Sitting of 12 April 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Tralee Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Caledonian Railway Bill (by order). Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Cathcart; and Maryhill; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Carluke; Edinburgh ; Glasgow; Law; and Stranraer; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Chester; Dorchester; Edinburgh (three); Leigh on

  1900.

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  Kildare Place, Dublin

  …

  …

  Drumcondra, Dublin

  …

  …

  Baggot Street, Dublin

  …

  …

  Waterford Training College

  …

  …

  Belfast Female Training College

  …

  …

  Limerick Female Training College

  …

  …

  Sea; Tamworth; and Westcliff and Southend; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRE LAND) PENSION FUND.
  Account [presented April 11th] to be printed. [No. 123.]
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
  Copy presented, of Fifteenth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AUSTRALIA.
  Copy presented, of Despatch from the Governor-General of Australia on the subject of Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, and the Reply thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-third Report of the Royal University of Ireland, being for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered February 15th; Lord Stanley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 124.]
  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the total cost to the State of the following Training Colleges, for the five years ended the 31st day of December, 1904:—
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) COM- MISSIONERS (MEETINGS, ETC.).
  Return ordered, "of the number of Meetings held by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in each of the five years ending the 31st day of December, 1904; and the name and number of attendances of each Commissioner in each of these five years."— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the Quantities or Amounts taxed; (3) the Gross Receipts derived from each Duty; and (4) the Net Receipts and Appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1905; and (1) the aggregate Gross Receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts, under the principal heads of Revenue; (2) the aggregate Net Receipts ; (3) the Charges of Collection; and (4) the Produce, after deducting these Charges, on each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1905."
  "And, Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget Proposals of 1905 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 317, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Goddard.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Repairs to Cable of Barrels Lightship.
  MAJOR JAMESON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade when the cable of the Barrels Lightship was last lifted, and by whom it was examined, and if any repairs were done at that time; and, if so, what was the cost of the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the cable of this lightship was last lifted in August, 1904, when it was examined by the chief officer of their steamship "Tearaght" and the master of the lightship. As a result repairs were effected by cutting out all the worn cable to the extent of forty fathoms, and replacing it by the same amount of new cable at a cost of about £70.

  Supply of Drink to Drunken Persons in Ireland—Warning by Police to Pub- licans.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the order issued in December, 1902, to the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary making it part of their duty, when they observe a person under the influence of drink entering licensed premises, to warn the licensee or his assistants is still in force; and, if so, whether it is acted upon in Dublin; and whether, in the interests of sobriety as well as the protection of the licensed trade, he will cause the attention of the members of both forces to be again specially drawn to the terms of the order.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Answer to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The order has been issued in printed form to both forces, and is fully known to the police. There does not appear to be any sufficient reason why special attention should be again directed to it.

  Licensed Premises in Ireland Voluntarily Closed on St. Patrick's Day.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuten-ant of Ireland whether he will state the number of licensed premises which were voluntarily closed on St. Patrick's Day in the cities of Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Gal-way, Waterford, and Belfast; and whether he is aware that there is throughout Ireland a general desire to confirm this voluntary closing by Act of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) In Dublin 585: in Limerick 287; in Cork 18; in Gal way 139; in Waterford 162; and in Belfast none. I have no information upon the point raised in the latter inquiry.

  Line Fish landed in the Island of Lewis by Lewis Boats
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the quantity of line-caught fish landed in the Island of Lewis by Lewis fishing boats for each year since 1870, inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) Fresh fish statistics for the Island were only collected after 1884. Previous to 1889 only the grand totals for the district, which embraced at that period North and

  1385
  South Uist and the Island of Barra, are entered in the fresh fish statistics book.

  Statement showing the quantity of Line Fish landed in the Island of Lewis by Lewis Boats from 1889 to 1904.

  Year.

  Catch of White Fish.

  Cwts.

  1884

  57,561

  The figures from 1884 to 1888 are for the district which embraced during that period North and South Uist and also the Island of Barra.

  1885

  121,154

  1886

  46,635

  1887

  35,341

  1888

  43,635

  1889

  86,753

  Approximate quality of line fish landed by Lewis boats from 1889 to 1904.

  1890

  97,193

  1891

  108,164

  1892

  119,823

  1893

  114,612

  1894

  84,137

  1895

  96,267

  1896

  109,871

  1897

  116,765

  1898

  93,358

  1899

  93,113

  1900

  76,316

  1901

  63,895

  1902

  42,669

  1903

  36,069

  1904

  64,192

  Annual Leave of Belfast Telegraph Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General can he state if the strength of the telegraph staff (male) at Belfast at the present time is under or above the strength of the staff at the time the present annual leave scheme was adopted; and can he say under what circumstances the numbers taking leave at the various periods of the year have been reduced this year from eight to seven notwithstanding that at the time when the scheme was adopted a definite agreement was entered into with the staff that the number should be fixed at eight.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The strength of the male telegraph staff at Belfast at the present time is practically the same as it was when the present leave scheme was introduced. Seven officers were then allowed on leave at the same time, and when the staff was increased in 1901 that number was raised to eight. The staff was recently reduced, and consequently the number allowed away on
  The appended figures are therefore the fullest that can be given.
  leave this year will be reduced to seven for the first part of the leave season, though for the rest of the time eight will be allowed away. So far as I can ascertain no such agreement as that to which the hon. Member refers was made with the staff, and I cannot see how such an arrangement would be practicable, inasmuch as the number to be allowed on leave must depend on the total staff employed.

  Suggested Issue of Books of Penny and Halfpenny Postage Stamps.
  MR. Mc KENNA: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take into his favourable consideration the suggestion that the practice of issuing small books containing twenty-four penny postage stamps, at the price of 2s. 0½d., should be extended, and books containing eighteen penny and twelve halfpenny stamps should be issued at the same price.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In view of the comparatively small sale of books

  1387
  of stamps I hardly think it is expedient to have two different books. A book containing both penny and halfpenny stamps would perhaps be more useful than the book of penny stamps now on sale, and I am considering the question of substituting books containing both penny and halfpenny stamps when the stock in hand of the present book is exhausted. This stock is, however, sufficient at the present rate of sale to last for some considerable time.

  Assistant Postmen's Duties at Cardiff.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Cardiff many assistant postmen's duties extend for more than six hours daily; and whether he will take steps to have these times made into full time established duties, especially in view of the periods some of the assistant postmen have been waiting for appointment.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of increasing the number of full duty established postmen at Cardiff is being considered in connection with a general revision of the postmen's duties which is in hand.

  Aliens in British Prisons—Classification of Offences.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will furnish a classified list showing the nature of the crimes for which the bulk of the 4,833 aliens in His Majesty's prisons are at present undergoing sentences.

  Cause of accident.

  Total number of accidents to persons or property.

  Number of accidents to property.

  Number of accidents to persons.

  Total number of persons injured in accidents shown in column IV.

  Nature of accidents to persons.

  Number slight.

  Number serious.

  Number fatal.

  (I.)

  (II.)

  (III.)

  (IV.)

  V.

  (VI.)

  (VII.)

  (VIII.)

  Horses

  277

  78

  193

  206

  177

  27

  2

  Horse-drawn vehicles

  15,736

  11,711

  4,916

  5,126

  4,473

  543

  110

  16,013

  11,789

  5,109

  5,332

  4,650

  570

  112

  1388
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The figure quoted by the hon. Member is not the number of aliens at present undergoing sentence, but the total number received under sentence in all the prisons in Great Britain and Ireland during the year 1904. The number at present in prison is very much less, only seven or eight hundred. The Royal Commission on Alien Immigration gave in their Report (Vol. III., p. 81) a classification of the offences committed by aliens received under sentence during the years 1889 to 1903. I think that these figures should sufficiently meet the purpose which the hon. Member has in view. The total for 1904 is higher, but there is no reason to think that the proportion of the different classes of offences has altered materially. To compile a similar classification for the year 1904 would involve a laborious examination of the prison records, which I should be reluctant to impose on the hard-worked staff of the prisons.

  Accidents in the Metropolis due to Horse Traction.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many accidents to the person and to property respectively have occurred within the Metropolitan District of London from June, 1904, to March, 1905, due to horse traction; and further to state result of various accidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The subjoined table gives the information which the hon. Member desires:—

  Lighthouse Lenses.
  MAJOR JAMESON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state if a contract, binding the Trinity House and Irish Lighthouse Commissioners to purchase all their lenses from Messrs. Chance of Birmingham, still exists; whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Northern Lights have with advantage purchased by obtaining competitive tenders from other firms; and whether, with reference to the statement of the engineer of the Trinity House to the Mercantile Marine Committee that a certain French lighthouse seemed to be of a better class than that adopted by the Trinity House, he will obtain the cost of building the French lighthouses of La Heve, Griznez, and Ushant.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) A contract has been entered into between the firm mentioned and each of the three general lighthouse authorities, under which the latter, for a period of three years from January 1st, 1904, undertake to purchase their optical apparatus from Messrs. Chance in accordance with a schedule of prices which has been arranged. It is, however, one of the conditions of this contract that the lighthouse authorities reserve the power of putting up to open competition any apparatus for which Messrs. Chance may have submitted a price which is considered too high, and I understand that both the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses have in certain cases exercised that power. The Board of Trade will endeavour to obtain information from the French Government regarding the cost of construction of the three lighthouses named in the latter part of the Question.

  Cost of St. Catherine's, Dungeness, the Wolf, and Fastnet Lighthouses.
  MAJOR JAMESON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state the cost of the lighthouses at St. Catherine's, Dungeness, the Wolf, and the Fastnet complete.
  1390
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I have received the following information from the Trinity House:—

  St. Catherine's:—

  £

  The original building showing an oil light was purchased in 1840 for

  7,855

  The cost of installing the electric light in 1888 amounted to

  12,767

  Total

  £20,622

  Dungeness:—

  £

  The cost of the two new lighthouses and fog signal recently completed is

  21,138

  To which should be added the value of old buildings worked in

  3,000

  Total

  £24,138

  Wolf:—

  The cost of this lighthouse was

  £63,426

  I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the account for the Fastnet is not yet closed, but that the approximate cost is estimated at £83,500.

  Wick Harbour Improvements—Applica tion for a Loan.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that an application has been made by or on behalf of the Trustees of the Wick Harbour for a loan, or a free grant, for the purpose of extending or improving the harbour accommodation at Wick to meet the growing requirements of the fishing fleets on the north-east coast of Scotland, he will say whether it is intended to make a free grant or to sanction a loan for the proposed work, and the conditions upon which same is to be given; and will he explain why a similar application made on two previous occasions has been refused; and whether the circumstances of the applicants have altered since the previous refusals.

  1391
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that an application for a loan has been preferred by the Wick Harbour Trustees to the Public Works Loan Board, who have it now under their consideration. A previous application was not entertained, as, on the occasion of the remission of an outstanding balance on an old loan in 1902, a condition was attached that no applications for further loans of public money should be made. As new facts have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Wick, this condition has now been waived.

  Germany and England—Interpretation of "Most-Favoured-Nation Clause."
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Germany and England interpret the most-favoured-nation clause in the same way; and, if not, what is the difference.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) I am not aware of any case in which the German Government has asserted a different view of the meaning of the most-favoured-nation clause from that held by ourselves.

  Bradford Smallpox Outbreak.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the outbreak of smallpox at Bradford; and whether he would call the attention of the guardians to the importance of the earliest discovery of cases of the disease, and with this view suggest to the guardians the issue of notices to the public urging them to seek medical advice at the earliest opportunity in all feverish ailments accompanied by a rash, however slight.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware that there have been cases of smallpox at Bradford during the present year. The suggestions referred to in the Question appear to me rather to concern the town council than the guardians. I have no reason to doubt that the town council and their officers are taking all precautions which experience has shown to be necessary in dealing with the matter; but, I will draw the attention of
  1392
  the town council to the suggestion of the hon. Member. I may add that nineteen additional cases were notified during the week ended on the 8th instant; and I am in communication with the town council as to the circumstances which led to their occurrence.

  Medical Out-relief at Bradford
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether during the last few years the Bradford Guardians have reduced the number of applications for out-relief, and whether they have discouraged applications for medical out-relief by requiring parents (in the case of sick children) to attend before the board or a committee, or by making the relief on loan in the first instance, or by other means; and, if so, whether he would send a communication to the guardians recommending them to encourage applications for medical out-relief (by those unable to pay for medical advice) in the early stages of illness, and before infectious diseases have developed.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware that some few years since the Bradford Guardians adopted a policy of administration of out-relief, the effect of which has been to diminish the number of applications, but I have no information to show that the action of the guardians has been such as to render it necessary or desirable to send to them a communication of the kind referred to in the latter part of the Question.

  Indian Government Appointments of Value of Rs. 5,000 Per Annum and Upwards created since 1892.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state how many new Indian Government appointments of Rs. 5,000 per annum and upwards have been created since 1892; and how many of these appointments are now held by Europeans and how many by Indians.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I observe that the same information was asked for by the hon. Mr. Gokhale at a meeting of the Council of the Governor-General of India on the 10th March, and that the Financial Member of the Council

  1393
  replied as follows:—"The preparation of the Return asked for by the hon. Member would require a reference to Account Offices, Civil, Public Works, and Military, all over India. It would involve a very large amount of labour, and occupy several months of time. In these circumstances the Governor-General in Council does not feel justified in ordering the Return to be prepared." I therefore hesitate to make so considerable a call on the Government of India.

  French Import Duties on Indian, Chinese, and Japanese Silk Goods.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the duties on Indian silk goods entering France are higher than the duties on similar goods from China or Japan; and whether any negotiations have taken place on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Silk goods of Chinese or Japanese origin, so far as they are not on the free list, are admitted into France at lower rates than are applicable to similar goods of Indian origin. The Answer to the second Question is in the negative.

  Changes in Hong-Kong Garrison.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what changes have recently been made or are about to be made in the garrison of Hong-Kong.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A battalion of Native Indian Infantry has recently been withdrawn, The establishment of the one British battalion is being slightly reduced.

  Volunteer Long-Service Medal—Case of Mr. J. Gibbs.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that Mr. J. Gibbs, of Cable Street, St. George's East, joined the 2nd Tower Hamlets Rifle Volunteers in 1881, and after upwards of twenty years service was transferred to the 1st City Imperial Yeomanry, in which force he still serves, can he see his way to grant Mr. Gibbs the long-service medal in recognition of this long period of service in the Auxiliary Forces.
  1394
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forsler.) As regards the Imperial Yeomanry long-service medal Mr. Gibbs' service in this branch has not been sufficient to qualify him for the medal. As regards the Volunteer long-service medal there is no record at the War Office of any recommendation having been made by the proper authorities.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Singapore—Officers' Barrack Accommodation.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the accommodation provided for the officers of the Native Infantry Regiment now in garrison at Singapore consists of huts partially made of palm leaves; and, if so, whether better accommodation can be provided for British officers and their families in a tropical climate with a rainfall of 200 inches per annum.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question for my right hon. friend. The temporary barracks mentioned are made of brick piers and attap roofs and sides (attap being the leaf of a large flag used locally for thatching). They were designed to last three years and have been in use more than half that time. The married officers' quarters have been reported to be unsatisfactory, and arrangements to provide permanent accommodation are now in progress.

  Judge Advocate General.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by whom at the present time is the office of Judge Advocate-General, to whose holder appertains the duty of revising the decisions of Courts-martial, whose number average annually 17,000, filled; whether it is still the duty of the Judge Advocate- General in all serious cases to present the proceedings of Courts-martial to the Sovereign in person and to advise on the sentence; and, if that duty has been abrogated or modified,

  1395
  when and under what circumstances did the abrogation or modification take place, and what were the reasons for the change.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Pending the vacancy in the office of the Judge Advocate-General the business is carried on by the Deputy Judge Advocate-General. It is not the duty of the Judge Advocate-General to present the proceedings of any Court-martial to the Sovereign in person, but it is his duty in such cases as require confirmation by the King to tender to the King in person his opinion as to the legality of the proceedings, in which the legality of the sentence is included. This duty has not been in any way abrogated or modified. The question whether any modification should be made in the position and functions of the Judge Advocate-General is under consideration.

