, and if these references were not meant to imply what I have stated I do not understand the relevancy of the references in the debate, or why they were introduced except as matters of prejudice.
MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman must be thinking of some former debate.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have perhaps paid more attention to the
238
speeches of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues than he has vouchsafed to them. But, however that may be, I am willing to accept the view that I have misunderstood the whole intention of the remarks and that the hon. Member and his friends are willing to accept the obligation of Ireland to contribute her fair share towards the expenditure for the interests of the Empire of which Ireland forms a part. I am delighted to find that they recognise their interest in the Empire. If that be so need not argue the case further, for the figures I have quoted are sufficient to show that the contribution Ireland makes is not exorbitant, nor, indeed, what she would contribute if the recommendations of the Commission on which so much has been said were carried out.
There is another side of the case which has been put forward by the hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green and emphasised by the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. and learned Member for Louth. It is that am not entitled to say that Irish expenditure should be used as a set-off against taxation, because that expenditure is extravagant, that salaries are on too lavish a scale, that there are too many paid officials, and because the whole machinery of government in Ireland is far more expensive than is required for her needs or found necessary in other countries similarly situated. Hon. Gentlemen will see at once that anyone speaking from this Bench would be likely rather to welcome than oppose attempts to effect economy. I am very anxious to find matters on which can retrench and economise, but they warn me that I can hope for no help from them, because they say that Ireland has no interest in such a policy, and that any economies made would go to swell her contribution. Her quota is not now as high as the hon. and learned Gentleman for St. Stephen's Green is willing to place it. I am not prepared to accept the proposal that there should be a separate Exchequer for Ireland. I admit that one Budget a year is quite enough for me. The Chief Secretary and myself have done something to meet the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen. We have agreed, as my predecessors have done, that certain

239
economies, if they can be effected, should not be reaped by the Irish Exchequer, but should go to the advantage of Ireland itself. I quite admit that in many respects Irish administration is far too costly. I agree that she has needs which are different from the needs of this country, and that there is no more wasteful system of Irish or British finance than to insist that wherever money is expended on one object in one part of the United Kingdom, an equivalent amount should necessarily be spent on the same object in another part. It often happens that the money is not required in the other part and could be much better spent on a different object. That is the principle on which my right hon. friend proceeded in connection with the Irish development grant, and he proposes to proceed further in respect of the same matter in a Bill which is to be presented to-morrow. I agree, following the example of my predecessors, that any economies which my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary can persuade the House to make in connection with law charges and the cost of the judiciary in Ireland should pass unscathed through the Exchequer and should be devoted to those purposes of development in Ireland which commend themselves to my right hon. friend in consultation with Irish Members of all shades of opinion. I am perfectly prepared to consider further proposals in this direction made to my right hon. friend or to myself direct by hon. Members, in which case I must consult with him, or proposals dealing in the same way with other economies if hon. Gentlemen think they can be secured. I recognise the advantage there is to everybody concerned in engaging the interests of Irishmen themselves in favour of economy, and of securing their assistance in reducing any extravagance or waste.
MR. LOUGH: Will you fix the contribution?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite prepared to do that. It would not be easy to fix a figure which would be generally accepted, and it might easily happen if they did that
240
a few years hence this figure might give rise to fresh difficulties. But I am prepared while I am responsible to consider any proposals for economies which my right hon. friend can bring forward, in a spirit not, I hope, unfair to Ireland, and remembering always that am Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland as well as of the United Kingdom. It would be a happy day for Ireland and this House if we could devote our attention more constantly and continuously to practical proposals of this kind rather than to debates of a character which are apt to aggravate differences rather than to heal them, and to divide us further instead of uniting as in any useful or common purpose. Each case must be considered on its merits, but I shall not be unfavourably disposed to any proposals which my right hon. friend may make.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that he entirely sympathised with the statement with which the right hon. Gentleman began his speech. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had followed the example of his predecessor in office and of the Chief Secretary in promising to devote to Ireland the savings made in Irish administration. But he scarcely agreed with a single one of the propositions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. He felt less presumptuous in saying that because he had the support of the right hon. the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with a paradox, viz., that the gross contribution of Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer had, roughly speaking, increased, and yet the proportion of the contribution of Ireland had considerably decreased. In 1893–4, when this famous Report was issued, the contribution of Ireland was £7,500,000, in 1903 it was £10,250,000; and this year it was £10,300,000, and, therefore, they saw here an increase of the amount taken from Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman thought that he had answered that fact by his proposition that the contribution of Ireland was getting smaller every year. He was astonished that so acute a gentleman as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequern to see the inconsistency of that. Therefore, he

241
held that the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman put forward as an answer to the case of Irish Members, was a confirmation of it. He had the Chief Secretary on his side. On 16th March last, the Chief Secretary said, he had heard it said by hon. Members sitting for English constituencies, that, considering the proportionate contribution of Ireland for Imperial purposes, she was not entitled to any exceptional treatment; but that argument would not bear the test of examination. He contended that the allocation of the savings effected in the course of Irish government to Irish purposes was based upon economic facts—upon the fact that Ireland's arrested development was not only an evil for her, but deprived her of all financial elasticity, and it so happened that Ireland's proportionate contribution was smaller than it might otherwise have been. Few people felt that it was possible to differentiate the taxation as between the two countries. If the same taxes were imposed in both countries, Ireland, being the poorer country, would produce a relatively smaller amount for those taxes, if they were maintained unaltered over a period of years, than they would produce in England. Again, if higher taxes were imposed, such as a war tax, the returns for England would quickly respond; but in Ireland they were beginning to reach the danger point at which taxation ought not to be increased. After that, why should he labour in his poor, imperfect language to answer the right hon. Gentleman?
When they were dealing with this financial question he wondered sometimes what was the extraordinary miasma that seemed to come over all Irish discussions in this House. What were the facts? This country was increasing in wealth and in population, Ireland was decreasing both in population and wealth. When the right hon. Gentleman was alluding to the enormous diminution of the Irish population he did not appear to regard that as a grievous thing for Ireland. This Report about the financial relations of Ireland was produced in the year 1894. Did the House realise the fact that Ireland had lost since, 3,600,000 of her population? And yet they were told that Ireland had no grievance, and that Ireland was prosperous. The whole thing
242
was tragic. He had always said that he did not believe that the present Chief Secretary fell below any of his predecessors in his desire to do good to Ireland. But if any amount of local grants were given to Ireland, and at the same time her taxation was increased, what was given with one hand was taken away with the other. It was a question which it was difficult for anyone to say anything about. He had called the attention of the House to the fact five or six times that whereas every other part of the Empire was increasing in content, prosperity, and population this part of the Empire was steadily going down. It was a thing which brought grief and distraction to Irishmen and ought to bring shame and humiliation to Englishmen.
COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he sympathised with some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman opposite who had just resumed his seat, but could not subscribe to them all. He had always held the view that the financial relations between England and Ireland were not on a satisfactory basis, but he did not agree with the speech of the hon. Member. He disliked the tone of the speeches which sometimes prevailed on the opposite Benches in such debates as the present, because he hated to hear Ireland described as a country of hopelessly irreclaimable beggars. The population was declining it was true, and he was very sorry for it, but that the wealth of the country was decreasing he denied. He deplored the fact that Ireland was unable to retain a large population, but the population declined not from any inherent misfortune that hung over Ireland, but from the indisputable facts that in other countries there were offered to Irishmen opportunities which did not exist in Ireland to prove their capacity. If hon. Members could give coal mines to Ireland it would be different, but how could they create in Ireland industries which could vie with the industries of England, Scotland, and America? The Irish, who were the most intelligent race on the face of the earth, said, "Why should we go on living in this country where we can earn only 1s. 2d. or 1s. 6d. a day, when we can go to England, or Scotland, or America where we can earn three times

243
the sum, with an infinitely better prospect of rising in life." They might well say this in the congested districts of the South-west, or, indeed, anywhere except in the North-east of Ulster, where they had given Irishmen a chance of showing what they were made of. He did not agree that Ireland was decreasing in wealth. He ventured to say, if they calculated the wealth per head of the Irish people, that in the last twenty years Irishmen had become three times as wealthy as they were. The fault he had always found with the Irish Government on the question of spending British money in Ireland was that the Chief Secretary could do very little, as the Member for Louth had said in his admirable speech. The Government of Ireland lacked the elasticity which would enable them to spend the money in Ireland which they knew ought to be spent there, without applying for it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as a rule, was not sympathetic about spending much British money in Ireland. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated to him that a certain amount of elasticity had set in at the Treasury. He thought Bann drainage was looking up. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, who desired to further the industries of the country and the wealth of Ireland as much as anyone he had seen in that high position, was bound to meet them, when they asked for an expenditure in Ireland, with the statement "I will do it with the greatest pleasure, but there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Now the Chief Secretary could not say that again, when he pointed out in his most persuasive tones that a sum might be laid out with great advantage in Ulster—he would not mention the precise locality—he could not say now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not sanction it. They had now a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was in a most sympathetic mood, and, with a little squeezing, was ready to part with a certain amount of money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a gesture. He did not know what that sign meant, but he hoped it was not a sign of the negative. In the new Army Regulations, a general commanding a district was now allowed to sanction a small outlay. Formerly if 1s. 6d. was needed to buy a chin strap for a soldier the general
244
commanding could not authorise that outlay, but had to send it to the War Office, to get the approval of red tape, and many clerks, and very often the chin strap was not forthcoming. Now they were going to allow a certain amount of elasticity in that matter. That was what he wanted given to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. When the Chief Secretary was persuaded that a certain expenditure was necessary to develop the resources and welfare of Ireland, he ought to have power to get the money. He did not think any Chief Secretary was likely to expend an extravagant amount in furthering the welfare of the country he was supposed to rule.
As to how he should vote he regretted extremely he should have to vote against the proposal of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division said there was nothing original in the debate. He never heard a more original debate in the House. They had heard Members opposite say what he had never heard them say before, though he had often thought it, that Irishmen were not fit for representative government. The hon. Member for Louth stated that was the case. What he wanted was a ruler—an Orangeman would do, so long as he was not subject to the government of that House.
MR. T. M. HEALY: So long as he would rule without the control of Parliament.
COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid perha that was only a piece of fireworks. The hon. Member for Oldham had taken his first step in the Home Rule direction. His hon. friend came over to Ireland on that very question of the financial relations of Ireland with England, and addressed a company of bankers. He said—
"Talk about dumping as an enemy of trade! As far as Ireland is concerned the great dumper is her gigantic neighbour."
He thought at the time this country had dumped many millions of pounds on Ireland, and he never heard Irishmen take objection to that form of dumping. They had had, too, the suggestion that a new form of Home Rule might be proposed which would deal very largely with the question of finance. His hon. friend might then occupy the position