  Militia and the Short-Service Army.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the position of those officers and men of the Militia who do not desire to be incorporated in the short-service Army, in the event of the battalion being so incorporated.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The position of any officers and men who may not desire to be so incorporated will be unaltered, so far as their appointments or engagements are concerned; but I am not able at present to enter into any details in this matter.

  New Conditions of Army Service.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the conditions of colour service, Reserve service, and pay he proposes for the foreign-service and home-service Armies; and whether recruiting sergeants will have instructions to offer the recruit a choice of home or foreign service.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The information required will be found in the Papers presented to the House last session—Cd. 1907 and Cd. 1910. Recruiting sergeants will, as usual, offer the recruit a choice of those services for which recruiting may for the time being be open.

  The Militia and the Home-Service Army.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by what method it is proposed to decide the question as to whether a Militia battalion shall or shall not be transformed into a home-service battalion of the Regular Army; whether a bare majority of officers or men or both will be considered adequate; and, if not, what proportion will be considered necessary.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question brought forward by the hon. Member does not at present arise, and I think it would be premature to anticipate the instructions which the Army Council may think fit to give upon the subject.
  MAJOR SEELY: Are we to understand that it is proposed to go forward with the transformation of the Militia this year?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

  White Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state how many of the white men at present employed in or about the Transvaal mines are of British origin and nationality; and how many belong to other white nationalities.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): On March 31st, 1904, as the hon. Member will see by reference to page 4 of Cd. 2104, the number of British born employed in the mining industry was 11,408, the number of other Europeans, l,766. I have asked for a similar Return for March 31st, 1905, but have not yet received it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the total include Beit and Eckstein?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Terms of Native Labour Engagements in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies

  1397
  whether his attention has been drawn to the circular of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, dated March 17th, in which it is stated that in future no natives will be recruited in Basutoland and Orange River Colony, except for underground work only and for a period of not less than twelve months; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have not seen the circular referred to.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries.
  MR. LYTTELTON: My mind is open to conviction. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a reason for making inquiries I will do so.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether it was right that the terms of engagement between Kaffirs and the mineowners should be suddenly altered so that the natives should not be employed except for a whole year.
  MR. LYTTELTON: As to the duration of the engagement I will make inquiries.

  Riot at Jumpers Deep Mine.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the cause of the riot on April 9th at the Jumpers Deep Mine in the Transvaal; how many Chinese coolies were concerned in it; how many were arrested; and, if their trial has already taken place, what sentences were inflicted.
  MR LYTTELTON: I have telegraphed for information but have not yet received the reply.

  The Mullah.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Treaty of Agreement which the Mullah has signed was drawn up jointly by Italy and Great Britain; and what are the terms of the agreement.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in reply to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets on March 23rd†. We have not yet received any reply from Colonel Swayne.

  Coroners' Juries—Viewing of Dead Bodies.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that at Bradford a coroner and jury are under observation because they were compelled to view the body of a man who, in the opinion of the medical officer, had been suffering from malignant smallpox; whether, in view of the practice of viewing bodies in such cases becoming a possible danger to the community, he will consider the advisability of again introducing the Bill which in 1879 passed its Second Reading under the care of the then Home Secretary, the object of which was to make the viewing of bodies by coroners and juries no longer compulsory
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): My attention has not been called to the case mentioned by the hon. Member. With regard to the general question of the obligation of coroners and coroners' juries to view bodies, I fear that I cannot add anything to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on March 23rd‡.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion of the majority of coroners is against the practice of viewing bodies?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have no doubt it is in a great many cases, but I am not inclined as at present advised to introduce a Bill on the subject.

  Agricultural Rates Act (1896) Continuance Bill.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  † See (4) Debates, ciliii., 952.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxliii., 931.

  1399
  Agriculture whether he will insert in the Agricultural Rates Act (1896) Continuance Bill a clause providing that in those cases in which it can be proved that the benefits proposed to be conferred by the Bill accrue to the landlord and not to the tenant, the tenant shall have the right to recover the same from the landlord.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): A clause of the kind suggested would, I think, clearly be outside the scope of the Bill, which only extends for a further period the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896,etc., Continuance Act, 1901.

  Postage on Parochial Assessment Notices.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that notices intimating the amount of parochial assessment due, which have hitherto been delivered for a halfpenny, are not now eligible to be included under that class of packet that can be sent for a halfpenny; and whether, in view of the addition to the outlays of the rating authorities and incidentally of the ratepayers that this will entail, he will consider the advisability of revoking this order as far as it applies to the above notices.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): It is true that, before January 1st, 1904, notices issued by local authorities were transmissible for a postage of one halfpenny. When, however, the regulations of the halfpenny post were revised it was found necessary to restrict the privilege of sending notices (other than those which conformed to the conditions applicable to circulars) at the halfpenny rate to officers of a Court of Justice. I am sorry that I do not see my way to alter the decision then arrived at.

  Removal of Shingle from the Lancashire Coast.
  MR. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the result of the inquiry held by Captain Frederick, R.N., into the removal of shingle from the sea shore lying between Blackpool and Fleetwood
  1400
  has been reported to the Board; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take upon it.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAB LAW,): Yes, Sir, Captain Frederick's report has been received and considered, and the applicants have been informed that the Board of Trade are prepared to make an Order under Section 14 of the Harbours Act, 1814, prohibiting the removal of shingle or ballast from the shores or banks of the sea between Blackpool and Fleetwood.

  Wick Harbour.
  SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to state what is the decision of the Treasury upon the application made to the Lords Commissioners for assistance to the authorities of the harbour of Wick in completing the harbour works designed to render Wick a safe harbour of refuge.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I understand that the Trustees, on the representation of my hon. friend, have applied to the Public Works Loan Board for a further loan, and that the application is now under the consideration of the Board. It is an entirely independent body, but as I know the very great interest my hon. friend takes in the matter, the decision of the Board shall be communicated to him as soon as possible.

  Report of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why the Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1903 is only just now issued; and if, having regard to the continued delay which takes place in connection with the publication of this Report as well as the Reports of Irish Boards and the consequent depreciation in their value for different purposes, he will take steps to ensure reasonable punctuality in future.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The delay in this particular case was unavoidable. There is no reason to apprehend that similar delay will occur in future. My right hon. friend has already promised to have those Reports expedited as much as possible.

  Irish Police and Drunken Persons.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the order issued in December, 1902 to the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary making it part of their duty, when they observe a person under the influence of drink entering licensed premises, to warn the licensee or his assistants is still in force; and, if so, whether it is acted upon in Dublin; and whether, in the interests of sobriety as well as the protection of the licensed trade, he will cause the attention of the members of both forces to be again specially drawn to the terms of the order.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Answer to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The order has been issued in printed form to both forces, and is fully known to the police. There does not appear to be any sufficient reason why special attention should be again directed to it.

  Kerry Railway Guarantees.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to relieve the ratepayers in the county of Kerry from the payment of certain railway and other guarantees in accordance with the promise of the right hon. Member for Dover.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member to postpone this Question until Monday, when my right hon. friend, who is now absent on official business, will be in his place.

  Mrs. Adair's Mountmellick Estate.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations are in progress for
  1402
  the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of Mrs. Adair's estate situate at Mountmellick, Queen's County; and whether he can say, as this estate includes the holdings of several evicted tenants, that due regard shall be had to their claims in the disposal of the property.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the negative. If the estate should come before the Commissioners the claims of the evicted tenants will be considered.

  Reenard and Valentia Ferry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what progress has been made with the negotiations for improving the ferry communications between Reenard and Valentia under the Marine Works Act.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Congested Districts Board have offered to contribute £1,000 towards the cost—estimated at £1,800—of erecting a pier at Reenard Point, but no contribution from other sources has been promised. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company, it is understood, are not prepared to cooperate with the Board. The Knight of Kerry stated last year that he was prepared to provide a ferry-boat if the pier were built.
  MR. BOLAND: Are the negotiations still going on?
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not think they are absolutely finished.
  MR. BOLAND: Are no funds to be provided by the Board for carrying out marine works?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that.

  Civil Service Superannuation.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he intends carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission which sat in reference to the present Civil Service Superannuation Act; and, if so, when.
  MR. ATKINSON: This Question is not one which my right hon. friend can answer. It is not for him to carry into effect the recommendations referred to.

  Irish Government Officials—Qualifications Return.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Return ordered as to the qualifications of Government servants in Ireland, whether he can state on what grounds his legal advisers base their opinion that the House of Commons has no power to require Government servants in Ireland to answer interrogatories ordered by this House; whether the Government will sanction any official refusing to supply the information called for by this House; and whether it will be made clear that officials pursuing that course will do so at their own risk.
  MR. ATKINSON: The grounds are that there is nothing in the terms or conditions of the employment of Civil servants, or of the well - established practice of the Civil Service, entitling the Executive to institute ex post facto inquiries into such incidents of their past private life as the place of their education, or obliging Civil servants to answer such inquiries, if instituted. The reply to the second query is in the affirmative, and to the third in the negative.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Do the Government intend to sanction the action of any official who chooses to defy the order of this House?
  MR. ATKINSON: An order of this House cannot compel any man, not a Member, to answer a question which by law he is not bound to.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Who gave this advice to the Chief Secretary? Was it the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  East Cork Quarter Sessions.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the quarter sessions for
  1404
  the division of East Cork, held at Midleton on Thursday last, the calendar did not contain a single criminal case; and whether steps will be taken to accelerate the reduction of the Constabulary in East Cork.
  MR. ATKINSON: The fact is as stated. Five stations in the East Riding of Cork have been discontinued during the past year, and no further reduction is contemplated at present.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: As the police have so little to do could not their services be availed of to protect the Nationalists in the Orange centres of Ulster?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Goold Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Goold Estate, near Athea, in the county of Limerick, are negotiating with their landlord to purchase their holdings; and whether, in view of the number of uneconomic holdings on it, the Estates Commissioners will at once take steps to negotiate with the landlord for the purchase of the untenanted land on the estate to enlarge these holdings before sale is completed and before the land may be otherwise disposed of.
  MR. ATKINSON: No proceedings for the purchase of this estate have come before the Commissioners. They are not negotiating for its purchase, but will consider the question of the untenanted land if the estate should come before them.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the Commissioners advance money for the purchase of the untenanted lands?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.

  Kilmeedy National Schools.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland

  1405
  in the year 1903 required of the manager of the Kilmeedy national schools, in the county of Limerick, any condition for the giving of the grant-in-aid for the building of new schools there; and, if not, why in the year 1904 did the Commissioners require the boys' and girls' schools should be amalgamated in the event of the average daily attendance in the boys' school not warranting the appointment of an assistant as a condition for giving the grant-in-aid towards the building of the schools; and whether he will still insist on the manager agreeing to these conditions before giving the grant.
  MR. ATKINSON: The manager's formal application for a building grant was received by the Commissioners on the 30th December, 1903. The application was not considered during the year 1903, and consequently no condition in connection with the question of awarding a building grant was imposed during that year. The condition referred to was communicated to the manager in 1904, and in taking this action, which it is not intended to depart from, the Commissioners were guided solely by a desire to promote the educational interests of the locality.

  King's County Evicted Tenant—Applica- tion of Patrick O'Brien.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been lodged by Patrick O'Brien, Sisken, Cadamstown, King's County; and, if so, whether, as the estate of Captain French Kinnity, King's County, is offered for sale, a large portion of which is un-tenanted grass land, a farm will be provided for Patrick O'Brien if his old holding is not available.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir. The application will receive consideration if the Commissioners should acquire un-tenanted lands in the locality. Captain French's estate has not come before the Commissioners.

  Mr. Cyril Browne—Irish Local Government Board Auditor.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to
  1406
  the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what qualifications Mr. Cyril Browne possesses for the position of auditor to the Local Government Board; and what was his employment previous to his appointment.
  MR. ATKINSON: Mr. Browne was certified by the Civil Service Commissioners as qualified for this post. The information asked for in the latter inquiry will be found in the Return laid on the Table on March 27th.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is it not the fact that Mr. Cyril Browne, who has given general dissatisfaction, was, previous to his appointment, nothing more than a police official in Dublin.
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir, the information at my disposal is that he gives satisfaction except to the bodies surcharged. His qualifications are fully set forth in a Return I have given.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: But has he any qualification for audit work? Is he a chartered accountant?
  MR. FLAVIN: Is not the objection to the biassed nature of his report rather than to his surcharges?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Irish Local Government Printing Contracts.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board hold with their auditor, Mr. Cyril Browne, that printing is a public work within the meaning of the Act; and, if so, will he state the authority on which they rely.
  MR. ATKINSON: Under Article 33 (2) of the Procedure of Councils Order, 1899, contracts for printing are to be dealt with in the same manner as contracts for public works. The Board therefore hold, with their auditor, that Section 18 of the Local Government Act, 1902, dealing with public works, applies to printing contracts.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Has any decision been arrived at on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware if any decision has been given. I did not give any advice on the point.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Who did advise the Board that this is lawful?
  MR. ATKINSON: The legal adviser.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Who is he?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Musical Piracy.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the leading musical publishers have been compelled to give up publishing any new music as they can obtain no protection for their property from the law as it stands; and whether, under the circumstances, he is prepared to give facilities for introducing and passing legislation dealing with the question of musical piracy.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have seen the statement, to which my hon. friend refers, made by the musical publishers, and I do think the case is one of hardship upon them and of injury to the public, who are, after all, themselves concerned in the prosperity or freedom of musical publications. But when my hon. friend asks me to take up a private Bill I see great difficulty in doing that. I should much prefer to bring forward a Government measure, but I cannot do that if that is supposed to carry with it anything in the nature of a pledge that time will be found for carrying that Government Bill. As everybody who has had to deal with the business of this House knows, there has never been a Government yet who did not desire to pass more Bills than they could find time for in the session, and that especially refers to what I may call Bills which do
  1408
  not deeply touch any great interest or Party controversy Those are Bills which very often it is most desirable to pass, but which it is most difficult to find time to pass, and therefore I can make no pledge on the-subject at all.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEW: May I ask my right hon. friend whether this is not a very exceptional case, considering the large number of men who will be thrown out of work simply because Parliament does not provide a remedy for an admitted wrong, and whether, under the circumstances, he could not undertake to find time to pass a Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is an exceptional case. I think it is a hard case; but when my hon. friend asks me to find time I think the question ought to be, "Will I make time?" With the best will in the world I cannot pledge myself to do that; but anything I can do I will do.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Will my right hon. friend introduce a Bill in order that we may test the House as to whether it would be regarded as non-contentious or not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid a Bill which might be non-contentious in private hands is very apt, through some mysterious law which I will not endeavour to attempt to explain, to become contentious as soon as the Government takes it up; but I will consider whether there is any advantage in introducing a Bill.

  The Colonial Conference.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when an opportunity will be afforded to this House of discussing the terms on which the Colonial Conference of 1906 will be convened.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this Question quite premature.
  MR. SOARES: Is that an Answer to my Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have thought so.

  The Proposed Reduction of the Volunteer Force.
  MR. Mc CRAE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the proposals to reduce the establishment of the Volunteer force by 114,000 men and the actual strength by 45,000 men, he will give an early day for the discussion of the details of the scheme on Vote 5, Army Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given an exceptional amount of Parliamentary time to the discussion of these and cognate questions connected with the Army; and I cannot promise that other business shall be put aside in order to extend still further the opportunities that hon. Members have had of giving their opinions on the subject.
  MR. Mc CRAE: We have not had the details of the scheme, and as Volunteer commanding officers, from what details have been given to them, think it will seriously injure the force, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that a reduction shall not be made in the current year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I can give no undertaking.