245
of Chief Secretary. If he did he hoped that the generosity which characterised him in his unofficial character would characterise his official character. They should all hail that with satisfaction. The reason he opposed the Amendment was very simple. He was still of opinion that Ireland was not fairly treated in this matter, and if the Amendment had simply expressed that fact he should have voted for it. It said a great deal more than that, however. It said that, in view of the inequitable nature of the existing financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, the House declines to sanction any measure involving additional taxation until these relations are adjusted on an equitable basis. The Amendment, so far as those voting for it were able, would prevent them having an Army or a Navy, or carrying on the business of the country. He was not prepared to assent to a proposal of that kind. He looked upon the financial relations between England and Ireland as very important, but the defence of the Empire and the maintenance of its security he looked upon as a thousand times more important, and he hoped that the Chief Secretary, now that his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be in a sympathetic humour, would seize the occasion to strike while the iron was hot, and get a certain amount of money from the British Exchequer to improve the finances Ireland.
MR. HEMPHILLexpressed his astonishment at the closing remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh. For some years past the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been a great advocate for the revision of the financial relations between England and Ireland, but now, when an Amendment was before the House having that effect in view, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman found himself unable to vote for it. He had been amused by the argument the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had put forward that the diminution of population was a sign rather of the growing wealth of Ireland than otherwise, it so reminded him of the old story that Ireland was the best country in the world to live out of because wages
246
and employment were so much better elsewhere. Such conditions should not obtain in Ireland and it was because the conditions were such that the population of Ireland was diminishing year by year in this calamitous manner. The question was, Was Ireland fairly taxed or not? In particular, all Irishmen were bound to join in the protest that nothing had been done to carry out the recommendations of Mr. Childers' Commission. It was incumbent on Ireland to see that there was a revision of these financial relations, under the wrongs of which she had so long suffered. The right of Ireland to be taxed was based on the conditions contained in the treaty entered into between the independent Parliaments of England and Ireland at the time of the Union. A solemn contract was then entered into that the two countries were not to be subjected to a common taxation, but that the particular circumstances of each country were to be taken into consideration and each country was to be taxed according to its capacity. That contract had no right to be abrogated, except with the consent of both peoples. A Commission consisting of the most able financiers of both countries, although the majority were English, in 1897 came to the conclusion that the taxable capacity of Ireland was one-twentieth that of England, and that for many years Ireland had been overtaxed to the extent of £2,750,000 per annum. It was no answer for the Government to say that a certain proportion had been expended in Ireland. The hon. Member for North Dublin had clearly shown that that was a fallacy. It was no satisfaction to the poor peasant of Connemara to know that his tea and tobacco and whiskey had been overtaxed, but that the money had been expended in keeping up the several departments of Dublin Castle. The question was quite of a different character. The question was whether Ireland was or was not overtaxed, and the test of taxation was the equality of sacrifice and not equality of burden, and if, as was the case, an income of £12 in Ireland was taxed as much as an income of £40 in England, that was neither just nor fair. Ireland had no trade or commerce necessitating the maintenance of a Navy at a cost of £34,000,000 a year,

247
neither had she shores to defend necessitating the maintenance of an Army at an annual cost of £32,000,000. The expenditure of Ireland would be amply met, if one-twentieth of the taxation was knocked off. That was the principle involved in this Amendment, and he asked for fair play in this matter; he asked the English Members to join with the Irish Party and show their sense of disapproval that nothing had been done to carry out the recommendation of the Childers' Commission, and to endeavour to adjust the taxation so as to at all events remove what was a crying grievance in Ireland.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that one of the interesting features of the present debate had been the admission by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the present financial arrangements between England and Ireland were not proving satisfactory to the English Exchequer. The taxation in Ireland since 1864 had risen from £7,000,000 to £10,000,000 and it seemed to him that it had now reached the danger point alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the speech which had already been quoted. If that was so, was it not time to consider whether some change could not be made in the present arrangements? The hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Division of Dublin had made the very valuable suggestion that a fixed contribution should be made by Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer, and that the rest of the taxation should be devoted to purposes purely Irish. That was really the key to the situation. Such an arrangement would be good business for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception to the discussion of Irish administration in this debate, but he himself had been guilty of the same error, because he had complained that the administration of Ireland was highly extravagant and that very little value had been obtained for the money expended upon it. The Irish people were perfectly prepared to join the Chancellor of the Exchequer in promoting economy in Irish administration, and to relieve the House of any discussion of the Budget by Irish Members, if the Government would allow the
248
Irish nation to make a contribution of, say, £1,000,000, and to manage the balance of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 in their own way. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to a Customs Committee of Inquiry. Was it to be understood that a Committee was at present sitting, or that one would be appointed?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that the Board of Customs were inquiring into the real incidence of the Customs duties. When the new financial Return was laid before the House it would contain the figures on a new basis, and he hoped to be able to attach a Memorandum showing the difference in the modes of procedure by which the results were arrived at.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that for years they had been trying to ascertain what the Customs figures really were, and he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should not confine his energies to one year, but, if it was found to be of value, issue the Return year by year as a matter of course.
MR. FIELDcomplained that the present practice showed an entirely fictitious balance in respect of Ireland's contributions to the Exchequer. What was wanted was an international system of book-keeping which would show the real facts of the case. It was almost impossible to understand the present system under which Ireland was debited with amounts with which she ought to be credited and vice versa. He suggested that a supplementary Commission should be appointed to inquire into the results of the former Financial Relations Commission in order to see how matters stood at present. He also advocated the establishment of a department of the Board of Trade in Ireland. Hon. Members were mistaken if they supposed the feeling with regard to this over-taxation was less keen than formerly. It was only the acute agitation in connection with the land question which had allowed the matter to take a less prominent position, and the disappointment aroused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech would probably cause the Irish people to realise that they must agitate once

249
more if they were ever to get any satisfaction. The Nationalist Party, at any rate, would never let the matter rest until Justice was done.
Question put.
The House divided:— Ayes, 278; Noes, 165. (Division List No. 126.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cust, Henry John C.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Aird, Sir John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Allhusen, Augustus Hn. Eden

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Hunt, Rowland

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Charles Scott

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton.

Arrol, Sir William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Duke, Henry Edward

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

Balcarres, Lord

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kerr, John

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

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

Keswick, William

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Fielden, Edward Brockleh'rst

Kimber, Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick Georg.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fisher, William Hayes

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Backett, Ernest William

Fitzroy, Hn. Edw'd Algernon

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Bignold, Arthur

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants Fareham

Bigwood, James

Forster, Henry William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bill, Charles

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fyler, John Arthur

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Galloway, William Johnson

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Bousfield, William Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bawles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Garfit, William

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

Brassey, Albert

Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lough, Thomas

Brymer, William Ernest

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H'ml't

Lowe, Francis William

Bull, William James

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Butcher, John George

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Campbell, J.H.M (Dublin Univ.

Graham, Henry Robert

Macdona, John Cumming

Carlile, William Walter

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maconochie, A. W.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh W

Cavzer, Sir Charles William

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Majendie, James A. H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Malcolm, Ian

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Groves, James Grimble

Manners, Lord Cecil

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Chapman, Edward

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Charrington, Spencer

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Coates Edward Feetham

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

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

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Heaton, John Henniker

Moore, William

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

Helder, Augustus

Morpeth, Viscount

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Morrell, George Herbert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Morrison, James Archibald

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C.

Cripps Charles Alfred

Horner, Frederick William

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hoult, Joseph

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

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Howard, J. (Mid., Tottenham)

Myers, William Henry

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Thornton, Percy M.

Nicholson, William Graham

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Tuff, Charles

Parkes, Ebenezer

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Valentia, Viscount

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Percy, Earl

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

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Pierpoint, Robert

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Plummer, Walter R.

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Webb, Colonel William George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew

Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pym, C. Guy

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Randles, John S.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

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

Rankin, Sir James

Spear, John Ward

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

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Edw. James (Somerset

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Renwick, George

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Richards, Henry Charles

Stock, James Henry

Younger, William

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethn'l Gre'n

Stroyan, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Robinson, Brooke

Thorburn, Sir Walter

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Labouchere, Henry

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dunn, Sir William

Lambert, George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, Frank

Langley, Batty

Allen, Charles P.

Elibank, Master of

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Ambrose, Robert

Ellice, Capt EC(StAndrw's Bghs

Leamy, Edmund

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Barlow, John Emmott

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Leng, Sir John

Bell, Richard

Farrell, James Patrick

Levy, Maurice

Black, Alexander William

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Blake, Edward

Field, William

Lloyd-George, David

Boland, John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Lough, Thomas

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lundon, W.

Brigg, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Burke, E. Haviland-

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Crae, George

Burns, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Burt, Thomas

Grant, Corrie

M'Kean, John

Caldwell, James

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Kenna, Reginald

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Causton, Richard Knight

Harwood, George

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Cawley, Frederick

Hayden, John Patrick

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Channing, Francis Allston

Healy, Timothy Michael

Markham, Arthur Basil

Clancy, John Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Mooney, John J.

Crombie, John William

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

Moss, Samuel

Cullinan, J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Murphy, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Newnes, Sir George

Delany, William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galwy

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norman, Henry

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dobbie, Joseph

Jordan, Jeremiah

Nussey, Thomas Willians

Doogan, P. C.

Joyce, Michael

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

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Duffy, William J.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

252

253

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Schwann, Charles E.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Shackleton, David James

Wason, John C (Orkney)

O'Dowd, John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Weir, James Galloway

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Malley, William

Sheehy, David

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Shee, James John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Slack, John Bamford

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Paulton, James Mellor

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'ddersf'd

Rea, Russell

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Yoxall, James Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Tennant, Harold John

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas, J. A. (Glamorg'nG'w.

Robson, William Snowdon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Russell, T. W.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed for Tuesday, 31st May.

EVENING SITTING.

  FREE FOOD.
  *MR. BLACK: Mr. Speaker. Although by the accident of the ballot the Motion of which I have given notice happens to be proposed from this side of the House, it would come equally appropriately from the other side, and indeed, from the Treasury Bench itself because, in the first place, the germ from which this Motion has sprung was suggested by the Prime Minister himself, the last time he spoke with regard to the question before the House; in the second place, the Motion has been adjusted with, and has the approval of, many of the Government's most enthusiastic supporters on the other side of the House, and in the third place, because both in form, subject, and intention it may be described as a vote of confidence in the Government ad hoc. Indeed, I am not sure that among those who have hitherto occupied a position of some doubt on the great question before the House, this Motion is not also received with some degree of welcome as tending to terminate the period of suspense in which they have been kept by the declarations of the Prime Minister. At least they will now have an opportunity of determining finally what their position is to be in this House, and more particularly with
  254
  their constituents who, no doubt, are also in a position of some anxiety as to what their Member is to do with regard to this particular question; an opportunity that will be welcomed by many Members on that side who have been compelled, nolens volens, to sit on the fence on this all-important question. But this opportunity seems to have to some extent been snatched away by an Amendment which, at the eleventh hour, indeed, I might say after the twelfth hour last night, was put down in the name of the Prime Minister. One is tempted to ask what good purpose can the Prime Minister possibly expect to serve by pursuing this policy of procrastination in declaring his mind frankly to this House and to the country; what good purpose can be served by the policy, which I may describe as a policy of "sham, shuffle, and shunt," which has been pursued by the Prime Minister, and one or two of his supporters on this important question. If the Prime Minister were here—I do not see him in his place—he seems to have run away from the debate as well as from the Motion—I suppose he would answer, "At all costs I must keep my Party together." That is the kind of reason that up to now has been advanced by the Prime Minister, But Party is one thing and people is another. I agree that if a Party be newly come into power with the full confidence of the country to carry out some great project of nationa reform, some minor differences might be sunk to keep the Party together, but when we find a decrepit Ministry seeking to cling to the honours and emoluments of office by temporising and petty expedients, such as