  Scottish Church Dispute.
  MR. FINDLA Y: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that churches and manses are being claimed in various parts of Scotland by the legal Free Church, in connection with the erection and maintenance of which the persons so claiming contributed nothing; that many of them were not members of the Free Church at the formation of the United Free Church or even in August last; and if he will take steps to stop such procedure until an opportunity has been given of legislating on the questions at issue.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware, of course, that many churches and manses are claimed in various parts of Scotland by the Free Church. I have got no information with regard to the other portions of the Question; but when the
  1410
  hon. Gentleman asks me to deal legislatively with this subject at once, I can only refer him to the Answers I have been reluctantly obliged to give to similar Questions put to me across the floor of the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is it not the fact that evictions have taken place, and are taking place, in Scotland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards what is actually going on, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper to the Lord-Advocate.

  The Position of Mr. Gerald Loder.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any, and, if so, what precedent within the last thirty years for the retention of the position of the Junior Lord of the Treasury by a gentleman who is not a Member of Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a precedent—I do not, think there is a precedent in the last thirty years—of a Minister of the Crown not being in the House of Commons. I think I gave the precedent the other day which referred to a more important office than that of Junior Lord of the Treasury. But I rather doubt whether Mr. Loder is, as a matter of fact, a Junior Lord of the Treasury at this moment. I think he is not. [Laughter.] I observe that that remark excites merriment, and perhaps the House would like to know exactly why I make it. Under the statute of Anne, a Member of this House vacates his seat on accepting office. That is to say, he need not be installed in the office; he need not have the privileges or the duties of office, but he vacates his seat as soon as he formally announces his intention to accept it. Mr. Gerald Loder did make that statement, he did therefore vacate his seat, but he has never been made Junior Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to discover whether Mr. Loder is or is not an official drawing a salary?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, he is not drawing a salary. He could not draw a

  1411
  salary nor could he legally undertake the duties of the office until the Treasury patent was drawn out.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the office is now vacant or not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  The Appointment of Junior Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in selecting persons to fill the post of Junior Lord of the Treasury, it is customary to choose one from each of the three kingdoms with a view to their exercising a general supervision over the Treasury business of their respective countries which differs in many particulars; and why has this custom, which was first broken on the vacating of the seat of Mr. Anstruther, a Scotch Lord of the Treasury, on taking a permanent Civil Service appointment in 1902, ceased to be observed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The rule to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, I think, the creation of his own vivid imagination.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that I took it from Todd's Parliamentary Government of England, and that it can be proved, as to Mr. Disraeli's case, up to the very hilt?
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to take any immediate steps to fill up the office?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will have full notice of any steps.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman fills up the office, will he find out whether I was justified in putting my Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have found that out. The hon. Gentleman is not justified.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. PROPOSED VOTE OF CENSURE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice— namely, whether he will give a day for the discussion of a Motion in these or very similar terms: "That, in view of recent events in Ireland and the revelations which caused the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, it is in the highest degree desirable in the public interest that the correspondence and other information necessary to enable the House of Commons and the country to form a judgment on the policy and proceedings of the Irish Government since the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell be immediately laid upon the Table."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that this is really a somewhat belated vote of censure upon the administration of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, who has left office more than a month— five weeks to-day. But, of course, it is the privilege of any one in the right hon. Gentleman's position to insist on a day for a vote of censure, even though it be under circumstances so peculiar and unusual as these, and the only question that remains is as to when that day shall be fixed. I hope to get the Speaker out of the Chair to-morrow on the Civil Service Estimates. On Monday I must, I think, take the Second Reading of the Agricultural Rates Bill, and I had hoped to take on Tuesday the Second Reading of the Scotch Education Bill. I understand from a Question put by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark that there is a great desire on the part of Scotch Members to rediscuss a measure which passed its Second Reading last session without a division, and which is introduced this session substantially in its old form. I should have thought that Tuesday afternoon would have been sufficient for the purpose; but if I get an intimation that it is not so, nothing will be gained by having a discussion beginning before Easter and not concluding until some date after Easter, and I will endeavour to make other arrangements. The question arises whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks Tuesday afternoon will

  1413
  be sufficient for his purpose. I am anxious to bring on a vote of censure as soon as I can when notice has been given, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his opinion is on that point, because if his reply is unfavourable I shall have to fix some early day after Easter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should think it unlikely, but still I have to consult others. On the face of it, Tuesday is not a convenient day because of the Easter holiday being so near. It is most inconvenient to Scottish Members to take Scottish legislation immediately before or after the holidays.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It would be very inconvenient to take this debate before Easter, for one reason because everybody hopes to see the right hon. Member for Dover restored to health and in his place during the debate. Manifestly it would be most desirable that that right hon. Gentleman should be present when the debate takes place.
  SIR. HOWARD VINCENThoped that no arrangement made would defer the introduction of the Aliens Bill.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked on what day the Unemployed Bill would be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Both these Bills will be introduced before Easter under the Ten Minutes Rule—probably one will be taken on Monday and the other on Tuesday. After the appeal made to me by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, I feel it would be impossible for me to press on the vote of censure before Easter, and, therefore, I must try and make some arrangement to bring it on after Easter. I presume I shall not be asked at the moment to give a date, but, of course, it will not be either on the first or the second day after we come back.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman used the word belated in reference to the vote of censure, and I would like therefore to
  1414
  point out that its "belation," if I may use the word, is largely because the right hon. Gentleman told us that the late Secretary for Ireland would make a statement. We greatly regret the cause of the delay.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!

  THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
  MR. BUCHANAN: How long will the Easter holidays last?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not wish to be absolutely pledged, but he thought the most convenient arrangement would be that they should take the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays on Wednesday afternoon, the Motion being so framed that the House at its rising at 7.30 p.m. should separate for the holidays. He should probably suggest that the House reassemble on Tuesday, May 2nd.

NEW BILLS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  "To provide Pensions for Persons over sixty-five years of age," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Mr. Burt, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Keir Hardie, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Sir Albert Rollit; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Coroners' Inquests in the case of Fatal Accidents on Railways," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. Schwann; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]
  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS BILL.
  "To provide that no Prosecution under the Vaccination Acts shall be commenced without the authority of the Guardians" presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Brigg, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Corrie Grant, and Mr. Bell; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  INCOME-TAX.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Income-Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and five, at the rate of one shilling in the pound."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. Mc KENNAmoved a reduction from a 1s. to 11d. in the £. He did not complain because the surplus of revenue over expenditure was to be devoted to the purpose of reducing the duty on tea. Of course, the Motion would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to redeem the pledge which he gave last year, but he did not put his Motion forward in regard to that; he should leave hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they-wished to attach importance to it, to take notice of it during the course of the debate. There was the obvious objection to the Motion that, the surplus having been disposed of once, it could not be disposed of again; but there was a way by which the surplus might be increased, and the method he should suggest would, he thought, give the Committee an appropriate opportunity of relieving the payers of the income-tax.
  There was a current phrase that the income-tax was a war tax. In its true sense, that phrase could not be supported, in view of the fact that we had been in the grip of the income-tax during fifty years of peace; but there was a sense in which the description was true. In the first place, it was obvious that the income-tax was the first resource of a Chancellor of the Exchequer when, in times of war, he wanted to raise additional taxation; and, secondly, there had been for many years a close relationship between the amount of money raised by the income-tax and the expenditure on the Army. He had taken out figures of our income-tax revenue for the last twenty years, the amount collected and the cost of the Army in times of peace. Taking three
  1416
  periods of ten years apart, 1885–6, 1895–6, nd the current financial year, 1905–6, he found a very remarkable coincidence between the growth of the expenditure on the Army and the growth of the income-tax. In 1885–6 we collected in income-tax £15,800,000 and our expenditure on the Army was £17,100,000. The next ten years the amount collected on the income-tax rather declined than increased, and during the same period the expense of the Army was practically stationary. In 1895–6 the income-tax had only risen by £400,000 to £16,200,000, and the cost of the Army had risen during the same period from £17,100,000 to £18,400,000. During the last ten years the amount collected on the income-tax and the cost of the Army had gone up by leaps and bounds till this year the income-tax was estimated at £31,000,000 and the cost of the Army at £29,800,000, so that it appeared the extra money raised by the income-tax had been largely devoted to the extra cost of the Army.
  The Army Estimates for this year were, he submitted, disastrous; they were Estimates for an Army not in time of peace, but in time of war. Last year the Secretary of State for War said he would not again be responsible for such Estimates, but he had been again responsible, and responsible for Estimates increased since last year by £1,000,000. It was the extravagance in the Army that he wished to aim at by the reduction of the income-tax. It was not as if they had got a good and effective Army. They were still ignorant about the organisation of the Army, and could get neither an explanation from the Secretary of State for War of his Estimates nor any promise of reduction. The extravagance had been rapid; stores were bought at the close of the financial year merely for the purpose of reselling at the beginning of the new financial year. What was to be the resort of the Committee under these circumstances? They must attack the problem from the other side; they must refuse to give the ways and means by means of which this extravagance could alone continue. If they refused 1d. of the income-tax, they could insist upon the Secretary of State for War cutting his coat according to his cloth; they would tell him that, in the opinion of the

  1417
  Committee, he was spending too much money upon the Army and that he must reduce his expenditure. He particularly connected the expenditure on the Army with the increase in the income-tax, and it was for this reason—on the ground of the enormously swollen expenditure on the Army—that he begged to move the reduction of the Income-tax by Id.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 3. to leave out the words 'one shilling,' and insert the words 'eleven pence.'" Mr. McKenna)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words; one shilling' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  MR. FLYNNsaid the income-tax pressed very hardly upon Ireland, because, when it was first proposed, he believed in 1850, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day gave a distinct undertaking that it would only be imposed in Ireland temporarily, and that promise had never been redeemed. For more than half a century there was a differentiation between Ireland and England, and Ireland had no sympathy with England's enormous expenditure which alone necessitated an income-tax of 1s. in the £. He agreed in the selection of tea by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for relief, and he believed the Irish representatives would prefer to see the duty on tea, a necessity of life, reduced. But the hon. Member for North Monmouth had demonstrated the close connection between the income-tax and the war expenditure, and they were perfectly in order in forcing economy and retrenchment upon the Government by this method if no other were open to them. Last year there was a distinctly implied promise of economy given by the Secretary of State for War, but it had not been carried out. If, however, they did not furnish the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the necessary money in the shape of a heavy income-tax and other swollen taxes, the great Departments of the State would have to retrench. He had always been of opinion that the income-tax payer was one to which respective Chancellors of the Exchequer turned with a light heart, because, somehow
  1418
  or other, though he supported the Tory Party, and though he grumbled, writing long letters to the papers, he was a long-suffering animal, and it was this comparative immunity with which they had been able to keep the tax at such a high rate which accounted for the indifference with which they treated the claims of the income-tax payer to relief. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the income-tax payer was the first individual entitled to relief, and he could have kept, his promise if he had served notices upon the Army and other Departments that the Treasury would not sanction certain expenditure. He might have told the Secretary of State for War that he wanted him to redeem his promise to effect economies. Expenditure, however, was regulated by policy, and they all knew very well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no control over policy. It was inspired from another source. Until the House realised that it was one of its primary duties to scrutinise and control expenditure, the work of the Committee would be waste of time for any practicable purpose. Protests were useless unless the House made up its mind that for the future it would scrutinise the Estimates and insist upon economy and retrenchment.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he agreed with what the mover had said, and he saw no inconsistency in any Member of the House voting in favour of the Motion on the ground on which it was based. He quite understood the Chancellor's position. He had a certain amount of expenditure to provide for, and he was not going to quarrel with him for the way in which he proposed to provide for it. He had a certain surplus to apply in reduction of taxation, and he (Sir Henry) thought the taxpayer who, had a tax imposed upon him after the war, and totally irrespective of the war— the consumer of tea—had the first claim, The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore would not understand him as finding fault with the arrangement of his Budget, surplus. But the House of Commons had a duty behind all this. He heard, rather with some surprise, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's definition of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He rather reduced the

  1419
  Chancellor of the Exchequer to that of a Treasury clerk, whose duty it was to provide what the services required, but that he himself was but one of the Cabinet, whose responsibility, of course, he shared. This, he ventured to say, was not the view which the great Chancellors of the Exchequer of the past had taken. The phrase that Mr. Gladstone used was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was "the guardian of the public purse." The individual members of the Government, no doubt, in their respective Departments, all desired to make those Departments as efficient, and in one sense as costly, as possible, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the position of watch-dog upon the whole general expenditure of the country, had a responsibility which no other member of the Cabinet had so distinctly; and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not forget that one young Chancellor of the Exchequer of the past, who was a Tory Chancellor, a Unionist Chancellor, resigned his position because he would not concur in the military expenditure which had been proposed by his colleagues. He did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take that course, because he gathered from him that he entertained the opinion that whatever was thought necessary for the safety or good government of the country it was his duty to sanction. He did not hold that doctrine himself, because every head of every Department thought his expenditure was necessary. He would take a broader ground.
  They were going to raise from the people of the country during the next year between £150,000,000 and £160,000,000 by taxation. He ventured to say this was more than the country could afford to pay. He could understand a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a time of war saying he could not stop to say whether this or that was necessary, and that it was not the time to effect economy. The time to effect economy was the time of peace, when it was a duty to reduce expenditure already sanctioned for war. Let them look at what was done after the Great War. In 1816 or 1817 the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed an indisposition to interfere with the income-tax, though it
  1420
  had pressed upon the nation for many years. The Tory House of Commons, because there was practically no effective Liberal Party in the House of Commons then, would not submit to it, and the Government had to withdraw their scale of expenditure by abandoning the income-tax altogether. He was not asking the right hon. Gentleman to do that. He was asking what every Member of the House believed in his inmost heart could be done by a strong Government—that the Army expenditure should be reduced to such an extent as to enable a reduction of the income-tax. The House had never been in such a position before. Twelve months ago they had a pledge from the Secretary of State for War that he would not stand at the Table to propose increased Estimates again, and now they had this enormous, and almost intolerable expenditure after the war had been ended two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was really imposing a penny in the £ on the income-tax in order to keep up expenditure, when the House of Commons really did not understand what it was for.
  He should certainly vote for the Amendment, on the ground that the country was spending too much, not only on the Army, because it was not confined to that. The right hon. Gentleman said the House of Commons was always asking for, increased expenditure. He knew it did, and it always would. They rarely heard a proposal by a private Member to reduce expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a difficult position. He had to face both his Cabinet colleagues and the House of Commons who wanted expenditure. This was his duty. It was his duty to defend the public purse, as it was the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Commander-in-Chief of the Army to defend the country in time of war. There was a perpetual war going on; and from something he said yesterday he gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not look with a very favourable eye on the Estimates he had sanctioned, and he did not think he would have found fault with his colleagues if they had proposed less Estimates. He thought he would have discharged an unpleasant but a necessary duty if he had said: "We

  1421
  must next year spend so much and no more. I will not be responsible for Estimates which involve a large expenditure, and I will not sanction Estimates which do not enable me to keep my pledge to the House to take a penny off the income-tax." He submitted to him with very great respect that he had failed in his duty in not insisting upon a reduction of expenditure. The Chancellors of the Exchequer came and went, but the House of Commons did not, and he was sure it was the strong opinion of the country that the expenditure was increasing and ought to be diminished. He thought when they came to face their constituents it would be their view that there should be, and must be, a reduction on our national expenditure if we were to maintain our present national credit and position. On that ground he ventured to support the Amendment.
  MR. PEELasked if the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement as to the method of the collection of the income-tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): In a narrow sense that is almost outside the subject of this discussion. I do not mean to suggest that it is out of order, but I think we had better finish this discussion before we discuss particular methods of collection. Not one of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken and have expressed their intention of voting for the reduction is opposed to the particular financial measures which, under the circumstances of the year, I have taken. What they challenge is the expenditure, not the manner in which I propose to provide for it. They have indeed alluded, both the mover and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, to a statement I made in reference to the income-tax last year. That statement was to the effect that, in my opinion, the income-tax of 11d. as it then stood and 1s., as I was going to make it, was too much to exact from the income-tax payer as a permanent contribution in times of peace and left us, from the point of view of national finance, which is even a more important consideration, too small a margin on which to draw in the
  1422
  emergency of war. And I said that, in my opinion, the increase I proposed in the income-tax at that time—that the income-tax payer would have the first claim to relief whenever relief became possible. I do not change that opinion; I hold it now as strongly as I held it then, but it is an opinion shared by no hon. or right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERdissented.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; he would not support it. If having money for the relief of the direct or indirect taxpayer, I had appropriated the whole sum at my disposal for the relief of the income-tax payer——
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that what he said was that he agreed that the consumers had the first claim in respect of taxes put on subsequent to the war.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the difference. I do not know that it is of great practical importance at the present moment, because I cannot give effect to my opinion. I have stated distinctly that in my opinion the claim of the income-tax payer came first of all, if I had sufficient money to give effect to it. The first duty, before any relief was given, was, in my opinion, to make greater provision for the paying off of the Debt. I think it essential to the soundness of our national finance that an adequate attempt should be made to pay off the Debt. I therefore adopted measures for that purpose before considering relief at all. Having done that, the amount of surplus I had available was insufficient to carry out my cherished wish of giving relief to the income-tax payer, and, being insufficient for that, I devoted it to the other purpose. I hardly know whether it is necessary for me to make that explanation, but the right hon. Gentleman a little while ago challenged me to reconcile what I was doing with the statement I made last year, and it is for that reason I make it.
  But what is of more immediate and practical interest is the criticism which

  1423
  the right hon. Gentleman passed upon what he conceived to be my idea of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the description I gave yesterday was reducing the position of the Chancellor to that of a mere Treasury clerk. I do not know whether he includes under the description "Treasury clerk" those whom I imagine command the highest respect and admiration for their able public service and whose assistance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he should be the, last person to say anything disparaging of the distinguished men who served the Treasury. What he meant by "mere Treasury clerk" was an official who had no discretion, but who was bound to carry out instructions he had received from his superior officers.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I so understood. He meant that I was ceasing to regard the position as that of a Minister with high responsibility of his own and a special responsibility for the guardianship of the national finances; and that I was regarding myself as a mere instrument to provide whatever expenditure the heads of each Department might in their discretion think it necessary to demand. Nothing that I have said gives the slightest ground for such a supposition as that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is and always must be in a very special sense the guardian of the national finances, but I think it would be a great mistake if he so separated his interests from those of the other Departments of the Government as to allow his colleagues to suppose that they were not also guardians of national finance, and that though they had not a responsibility in his direct and immediate manner, and not necessarily all the knowledge at his command, they had not a very real and great responsibility to secure as far as in them lay that no public money should be wasted in the Departments over which they presided. I think we can easily exaggerate the difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer who looks only to the desirability of lowering taxation or securing reduction in our expenditure,
  1424
  discharges but one-half of his duty. He as little performs his duty as the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty who looks only to obtaining everything he can for the Navy or the Army, and has no regard for the demands made upon the national purse. We all have a common responsibility, and we each have a special responsibility to discharge. I have only been a party to Estimates when I thought they were necessary for the safety or the good government of the country. The right hon. Gentleman knows there is a considerable reduction in the Navy this year, and the increase in the Army Estimates was caused by the necessity for re-arming the artillery, and, as long as the Government were not doing this, hon. Gentle men opposite were loud in their condemnation. I think it is a little unreasonable that they should turn round and denounce me for providing money for doing that for which they were willing to denounce the Government when it was not being done.
  The three main sources of expenditure are military, naval, and financial; and the interests of the three are sometimes different and conflicting. I might almost say that they are always different and always conflicting. The result is that in any given year there must be something in the nature of a compromise between the exigencies of finance, and military and naval defence. When I was at the Admiralty I used to be told that the design of a battleship was the result of a compromise in respect of defensive power, speed, coal endurance, and other factors. So it is with the problems of finance. In military, naval, or civil expenditure, you must balance the pros and cons against one another; and it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being to see that the spending Departments make a good case, as far as he can judge, for the demands put forward, that against those demands there have to be set the disadvantages of high taxation or a heavy debt, and that due weight is given to all the financial considerations which must affect the rate of our expenditure. That is my conception of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to take account of all

  1425
  these factors, to secure from his colleagues that they shall take account of them also, and not to separate himself wholly from the interests of military or naval defence or think that his whole duty is discharged if he can come down to the House of Commons and say the Estimates of the year are one or two million less than the year before, having no regard as to the cost at which the reduction is to be obtained.
  Of course, our taxation is high, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentlemen who appear to believe that it is much beyond the means of our people. I do not believe we are unable to bear even this high taxation, though I sometimes think we might distribute it in such a way as to cause less friction and to make it less burdensome than it is at present. One thing I will venture to observe to the Committee. It is the repetition of an observation made many years ago by Sir Stafford Northcote. Unless you are prepared to continue, at any rate, a great part of the taxation you impose in war time, you cannot have any reduction in the burden of the debt created by the war. It is only by continuing a proportion, at any rate, of the war taxes that you can hope to reduce the burden of debt incurred during war. That should be our first consideration. It has been my strong contention. It is upon that conviction that I have acted, and it is owing to it that I am obliged to keep the income-tax at the present high rate. No one is more anxious than I am to relieve the payers of it. I am probably more anxious than any of my critics who are supporting this Motion on the other side of the House.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to associate himself with a statement which had proceeded from both sides of the House as to the Treasury officials. In his opinion it was rarely that any country possessed officials so able and high principled as those who were in the Treasury. Indeed he thought he saw some of the best qualities of the Treasury officials in this very Budget, and that was not the case in every Budget. As to the situation which had been brought before the Committee by the Chancellor of the
  1426
  Exchequer, in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman had exercised sound discretion in the course he had pursued. It was very much better that he should do as he had done in making provision for the reduction of debt, which was the worst burden of all, rather than take off taxation. There was, of course, the other underlying question, whether he had advocated sufficiently, and if he had advocated sufficiently, whether he had been adequately supported by the Prime Minister in his advocacy of that frugality which was our first need. On that point he could not agree that all had been done that could be done. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were committed to an expenditure this year of £150,000,000. It was really £170,000,000, because in addition to the budgeted amount of £141,000,000, there were interceptions of revenue, for local taxation account, £9,700,000; expenditure chargeable against capital, £9,000,000; and appropriations-in-aid, some £10,000,000; all of which were receipts and all expenditure. If these three items were added to the £141,000,000 the expenditure was really and truly close upon £170,000,000. It was well that the House and the country should remember the expenditure was not alone that which was budgeted for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that in addition under the present system there were irregular loans and irregular interceptions for local taxation account or appropriations-in-aid. In short, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Exchequer total they had to add £30,000,000.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: You must deduct what comes from the Post Office.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought not, but he would rather not go into that question now. Our national accounts professed to be, should be, and by Act of Parliament were declared to be, accounts of receipts and expenditure, and as soon as they left that system for the present system of leaving out of the account vast and increasing items on both sides, so soon did they get into misrepresentations and into incapacity for comparing one year with another.

  1427
  But at what was even more important was the urgent and pressing need for retrenchment. This had not been duly recognised. His earnest conviction was that the limits of economy and frugality had not been reached, nay, had been scarcely approached, by this Budget. There were opportunities for effecting reductions in expenditure not by hundreds of thousands but by millions. They might save several millions on the Army and some millions more on the Navy. The Navy expenditure was an extraordinary example this year of what could be done by the exercise of intelligent retrenchment without loss, but rather with gain, of efficiency. He would suggest that the same kind of brain power should be applied to the Army. He would apply it also in some measure to the Civil Service, where instances could be found of three or four men doing one man's work. It was in small economies and strenuous frugalities the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find the most useful engine for effecting reductions in expenditure, and he should have the support of the Prime Minister in that most useful and necessary course of procedure. They had heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol that he had not that support.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but at the same time I do not like to sit while he is referring to the relations between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer without saying, at any rate, that I have from the first day I took office received the fullest and most generous support that anyone could desire.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was exceedingly glad to hear that, but neither his own efforts nor the support of the
  Prime Minister had so far produced any great or any adequate economics. When the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and stated that there was to be a reduction of £5,000,000 on the Army and another £1,000,000 on the Navy, and that he had in that the support of the Prime Minister, then he should attach high value to the support given to the right hon. Gentleman. He again impressed on the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the absolute necessity for strenuous frugality. He did not believe the country was unable to bear the burden of taxation imposed upon it now. He was one of those who believed the country was very rich and prosperous, and that it would become more rich and prosperous so long as we adhered to our present fiscal system. But certainly the Debt had been rising in a way which was calculated to produce the greatest forebodings on the part of everybody who had paid the slightest attention to the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had recognised that the Debt must be dealt with, and he had dealt with it in a bold manner. But there still remained the bedrock of the whole thing. To pay off debt was good, but the exercise of constant frugality was even better. Although those who had studied the accounts had been alarmed at the career indulged in and were pleased at what had been done to deal with the situation so far as it went, yet they were very far from believing that sufficient economies had been achieved, and they looked forward to economies of a very much larger amount than had been shown in the present year.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 166. (Division List No. 135.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bigwood, James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Bill, Charles

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Bingham, Lord

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Banner, John S .Harmood-

  Bond, Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N. W

  Randles, John S.

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somerset, E

  Renwick, George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kerr, John

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W (MileEnd)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N R

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cubitt, Hn. Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Smith, Rt. Hn. J Parker(Lanarks

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Spear, John Ward

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Stroyan, John

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

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

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B' ghs

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tuff, Charles

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Moore, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und.-Lyne

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Garfit, William

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

  Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Percy, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Greene, Sir E. W (Bury S Edm'nds

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Younger, William

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'donderry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bell, Richard

  Boland, John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Benn, John Williams

  Brigg, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Black, Alexander William

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Blake, Edward

  Broadhurst, Henry

  1430

  1431

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Parrott, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden),

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Perks, Robert William

  Caldwell, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cameron, Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Johnson, John

  Price, Robert John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Reddy, M.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shackleton, David James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Crombie, John William

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Devlin, Chas. R. (Galway)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Dillon, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  McCrae, George

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thompson, Dr E. G( Monaghan, N

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

  McKillop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Toulmin, George

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Moss, Samuel

  Wallace, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murnaghan, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O' Doherty, William

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Young, Samuel

  Hammond, John

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

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O' Dowd, John

  TELLERS OF THE NOES—Mr.

  Harwood, George

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  William M'Arthur.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned;"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)—put, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. Mc CRAEsaid now they were approaching the general question of the income - tax there were one or two words he wished to say to the Committee both with regard to the incidence of the tax and its effects on the taxpayer. On that side of the House they heartily approved of the remissions of taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and also of his proposals, although they did not think they went far
  1432
  enough with regard to the reduction of the Debt. But while saying that they felt that the income-tax payer had rather a grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not refer to anything the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have said last year. He took the broader view that an income-tax of Is. in the £ on a peace basis was certainly far too high. If they considered that the income-tax for the year 1900, the year before the war, was £18,750,000, and in the year they had now entered upon was £31,000,000, or an increase of

  1433
  £12,250,000 over what it was five years ago, it must be agreed that those people who paid income-tax had reason to complain of the burden placed upon their shoulders.
  There were two ways in which the income-tax payer could be relieved. The first was by way of reduction in expenditure. That had already been referred to, the other was by the Chancellor of the Exchequer applying himself to new sources of revenue. Expenditure had already been dealt with, but he would just like to point out that apart altogether from loans, as to which there was a difference of opinion whether they should be added to or not, the ordinary revenue expenditure for the year, including local taxation, was £152,000,000 compared with £102,000,000 for 1894. That was an increase of their ordinary expenditure over 1894 of £50,000,000 per annum, which was a very serious charge upon the nation. He was not going to go into new sources of revenue which would take the place of the present and give some relief to the income-tax payer. He would deal with one source only—the licensing duties. It had been conceded that an increase ought to be made in the duties appertaining to licensed houses, and he was quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have got from that source a sum equal to 1d. on the income-tax.
  With regard to the income-tax itself, they had to consider whether it was fairly imposed. He was not going to deal with the question of graduation, but he wished to say a word in favour of the principle of making a rebate on the income-tax on incomes which were derived not from permanent investments but from the labour of the individual. He thought they ought to make a distinction between permanent and what were called precarious or wasting incomes. He was not going to go into that at any length, because last year they had a very interesting discussion, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was supported in his view by Mr. Gladstone and he (the speaker) was supported in his view by Lord Beaconsfield; so it was rather an interesting discussion, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not
  1434
  accept the Amendment which he proposed, because he did not see his way to give effect to it, and because he regarded it as unworkable, still he thought they had the Chancellor's sympathy with regard to the claim that the man who was working and establishing an income had over a man who was deriving his income from realised investments.
  With regard to the incidence of the income-tax, there was another point he would like to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was an exemption in the income-tax, whereby fines paid on the demise of property or on the renewal of leases were exempted from income-tax. That was entirely unfair to the trader, because if the trader made £1,000 extra in his business for the year he had to pay income-tax upon that £1,000 supposing he was going to invest it. But if he speculated in property and incurred a fine in respect to that property, if he went to the income-tax authorities and was enabled to satisfy them that he was going to invest that money he had received in respect of the renewal of a lease he was exempt from income-tax. When he raised that question last year, the Chairman ruled it out of order, because a private Member, of course, could not move an Amendment whereby the produce of any tax was to be increased, and, therefore, he would commend this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was only by initiative on his part that anything could be done. With all due respect, he thought it was rather a fine point whether the mere exemption he suggested would decrease the produce of the revenue to such an amount as to interfere with the existing taxation.
  There was another point on which there had been some little discussion, and that was with regard to the collection of income-tax. They had heard a good deal about the hustling of the income-tax payers during the last few months, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that he received from more effective collection an extra sum of £800,000 within the last financial year. He made a calculation and thought the Chancellor had received a larger sum than that. What he wanted to point out,