  255
  the Prime Minister putting down a Motion of confidence in himself, then I say the time has come when the Government which has to resort to such expedients to keep itself in power had best appeal to the country and get a fresh mandate.
  I shall now proceed to read to the House the declarations of the Government on this important subject. On two occasions have Ministers, speaking not as individuals but as the Government, declared quite clearly the Government's policy with regard to the taxation of food. The Home Secretary, speaking to the Motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose Burghs on the 15th of February, gave vent to the following utterance. After laying down the policy of the Government with regard to retaliation, with regard to which the Motion I submit to the House does not commit hon. Members either for or against, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The Government have no intention of taxing raw material and their policy does not include the taxation of food; neither do the Government propose the imposition of any taxation for the purpose of fostering a home industry which is subjected only to natural and legitimate competition."
  Then at the close of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in answer to Questions put to him by two of his own supporters, the right hon. Gentleman stated—
  "I have said that the Government are opposed to any duty on raw material or food."
  Mr. MALCOLM: Then why this debate?
  *MR. BLACK: Then in the House of Lords, four days after, Lord Lansdowne, speaking for the Government, and as the Government was asked whether the Government endorsed the answer given by the Home Secretary, said—
  "I have not the slightest objection to accept that statement also."
  And he went on to say—
  "I say categorically that we as a Government are opposed to a duty on raw materials or food stuffs. Why is it that we are told that our polity leads inevitably down an inclined plane to the Birmingham Abyss."
  I think I see what mental image Lord Lansdowne had in his mind when he used that expression. I think he must have
  256
  had in his mind the case of certain creatures of the same species as those who have assumed the name of "whole-hoggers" who, on one occasion, ran violently down a steep place into the sea. Possibly in the future those who term themselves "whole-hoggers" may with advantage assume the more elegant title of Gadarenes.
  Then Lord Lansdowne went on to say with great emphasis—
  "I believe that instead of leading to Birmingham it leads, if anything, in the opposite direction."
  I must congratulate the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and those who think with him on their taking those declarations of the Government lying down. Those are the declarations on which my Motion is founded. They are very clear and distinct, and no bona fide out-and-out supporter of the Government can do otherwise than support the Motion I submit without involving themselves in the difficulty of showing dissent more or less from the policy so clearly enunciated. With regard to these statements of policy I make three distinct averments—First, these statements are very explicit declarations of the policy of the Government itself as distinguished from the views of individual Ministers undertaken after I full consultation with and with the full consent of the Prime Minister himself. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not present to assent to that statement; but his representative is present, and if it is not denied by the right hon. Gentleman it must be taken to be admitted, and it must be taken to be admitted during the rest of the debate. Second, the declarations applied clearly not to the policy of the Government during the present Parliament. That is expressly repudiated because it was said, "We are not dealing Just now with the policy of the Government during the present Parliament, but the future policy of the Government in future Parliaments and as to the mandate to be asked at the next general election." The third proposition I ask to be either admitted or denied by the Government's representative is that although no Government is bound to make any declaration of its future policy beyond the limit of the present Parliament, if in order to obtain support it

  257
  makes a declaration as to the mandate it is to ask from the country, then such a declaration becomes part of its fundamental policy and becomes subJect to votes of confidence in the same way as any other portion of the fundamental policy of the Government. That I take it is admitted also. Very well. If these three premises be admitted, every member of the present Government is committed to the declarations made by the Home Secretary and Lord Lansdowne that they were opposed to any tax on food and more particularly to any protective tax on food, and the natural inference of this is that it is mere poltroonery on the part of the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government not to accept this Motion. If these statements have been made by the Government and their supporters ask them to accept the responsibility of these declarations, then it is mere cowardice and poltroonery for the Government to try and evade it. If on the other hand, the Government say they will not accept the vote and repudiate these declarations of Ministers because they do not represent their policy, there is only one other alternative. Either the Ministers who made the declarations must resign or the Prime Minister himself must resign. The Prime Minister has for too long pursued the role of a political Nicodemus. While the right hon. Gentleman has been wobbling, the ex-Colonial Secretary has been working—with the net result that unless some stop is put upon his methods I the Government would come to play an I amiable if not essential part of a political comet, in which the right hon. S Member for West Birmingham would be the real and substantial head, and the Government the large and luminous but; nebulous tail. While then, there has been some difference of opinion as to the degree of support to be given to the Government policy of retaliation, the one thing that the people of this country have indicated is that they will not have a protective tax on food. It has been the experience of Ayr burghs and every other recent election with the exception of that for South Birmingham, that any candidate putting forward the taxation of food as I part of his policy was defeated. Further I it has been necessary for many candidates; who in the main are protectionist to dis-
  258
  avow in the strongest manner the taxation of food before they could even obtain a hearing. Sir, if this matter were to be looked at from a purely Party point of view I should say that the more Members who voted against the Motion the better for the Party I support. I ask Members to transport themselves in imagination from this House to the platforms of the meetings which they will be called upon to address at the general election. The question will inevitably be put, "Are you or are you not in favour of the protective taxation of food?" If the answer to that question is "Yes" then the course of such an hon. Member is clear. But if the answer is to be "No," how can an hon. Member Justify a vote given against the Motion. I now submit to the House, and will he not, notwithstanding any platform declarations, be faced with the unanswerable question, "Why, then, on the 18th May, 1904, did you vote against a Motion condemning the protective taxation of food?" But the issues involved in this question are greater and higher than mere Party issues. The issue is whether the food of the people, the prime necessity of their existence, shall be made dearer and scarcer, not to serve any great national end but in order to swell the rent-roll of the landed interest. For my part, whatever decision the House may arrive at to-night, I cannot suppose that the country will subscribe to this new doctrine of "ransom," under which the people will have to pay such a price to a privileged caste in order to retain their right to live on the land, which is the inalienable and equal privilege of every subJect of the Crown. I beg to move.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In seconding the Motion I have to ask the indulgence of the House on this the first occasion on which I have addressed it. I do not intend to enter into an economic discussion as to what effect the taxation of food would in the opinion of some of us have on the people of this country, because I believe the interest of the House this evening is centred not in the argument by which such a policy could be pursued or defended, but in the position which some sections in this House assume on the question of taxing food, and especially

  259
  the position adopted by the Government. The Motion expresses approval of the speeches made against the taxation of food by the Government; and surely they cannot obJect to, or shrink from, such an expression of opinion on the part I of the House, nor can they possibly think that to emphasise their policy by such an expression of opinion could place them in an embarrassing situation. But whenever one of these fiscal debates takes place the House is always liable to surprises, and the situation has been somewhat suddenly changed. On the last occasion the free-fooders on these Benches came down to the House to support an Amendment which they believed would strengthen the hands of the Government. This time they come down to vote against an Amendment. The previous Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon, was suddenly with drawn, and, though the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has not been withdrawn, it has taken a secondary position to the Amendment placed on the Paper by the Government. We are somewhat curious to know why this Amendment has been placed on the Paper. Do the Government differ from the Amendment of the late Colonial Secretary, or is it the case only that they prefer their own Amendment to it? Whatever the reason may be and the result of the voting may be, surely we may say that the putting down of this Amendment by the Government is a notification of their conviction that a strong feeling exists against the taxation of food. Our methods of procedure in this House are often difficult to be understood, even by Members of Parliament, and are often unintelligible to people outside, and it is for this reason that I would have preferred that the people of the country should have kept their eyes on the declarations of Ministers against taxation or food as ratified by this House, rather than that they should have to be satisfied with the hypothetical question as to what the attitude of the Government may be on this question at some future date, because constituencies have, I think, come to the conclusion, partly from their own desire and partly from the hints and hopes expressed by others, that the policy of the Government is as it were a thin garment which may be blown away by a hurricane and for
  260
  which will be substituted a stronger, rougher, and more expensive one woven by other hands. It is because I desire that the hands of the Government should not be weakened by any feeling of this kind that I am anxious to express approval of the speeches they have made against the taxation of food.
  I should like to hear from the Prime Minister, however, what is the attitude of the Government towards those members of the Party who have loyally supported them in the past and who have differed from them only on this fiscal question. What is his attitude towards those Members who have not only supported him on other questions in the past, but who were prepared to accept the Sheffield policy though their constituents disagreed with them? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support them against their constituents who desire the more advanced policy of the late Colonial Secretary? I assure the Prime Minister that it is against the policy of the late Colonial Secretary and not against his, that I and my hon. friends are so determinedly opposed. It is for this reason that we urge on the Prime Minister the fact that there must be no political alliance between him and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, either of a passionate or a platonic nature. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of a passionate attachment, but of a platonic affection I have some suspicion. I know there are some people who see no harm in a platonic affection, while there are others who see considerable danger, not knowing whither it may lead. I dare not decide between these two schools of thought. But I am convinced that if doubts exist the Prime Minister should be, as I am sure he wishes to be, above suspicion in this matter. Surely at a moment of crisis like this, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, with all the enthusiasm and eloquence which he has at his command, is putting before the country a policy which entirely reverses our traditions, the Government must realise that the country comes to them to seek counsel not as to a Delphic oracle of old for a cryptic reply to be interpreted according to individual intelligence, but with a des re

  261
  to know what are to be the conditions under which the battle is to be fought— whether the Government intend to assume a position of splendid isolation, relying on their own resources, or whether they have already made any treaty of reciprocity with one of the leaders of the opposing band.
  It may possibly be that these debates should be closed in the House of Commons, but I venture to think that it is too late to say that they should be closed in the country. The question is far too important, and the issues too far-reaching, to bring them down to the level of a personal grievance. But if I venture to allude to my own personal position I do so, not by way of complaint, but merely by way of illustration. This is not the first occasion on which I have supported the speeches of the Government against the taxation of food. I did so in my constituency last autumn. What was the result? Two days afterwards a gentleman who supported the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was brought before the constituency, and he is now the accepted candidate. I fully realise that in every campaign there must be casualties and that the life of the private soldier is of little importance. But I should be ready to sacrifice myself if I believed that I was to be inJured in a good cause, and my enthusiasm could only be damped if I had reason to believe that my inJury was caused by want of preparation on the part of my leaders when the compaign began. I wish to submit a definite example of a danger which is overwhelming one or two of the Prime Minister's supporters, and has threatened, and is threatening, a great many of them. I feel sure that it is the right hon. Gentleman's desire to render every assistance that he can give to those who have loyally helped him in the past; and I venture with all submission to say that this can only be achieved by a speech on the part of the Government addressed to the trained intelligence of this Home, as well as to the untrained intelligence of the country. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to assure the country that he will do his utmost to defend those of his Party who are opposed to the taxation of food, who have already suffered and are in imminent danger, and that they may look to him in
  262
  the future to be their leader in the time of danger.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, believing that the protective taxation of food would be burdensome to the people and inJurious to the Empire, welcomes the declarations of Ministers that the Government is opposed to such taxation."—(Mr. Black.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: At the invitation of my right hon. friend I rise to move in a few words, almost; formally, the Amendment which stands in his name. He has asked me to perform this small office in order that he may reserve his speech until a period when the debate has developed and is more matured. I am sure my hon. friend the Member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex will not think I am guilty of any disrespect to him if I venture to suggest that the intervention of the Prime Minister will be more timely at a later hour and a more usual hour than half-past nine o'clock. All hon. Members who have not felt, as the mover of the Motion on the Paper feels, that its purport is so obvious, that it is inspired by such an amiable feeling towards all Ministers and to all the Members of the House as to need no further discussion, that we all ought to vote for it and go home, and that there is no excuse for the Amendment put down by the Prime Minister, will not differ from my point of view. But I wish to point out in a few words that my right hon. friend and the Government invite the House to say that it is unnecessary to discuss the question of fiscal reform, that it is unnecssary to discuss the declaration made by the Prime Minister at Sheffield, with which we are all so familiar. We hold that it is unnecessary to discuss either the question of fiscal reform or the well-known declaration of the Prime Minister at Sheffield on two grounds. The first ground is that no proposals, as hon. Members are perfectly well aware, embodying what is called the Sheffield policy, announced so clearly by the Prime Minister so long ago as October last, are to be proposed during either this session of Parliament or during any session of the existing Parliament. The