  1435
  however, was that even with the accelerated collection, the collection of income-tax in England was very far behind that in Scotland, and there was an injustice to Scotland, generally in this respect. He raised this question on a former occasion, and the Secretary of the Treasury was good enough to grant a Return showing the collection for three years as between England and Scotland. The result was that it was shown that on February 28th, 1901, there had been collected in Scotland 93 per cent. of the income-tax for the year, while in England there had only been collected 53 per cent., the result being that on that date there was outstanding the large sum of pound;14,200,000 of income-tax. The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to give a Return on similar lines which had just been placed in their hands that morning, and while it showed that the collection of income-tax had somewhat improved in England, the percentage collected up to the end of February was still far from satisfactory, because he found that taking that year the percentage collected in Scotland was 95 per cent. That meant that at the end of February practically the whole of the income-tax had been recovered in Scotland, and there was a very small sum outstanding of only a few hundred thousand pounds. When he came to England, notwithstanding this hustling they had heard so much about, they had only been able to collect 62 per cent, of the income-tax on February 28th. The total charge for income-tax was £29,500,000 and on February 28th they had only collected pound;18,500,000. So that there was a very large margin—£11,000,000—of income-tax outstanding unrecovered at the end of February of this year. What did that mean? It meant that they were losing interest on that sum—taking it as outstanding for a month only and at 2½ per cent.—of about £20,000 a year. Comparing the percentage recovered last year in England with the percentage recovered in 1901, he found there was an increase of practically 9 per cent., and if they took that upon the income-tax which had been charged it would be seen that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received within the financial year a much larger
  1436
  sum than the £800,000 which he estimated as having received extra.
  On the question of the income-tax there was another very interesting point as to the relation the income-tax ought to bear to the Exchequer balances, because it was on the Exchequer balances that the Treasury had to be financed for the early period of the year. The Exchequer balances were very much better than last year, amounting to a little over £7,000,000, the same figure as in 1866 when Mr. Gladstone said they were a sufficient but not an ample provision. But in that year the total charge for income-tax was only about £9,000,000, and, therefore, the Exchequer balances were only three-quarters of the whole amount of the charge that was to be imposed for income-tax, which of course meant that even supposing the income-tax was not recovered until the last quarter of a year there was money in the Exchequer to finance the Treasury really up to the amount which was to be received in income-tax. But this year the Exchequer balances only amounted to the same amount as in 1866, although the charge for income-tax was £31,000,000, which of course meant that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early periods of the year must borrow largely on Ways and Means. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had perhaps rather underestimated the income-tax for the coming year. He estimated to receive, at Is. in the £, income-tax amounting to £31,000,000. He told them 1d. of income-tax would produce £2,600,000, and taking it at that the return ought to be £31,200,000, because he took it the Chancellor would get really a sum equal to the full produce of 1d. in the £ for this year because the arrears that were still outstanding from last year would be collected at 1s. instead of 11d. as lastyear. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, was very much handicapped by his predecessor reducing the income-tax in the previous year by 4d. in the £,which meant a loss of £10,500,000 to the Revenue. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer who made that reduction on account of the vicious system of large arrears only lost within the financial year a sum of £8,500,000, therefore the £2,000,000 had to be provided for by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought

  1437
  from the figures he had given the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that, notwithstanding all the alleged hustling, the collection of income-tax in England only amounted to 62 per cent, as against a collection of 95 per cent, in Scotland at the end of February. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman or the Inland Revenue authorities would not relax the efforts they had made, but accelerate collection. Otherwise the complaints which had been made by Scotland during the last three years would be accentuated. One gratifying feature of the collection in Scotland was that owing to this disparity having been pointed out a certain amount of latitude had been given to Scotland. But at the end of February not only was collection better than it was before but the percentage had increased, which showed that the system of collection there was far more efficacious for recovering this tax than the system in England. He thought that something should be done to reorganise the system in England in order to make the collection more speedy. It must be remembered that the income-tax payer was bearing a very heavy burden, especially in the case of a man with a small income, and he certainly did feel that some remission ought to be made in this impost both by way of the reduction of expenditure and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer applying himself to new sources of revenue and broadening the basis of taxation.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYexpressed his opinion that the present time was more than any other in the past the time for enforcing the consideration of this tax. Many years ago, when the tax stood at 3d., 4d., and 6d., it was thought necessary to make the tax a fair one and make it really an. income-tax, but now it had risen to 1s. and when, in spite of all the hopes they had had, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had to come down and admit that it could not be reduced, and that though it was a time of peace and reasonable prosperity he must still exact the 1s., it was obvious that the time had come when they should consider more than they had done in the past the way in which the tax was levied and its unfair incidence.
  1438
  This tax was called an income-tax, but it was not really an income-tax, and the persons who suffered most were persons of small means and small traders. Small traders especially were made to pay more than they should, and they were about the most stable of the whole community. They did not agitate or make a fuss, but bore the burden put upon them. He considered that the whole question of income-tax required special attention at the hands of the Committee. The mode of assessment and of appeal from the assessment required very careful rearranging. The mode of assessment appeal was a grotesque anomaly, it was the most absurd system of adjudication that was ever attempted. The appellant went before some person and stated his case, and was then excluded from the room whilst the person interested in maintaining the assessment remained behind, and in the end the assessment remained the same as before the appeal. Now that it was recognised that this tax was to be permanent the Chancellor of the Exchequer should put it upon the best possible basis, and he pressed the right hon. Gentleman to see that the system of appeals on assessment, and the mode of assessment, should be so modified as to be fair to those who wished to appeal.
  He further advocated that a distinction should be made between industrial and spontaneous income. He had always felt that that was a question which the House ought to consider. It was obvious that it was politic and desirable in every way that they should not take from the man who had to keep his family and himself out of an industrial income the same amount as they took from the man whose income was received from spontaneous sources, because the man who earned his living by his own energy had to provide a great deal more than the man who obtained his from investments. He had to insure his life, and in other ways provide for his family in the event of his being cut off. There was no doubt that a different scale should be adopted for spontaneous and industrial incomes. He had always opposed the idea of a graduated scale of income-tax because he believed it would be impossible to carry it out, but this was another matter

  1439
  altogether. It would be a very easy thing indeed to have two different scales.
  He did not regard the attempt which had been made this year to collect the revenue earlier than was the case in former years as a regrettable incident. This tax was due on the first of January, and the right hon. Gentleman was right in seeing that it was collected without, delay. Many of our taxes were now paid in May or June, and if the right hon. Gentleman put pressure on those who paid late very little harm was done. It was of course a little hard upon the people that this tax should only be paid once a year. It was only since this system was introduced by Mr. Lowe that that had been the case, and it would be very difficult to alter now, but there could be no doubt that the best mode of paying taxes was at short dates.
  The real question of the income-tax turned on the question of expenditure, and he strongly protested against the income-tax remaining as high as it was at present. It was a danger to the finance of the country. At one time 6d. was thought to be too high, and the fact must now be faced that it should not exceed that amount and some means must be found of bringing it down again to 6d. It would not be in order to go into the fiscal policy of the country, but it was obvious that with the income-tax at 1s. it would be difficult in time of war, in a case of sudden, emergency, to find an elastic source of income. He protested against the present rate of the income-tax, but it was of no use to do it without being prepared to reduce expenditure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were always speaking in favour of a reduction of the expenditure, but did not go into the details beyond suggesting that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 should be taken off the naval and military expenditure. The burden on the country had been increased in many ways besides that. Those who had studied the Civil Service Estimates would see that they had increased very largely. The amount that was now being spent on primary education was simply fabulous, and large sums were being spent on secondary education, and the burden of taxation was being increased in every way. They must face the fact that this taxation must be decreased,
  1440
  Expenditure had increased in all directions, and proposals were now being made in favour of Imperial grants for the unemployed, for the feeding of school children, and so on, which, if carried out, would increase the national expenditure to an alarming extent. Assistance was given to the education of all classes, which he thought was quite unnecessary, and he strongly objected to the State paying all fees, but so long as the present course of expenditure continued the income-tax would have to be maintained. The tax was undoubtedly too high, but it could not be reduced until substantial reductions were effected in expenditure. Meanwhile the burden was so heavy that the Government were bound to see that the incidence of the tax was more fairly adjusted, and that the unjust pressure which existed in regard to different classes should be as far as possible removed.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONassociated himself with the view expressed by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh with regard to the collection of income-tax. The view that the collection in England had been unduly retarded as compared with Scotland was borne out by the Return issued that morning, from which it appeared that at the end of February there were £11,000,000 outstanding in England, whereas in Scotland the amount outstanding was only £131,000. But the point now before the Committee was whether the right hon. Gentleman had not under-estimated the amount he would receive this year. Personally, he did not see why the "hustling" in England should not be continued, and in that case the amount would probably be found to have been underestimated. While he did not complain of the amount of the tax, he fully agreed with the complaint that it was not properly graded. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should give his attention to that subject, with a view to ensuring that those whose; incomes were dependent upon their brains should pay on a lower scale than those who derived their incomes from investments. The rate of 1s. in the £ was not, in his opinion, too high, and he had never been able to understand

  1441
  why it should be regarded as so intolerable a burden; he would far rather see deduction from the sugar duty than from the income-tax. The great complaint was as to the manner in which it pressed upon some classes of income as compared with others. A man who depended upon his brains might through illness lose the whole of his income, and through having to pay at so high a rate have been precluded from putting by as much as he would otherwise have done, whereas the man who derived his income from Consols would suffer no diminution of means through illness.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINinstanced a case in which a man inherited a business with a capital of £20,000 which had been accustomed to yield £1,000 annually, and asked whether that £1,000 was derived from brains or was it spontaneous income.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONadmitted the question was not an easy one. All he suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman should look into the matter. Certainly very responsible opinions had been expressed in favour of such a differentiation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: By whom?
  MR. MUNRO FURGUSONsaid the question had been gone into, and opinions of some value had been expressed to the effect that the tax should not be the same upon all classes of income. Although he did not object to an income-tax of 1s., he thought it was right to call attention to the large amount that was being levied upon the country in consequence of want of economy. Economies were necessary in various Departments, and in none more than the Army, where he believed the greatest waste occurred, and in connection with which economies of several millions could be effected. If, therefore, he voted against the tax it would be with a view to securing those economies in the public service which were so loudly called for.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that as
  1442
  the grievances of other classes in connection with the collection of income-tax had been referred to, he desired to bring forward the grievance under which landlords laboured in the matter. He knew it was not a popular grievance to raise, in fact he feared landlords did not always receive that fair consideration which was extended to other classes of the community. Certainly with regard to taxation they paid far more than their fair share. During the last few years the question had become a very pressing one. As levied upon land in the past, there was not much to be said against the income-tax, but several alterations had since been made. The fact that the tax was much higher than it used to be made it more important that the basis of assessment should be fairly arrived at. As a result of Sir W. Harcourt's death duties, a far heavier burden had been imposed upon land than formerly was the case. Land and personal property had been placed on practically the same footing. The assessment was now made on the gross rental, with an allowance of one-sixth in the case of houses, and a deduction of one-eighth in the case of land. He submitted that those deductions were nothing like adequate. All hon. Members desired that the tax should fall fairly, and that people should pay on the incomes they received and no more; but he was convinced that an income-tax of 1s. would mean for almost every landowner a tax of 14d. or 15d. upon their actual incomes. Those deduction were not nearly enough between the gross income and the net income. He would quote one of the greatest financiers the country ever had—Mr. Gladstone. Speaking upon the question of what deduction ought to be made in the case of agricultural land, Mr. Gladstone said that the deductions that ought to be made from gross income included the charges for repairs, building, fencing, and drainage, as well as insurance, law charges, and arrears and abatements of rent. If anybody went into the question and looked into the working of any estate in the country and deducted from the gross income what Mr. Gladstone said should be deducted to arrive at the net income, he would find that every landowner in the country was paying 2d.

  1443
  or 3d. in the pound more than other classes.
  He knew the case of the landowners was an unpopular cause to plead, but there was a feeling that justice should be done. He would much rather it was plainly stated that the landowners had to pay the extra amount than that it should be done by indirect methods. The professional man and small trader no doubt had their grievances, but they could always under Schedule D show what the profits of their business were. Some years ago a very valuable concession was made to the occupiers of lands when they were allowed to be assessed for income-tax under Schedule D, and he thought some equally fair concession should be made in the assessment of real estate for income-tax. The chief objections of Mr. Gladstone and John Stuart Mill to the income-tax was that it promoted extravagance, and also was a burden on the most conscientious and those who showed their profits fairly, and in the particular case to which he referred it was only just that the Government should do away with the inequalities of the tax, especially when it stood at such a high figure, and thus do justice to all classes of the community.
  *MR. SOARESsaid that although he voted for the reduction moved that afternoon he was not particularly sorry that the Government had retained the income-tax at 1s., because it would call the attention of the country to the enormous Estimates they were now being asked to pass. The ordinary man in the street was saying: "Here we are in times of peace; we have had no war since 1900, and we know that £3,500,000 have been taken off the Naval Estimates, and yet we have this large income-tax of 1s. in the £." When the taxpayers thought this matter over there was only one answer they could find, and it was that this was all due to the extravagance of the present Government. He thought it was more or less satisfactory that the Government had taken 2d. off the tea duty and had refused to reduce the income-tax, because it showed the power which the working classes had even over the present Administration. This was proof positive that
  1444
  no Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever venture to tax corn for the benefit of the wealthy landlords of this country. He would much rather see a reduction of indirect taxation than of direct taxation, although he did not think that the income-tax in its present form was a just tax.
  One of the fundamental principles of taxation was that they should put the burden on the shoulders of those who were most competent to bear it, but the income-tax under its present conditions did not comply with that principle. The income-tax was wrong and unjust because they refused to graduate it. It was not fair that a man with an income of £1,000 a year should pay an income-tax at the same rate as a man with £100,000 a year. It was a much greater burden for a man with £1,000 a year to pay £50 than it was for a millionaire to pay £500. He might be told that there were great difficulties in the way of a graduated income-tax. He would make a suggestion for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would suggest that they should commence to graduate all incomes larger than incomes which are now wholly or partially exempted. They should have a minimum income-tax payable on all these incomes, and then everybody would make a return of the amount of his income and pay a second income-tax on a graduated scale. The minimum tax should be paid at the source and the graduated tax would be paid by means of a return. It might be said that that would be too inquisitorial, but all merchants at the present time made returns and they were people to whom the secrecy of the income-tax was most important because they did not want their neighbours to know the amount of their business. He did not see why, by some such process as this, they could not succeed in graduating the income-tax.
  He should also like to see a differentiation of the income-tax. He knew that to a large extent the death duties effected that purpose, but still he thought they might very well go a little further in that direction. He thought they were all agreed that

  1445
  the burden of the income-tax was much harder on the people who earned their incomes than those who derived their incomes from investments. ["No, no! "] Then they were not all agreed upon the point. He admitted that there were considerable difficulties in the way of differentiating the income-tax when they had one man companies and businesses formed into companies for the more convenient sharing of the annual profit. Businesses were frequently turned into companies for family reasons after the death of the owner, and it was certainly unfair that such businesses should pay one rate before the death of the owner and another rate after. He knew that a Committee was now considering this matter, but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give them his opinion and advice with regard to graduation. They wanted to know whether he thought such a tax was possible, and he sincerely hoped he would be able to give a favourable answer to the question.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESreminded the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the graduation of the income-tax had been shown to be impracticable by every Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the present time two-thirds of the income-tax was levied at its source by deduction, and unless they abandoned that method they could not have graduation.
  MR. Mc CRAE: Lord Beaconsfield made that proposition.
  *MR. SOARES: You can pay the minimum tax and that would be collected at its source, and everybody who has an income above a certain amount makes a return and pays upon it.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought that if the hon. Member reflected he would find that what would have to be paid on all deducted duties would not be the minimum but the maximum duty. That would be the only way of levying a graduated income-tax. This question had been so often considered by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer that he did not think it could be advanced by further examination. They were told that a man who
  1446
  earned £1,000 a year by the exercise of his brain power was in a different position to the man who got £1,000 a year from invested property. Of course, a man who got £1,000 a year from his invested capital was richer than the man who got the same amount by his brains, for he had the capital as well as the income, but the difference between them was this. The man who earned the money with his brains left, when he died, no capital to tax, while the other man left money which was taxed to a very considerable extent. In regard to the incidence of the income-tax as such, it seemed to him exactly equal in both cases. They taxed the £1,000 a year income by income-tax so long as it lasted, but when it ceased the tax ceased. In the case of the man with £1,000 a year derived from capital his successor went on paying income-tax. Therefore, he did not see that there was any hardship. The income - tax followed the income and when the income ceased the tax ceased. It was perfectly true there was the difference that the one man left capital, and the other man left none. But that was provided for by the graduation in the estate duties. There was a graduation at a man's death which acted as a cumulative income-tax. Surely that was enough graduation for the time being, But whether it was or was not, he should be very much interested to see any feasible plan, either from the hon. Gentleman opposite, or from the body now inquiring into the question of the income-tax, as to the graduating of the tax.
  The noble Lord behind him complained that the ownership of land was unduly taxed in respect of income. But the noble Lord had not established that—he had, indeed, left unnoticed certain features of our system which suggested an exactly contrary conclusion. He was waiting to hear a reference to the Agricultural Rates Act which gave a very large exemption of rates to agricultural land as compared with other property, but although himself a prospective landowner the noble Lord left that entirely out of account. He compared the ownership of land with the occupation of land, pointing out that