  263
  second ground is that we desire to proceed with the business proposed in the King's Speech. Hon. Members laugh. I derive a good deal of amusement from the hilarity with which hon. Members greet a very commonplace proposition. The proposition that the policy of the Cabinet as embodied in the King's Speech and their administrative action are matters with which Parliament is concerned is always received with shouts of ridicule as an amazing paradox, and we are told again and again that there is a great question before the House. What that question is hon. Members do not seem to be very clear, and there is no reason why they should wish to explain to the House subJects which they have not studied or which they do not understand. The hon. Member who moved the Motion said it was an elucidation of certain declarations of the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister has said that the Sheffield policy is not to be dealt with during the existence of the present Parliament, and that when he goes to the country his policy will be found to be the policy which he announced at Sheffield. All that is familiar to us. But the hon. Member has tried to make that statement far more attractive. He illustrated it with parables, and supposed that we should like it a great deal better than a perfectly plain declaration from the Prime Minister. He is at a loss to understand how any one can be to lacking in sense as to refuse to accept his Motion with effusiveness. We support the Amendment of the Prime Minister because we do not think the Motion put upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Banffshire is an improvement upon the statement that we have heard from the Prime Minister. In the first place it is very ambiguous. There are a number of words used to which different people attach different interpretations. In the second place, it is invidious, and meant to be invidious. Attention is drawn to the declarations of certain Ministers.
  MR. BLACK: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the terms of my Motion. It does not attract attention to certain Ministers, but to the declarations of Ministers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have been following this Motion with some curiosity. Certainly, if it is only intended to illuminate the statement made by the Prime Minister it has caused a good deal of suppressed commotion, and I have seen it stated in the public Press that the word "certain" should be eliminated. The hon. Member has got rid of one, but not of the other. His Motion begins, "To call attention to the declaration of certain Ministers." It is quite true that he may have given instructions which have not been perfectly carried out, for the removal of the word "certain" before "Ministers" in the last line.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Fancy making a point of that!
  MR. WYNDHAM: My hon. friend the Member for Oldham is pained that I should make a point of that. If the word "certain" had gone in both places I should have drawn attention to their omission at the last moment, and should have asked my hon. friend to hold with me that the intention of a Motion of this kind may be gathered from the phraseology in which it was originally couched. If that phraseology is such that the Motion purports to be a censure on certain Ministers and an encomium passed upon others, then I say it is a censure passed upon the Cabinet as a whole. If it is not a censure, what is it? It is meant to be censure, because we are supposed to have neglected the proper observation of the great doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. Now that is what the hon. Member who moved this wishes the world to understand to-morrow, and we say that there is no vestige of truth in the charge. It is as a vote of censure on the Government that we repudiate it. This is a revival of the piece we had played on the Address— the piece of the two voices. Why, in practice we have carried out the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility to greater lengths than it has ever been carried before. And not only are we all responsible, as we have pointed out, for the measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, not only are we at one on all administrative questions, but we have stated what our policy will be in this

  265
  matter during the whole of this Parliament, and, more than that, the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to state what his election address will be. And now we are told that the question before the House is some impossibility or unwillingness on the part of hon. Members opposite to take the perfectly clear words which have been uttered by every Minister who has spoken upon this question. We do not recognise in this Amendment a mere paraphrase of what the Prime Minister has said. I suppose it is meant to be that sincerest form of flattery, imitation; but when imitation is grotesque, when it is adopted with a wink and a chuckle, it is called mimicry and is considered offensive. Therefore, in holding the Motion on the Paper to be in the nature of a vote of censure, veiled it may be, but none the less a vote of censure, and holding that on many questions we may, if our hopes are granted, be of service to the country and the Empire in South Africa, and in many other parts of the world—hon. Members opposite no doubt hold a contrary view — but seriously believing that, as we do, it seems more important than a speculation as to what we or someone else would say at a general election at some future time. I will not elaborate that, because it is so obvious to any one who listened to the concluding remarks of the Prime Minister last night what the policy is, and those of my hon. friends who support the Government will support the Prime Minister in his Amendment to a Motion which he regards as a vote of censure deliberately moved.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'House' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'considers it unnecessary to discuss the question of fiscal reforms and the declaration of the Prime Minister at Sheffield on 1st October in regard to which His MaJesty's Government have announced that no proposals will be laid before the present Parliament, and expressing its continued confidence in the present Administration, desires to proceed with the business proposed in the Gracious Speech from the Throne'—(Mr. Wyndham)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I always listen to my right hon. friend the
  266
  Chief Secretary with delight, but I do not think I ever listened to him with more amusement than this evening, He is in the unhappy position of having to maintain a great many propositions which his own mind is much too clear to make plausible to the House of Commons. I confess that without the aid of thought-reading I could never have read into the Motion before the House so many things as the Chief Secretary read into it, and I am inclined to suspect, as one often is obliged to suspect in cases of thought-reading, some ulterior motive on the part of the medium who operates. The Motion, I confess, seems to me a very plain matter. I am quite sure my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham fully understands it. He quite understands it because he has all the sensitiveness of the person attacked. He knows that this Motion is directed against him and his policy. It is not directed against the Government, and it is rather surprising, I think, that they should suppose it. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, will any one point out a single word in the Motion which is against the Government?
  MR. J CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that my noble friend appeals to me. He says that I am the person attacked, and not the Government, and he asks how any one can pretend to show that the Government is concerned. Permit me to say that if I were the only person attacked it would be perfectly easy to have left out all reference—
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order, Sir, to ask whether the right hon. Gentle man is entitled to get up and make a speech generally.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord gave way. The right hon. Gentleman, will no doubt not take undue advantage of the opportunity afforded him.
  MR. J CHAMBERLAIN: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my noble friend challenged me and others who think with me in regard to a particular question. I shall certainly confine myself to answering his challenge, but owing to the interruption I must again repeat what I understand the noble Lord meant. I understand the challenge to be that the Motion

  267
  is an attack upon myself—that is to say, upon my policy; and is in no sense an attack upon Ministers. I say that that would have been per fectly clear if there had been no reference to Ministers in the Resolution. But as the Resolution, as it appears on the Paper, singles out the opinions of certain Ministers—[Cries of "No" and cheers]—as it appears on the Paper; the notice is probably in the hands of Members. The notice is to call attention to the declarations of certain Ministers. [Cries of "No."] That is the Motion on the Paper. [Renewed interruption and OPPOSITION cries of "Cecil," and "Order."] I cannot presume, Mr. Speaker—[Cries of "Order"]—I cannot, of course, answer interruptions, but I must merely answer the noble Lord. Owing to the form of the notice on the Paper I and many others consider that the Ministry as well as myself are attacked.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I am glad that I have given the right hon. Gentleman this opportunity of making an explanation, and perhaps I may say in general that there is nothing I desire less than that he should not be treated with the greatest respect. But I confess that the explanation does not impress me much. He says that but for the word "Ministers" this would not be an attack upon them. Therefore, his proposition is that, if you refer to Ministers in laudatory terms then you attack them. The only possible way of not attacking Ministers, by his account, is not to mention them. Well, he is a supporter of the Ministry. "Save me from my friends." I confess I think that in his zeal for what he calls "our Government," he is carried beyond the limits of reason. I read this Resolution according to the ordinary meaning of the English language. I do not really care what was the motive for the Motion being put down. What does that matter to me? I care for my motive in voting upon it. I care for its plain meaning, as it will be understood in this House, and as it will be understood from one end of the country to the other; and, looking upon it in that light, I say that it is a Motion which does, indeed, reject in terms the policy with which my right hon. friend
  268
  the Member for West Birmingham is associated, but which does not say anything whatever about the action of Ministers, except to praise them for rejecting that policy.
  Now, I only ventured to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for a very few minutes, be cause I desired to say a few words to explain the vote which many of us will be obliged to give. We find ourselves quite unexpectedly in a difficult position. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary appeared to comment severely on alterations made in the Motion at what he called the last moment. No doubt he has admonished the Prime Minister in private, for down to the very last possible moment he delayed to put down an Amendment of the highest possible importance, throwing every one into a great deal of confusion by so doing. I am obliged to say that I think that course has been taken with less Justification than might often have been urged for it. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has known for ten days past—known privately, without disclosures in the Press—that many of his supporters, feeling that it expressed their views, were disposed to support the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Banffshire. He had ten days in which to take any step he thought proper, ten days in which to communicate, if he pleased, with those interested. I believe that he has had frequent communications with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham: but I do not think he has had communication, so frequent at any rate, with those who are interested in this from the other point of view.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J BALFOUR,): That is quite imaginary.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: At any rate, he has had plenty of opportunity for putting down his Amendment, if he wished to put it down, six, or seven, or eight days ago. I am not complaining of my right hon. friend, who has had many other things to think of; but I am obliged to point out the position in which

  269
  he has placed these hon. Members. I have no doubt he wished to do what was perfectly proper; but inevitably we are placed in an embarrassing position—a subject of gratification to my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. I appreciate that point of view. The policy which he urges is fundamentally opposed to the policy which we advocate. I confess I wish the notice given in the name of the Government had been given somewhat earlier, in order that we might have had a longer time for reflection. How does the matter stand now? The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has much, no doubt, to recommend it. It is better— if I may say so without any personal discourtesy—both in the circumstances and in its origin, as well as in its natural character, than the Motion that stood in the name of the Member for West Birmingham. We greatly prefer it to that one. But I confess I find it very unnecessary that the question of confidence in Ministers should be dragged into a controversy which has no relation to the confidence of this House in Ministers. We are debating upon a Wednesday evening—a time consecrated by long Parliamentary usage to the discussion of what are called abstract questions—questions of high political interest. We are, therefore, asked to vote upon a Motion which, if the Government had not treated it in this unusual way, would be a Motion to be judged on its natural merits. Why should the Government bring in confidence at all? I confess I do not understand why they should have done it. But so anxious were 1 and many of my hon. friends to avoid voting against the Government on a question of confidence that I made a proposal to the Prime Minister in private which I will repeat in public. I proposed, and propose now, that this debate should be carried over to another day, that we who approve on its merits of the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Banffshire should not press the matter to a division, and, if there were a division, should take no part in it or should vote for the Government, but on a future day, when the Amendment of the Prime Minister became the original Motion, should be at liberty to move an Amendment to that Motion expressing our views —an Amendment
  270
  which would be perfectly consistent with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that proposal is not acceptable to the Government. I want to point out that we are not to be blamed if, deciding at the last moment and in very difficult circumstances, we elect to make a proposal which seems to me, I confess, a very reasonable proposal, and when it is rejected are driven where we shall be driven.
  I am told that this is a question of confidence. I can understand that being said about the second question which will be put, I suppose, this evening unless the debate is carried too far, the question of inserting the words of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. But, on the question of omitting the words of the Member for Banffshire, I do not see that any question of confidence is concerned. We are told that it is a question of confidence. That means that the Government would resign if they were placed in a minority on that question—the question of omitting the words of the Member for Banffshire. Figure to yourselves the picture. The Prime Minister would have to request an audience of the King and say, "Your Majesty, I am unable any longer to conduct the administration of the country because the House of Commons persists in welcoming declarations made by members of Government." I could not have thought that outside "Alice's Adventures through the Looking-glass" such a proceeding would be possible. I do not regard this Motion as in any sense reflecting on the Government. It asserts what is the view of those who have all along opposed the policy of the Member for West Birmingham; and, if it is raised, as no doubt it is, in an inconvenient mode, I cannot help observing that we have often wished to have a debate of a more formal and lengthy character which should raise explicitly the question of the Birmingham policy detached from any other consideration. We have no wish to criticise the Government or attack the Sheffield policy. Many of those who are free-traders are strong supporters of the Sheffield policy; others, like myself, would like to hear it further developed before they commit themselves. But we should have been glad to have an opportunity of discussing

  271
  the Birmingham policy, and we have been unable to do so, but we have not received in our desire any co-operation from my right, hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham himself. He prefers to discuss this question on the platform. The platform has many advantages. There are considerable facilities for selecting your audience, and there are securities against reply. To persons of my right hon. friend's economic opinions those privileges are dear indeed. I notice that my right hon. friend, commenting on those who only go part of the way which he thinks ought to be trod, describes them as weak-kneed and half-hearted. He himself belongs to the Cromwellian school. I do not think my right hon. friend is very like Cromwell. I doubt whether Cromwell would have shrunk from a debate. I agree, however, that if my right hon. friend means the probable silencing of the House of Commons no one could be more like. But I confess I should rather compare my right hon. friend to Bob Acres in the comedy, who exhibited courage elsewhere than on the field of battle, because my right hon. friend shrinks, like that character, from facing his opponents on the field of combat which is the House of Commons. When Bob Acres found himself in that situation his courage oozed out through the ends of his fingers. I cannot conceive why we should be deprived of the opportunity of debating and voting upon the Birmingham policy without any hiding behind the Government.
  Well, Sir, I regret that the Government are not able to leave this discussion open to the decision of the House. I regret that it is so. I think their conduct will be severely commented on outside these walls I think people will fail to understand what are the motives that lead the Government on the path they are treading I am sure those motives are high-minded and magnanimous in their character; but no one can deny that it is impossible for them to give that impression to the great mass of the people of this country. What the people want is to have a fair issue, fairly and squarely decided. No one blames those who are protectionists, no one blames my right hon. friend for maintaining his protectionist views. What we blame him and the Government for is for withholding from the House of
  272
  Commons the opportunity of expressing a fair opinion one way or the other. [Interruptions, and cries of "Order," "Collings," and "Bowles."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do appeal to hon. Members to abstain from interruptions and recriminations.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I confess I do not regard this as a Motion in any way reflecting upon the Government, I said it appeared to me to be a statement of the position we have all along maintained. I confess, therefore, that it seems impossible myself to do otherwise than to vote in support of the Motion. [OPPOSITION cheers and ironical MINISTERIAL cheers.] I am glad my right hon. friend applauds that—I can assure him I am accustomed to vote in favour of my opinions and not to shrink from them. At any rate the issue is a plain one. The Motion expresses what we had hoped and believed to be, and what I still believe to be, the attitude of the Government in regard to the taxation of food. As the proper expression of the view of those who resist the taxation of food, among whom I may, I hope, include the Government, I shall support that Motion in the Lobby, voting, as it is my duty to do, in support of my convictions.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This is the third time in the course of the present session on which the subject of fiscal policy has been under the consideration of this House. On the first occasion we had a debate in which practically any Member on both sides of the House who desired to express his opinion on the subject was able to take part. That debate was originated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for, Montrose, who desired to express his opinion and the opinion of the House that the removal of protective duties had been of great advantage to this country and that their restoration would be a great injury to the country. On the second occasion the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire asked us to record our disaproval of a protective and preferential tariff. I agree with the abstract opinions which were expressed in both those Resolutions. I agree with them now; but I voted against those

  273
  Resolutions and I would vote against them again: because both in form and in substance they were votes of censure on His Majesty's Government, a Government which I was returned here to support, and which, in my opinion, has done nothing and said nothing whatever, either in this House or in the country, which justifies the censure proposed by those Resolutions. Well, Sir, now this evening we have a Resolution which is of a different character. It does not propose in its terms any censure upon His Majesty's Government. On the contrary, it expresses a distinct approval, amended as it has been at the last moment, of the opinions which Ministers have expressed on the subject of the protective taxation of food. In that view I entirely agree. I believe that, if we could know the opinion upon that subject of the majority of the present House of Commons, the majority of the present House of Commons would be opposed to the protective taxation of food. But I feel quite certain that the majority of the constituencies of this country would be opposed to the protective taxation of food. Up to this morning we had to decide between this Motion and the Amendment of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. I should have supported the Motion against that Amendment. I should have done so because I object to the vague terms in which a change in our fiscal policy was alluded to in the Amendment of my right hon. friend, when I couple those terms with the opinions and the action in which he has been so prominent throughout the country. But it is not necessary to pursue that subject now that Amendment is defunct. It may be paired off with a certain other Amendment which had an even briefer life on another occasion, and I will not pretend to shed a tear over its grave. The Prime Minister, or rather the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, has moved another Amendment to the Motion which is before the House; and that Amendment traverses the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire, and, besides traversing that Motion, it contains what to my mind is a matter of some importance—a reference to the Sheffield policy, a policy with which I agree.
  274
  My noble friend who has just sat down asked why, seeing that the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire is a Motion approving the action of the Government, we cannot all support it. Well, under ordinary circumstances it might have been thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire might have been accepted by this House with the tolerant acquiescence of the Government, just as many such Motions of private Members are constantly accepted on a Wednesday evening. But my noble friend is, compared with me, I am sorry to say, a young Member of this House. Cannot he see in the crowded Benches before him, did he not detect in the speech of the hon. Member for Banffshire what this Motion, so innocent, so complimentary in its terms, really means? I do not wish to impute motives to any man, and I cannot judge of the motive of the hon. Member for Banffshire; but it is a little odd that that hon. Member, being as we have always known him to be, and as his speech to-night shows him to be, a very active and very determined opponent of His Majesty's Government, should, when he had the good fortune to obtain by the ballot the last opportunity in the present session on which a private Member may propose a Motion to the House, have chosen—have wasted his good fortune in proposing a vote of approval of the action of His Majesty's Government. Now, does not that invite us to look a little behind the words of the hon. Member for Banffshire in considering the Amendment proposed by His Majesty's Government? But there is another point. I agree, as I have said already, in the terms of the hon. Member for Banffshire, I object to protective taxation on food. Well, but does that cover the whole of the future fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government? It is perfectly clear that the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire cover only what may be described as the negative policy of His Majesty's Government, and does not touch at all the positive policy of His Majesty's Government, which surely is a matter of some importance in their consideration and in the consideration of this House. If it had been possible that the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire should have been put from the Chair as a substantive question, I for one should have

  275
  voted for the addendum to the Motion my hon. friend the Member for Clapham has placed on the Paper, which would make it perfectly clear that the Motion was an approval not merely of their negative policy in being opposed to a protective tax on food, but also of their positive policy as being prepared to suggest to a future Parliament a policy of negotiation with foreign countries for the reduction of their high; tariffs, enforced, if necessary, by retaliation in cases where we could not get fair terms. I will put this test to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire. Suppose his Motion had been so amended as to declare the whole fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government, would he vote for it himself? Is that not another indication of what this Motion really means? I might almost say, "In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird," if my noble friend who has just sat down had not shown so great a desire to jump into it.
  Now, after all, what is it that the hon. Member for Banffshire asks us to do? His speech really consisted mainly of a series of quotations from speeches of members of the Ministry establishing the principle of his Motion. He quoted from the Prime Minister, he quoted from the Home Secretary, he quoted from Lord Lansdowne, passages all declaring their objection to protective taxation on food. That is the negative part of the Sheffield policy. Can there be any doubt of it? Does any Member really believe that that is not part of the Sheffield policy? Why, the hon. Member for Banffshire has himself established it. What has the Prime Minister said on the matter? I do not like to trouble the House with quotations, but this is an important point, and perhaps I may read this. Everybody knows that in his Sheffield speech, to which he calls our special attention in the Amendment to the Motion, he said—
  "A tax on food is not within the range of practical politics."
  And then more recently in this House he said—
  "I do not think public opinion is in a condition to accept any proposition in regard to taxation of food, or fiscal union with the
  276
  Colonies so far as this depends on taxation of food."
  Then he went on to say—
  "The Sheffield programme is that which if occasion arose to-morrow, I would set before the country so far as fiscal reform is concerned."
  Well, I am a supporter of His Majesty's Government; I repose some confidence in the Prime Minister; I accept the declarations of the Prime Minister on that subject. I do not myself believe that any advantage will be gained from passing a Resolution tonight which does no more than embody the declarations which the hon. Member who moved it himself admits have been made by the Government on this subject—more especially when, as everybody knows very well, no one proposes to bring any alteration of our fiscal policy before the present Parliament, and when any Resolution which might be placed on our records on this question of fiscal policy would have no weight whatever upon the judgment of the constituencies who will in the end be called upon to decide the matter.
  MR. J CHAMBERLAIN: Like my right hon. friend who has just sat down, I also was a member, a short time ago, and even later than he, of His Majesty's Government. Up to the time that I left that Government I was in absolute accord with my colleagues as to their policy. I am very glad to say that since I have left that Government I have remained in absolute accord with their policy and their professions. Therefore in anything I may say I frankly admit, however much hon. Gentlemen opposite may object to such a statement, that my object is to support the Government, and for the simple reason that in all questions of confidence it is a question of loyalty. If you agree with the practical, immediate, definite policy of a Government you are bound to do your best to support that Government. I have said there exists such an agreement between me and my right hon. friends on that Bench. They have, in my opinion, done a great work in the past, they have undertaken a great work for the future. I believe in that work, I desire to give them every support in carrying it to a successful conclusion. When this question of fiscal reform first arose, it took what I frankly admit were to me unexpected proportions, and I found that my continuance in the Government might