  1447
  whereas the owner could not return his profits under Schedule D, the farmer who occupied could. But there were few who did it, for the simple reason that the farmer often knew perfectly well that he was a great deal better off under Schedule B than he would be under Schedule D. The farmer had the advantage of being able to choose whether he would be taxed under Schedule B or D. The noble Lord further said that lands and personalty were on the same footing under the Finance Act of 1894 as to estate duty. The fact was that they were on an absolutely different footing in consequence of an arrangement made between the late Sir William Harcourt and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. Land paid scarcely more than half of what personalty of the same saleable value paid. The reason was that instead of being valued as personalty was, it was valued on a special scale set down in the Act. They first took the gross rental, then made deduction for repairs, insurance, management, and a variety of other items, which reduced the rental of the land to a low figure. The Act prescribed that the capital value for the tax should not exceed twenty-five times the minimum rent thus arrived at and this fictitious capital value of ten did not amount to more than half of the value of the land if sold. If land was valued at its real value it would pay, not what it did now, but about twice as much.
  As to the income-tax it was one of the best taxes in its essence, nature, and principle which they could have. It was one of the cheapest to collect. It left no residue behind it in the hands of the tax collector. The Revenue got the maximum amount, and it had the very great advantage that the man who paid the tax knew he was paying it. It could not be concealed from him, and it gave him a direct interest in the amount of taxation he bore, and consequently in the amount of the national expenditure, and, therefore, a direct incentive to resist national extravagance and to support retrenchment, our great present need. These were very great advantages indeed, and entitled the tax to most respectful treatment on the part of the Committee. He wished to point out that of the total revenue of
  1448
  this country of all classes, only one-half came under review for assessment of income-tax, and only one-third paid income-tax at all. The figures for 1902–3 showed, according to the accredited mode of estimating it, that the total income of all classes amounted to between 1,700 and 1,800 millions, and that the gross income of all classes brought under the review of the income-tax department was 879 millions, which was, broadly speaking, about one-half. Of the 879 millions brought under review only 608 millions had income-tax levied upon it. He was not going to say that that was entirely wrong, but the remarkable result was that the third which paid income-tax paid a great deal more than it would have to pay if the other two-thirds paid as well. If it were possible to tax all the incomes of the country—he was not going to argue that it was possible—the result would be that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer instead of getting £30,000,000 from the tax would get his £90,000.000, or he could reduce the rate of the tax from 1s. to 4d. and still get his £30,000,000. He well understood the propriety, he might almost say the necessity, of exempting from income-tax the smallest incomes. He thought it was right that the man who got £1, £2, or £3 a week should be exempted, but he had never been able to see the necessity or the justice of extending the exemption to the man who got £12, £13, or £14 a week as had been done. That was where a considerable alteration might be and should be made. The exemptions and abatements above £160 should be largely reduced. The effect of that would be that either the rate of the income-tax could be reduced, or, as he would greatly prefer, some of the onerous duties, such as that on sugar, could be taken off. In this way, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in referring to the present reduction of the tea duty, relief would be given to every household. If this could be done there would be an advantage in two ways. They would get rid of the greater cost of collecting Customs duties, and substitute the lesser cost of collecting the income-tax.
  Of the five classes of assessment of income-tax there was one which operated in the most outrageous and extraordinary

  1449
  manner. He referred to the assessment of profits from business under Schedule D. The system only required to be explained in order to show that it was perfectly unsound. The assessment was made on what was called the "three years average." An average was an abstraction dear to the statesman and ridiculous to the practical man. Take the case of the man who in the first of the three years earned £3,000, in the second year £2,000, and in the third year £1,000. On the average he had a profit of £2,000, and on that he was taxed, although his income was only £1,000 and on the declining scale. He paid twice as much as he ought to pay, and he was entitled to their compassion. Take now another man, who in the three years to be averaged earned successively £1,000, £2,000 and £3,000. He also paid income-tax on £2,000, but that was on £1,000 less than he ought to pay—and he a man rising in prosperity! The man whose income was declining, and who perhaps was approaching bankruptcy, paid double what he ought to pay—the man whose income was rising, and who was on the road perhaps to becoming a millionaire, paid less than he ought to pay. That system of averaging was not applied to Government officials or to those who derived their incomes from stocks and shares. Each paid on his year's revenue. There would be no difficulty in applying the same system to the two men he had instanced. In his opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought seriously to consider whether he could not abolish the system of averaging. There was another point from which great encouragement might be derived. The rich had been getting richer, but happily so too had the poor, and in greater degree or at all events in greater numbers. That was a happy result and long might it continue. The great numerical increases of income were not in the number of millionaires, but in the number of men with from £300 to £600 or £700 a year, incomes which made it possible for a man to live in comparative ease and comfort. That was one of the most encouraging things shown in the Report of the Income-Tax Commissioners. It was a very remarkable thing that the little fish were increasing enormously in number, very much
  1450
  more so than the big fish. He meant to vote for the income-tax proposal, for though he had thought it might be useful to the Committee to suggest the defects in the manner in which it was levied and how these defects might be remedied, the tax itself was a good one.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that they had had a considerable amount of detailed discussion as to the conditions under which this tax ought to be applied. He thought there must be some misapprehension as to the assistance likely to be derived in the settlement of this question from the Committee now sitting on the income-tax. As he remembered, the reference to that Committee dealt entirely with methods of administration, so that they could not look in that direction for any solution of the difficult points that had been dwelt upon that afternoon. But, if this Committee was to report soon and successfully, he thought it would be well worth the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether a similar Committee should not be appointed to inquire into the facts as a whole, with a view to deliberation on and settlement of the points of difficulty that had been referred to. He had risen mainly for the purpose of saying a word or two in defence of the income-tax payer. What had been said for the income-tax payer that day consisted, for the most part, of complaints about the excessive expenditure which had left the income-tax at 1s. in the £. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had had many compliments paid him on his Budget. He was not going to withdraw one of these. He heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the candour and courage he had displayed; but if this Budget had been proposed ten years ago every man in the House would have risen up in arms against it. To propose 1s. income-tax in a time of profound peace was an utterly discreditable thing to this Government and the country. He had listened without any emotion to the complaints against the expenditure laid down in the pages of the Budget. He shared the feeling of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. He regarded as worthless the complaints made on both sides of

  1451
  the House against expenditure which led to this large income-tax at that time of day. Why did hon. Members select this time of all times for rating against expenditure? Why did they not make their complaints earlier this year, last year, and the year before that? If the expenditure was crushing now, it was because of the policy of the Government, which few in the House had the courage to denounce three years ago, when we were under the shadow of the accursed war in South Africa.
  MR. FIELD: What about the Irish Members?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he acknowledged that hon. Members from Ireland did, and with them he was in perfect agreement. The complaints about excessive expenditure ought to have been made three or four years ago and, therefore, he had listened with complete disregard to them now when the bill came in. But he wanted to suggest to the Committee and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the income-tax payer had his grievances, although these were shared by other taxpayers. He was afraid that the income-tax payers were themselves largely responsible for the huge expenditure; but, still, they had a right to protest that every penny of taxation unnecessarily laid upon them was a wrong done to them. The defect of our system of finance was that this and every previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, on both sides, had wilfully, at any rate deliberately, shut their eyes to sources of revenue not dependent on taxation at all. It was not necessary to impose income-tax to meet expenditure if the money could be got from other sources. One of the just grievances of the income-tax payers was that they were being called upon by two or three great Departments of State to pay money for services which were not alone services to them.
  Hon. Members knew perfectly well that the Navy was not for the exclusive defence of the people of these islands. It was for the defence as well of the self-governing Colonies. One neglected source of non-tax revenue he referred to was the inadequate contribution of the Colonies towards the
  1452
  expense of the Navy for their naval defence. He was glad to see there had been some improvement in that respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that at the next Colonial Conference the Prime Minister had, as he understood, pledged himself that it would be made a matter of primary consideration that the Colonies should pay an adequate share of, or contribute towards, the expense of the Imperial Navy. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke strongly in favour of that principle. They knew where they were about the Navy; but what about the Army? The Army was a much more serious thing from that point of view. He was sorry the Secretary for War was not present, but if he understood the principles of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Committee of Defence, the Army was not wanted for the protection of the income-tax payer at all. The Prime Minister had said that the defence of this country might safely be entrusted to the Navy, and that if anything was wanted in the way of superfluous security that to be found in the Volunteers and Militia. What a big Army was wanted for was not the defence of the United Kingdom but of the outlying parts of the Empire, and if a contribution were to be paid by these in respect of the Navy, a much larger contribution should be demanded in respect of the Army.
  Another grievance of the income-tax payer was the result of legislation in respect of sugar. If the Sugar Convention were abolished and the sugar tax were increased the consumer would not be indemnified, but the income-tax payer would be relieved. There was another possible source of revenue, the neglect of which was a grievance to the income-tax payer, viz., the taxation of land values. That subject was going to be discussed on a private Bill on Friday, and, therefore, he would only now say that if land values were taxed as they ought to be and the proceeds of that special taxation were handed over to the local authorities, the Imperial subvention now given to the local authorities could be withdrawn.

  1453
  The State would be directly benefited. and the income-tax payer could be relieved of 2d. or 3d. in the pound on the amount now taxed. He must associate with this question a point bearing on the very energetic speech made by the noble Lord opposite in defence of the landlords. He believed, with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that under the present system the discrimination was all in favour of landed property as against personal property. He suggested that if the doles to the landlords were withdrawn 1d. in the pound of the income-tax might easily be taken off, even after saving the rights of the tenants by enabling them to deduct their increased contribution from the rent they paid.
  But the most serious point of all was one he had again and again impressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer without the least effect. It was perfectly ridiculous to contemplate the scandalous condition attaching to licence duties. The law had got into a condition without parallel in the system of this country. Whereas there were three kinds of duty upon some owners of property, the Excise duty had not been touched at all. Neither the present Chancellor nor his predecessor would undertake that matter, and no Liberal Chancellor, he was bound to say, had done so. But he held a settlement of that matter to be incumbent upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the future. What were the facts? They had a system under which the smallest house was charged at the highest rate and the largest house at the lowest rate. If they applied the scale of ad valorem duties all round by charging great houses the same as little houses, instead of the £1,750,000 which the duty yielded now, they would have £3,000,000. That had been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have not admitted that the yield would give that; I do not think it would.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it was a matter of arithmetical calculation. He took the value of public-houses as a whole, large and small, exclusive of Ireland and Scotland. In England and Wales
  1454
  alone the value was £7,000,000 a year. If they were taxed at the same rate as the smallest village inn the result would be £3,500,000 of taxation, which was nearly £2,000,000 more than the yield at present. The right hon. Gentleman would say, no doubt, that the high tax would probably drive them out of the trade altogether. Some people might say so much the better. But he did not for a moment believe that such would be the case. He did not believe it could be affirmed that 3 per cent ad valorem was a proper duty in the case of a great London gin palace and 50 per cent. ad valorem in the case of a small house in the country. Unless more details were given to him he must stand by the arithmetical result which showed on the face of it that by merely doing justice in England and Wales they would add to the Revenue nearly the equivalent of 1d. in the £ of income-tax. But when they had done that they had only toadied the fringe of tint great question. He believed from the best calculations he had been able to make that an equivalent of 4d. in the £ on the income-tax might even be attained, and he contended that the income-tax payer had all the more right to complain of the burden that was laid upon him in the knowledge that such a burden would not be necessary if the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day had the courage to look facts in the face and deal with that monopoly.
  *SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsaid his duty to his constituents compelled him to make a protest against the continuance of the shilling income-tax so long after the termination of the war. Although he proposed to vote for the tax and for the Resolution he would do so with reluctance, feeling, somewhat like the gamekeeper who was detected attending Divine Service, that he was doing wrong all the time. He was not one of those who favoured a policy of retrenchment except that by not purchasing what we did not want and getting good value for what we did want he thought that no great reduction was possible in our national expenditure. This was an age of progress, and they all knew that what was called progress marched hand in hand with expenditure.

  1455
  There were upon the programmes of both political Parties, social reforms which would mean the provision of many millions annually. Therefore he thought Chancellors of the Exchequer would in future have to exercise themselves in the direction of getting new sources of revenue rather than turning on the old taps first a little one way then a little the other way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that he was reluctant to branch out in any way. His Budgets were for the purpose of marking time and not to facilitate that march forward which would doubtless be the policy of the future. In that respect, as marking time, they were admirable Budgets, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on their production. One point he wished to enforce was that, at a time when trade was depressed, when rates and taxes were high, when everyone almost was feeling poor, that was not the time to keep money, that was largely supplied by the income-tax payer, for the purpose of paying off debt. The time to reduce debt was surely times of plenty and prosperity and not times of adversity. It was said that this affected our national credit. What a poor credit the nation must have if a million more or less made any difference. He unhesitatingly said that if that money had been applied to the reduction of the income-tax rather than that of debt, it would have been much more useful and much more satisfactory to the people of this country.
  He did not wish to be critical, but he represented a great many poor income tax payers, and although he contended that increased revenue might be needed, yet he could not agree that the income-tax in its present incidence, even in face of that need, should continue to make the contribution it now did. Until some graduation was effected that tax ought not to be submitted to without protest. Incomes of a temporary and permanent character could not be classed under the same head. The equality of sacrifice was not the same. One was earned by an expenditure of the vital force, of energy and brain, and that capital might become exhausted by illness, disease, or death, while the permanent income could be passed on intact after the life of its
  1456
  possessor to other people. The right hon. Gentleman last year when he was speaking on this subject contrasted the case of a widow with an income of £500 a year with that of a professional man earning £10,000 a year, and he argued that the case of the widow, even with her permanent income, was the more worthy of consideration. He (the speaker) was not disposed to dispute that. He thought that the man who was earning £10,000 thought a great deal less of income-tax than the man with a permanent income of £10,000 a year, but he was thinking of incomes, earned with difficulty, of £500 a year or so and which were in proportion probably of 1,000 to one to the other incomes. These incomes might be lessened by illness or disease or might cease altogether by death, while the permanent income of the widow would be passed on to others after her life. That was the difference between a temporary and a permanent income, which ought not to be classified for taxation under the same head. The incomes of small shopkeepers, traders, professional men, and soldiers and sailors ought not to contribute in the proportion they now did at whatever level the tax stood. Unless some effort was made to reform the incidence of this tax it would create well-merited resentment in this country. In this generation original sources of taxation were urgently needed. They had been found in the past. Sir William Harcourt devised the death duties which he (the speaker) thought would never be erased from the fiscal system of this country, and which posterity would think a great deal more of than we did at present. Posthumous taxation of great fortunes, which were in these days made with great celerity, must be sound equitable finance, and without this tax which produced £17,000,000 the year before last we should probably have had an eighteen-penny income-tax. He could only deplore that when Sir William's colleagues came to consider these difficult and perplexing questions they would not have the benefit of his co-operation and advice. On the other side of the House, when India was in want of money they put on duties all along the line and so filled the Exchequer of India. He thought that for bold finance they