  277
  embarrass the Government, might even weaken it; and I retired from the Government. I think the other day I was: accused by the hon. Member for Oldham of having exhibited cowardice, because, for sooth, I had relinquished what are called the sweets and certainly the emoluments of office in order to carry out, to promote, my own convictions, and in order not to embarrass my political friends. I am prepared to leave the judgment of my conduct to the House, to opponents as well as to friends. But from the moment I became a private Member, as I have said, I agree with all that the Government has done, but I am not bound to; and certainly they are not bound to agree with me, and they are not responsible for anything that I have said. I have gone out into the wilderness, if you please, as you tell me, on a hopeless expedition, which ought, I think, to satisfy even the most malignant adversary; and I have not asked either the Government or any Members of this House to commit themselves to my policy. There is a division of opinion as to that policy in this Parliament. I do not want to be exceptionally controversial, more controversial than I can help, so I will not talk about the proportions in which that division exists Bat this I will say, that while on the one side those Gentlemen who differ from me are aggressive, and demand that the Government and that this House and that every Member shall pledge themselves in regard to a policy which at present is only in the condition of a policy for discussion, all that we—those who hold my views—askis,that the Government and our friends should say nothing which should I prevent the possibility of that policy.
  Well, the fiscal question is to me almost a phenomenon, it has had almost unexpected developments. It seems to me to be like ecclesiastical questions; apparently it affects some minds, and even sane minds, with a kind of extreme bigotry, I might almost say a kind of uncharitableness, which I am not aware of as existing in regard to other matters of controversy. There is my noble friend the Member for Greenwich, the most amiable of men, who entertains a very strong opinion upon this subject, to which he is as much entitled as I am to my equally strong opinion in the opposite direction. But thereupon he gets up, and while he professes respect—Heaven save the mark—for his I opponents, he accuses those opponents of
  278
  the most contemptible of vices. He explains elaborately, amongst the enthusiastic cheers of, as I suppose, his political opponents, he explains to them that he has the utmost respect for a man whom in the next breath he accuses of the meanest and most contemptible avoidance of his responsibility, Well, I was in public life, I suppose, about the time the noble Lord was born—
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I can assure my right hon. friend that I meant nothing disrespectful to him —I meant that he is wanting in what I call political courage. I think he shrinks from meeting this matter in the House of Commons as he ought to meet it.
  MR. J CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, my noble friend makes matters worse. Of course I well understood he did not accuse me of want of personal courage. If he thought fit to challenge me to a physical combat in the House of Commons, in spite of my disadvantage of age, I can well understand that he still thinks I should accept the invitation. I have I never considered that physical cowardice is the worst quality in man, but I regard moral cowardice as the worst. My noble friend, who has the utmost respect for me, I has accused me in this House of moral I cowardice. I do not wish to defend my self at any length, and I was saying that I came to public life at a time when the noble Lord was born, and I do not suppose he has had time in his subsequent career to I take any account of the record of my work; but if he had I think that the last thing he would have charged me with was any unwillingness or unreadiness to stating in the plainest terms my views, whether at the time they were popular or unpopular, and to take the consequences. If, therefore, it be the fact, as my noble friend says, that I have shrunk from submitting my views to this House, I venture to submit to his charitable consideration that I might have had other reasons for that than a want of moral courage. I object to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire. That Resolution, as it appeared on the Paper, selected not the Ministry as a whole but certain Ministers for approval and by implication condemned certain others. It was, in effect, the reverse of the Motion which was made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire some time, I think, in

  279
  March. The hon. Member for Aberdeen's Motion condemned certain Ministers. Both hon. Members were either unaware or chose to ignore that constitutional practice which makes the whole Ministry solidaire, which implies a certain corporate responsibility for all their acts and opinions—I mean opinions in regard to practical politics. You cannot, therefore, single out a portion of the Government for praise or censure without involving the condemnation of the Government as a whole, and on that ground alone—it is quite a sufficient objection—I object to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire.
  I do not wish, for reasons I am going to give, to raise the fiscal question in this House—for reasons other than those so kindly suggested by my noble friend. I do not wish to raise it, and the Amendment I put down is absolutely colourless. It commits the House, if it were carried, only to confidence in the Government, having regard to the statement which the Government have made. No Member voting for my Amendment could possibly have been committed to any view I hold. I spoke as a supporter of the Government and of the Government policy, and I did not go one atom beyond it. It seemed to me that was the proper and natural answer to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Banffshire. I am very glad that the Government have intervened in their own defence. I do not presume to intervene any longer. The Amendment which is proposed on behalf of the Government, I should have said myself—I am not going to discuss it—is a paraphase of the Amendment I proposed. At all events, it conveys exactly the same idea, or, perhaps, I had better say exactly the same two ideas. The first idea is that we have confidence in the Government, and the second is that we, as far as we can, relegate the discussion of the fiscal question which has now been raised to a future Parliament. If the sole object of the hon. Member for Banffshire had been; to discuss my policy, my argument would have been different. That was what I ventured to explain to the hon. Member; for Greenwich. In that case, if it had been a bonâ fide desire to discuss a new fiscal policy, the hon. Member for Banffshire would have omitted all reference to
  280
  the Government and have treated the question in the shape of an abstract Resolution, condemning on the part of this: House the policy I have put forward That would have been quite legitimate. Whether I should have taken any part in the discussion of my policy, or whether I should have shrunk for reasons of cowardice or any other, I really do not know. All I say is that the the time will come, as it comes to every private Member who propose? a policy, when he will choose to submit it to the House of Commons. As far as I am concerned, and as far as this present movement is concerned, when I spoke twelve months ago on 15th May, I admit I had no idea that so great a storm would have been raised; because my view was that I was raising an important question which deserved the fullest consideration, and which could not be at the moment decided; when I raised it, I distinctly said that I asked for no immediate decision, but the fullest discussion upon it, and that it might be an issue at the general election. I have acted upon that all through. I have not appealed to Parliament because I myself would not be inclined to appeal to Parliament until I thought the question was ripe for its decision. I never have, during the thirty years or so that I have had the honour of a seat in this House, cared much for what are called abstract Resolutions. I have never cared much for that sort of debating-society discussion which after all leads to no practical result. When discussion in the country has shown that the matter is ripe for settlement, then, as it seems to me, is the time to bring it to the great representative Council of the nation and to ask them to give practical effect to what has been shown to be the desire of their constituents. And so I frankly admit to my noble friend I did not desire a discussion in this House, and did not court it, and did not think it would be of the slightest advantage either to my opponents or to myself, that I do not think that a decision either for me or against me would have the slightest influence upon the ultimate decision of the issue, and that, therefore, I do prefer the platform to debate in the House of Commons. It is not that I shrink from debate in the House of Commons, but that I think it is time and

  281
  labour thrown away. For the moment it seems to me to be entirely premature.
  Now, Sir, before I sit down I wish again to make clear to the House what I understand when I vote for this Amendment. 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 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. The other day my hon. friend the Member for Durham, in a speech upon the Budget, admitted that the Budget was a Budget which might have been proposed by what he called a free-trade Ministry. That is perfectly true. I think he went on to say that he recognised in it evidence of a conviction which had come to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, Sir, I do not attempt to interpret the views of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I confess that I regarded the Budget, not as proof of altered opinions, but as the carrying out of a definite pledge which, as I understand, has been given, as I certainly should have been willing to give it, if I were still a Minister—that during the present Parliament we should regard this question as only a question for public discussion, and that until public opinion had ripened we should not propose it as a matter for practical statesmanship. If this pledge has been given, as undoubtedly I think it has, I do not know how my hon. friend the Member for Durham could have possibly expected a Budget on any other principles than those of the present Budget. Of course, I reserve to myself the right upon platforms and in those selected audiences which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich thinks it so easy to obtain, but which he finds it so difficult to meet with himself. I reserve my right in these family parties to explain that if the policy which I recommend had been adopted a very different Budget might
  282
  have been presented; that there might have been no increase in the tea duty, no increase in the income-tax, and that there might have been an alteration of taxation which might have greatly benefited and increased our trade. But that, Mr. Speaker, is by the way; that is for another audience. When, in my judgment, the proper time comes—and I think it will come sooner than my opponents imagine—my noble friend will, find that I shall not in the least shrink from any discussion of the question in this House, for the intelligence of which, the judgment of which, and the representative character of which no one could possibly entertain a higher opinion than myself. Meanwhile I shall reserve myself for my proper duty. I find it heavy enough and my noble friend must forgive me if I refuse to add to it more than is necessary. For the moment I am satisfied with this—that the actual practical policy of the Government which we are called upon to decide is a policy which has my hearty cordial approval, and I most earnestly desire that it should have given to it the time necessary to carry it out. As to the future, however, I may regret that they have not gone further than they have. I do not press them to move a step forward for the moment. All I ask is, as I should ask of any Government of sensible men, that they should not pledge themselves beforehand against circumstances which they cannot foresee. If circumstances are as they were at the time when I left the Government I should not be the one to blame them for remaining absolutely tied to the programme they have put before the country. But if circumstances have changed—not to be controversial, I say they may change—then I think it would be foolish of them, as it would be foolish of anybody else, that they should find their hands tied by expressions of opinion which those who are not too friendly towards them are endeavouring prematurely to extract from them.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I should not have taken part in this debate if it had not been for an expression which fell from my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. He informed the House and the Unionist Party that for the next

  283
  year or two he would avoid the discussion of the fiscal question in Parliament, and devote himself to discussing it upon the public platform. Very well If my right hon. friend is going to devote his ability and energy, and what, I admit, is his immense interest, to the discussion of this question, I want the Prime Minister, and, above all, the Unionist Party, to have a few moments reflection upon what that means. I am a very humble member of the Unionist Party. I left the Government at the same time as my right hon. friend, and I left it because was confident that the agitation which my right hon. friend was promoting, if it attained certain dimensions, must lead to one of two results— either this country would be committed to protection or else the Unionist Party would be smashed to pieces. I have always regretted that hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Radical Party generally have chosen to associate my right hon. friend's action in this matter with low, personal, or sordid motives. I give my right hon. friend credit for the highest motives, both National and Imperial. He has been animated throughout by a sincere desire to do his best for the Empire generally, and for that part which, for the time being, was under his personal control. But it is perfectly clear to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that the country will not have protection. There always has been a strong protectionist element in the Conservative Party. No men knew that better than Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury; and both of those distinguished predecessors of the Prime Minister kept those tendencies in order. Now my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham has lit a flame which he cannot quench, and which the Prime Minister cannot quench. And the result is that from top to bottom of the Unionist Party there is discord and dissension in almost every constituency in the country. I venture to say—I have spent a great part of my life studying this question, and I have not often been wrong in my forecasts — in all seriousness to my hon. friends behind me that if this agitation is pursued on the lines on which it has been carried on during the past year, whenever the general election takes place the heaviest
  284
  defeat on record awaits the Unionist Party. And, I ask, who will be responsible for that defeat? We, who throughout have endeavoured to warn the Government of the dangers which were ahead, or those who have recklessly led them on to the path which can but end in the almost total annihilation of our Party? Then, assuming there was, as I believe there will be, this heavy defeat of the Unionist Party, if protection is hung around the neck of that Party after defeat it will be a millstone on it for years and years.
  My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham says this Motion is a censure on the Government because it only alludes to certain members of the Government. Of course it only alludes to certain members of the Government; because everybody knows that the Government is composed partly of protectionists and partly of free-traders, and the Prime Minister has done his best to hold the balance because he, naturally impressed with the responsibilities of his position, wishes to keep his Government and his Party together. But though my right hon. friend the Prime Minister professes himself a free-trader, in every controversy which has arisen since the beginning of the session the bias of the Government has always been thrown in on behalf of the protectionists. In the first debate that took place on the Address, an admirable speech was made by the President of the Board of Trade. Practically all his his conclusions were contradicted by three speeches subsequently made by three members of the Government. In the next discussion that took place the hon. Member for Ripon tabled an Amendment which was distasteful to my hon. friends the protectionists, and it was withdrawn. And now to-night a Motion is made which seemed to be absolutely immaculate, though I cannot apply the same phrase to the speech in which the hon. Member opposite introduced it—a Motion in which there was not the slightest sound or note of censure on the Government; a Motion which expresses all my right hon. friend's Sheffield policy. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] I say "Yes," because the Sheffield policy was composed of two parts—the negative and the positive. The negative part was a