  1457
  on his side of the House might sometimes take a lesson from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  He did not know of any rule of political economy as to the absolute incidence of direct and indirect taxation. No doubt indirect taxation was the most popular form of taxation. Indirect taxation was like an operation with an anesthetic. It did not hurt because it could not be felt. Direct taxation was like having a tooth out without an anesthetic. It made them squeal. In his opinion any great reduction in our national expenditure was impossible, and he thought the financial thought of this generation should be directed rather to the provision of a larger Revenue than of keeping down that which we had in view of the great present and prospective demands both for social reforms and Imperial purposes, and in order that the people who were heirs of the progress of the past might enjoy some of its legacies and succeed to some of those advantages which were the heritage of democracy, the birthright of our higher civilisation, and which, without waiting for the convenience of political Parties, would doubtless be demanded and probably enforced.
  *MR. FIELDpointed out that so far as the income-tax was concerned Ireland ought to have been left out altogether. The income-tax was put on by Mr. Gladstone after the famine in order to pay off a certain sum of money lent to Ireland by means of a Consolidated Loan, and it was then understood by this House that when that amount had been paid the tax was to be taken off—previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had refused to levy an income-tax on Ireland because of the poverty of the country—but, instead of the income-tax being taken off, Ireland had now to pay more than her due proportion. That was admitted by the Financial Relations Committee, which acknowledged that Ireland was over-taxed by £2,750,000 a year. He agreed that direct taxation was, perhaps, the most perfect way of levying a tax, but he held they were paying too heavy Imperial taxes in Ireland.
  The whole system of this tax required readjustment. He believed in a graduated
  1458
  income-tax. He also contended that a difference should be made in favour of incomes derived from brain work and industrial pursuits, because those earnings were derived from temporary sources and might be stopped at once through illness or bankruptcy, whilst the income from spontaneous resources was more secure and permanent. These two incomes were entirely different in their nature and in their source, and there ought to be a different application of taxation. He was aware that Chancellors of the Exchequer had for generations refused to consider this matter, but he contended the Committee was not always to take the ipsi dixit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether a thing was practicable. In the year 1853 some inquiry was made about instituting a system of graduated income-tax. That was a long time ago and we had travelled since then on the fiscal road of reform, and was the Committee to-day to be told that because in 1853 this House was unable to find a process by which a system of graduated income-tax could be carried out it could not be tried at any future time? He was aware that in Ireland even the intermediate teachers were assessed on a miserable fee of £15. Was it a fair proposition that these poor intermediate teachers should pay the same rate of taxation as a millionaire? The hon. Member for North Islington and the hon. Member for King's Lynn both stated that they could not understand how such a scheme could be put into operation, but the House had never endeavoured to do it, and he was perfectly convinced that if a Committee were appointed to consider the question, measures would be found to carry out the ideas which occupied the minds of a great number of income-taxpayers. There could be no doubt that, while some had to pay too much, others paid too little. As a business man he had had some very disagreeable experiences of the income-tax. The Surveyor of Taxes annually assessed, hypothetically, the supposed net profits after a schedule had been sent in, or in many cases not forwarded by the taxpayer. An average of three years was taken as a basis, although this average system was often misleading, for business was subject

  1459
  to great fluctuations. Further, competition was greater, money scarcer and labour dearer, which should be considered. The schedule was difficult to understand, and it had to be filled up within a certain number of days or the opportunity to appeal was lost. If the schedule was properly filled in in time the appeal was heard by three gentlemen who started, apparently, with the idea that everything they were told should be strongly disputed. It struck him as being a most inquisitorial and extraordinary proceeding, and one calculated to inflict great annoyance to an honest man subjected to the process. He also suggested it would be useful to the Treasury and the officials employed if a little more courtesy was extended to the taxpayers. He had no objection to pay his fair share of the income-tax if legally liable, but he objected to be worried, harassed and disbelieved. He hoped the result of this debate would be to reduce the annoyance caused to business men by the prevailing methods of assessment, appeal and collection of income-tax. If supported, he should like to organise a strike against the payment of income-tax in Ireland. The Imperial over-taxation of Ireland constituted a grievance so great that it ought to be brought forward in the most practical way, and in Ireland the only way in which it could be done was by resisting the imposition to the utmost. He intended to vote against the Resolution, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the points he had raised and the immediate reduction of Imperial over-taxation in Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I share the desire of hon. Members that this and every other tax should be collected with as little friction as possible, and with as much consideration for the convenience of the taxpayer as is compatible with the due collection of the tax. But I think the hon. Gentleman opposite underrates the difficulty there is in some cases in securing from taxpayers the fulfilment of their obligations. The hon. Member has complained that when taxpayers appeal to the surveyor or Commissioners against their assessment, those gentlemen seem to distrust the statements that are made. But when there is an appeal it is the duty of those
  1460
  gentlemen to see that a case is made out before the appeal is acceded to. The hon. Member will not seriously suggest that the Revenue authorities ought to be satisfied with the mere statement of the appellant as to what would be a full discharge of his obligations.
  MR. FIELDsaid he agreed that the Commissioners should satisfy themselves, but there were two ways of doing it; right and wrong.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are doubtless two points of view from which you may regard the action necessary. If you are concerned with defending the Revenue you may think something absolutely necessary which if you are a taxpayer you may consider arbitrary, inquisitorial, and annoying. Considering what the tax is, how in its nature it must be to a certain extent inquisitorial, I think it is collected with wonderfully little friction, and that the collection reflects great credit upon those charged with the duty. But the speech of the hon. Member opposite formed a curious commentary upon, and I think was a warning against, those proposals which we have been discussing for the greater part of the afternoon. Some minor points in connection with the tax have been raised by the noble Lord behind me and by others which are clearly included in the reference to the Committee which is still sitting under the Chairmanship of my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, and I think the Committee will excuse me from anticipating the Report which I shall receive from them, and understand my very natural anxiety to have the benefit of their advice and views before I express any further opinion upon such questions as the nature and extent of the allowances which are made, the system of averages by which a portion of the tax is collected, and other matters of that kind to which allusion has been made.
  But the more important question which we have been discussing this afternoon was not referred to the Committee—that is, the question of either differentiating the tax according to the source from which the income is derived, or graduating it according to the amount of the income of the

  1461
  individual taxpayer. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs said there was high opinion in favour of the differentiation of the tax. I invited him to enlighten me by citing his high authorities, but he did not gratify my curiosity; he merely said he was satisfied that such high authority existed. I think every Chancellor of the Exchequer since the beginning of the last century has rejected the proposal as unworkable. No one has spoken more strongly on the subject than the late Mr. Gladstone, and I confess it is singular to see with what readiness hon. Gentlemen opposite waive his opinions when they do not coincide with their own, whilst denouncing with great severity anybody on this side who ventures to differ from any opinion of Mr. Gladstone with which they agree. I think it would defy human ingenuity to invent a system of differentiation which would be fair or even workable. The object of the hon. Gentleman is to distinguish between income which is spontaneous, which comes to the owner without any exertion on his part, and income which is dependent upon the owner's exertions and which may cease with his life. I asked the hon. Member while he was speaking how he would treat income derived from a business. Suppose the owner of a business desires to part with it, it is saleable for a capital sum, and if it happens to be a prosperous business it has a continuing value known as good-will which is valued at so many years purchase of the profits. Is the income derived from a business like that to be considered as spontaneous income or the reverse? I really do not know how the hon. Gentleman proposes to treat it. The same thing applies to certain professional incomes. Take a medical man and his practice. The hon. Member argued as though the whole property consisted in the man's brain power and the physical activity which enabled him to carry on his practice. The practice has the same value. If he is unable or unwilling to continue he can dispose of it.
  SIR ROBERT REID: If he lives.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If he dies the practice can be sold, and
  1462
  some of these practices are very good properties.
  MR. SOARES: One year's purchase.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the hon. Member does not wish me to believe that more than one year's purchase is never paid for a practice.
  MR. SOARES: No, but if the man is dead his practice is usually sold for one year's purchase. I can give instances.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course I have never bought or sold a practice of this kind and I do not know what is the average number of years purchase that is paid, but cases occasionally come before the Courts which would lead one to believe that a great deal more than one year's purchase is sometimes paid. But it really does not much matter whether it is one year or more, the principle remains the same. I say it is almost impossible to differentiate fairly between incomes according to any test of this kind. Mr. Gladstone in a familiar speech examined at considerable length and with great fertility of illustration different classes of income, and arrived at the conclusion that there was no one except the Fund-holder who obtained his income without personal exertion. He said—
  "The landowner must exert himself with regard to his land, the householder as to his house; the mortgagee must either look out himself or pay a lawyer for looking out to ascertain the safety of the investment proposed for his money. I do not believe there is any income which is perfectly and entirely a lazy income except the income of the Fund-holder."
  I understand it is what Mr. Gladstone called the "lazy" income that the hon. Members opposite wish to arrive at. All I can say is that if their investments are of such a character that they produce equally good incomes whether they are able to pay attention to them or not, they have been more successful with their investments than I have. One thing is clear, and that is that it would be suicidal for the State to differentiate in any way against the Fund-holder, the man who has invested in the State's own security. That would be one inevitable result of any scheme

  1463
  of differentiation such as has been proposed. An hon. friend of mine spoke of the illustration which I used last year of a lady of small means who derived her income from a small invested property left to her by her father. I contrasted that with the large incomes drawn by many professional men. Is it really suggested that it would be possible or fair that a small income of such a nature should be taxed at a higher rate than the income of a professional man amounting perhaps to many thousands a year?
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: But what about incomes of the same amount?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see why it should be taxed more highly than a professional income of the same amount. Certainly the professional man has far larger opportunities of increasing his income than has the widow or the spinster to whom I alluded.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: He has to insure his life to provide for the future.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And he gets an allowance for the insurance. Mr. Gladstone when dealing with this question pointed out two means of compensation. One is a rather delicate matter to treat of, and is for the most part an illegitimate compensation, but it is idle for us to close our eyes to it when discussing the subject. He pointed out that incomes of this class wore in many cases "under returned" and escaped full assessment, and that they got a certain relief in that way. A friend of mine in a certain town, who has had a good deal of experience in these matters, told me that he was amazed and astonished at the number of incomes which were so returned. I think that if there be evasion under the present tax, as we all know there is, it is clearly only under Schedule D. that that evasion does or can take place. The other and thoroughly legitimate compensation to which Mr. Gladstone called attention was the compensation made when property passed at death. Since that time the taxes on property passing at death have been very much increased, and it is through the compensatory process
  1464
  thus applied by other taxes that the inequalities or injustices of the income-tax are to be remedied.
  In considering the justice and equity of a tax of this kind we cannot treat it as if it were the solitary tax existing. We must look at it as part of a financial system, and we must judge of it as part of a whole. You cannot within the four corners of the tax itself make it in every respect fair and reasonable, but some of the injustices which would exist if the tax stood by itself are fully and amply removed by the compensatory effects of other taxes imposed in different ways, and falling due at different times. In my opinion the proposal to differentiate the tax would be fatal to its smooth or easy collection and fatal to it as a means of producing revenue. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone said—
  "To break up the tax is to encourage the House of Commons to venture upon a scheme which may look well upon paper, but which will end in the destruction of the tax by the absurdities and inequalities which it may involve."
  Mr. Gladstone went on to say—
  "It is beyond the power of man to conduct such an operation as that proposed with satisfaction."
  I entirely agree with the opinion there expressed.
  I suppose I must say a word or two on the subject of graduation as apart from differentiation, although I do not think that I need at the present moment enter into the question at any great length. The hon. Member thinks he is entitled to know my opinions upon this subject. I may say that my opinions upon this subject were fully expressed last year, upon an ocasion when I think the hon. Member himself was present and took part in the debate. Therefore, I think it is really more curiosity than any actual necessity for knowledge that has impelled him to put these Questions. The hon. Member thinks that he has provided a practical scheme. In my opinion the hon. Member for King's Lynn was right when he said the only efficient way of collecting a graduated income-tax was to collect the tax on the higher scale from everybody and then pay back to them according to the rate at which they were properly chargeable. The hon. Gentleman opposite proposed a different proceeding.

  1465
  He proposed that the whole of the machinery for the present collection of the tax should be retained in force, and that upon the top of that there should be superimposed a new machinery in order to assess an increased tax upon those who became subject to the higher rate. To say that we should double the cost of collecting the income-tax under such a method would be to enormously understate the expense of the proposed machinery, while it would be impossible to exaggerate the irritation and annoyance which would be caused. You would have to go through the whole process which the hon. Member for Dublin has stated has already given rise to irritation, and when you have harried and worried the taxpayer in that way you are to come to him and say—"I think you come under the higher rates. We have now taxed all your income wherever we could at its source, and now we require from you a statement of what all your income is from every source, and we require proof that your statement is true. We shall look into your books and accounts and you must produce your documents." The expense of such machinery and the amount of irritation and annoyance it would cause it would be quite impossible to exaggerate. And for what result?
  I presented a calculation last year of which the essential features were that I assumed the income-tax to be 1s., and I assumed also that you were going to graduate it to double that amount. I presume that you would charge a higher rate upon every income over £5,000. It was estimated that probably the number of people who had incomes exceeding £5,000 a year might be put at 10,000 or 15,000. I think you should add to that total something to allow for the people who would be suspected by the Revenue authorities of having that amount, and I place this number at another 15,000. Therefore, you get some 30,000 people into whose incomes you will have to have an inquiry of the most inquisitorial kind and in a form far more distasteful and annoying than anything which goes on at the present time, because you will be not only asking them what is their income from one particular source,
  1466
  which you desire to assess, but you will be inquiring what is their income from every source, information which they will be very reluctant to disclose. Having provided your machinery to inquire into the circumstances of these 30,000 taxpayers you will probably assess about 15,000 of them upon the higher scale. I know all this is hypothetical, but I will assume that on an average the excess above the ordinary 1s. tax payable by these 15,000 people would be 6d. If that were so, and the whole of those incomes were brought under the charge, it was calculated that perhaps you might get £3,000,000 without allowing anything for the cost of collection. But would you be likely to succeed in bringing the whole of that income within the charge. You would probably lose at once £750,000 by the removal of that revenue outside your jurisdiction. It is calculated by the Inland Revenue authorities that it would be perfectly possible and a legitimate transaction to take revenue income out of our jurisdiction to an extent which would at least cost you £750,000. The Committee should remember that upon any income removed out of the area of your jurisdiction you lose not merely the anticipated increase but the whole of the existing tax. They reckon that probably you would lose another £750,000 through being unable to trace or arrive at a full assessment. You thus get down to the result that under such a system you might get a possible maximum of £1,500,000, from which you would have to deduct the allowance to be made for deliberate evasion and for all the increased cost of collection. To upset the whole system of income-tax collection and to run the risk of the unpopularity which such an inquisitorial examination into the affairs of the taxpayers would certainly arouse, would be to go counter to the experience of the past, which shows that the only safe and sure way of getting the tax is by collection at the source, and to do all this for so small a result would, I venture to say, be to destroy one of their greatest and most potent financial instruments for wholly inadequate reasons and wholly inadequate results.
  If it should be the desire of the Committee of the House of Commons