  285
  perfectly clear and distinct repudiation of the taxation of food. The positive part was somewhat obscure. It was some particular form of retaliation, which no doubt, in the course of time, my right hon. friend will be able to develop.
  I wish the Government to remain in office provided that their continuance of tenure of office is not associated with the dissemination of protectionist principles among the Unionist Party. It has been my pride to be associated with that Party for many years past. I came into the House of Commons at a time when the Conservative Party was at a very low ebb; but under the judicious leadership of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury it gradually became a prominent Party a National Party, and finally an Imperial Party. I do not want to see that, Party shattered to pieces. But while we are to have peace and no discussion in this House, what is going on in the constituencies? In these constituencies, no matter what the services of the Member may be, no matter how loyally he may have served his Party or done work for the Unionist cause, if he will not accept wholesale these new heresies he is "shunted," with the result almost in every case that the seat will be lost to the Party to which he belongs. In this House the reverse tactics are adopted. When a Motion is brought forward on fiscal questions the merits of it are not to be considered, but the political opinions upon other questions of its promoter; and so two absolutely antagonistic principles are in operation, one in the constituencies and one in the House of Commons. I know what the Prime Minister's troubles are, and the worries he has to contend with. I know the singular complications and difficulties against which he has had to fight his way, but I do implore him to speak out plainly and to tell us what is his policy, what it is the Government will support and what it is they will not support. Depend upon it, unless he adopts this policy, though these devices and delays may give to the Government an increased tenure of office, they can only result in smashing to pieces the Party of which he is the head.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My noble friend has made an appeal to me which
  286
  seems to come strangely, as far as I can form an estimate of the matter, from his lips or from the lips of any man who has taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with the utterances, and I am afraid the somewhat lengthy utterances, I have made in the country on the subject of fiscal reform. I may be unfortunate in my method of expression. I can only say that I have done my best to make myself clear. If I have not been understood it must be either owing to a fault on the part of those to whom I have addressed myself or from want of capacity of lucid exposition on my own part. I need hardly say that I accept the more polite and the second of these hypotheses. I am not quite ready to acknowledge that I may have failed to convey my meaning on this subject to a large number of Gentlemen who profess: to have studied my speeches and writings. I apologise to them for my shortcomings: but how, may I ask, when the difficulty arises from this initial defect, am I to cure it? My noble friend has asked for a further exposition of my policy in addition to what I have written and what 1 I have said at Sheffield, at Bristol, Manchester, on at least two occasions; during the course of the present session, and to what I said in certain speeches last session. In spite of these utterances my noble friend is still unable to understand my point of view. I am sure that it is not his fault; but I am also sur that where I have tried so persistently and with great expenditure of time and: trouble on my part to make my meaning plain on these numerous occasions, it is hardly likely that the sixth or seventh effort will be more successful than the others. I can only assure my noble friend that the policy which is commonly described as the Sheffield policy is still my policy. I have seen since that speech was made no reason to add to it, no reason to detract from it, and it still represents the advice which I would give to the country were I called upon to-morrow to frame an election address. I cannot expect an to feel satisfied with the substance of that observation; but I hope he will feel that I have made all the response it is in my power to make, and that if there is an obscurity in defining the doctrines, it is an obscurity which my unfortunate

  287
  deficiencies make it impossible for me to correct.
  I do not mean in the brief observations that I intend to address to the House to deal with the fiscal problem beyond what I have already said—and for this reason, that the chief object and motive of the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper is to express my individual opinion and the opinion of my colleagues that these discussions on the fiscal question are discussions on purely abstract questions, which may be innocent, which may possibly be beneficial, but which I do not think excite much interest unless there is an attack either upon the Government or upon an individual behind me. I do not think hon. Members understand me; I will express what I mean. Unless there is some attack on the Government involved in a Motion, as my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol stated with unanswerable truth, you would not see these Benches packed, they would be as empty as they were during our discussions on the great question of national economy. Now, Sir, I think the only person who has made any case for the suggestion that this Motion does not affect His Majesty's Government is my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. He tried to make out that the Government had, with great want of tact, intervened in the lists in which there was going to be a duel to the death between himself and my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham. I do not agree with that statement of my noble friend's; but I cannot pass from his speech without expressing my profound regret at the quite unnecessary methods which he introduced into his treatment of what I understood was a scientific and economic question. Nobody has, I think, ever accused my noble friend of want of courage. I do not know that this House is lacking in men of courage, but certainly there is no man of greater courage than my noble friend in this House, and it h as usually been thought to be an attribute of those who possess courage that they are prepared to recognise that great quality in others. Many accusa-
  288
  tions have been made against my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham. To attack him appears always to be regarded as in order and relevant to any debate, on any subject, Imperial or local, foreign or domestic. The utmost ingenuity of hostility, which sometimes. I grieve to say, has risen to malignity, has been used to vilify him, and yet, in all the vocabulary of attack which I have ever heard levelled against him, I have never until this evening heard it even whispered that the quality that he was lacking in was courage.
  I had hoped to be quite uncontroversial in the remarks that I was going to make to-night, but in what I have just said I have been provoked by the course of the discussion, not to go beyond the proprieties of debate, but to be more controversial than I contemplated when I came down to the House to listen to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banffshire. [A VOICE: You did not listen to him.] The House does me gross injustice. I may have missed the exordium of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I can assure him that I was not so far lacking in Parliamentary manners as to put down an Amendment to his Motion without taking pains to listen, at all events, to the major part of his address. I am only sorry I was not observed. It may be asked why a course which I admit to be unusual has been adopted by the Government in this case; and I will frankly tell the House that it is because, in my opinion, this was not a Motion—couched in the terms which we saw upon the Paper and supported by the speeches which have been delivered in its favour—to which the Government could regard themselves as indifferent. If we were not to regard ourselves as indifferent it was desirable that we should take an opportunity of expressing our views as to the inexpediency of these constant efforts, made from motives quite natural, pardonable, and even praiseworthy on the part of hon. Gentleman opposite, to embarrass the Government and to invent differences

  289
  even where differences do not exist among their opponents—efforts which are based upon a view of Parliamentary government which would absolutely destroy that government if it were allowed to lead to its natural and almost inevitable conclusion. After all, here we are in this country governed on the Party system and by Cabinet government. That inevitably involves the cooperation of a large number of independent individuals who if they do not act together are perfectly impotent, but who, if they do act together, must necessarily make concessions one to the other, and must not present themselves before an astonished country as isolated units with opinions never to be modified in practice by any considerations of the greater common object which binds them all together, and by the necessities inevitable to any free form of institution which is not to fall to pieces amid universal derision. If that be true what does it involve? That you must not ask a greater degree of unanimity among any body of men acting together than is required for their common action. It is impossible that on all subjects, human and divine, religious, political, connected with domestic policy, foreign policy, and all the infinite complexity of questions that come before this House, every individual belonging to one Party or to one Cabinet is always to have not only the same general outlook, but precisely the same shade of opinion. You cannot work the system on that theory.
  Well, what do all these discussions of fiscal policy point to? Do they point to anything which has to be done this session? Or to anything which has to be done next session, or in any succeeding session of the present Parliament? By
  290
  common consent they have no relation to anything which we have been elected to this House to carry out. Have they any relation to the next Parliament? I understand from my noble friend that he anticipates that the general election will not only lead to a reversal of the present balance of political power, but that the Unionist Party will receive a smashing and a crushing defeat. Well, then, it will not be heard of in the next Parliament; so that we are actually asked, not for the first time, for the second, or for the third time in the course of the present session, to pass what is practically equivalent to a vote of censure upon the Government in respect of a question which is not to be dealt with by the Government in the present Parliament, nor in the next Parliament unless that Government is to be returned to power—which, you tell us, it will not be. Well, supposing this smashing defeat takes place to which my noble friend so confidently looks forward, and to which I gather hon. Gentlemen opposite look forward with more satisfaction and with equal confidence, another Government will come in—a great united Government—which will last for five or six years. I take their own estimates, and I think I am moderate when I say six. Very well. There remain then the present session, let us say the next session, two year. Add six to that and we have eight year. Then we have been occupied four or five times in the course of the present session in passing votes of censure upon the Government for what that Government is going to do eight years hence.
  Well, I do not merely quarrel with that, because I think it is extremely ridiculous. I quarrel with it for a much more serious

  291
  reason, and one which truly ought to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite much more than to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. They will admit—I do not want to put a controversial edge on anything I say—but they will admit that through many generations divisions in the Liberal Party have, for reasons well known to all who have studied the subject, been more profound than all those which divide our Party. Both Parties, of course, have had very serious divisions. We were broken up temporarily upon the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1828, which had a very important bearing on what subsequently happened in the great Reform Bill. We were again broken up over the Corn Laws in 1846; and there have been no doubt other oases, though not, so far as I remember, of equal magnitude. But a condition of division of opinion is chronic with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not mean to say it to their discredit, but a couple of generations or more ago the Whig element and the Radical element were always fighting like cat and dog within the Party and the Cabinet, and since then there have been new divisions to which I will not refer, but which are not of less magnitude and importance, and seem to me likely to be as permanent in their character. Now if this House is going to say there shall not be a Party acting together during a Parliament, nor a Cabinet allowed to sit together to manage the affairs of the country unless every member of that Party and every member of that Cabinet are going to say not merely, "We support this or that practical policy," but "for all time we pledge ourselves to this or that particular dogma; for all time we pro-
  292
  mise this and we promise that; for all time we are to be bound by principles going to the root of every public matter, varying not a shred," why, then, I do not believe that you can manage any Party on those principles, but I am quite sure you will never manage the Liberal Party. Therefore I would respectfully give the advice to the House which I have endeavoured to embody in the Amendment which stands in my name.
  That Amendment, Sir, asks no man to express an opinion one way or the other, and is deliberately intended to ask no man to express an opinion one way or the other on the fiscal question, for the simple reason that the fiscal question is not before the present Parliament and that it will not matter one jot either to the constituencies or to the next Parliament what view this Parliament happens to take on the subject. But it does suggest that we ought to refuse to discuss matters like these which are either abstract and relatively academic—I do not object to their being discussed so long as they are academic, but we ought not to discuss them so long as to their academic character there is added something, as there undoubtedly is on the present occasion, in the shape of an attack upon the Government or any section of the Government's supporters. I understand that the hon. Gentleman prides himself on having expressed, in more felicitous language, the same doctrines as I endeavoured clumsily to embody in the Sheffield speech. I do not know that I prefer his redaction to mine, even in the matter of the importation of food; but I would remind him that the views expressed in the Sheffield programme on

  293
  the importation of food were but a small part of the views which I then laid before the country, and the hon. Gentleman has entirely refused to make any reference in this laudatory Motion of his to the scheme as a whole. He has isolated and not very happily expressed a particular portion of it. He has combined that with an attack by implication, a wholly undeserved attack, on many of my colleagues; and we are, therefore, forced to take part in dealing with the matter; and, in my opinion, the only part which we can take with dignity is to say that Motions like this, discussions like this, upon a question not before the House during the present session, not to be before the House in the next session, not to be before this House in any session at all, should be in the interests of Parliamentary government as a whole left on one side. I do not speak simply in the interests of the present Government. Of course, I do speak in their interests, but I say I do not speak solely in their interests. I believe the whole method to be wrong, and that if we are really to remain what we have been, a great assembly, worked upon the Party system with Governments which can rely upon a majority to support their policy as long as that policy is approved, then the methods of the hon. Gentleman are wrong, and those who support him on this side of the House are, as I think, inflicting not merely an injury upon the Government which many of them at all events desire to support, but an injury upon Parliamentary government as a whole. Those observations I address respectfully, but most sincerely and earnestly, to both sides of the House.
  The only remaining topic interests, I admit, my friends on this side and them only. We have put
  294
  down a Motion asking the House to do two things, to put aside these vain controversies which affect this Parliament not at all, and to express their confidence in the Government and in the policy which the Government are endeavouring to pursue. If we have that confidence, if the measures that we have introduced at home, if the administrative reforms which we desire to carry out, for instance, in the Army, if the colonial policy and the foreign policy—of course they do not approve themselves to hon. Gentlemen opposite—but if they approve themselves, as I believe they do, to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, then we ask them to give us that support without which of course it would be vain for us even for twenty-four hours longer to endeavour to carry on the business of the country. If they do not give us that support, willingly do we give up the responsibilities and the labours of office. But all those on this side of the House who think that there are still useful functions that we can perform, who think that a change of policy either at home or abroad might be fraught with disaster to what we, at all events, consider the dearest interests of the nation would surely be acting the most foolish of all parts if, because years hence, as it may be, they differ from something which may be proposed by a possible future Government, they were to bring to a summary conclusion labours undertaken in their interests, and, as we sincerely hope, not in their interests alone, but in the interests of the Empire and the nation at large.
  MR. ASQUITH: We have witnessed to-night an interesting domestic discussion; and those of us who do not belong, as I do not, to the happy household opposite have been content, and I

  295
  think wisely content, to occupy for the most part the position of silent, though interested, spectators. I do not profess myself to be solicitous for the union of the Unionist Party; but I am solicitous—as I hope most of us on this side, and some, at any rate, on the other side, are—for two things; for the cause of free trade and for the credit of the House of Commons. And it seems to me that, in the speech which the Prime Minister has just delivered, he has entirely ignored both those points. He has completely underrated the magnitude of the issue which his Amendment raises. We, on this side, at any rate, cannot look on the proposal of this Amendment as an isolated proceeding; we recall the successive stages of a long and, as we think, not very creditable game of shifts and surprises which has been played upon us during the last twelve months. The time at my disposal is short, but I am going to make use of very plain language. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for this side of the House, that to our minds this is only the latest of a series of steps by which he has sought—he, the Prime Minister of this country and the Loader of this House—to evade Parliamentary discussion, to shuffle off Ministerial responsibility, and to degrade and flout the House of Commons.
  In order to substantiate that statement, let me review very briefly one or two of the landmarks on the road we have traveled. When this controversy arose a year ago, the Government, being then in exclusive possession and control of the time of the House, refused to allow any debate upon a vote of censure. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Yes; censure of what? Censure of a policy which in the same breath they told us they had not yet framed, because
  296
  at that time they were engaged in trying to make up their own minds. I will not refer to the events of the autumn because they do not affect Parliament; but when we reassembled here at the beginning of this year we hoped in the debate on the Address to come at last to a clear understanding of the Government policy. What happened? Minister after Minister rose from the Treasury Bench, and they presented in turn every conceivable view of the fiscal question, but they all relied on the unfortunate absence of the Prime Minister as an excuse for giving no intelligible definition of their general and corporate opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has said that the Sheffield programme is plain enough to any man in the street. All I can say is that not one of his colleagues could understand it, if by understanding you mean not merely intellectual apprehension, which is a thing that goes on inside a man's head, but the capacity for articulate expression. I agree that at the close of the debate there was a flash of welcome light shot across the scene from a wholly unexpected quarter. On the very eve of the division the Home Secretary, who had delivered not the least cryptic of the Delphic utterances from that Bench, in response to an appeal from an anxious and undecided supporter, told us in plain terms that the Government was opposed to any duty on raw material or food. But it soon appeared that in making that statement he had reckoned without his host; for when a few weeks later it was embodied, as we supposed, with the knowledge and connivance of the Government in a celebrated Amendment, that Amendment was mysteriously smuggled out of existence at the instance

  297
  of the friends of the Member for West Birmingham. That same declaration is repeated in the Motion of my hon. friend to-night; and the question I want to put to the Government, to the House, and to the country, is this, Why is it not accepted by the Government? This is not a vote of censure, unless, as ray hon. friend said earlier in the evening, it be a vote of censure to select for approval a declaration made by a responsible Minister, ostensibly on behalf of his colleagues. It is a tribute such as the House of Commons rarely offers. It is a spontaneous tribute, an unsolicited tribute, a tribute which proceeds from both sides of the House.
  If it is not accepted by the Government, what is the reason? I think I can supply the answer. There is one reason, and one reason only. It is because the Government are afraid to accept if. They are afraid, in the first instance, to define any policy at all. They are still more afraid to approve of what may be construed as a declaration in favour of free trade; and they are most afraid of all to seem even by implication to condemn the Birmingham policy. The only inference I can draw is that it is for the same reason and in deference to the same influences that my hon. friend's Motion is to be burked to-night, as the bowstring was secretly applied to the Wharton Amendment a few weeks ago. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—and I am afraid it is the only part of his speech with which I do agree—that there is no real or substantial distinction between the Amendment of the Prime Minister and the Amendment which he himself put on the
  298
  Paper. They are both suterfuges. They are expressed, I agree, in language of varying ambiguity; they proceed, I agree, by more or less devious routes; but they have one common object, and that object is once more to prevent this House of Commons from declaring itself against the protective taxation of food. Speaking, as I said I would, first of all in the cause of free trade, I object to this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask the House to reject it, because it is a capitulation to the Birmingham policy. But I speak also, if I may venture to do so, for the credit of the House of Commons; and I assert in all seriousness and with all deliberation that this Amendment of the Prime Minister's is an affront to the House of Commons. It is an act of nothing less than arrogance for any Minister—I do not care who he is—to come down here and propose that this House should by its own declaration disable itself for the whole term of its natural life—for that is what the Amendment amounts to—from taking any cognisance of that which has become an issue of paramount importance to this country and the Empire. Yes, Sir, and by whom is; this claim made? The claim is made by the Leader of the House of Commons, the man who before all others ought to be sensitive to its rights and its duties, and jealous of its powers. ["He is."] Is he? What is he doing? He is asking that upon a capital question of domestic and Imperial policy this House shall for the rest of its existence sit here with muzzled mouth, fettered hands, and paralysed authority. And why? Is this claim made, is this proposition put forward for any great or worthy purpose? Is it in the defence of

  299
  any high principle? Is it in pursuit of any noble cause? Nothing of the kind. It is put forward for no better and no more respectable reason than to keep together for a little longer in nominal and ostensible unity, men who are fundamentally divided in opinions, and to postpone in the interest of a discredited
  Ministry during a few more ignominious weeks or months the inevitable judgment of the nation.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 309; (Division List No. 127.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Allen, Charles P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dunn, Sir William

  Joyce, Michael

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Edwards, Frank

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Atherley Jones, L.

  Elibank, Master of

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Ellice, Capt E C (StAndrw'sBghs

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Labouchere, Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lambert, George

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bell, Richard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Blake, Edward

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Boland, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bowles, T. Gibson (KingsLynn)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Leamy, Edmund

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Leng, Sir John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Field, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Logan, John William

  Burns, John

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Lough, Thomas

  Burt, Thomas

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  London, W.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Furness, Sir Christopper

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  M'Crae, George

  Carvill, Patrick Geo, Hamilton

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  M'Kean, John

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

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Cawley, Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hain, Edward

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harcourt, Louis V. (Rosendale)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monmth

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, John J.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montr'se

  Crooks, William

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Moss, Samuel

  Cullinan, J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Murphy, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers E

  Newnes, Sir George

  Delany, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(G'lw'y

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norman, Henry

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil WilliamW

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMd

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Runciman, Walter

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

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Tillet, Louis John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Toulmin, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  O'Shee, James John

  Shackle ton, David James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M(Durham)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Partington, Oswald

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Slack, John Bamford

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Price, Robert John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Soares, Ernest J,

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rea, Russell

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Reddy, M.

  Steventon, Francis S.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk,Mid.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Rigg, Richard

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersfd

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Younger, William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Black and Mr. Goschen.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorg'n Gower

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derybshire)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Aird, Sir John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (W'rc

  Pardell, Sir T. George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

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

  Arnold-Forster, RtHn Hugh O.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chapman, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Charrington, Sponer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHnSir H.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Firbank Sir Joseph Thomas

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Olive, Captain Percy A.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fison, Frederick William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

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

  Coddington, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, Kenineth R. (Christch

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Forster, Henry William

  Banes, Major George Edward

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

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj'min

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bhownaggred, Sir M. M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Garfit, William

  Bignold,, Arthur

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Bigwood, James

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S

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

  Bill, Charles

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

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

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Greene, Sir E W (Bury S Edm'nds

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh)

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlts

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Bull, William James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Gretton, John

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doughty, George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  302

  303

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  McIver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Kamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nd'rry)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Hyles

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Scton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude Georgo

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H-(Renfrew)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Skowes-Cox, Thomas

  Helder, Augustus

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Smith, Abel H.(Hereford, East)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Montague, G.(Huntingdon)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Spear, John Ward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Moore, William

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamatow

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stock, James Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C

  Stroyan, John

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hozier, Hn. James Hen. Cecil

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Ox'fdUniv.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Myers, William Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Jessel, Capt.. Herbert Merton

  Barker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Johnstone, Heywood(Sussex)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon.Sir JohnH.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Col. SirCEH (Sheffield)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Kerr, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Keswick, William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Kimber, Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Warde, Colonel C. E

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Law, Andrew Roger (Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Lawrence Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Whiteley, H. Ashton und. Lyne

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

  Randles, John S.

  Whitmore, Charles, Algernon

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesh'm

  Renwick, George

  Wolff, Gustar Wilhelm

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

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Gr.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., (Eskdale)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  McCalmont, Colonel James

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
  And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.