  1467
  at any time to place a higher tax upon men of large fortune, I hope they will find other ways of doing it than those which would strike at the simplicity and the easy collection of the income-tax. The income-tax, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has reminded the Committee, was at its inception a most unpopular tax, so unpopular that, after the close of the Great War, the Government of the day was forced not only to give up the tax, but by order of the House all the records of the tax collection were burned in order that they might never refer to them again. I do not suppose we shall ever again do without an income-tax, but it is of great importance to the maintenance of this most serviceable financial weapon that its collection shall be made as easy and as little annoying to the taxpayer as possible.
  SIR ROBERT REIDregretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have taken up an irreconcilable attitude with regard to the demand that the income-tax should be placed on a somewhat more just footing. Everybody knew that it was unfair. Whether it could be altered was another thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested some compensatory taxes by which they should adjust the inequalities in the present collection of the income-tax, but he did not state what they were.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suggested it had been done by the death duties.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he should most emphatically dissent from the view that it had been done by the death duties. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted Mr. Gladstone as saying that differentiation was impossible. But Mr. Gladstone had not disputed that the thing as it stood was unjust. The man receiving £5,000 a year from investments had no effort to make and no anxiety about his dependants. His sacrifice was nothing like that of the man who earned an income of £5,000 a year; and yet both paid the same amount of tax. If they could not alter the present system well and good, but if it could be altered it ought to be done.
  1468
  He did not say that they could make complete equality, but, at any rate, a much greater approximation to fair play was possible. As to graduation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not shown that it was impossible, but that one particular scheme was impracticable. The right hon. Gentleman forgot, when he condemned certain methods as inquisitorial, that they were practised already in the tens of thousands of cases in which abatement was claimed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is a great difference between asking a man to declare his whole income for purposes of abatement, and asking him to declare it in order to get more tax out of him.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that he could not see the difference. In one case the taxpayer was exercising a right, and in the other case the State was seeking to exercise a right. There might be other difficulties, but this was a matter for investigation. Two or three years ago, when a Committee to inquire into the possibility of graduation was asked for, the right hon. Member for West Bristol encouraged the idea.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said that I thought the proposal impracticable, but that I was ready to consider the propriety of inquiring into it.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid it was unfortunate that, on account of one of those convulsions which took place in political life, the right hon. Gentleman ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon afterwards became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and while he was not quite so favourable to inquiry as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, there was really not much difference between them. It was true that there had been another political convulsion; but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had absolutely refused to have any inquiry although the right hon. Member for West Bristol thought it worthy of consideration, and the right hon. Member for Croydon spoke of it in a not unsympathetic spirit.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: But none of them did it.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid they were turned out too fast. He was not quite sure of the absolute fixity of tenure of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real fact was that while his two predecessors took the attitude he had fairly described, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer clenched his fist and said he would not do anything at all. With all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he thought it an unjust thing that there should not be graduation of the income-tax, that the man who had £1,000 a year should pay the same rate as the man who had £10,000 a year. He would not go the length of saying that graduation was practicable, but he contended that there should be some inquiry by a competent Committee of the House; and if the tax continued on its present inequitable basis in that respect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be held responsible for it.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the income of a medical man from his practice could not be distinguished from the income of a landlord from land, because the practice could be sold. The right hon. Gentleman made two mistakes in connection with that illustration. In the first place the income of a really great medical or surgical expert could not be sold. Take the case of Sir Frederick Treves; he could not have got one shilling for his practice. That practice depended on his extraordinary genius and skill, ant these were not transferable. The only kind of medical practice which could be sold was one which depended rather on the neighbourhood in which a man practised than on the personality of the medical man. In those cases, he was told, one year's purchase was as much as was usually given. But what of other professional men? Could the practice of a great barrister be sold? It could not; the practice of a great barrister, like the income of other professional men, was bounded by the narrow frontiers of man's own personality. He was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be able to see the distinction
  1470
  between the income derived from land, which could be transmitted from generation to generation, and the income which was dependent entirely upon the health of the individual. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted Mr. Gladstone as an authority against the practicability of making a distinction in the assessment of incomes derived from property and from personal exertions; but it should be remembered that Mr. Gladstone never denied that the professional man had a grievance, he only was doubtful as to the means of removing it. He put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; could anybody lay it down that a barrister, a doctor, or a member of his own profession, a journalist, was exactly in the same position as to equality of sacrifice as a man who had £3,000 or £4,000 a year derived from land. A professional man, after he was fifty years of age, had between him and the fortunes of his wife and children, nothing but his health; and they all knew what an uncertain thing health was, especially to a hard-working professional man. But in the case of a man with property in land, whether he lived or died the land was there for his wife and family. It was to be regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out no hope in this matter and had taken up a far more irreconcilable attitude than that taken up by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for West Bristol and Croydon.
  That the income-tax in its incidence was inequitable was proved by the fact that a race of experts had arisen for the purpose of advising people as to how their income-tax could be reduced. He had been astonished to find that a friend of his own with a large income had been able to get off the payment of income-tax. He discovered the reason. His friend had a friend who was an expert in evading the income-tax, and was so far a professional man in that respect that he got very handsome commissions from his friends on the amount of the tax which they were able to escape on his advice. He did not say that these gentlemen evaded the income-tax unfairly, but they were able to take advantage of the intricacies of the complicated income-tax law. He might say that the expert he referred to was a

  1471
  countryman of his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken, and that his occupation was not above the keen intelligence of a Scotchman. So complex a question was the income-tax that it needed a trained mind to say how much one ought to pay and how much might justly be evaded. He would urge upon the Committee that the time had come for an inquiry as to whether the principles laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and many others before him were sound—that the difference between professional and landed or funded incomes, which they all agreed caused an inequality, could not be carried out in practice. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might very well appoint a Committee to investigate that matter.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid before the Motion was put he would like to reply to Questions put by his hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh with reference to the Return issued that day, giving the percentage of collections up to February 28th last. It contained most interesting figures, and he had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to supplement those figure by later information. That Return showed that the result of the "hustling," as it had been commonly called, during the early months of the year had not been, up to February 28th, so effective as some of them imagined. He was surprised at the smallness of the figures of the increased collection, and he imagined that a greater result would be shown for the month of March than any other month. The effect of the increased pressure had naturally been greater in England than in Scotland, because there was more leeway to make up, but in Ireland, with the greatest leeway of all to make up, there had been less. In England there had been an advance of 7 per cent., in Scotland of 2 per cent., and in Ireland an advance of 4 per cent. He could only make those figures work out at £350,000 received up to the 28th February, and he presumed that the balance of the increase estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at £800,000 must have come in the month of March. He would be much obliged if the right hon.
  1472
  Gentleman would indicate to the Committee what the later figures were.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Return will be pressed forward as rapidly as possible, but there was not time to take out the figures up to March 31st, and I have not got them. I have given the House the best information I could on the subject. Let me just say a word with regard to the earlier payments of the months of January and February in England and Wales this year. It was not the intention of the new regulations to make any change so far as the Inland Revenue is concerned towards the great bulk of the taxpayers, who are always accustomed to pay their taxes within a reasonable time of the date on which they fall due. The principal change was the issuing of the first notice by post instead of by hand. The result of issuing it by post was that everybody should get it, practically, before January 21st. Under the old system, when it was delivered personally, the tax-payer was not often informed of the tax he was to pay until some weeks after, and in some cases actually more than a month after, the date on which the payment became due. That led to great inequality, not only between different parts of the United Kingdom, but between different districts of the country, and even between different individuals of the same district. It was often the case that an individual in one street was served with even the second or third notice before his neighbour in the next street had received the first application. In order to make the process more regular and equal this change in the method of issuing the notice was made. The fact that the first notice was formerly very often unduly delayed caused a large number of the people not to receive their second notice until long after January 21st. Under these circumstances I think the issue of the second notice now is quite unnecessary. It has given rise to a great deal of annoyance, but I hope that in future years the procedure will not occasion any annoyance to regular taxpayers. The people I did wish to expedite were those who without any good reason delayed their payments until an unreasonably

  1473
  late period. I had cases before me of companies who had deducted from the dividends of their shareholders the amount of the tax and kept it in their own pockets for months before they paid it over to the Revenue. I have had cases of rich men, with incomes of several thousands a year, who thought they were not called upon to discharge a tax payable on January 1st until June, July, or August, for no better reason than that owing to the laxity of the collector, or the imperfections of our machinery, they have managed to evade payment till that date in previous years. If the taxpayers take that attitude, then there is very little to be said against bringing pressure to bear upon them to make them pay in March, in the year when the payment is due. It is in that way that we secured the increase which I have placed at about £800,000. I cannot, of course, be certain whether that is a correct estimate, but perhaps the Committee will accept it as the most accurate information that can be given at the present time.
  MR. McCRAEsaid he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what means he intended to take in order that England, like Scotland, might be able to pay 95 per cent. of the income-tax by the end of Feburary. England, notwithstanding the so-called "hustling," only paid 62 per cent. of the tax by the end of February whilst, owing to more rigorous treatment Scotland had paid 92 per cent. It was only fair that equality of treatment should be meted ut to both coountries.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the different portions of the United Kingdom were as far as possible placed on the same footing. The dates when the process of collection began were the same, but there were differences in the northern part of the United Kingdom which affected the collection of taxes and made absolute equality impossible.
  Resolved, that Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth
  1474
  day of April, nineteen hundred and five, at the rate of one shilling in the pound.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS [10TH APRIL.]
  Resolutions reported.

  EXCHEQUER BONDS.
  "That for the purpose of paying off any Exchequer Bonds issued under Supplemental War Loan Acts of 1900, any sums not exceeding ten million pounds be raised by the issue of Exchequer Bonds to be current, subject, to the provisions for the redemption of the total issue, for a period of ten years, and that in each year of that period one-tenth part of the total issue of the new Bonds be drawn for repayment and redeemed by the application for the purpose of the requisite part of the new sinking fund, and that the permanent annual charge for the National Debt be increased so as to be twenty-eight million pounds.
  "That any expenses incurred in connection with raising or paying off any such sums, and the principle of and interest on any such sums, be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and, as to the interest, be paid as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUS- TOMS DUTIES ON TOBACCO, BEER, AND SPIRITS.
  "That the additional Customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by Sections two, three, four, and five of the Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by Section five of that Act), shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and six."
  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EX- CISE DUTIES ON BEER AND SPIRITS.
  "That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by Sections six and seven of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and six."

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexpressed the hope that the House would consent to allow the Report of this Resolution. His proposal with regard to the Unfunded Debt and increasing the Sinking Fund had met with universal approval——
  MR. WHITLEY: But not the method.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that at any rate general approval had been expressed, and as there would be a further opportunity of discussing the matter he hoped the House would concur in the action of the Committee.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONunderstood that it had been agreed not to take any further proceedings with regard to the Budget proposals until after Easter, and he thought that arrangement should be adhered to. In any case, before this Resolution was proceeded with, Members ought to be in possession of the annual statement on the National Debt and the Blue-book on the Finance Accounts.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if objection was taken he would not press the Resolution.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that while both sides were agreed as to the desirability of paying off the National Debt, many Members objected to the form of this Resolution, which tied up the exact method by which the Debt should be paid in future years. He therefore felt bound to protest against the Resolutions being taken that night.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that although he had that very day, as he
  1476
  understood, been called the critic of every Government of which he was not a member, he infinitely preferred that and thought it far more creditable, than to be the destroyer of every Government of which one was a Member. Yet he had not adversely criticised the proposal embodied in this Resolution. He believed it to be a perfectly sound and good proposal, and he was sorry hon. Members opposite would not allow the Report stage to be taken that night. There were two questions he desired to ask with regard to this issue of new Treasury Bonds. Were they to be 3 per cent. Treasury Bonds, as was usual, or were they to be a new form entirely both as regards interest and as regards the gambling clement of drawing? And when the issue was made, would interest have to be paid on these bonds as well as on and during the continuance of the Unfunded Debt which they were to replace?
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the points raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn were the very questions which made it impossible to allow this Resolution to be taken without debate. On Monday the terms of the Resolution were not on the Paper, and in consequence could not be properly discussed. Several important questions arose as to the nature of the security to be issued, whether it would be issued at par or at a discount, how the bonds were to be used in the nine months during which there would be a double currency, and so forth, which it was impossible to discuss in the remaining few minutes of the sitting. He was glad therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had agreed not to press the Resolution.
  MR. McCRAEhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think the Opposition discourteous in opposing the taking of the Resolution that night. According to the Budget speech he understood the National Debt was increased by £2,000,000, and that although the proposed sinking fund, including the £1,000,000, amounted to £10,000,000 a year, the new indebtedness for the current year would be £9,000,000, so that the sinking fund was only £1,000,000.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdissented.
  MR. McCRAEsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman had exhausted his right to speak he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. McCrae.)
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that with regard to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to what was to be done with regard to those bonds a full Answer would be found in his Budget Statement. With reference to the terms of the issue they were possibly available to the public at this moment but at any rate they would be available in the morning and then the hon. Member would get the information he required.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Further Consideration of Subsequent Resolutions deferred till To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  GREAT NORTHERN (IRELAND) AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS BILL [BY ORDER].
  MR. LONSDALE: I am fully aware that in moving the instruction which stands in my name I am taking a course which is somewhat unusual. But I think I shall be able to show to the House that the circumstances of this case are peculiar, and justify a departure from the ordinary methods of procedure in regard to Private Bills. It cannot be denied that the question at issue in this instance ought properly to be investigated by a Committee of this House. Points of detail are involved which cannot be placed before the House, upon a Motion like this, with so much facility as it is possible to do in Committee. It is, for that reason, very unfortunate that the Portadown Urban District Council, for whom I am acting in this matter, were not allowed to lay their case before the Committee in the ordinary way. They petitioned to be heard in opposition to the Great Northern
  1478
  and Midland Railways Bill, by which they considered the interests of their district to be prejudicially affected; but the petition was not lodged at the proper date, and the Committee on Standing Orders having refused to waive the Standing Order, they are unable to go before the Committee and state their case by counsel. I believe, Sir, that the Portadown Council are deserving of some sympathy in this respect, because I understand the failure to comply with the Standing Orders of this House was not due to any fault of their own. I am informed that they did not receive a notice of the Bill of the railway company in the ordinary way because they were not the occupiers of any lands affected by the railway company's proposals. When their attention was drawn to the Bill at the end of last December, they found that in Clause 33 the railway company were taking powers to close two level crossings in the town and to extinguish all rights of way over them. An election of the council was then pending, and the matter was left to be dealt with by the new council. The first meeting of the new council was held in February, and it was then decided to oppose Clause 33 of the Railway Bill, unless the company would bind themselves to construct bridges to carry the public roads over the railway. The solicitor to the district council was then advised by a senior member of the Bar, who was consulted, that a petition against the Bill could be lodged at any time within ten days after the First Reading of the Bill. That was an error, the latest date for depositing petitions being February 12th. It is owing to this mistake, for which the district council were clearly not accountable, that they have been prevented from resisting what they regard as an act of aggression on the part of the railway company, before a Committee of this House.
  That, Sir, is my explanation why I am asking the House now to consider this matter, and to pass this instruction. I will ask the House to remember that this is a dispute between a great railway company and the representatives of the public over a question of the maintenance of certain rights of way which are of great importance to the people of

  1479
  Portadown. The section of the Great Northern and Midland Railways Bill which I propose to omit, authorises the promoters, as I have already pointed out, to stop up two level crossings within the urban district of Portadown. Portadown is an important town in the county of Armagh, in the constituency of my right hon. friend the Member for North Armagh, who, unfortunately, is out of England, and therefore unable to support the people of Portadown in this endeavour to uphold their rights. The Great Northern Railway line passes through the town of Portadown, and the two level crossings which are proposed to be closed by this Bill, are important means of communication between certain residential districts and the centre and business part of the town. The principal crossing of the two is known as Shillington Street crossing. This crossing adjoins the public market and fair green, and when the council many years ago acquired this property and opened up the markets, they widened the thoroughfare which leads straight from the centre of the town through the markets and across the railway by the level crossing, giving access to a district which is being rapidly covered with houses to meet the growing needs of the population. A considerable suburb is, in fact, growing up in this neighbourhood, and if this crossing is closed without a bridge being built in place of it, the residents will be seriously inconvenienced and the development of this portion of Portadown will be greatly restricted. If the Shillington Street crossing were closed, the people living in this new district would be compelled to make a wide detour to the north or the south in order to reach the business part of the town. This would be a great hardship, particularly to working men in passing to and from their work; and I cannot help thinking that I shall have the sympathy of the House on behalf of these people, to whom time is a matter of great importance.
  I understand, Sir, that the railway company contend that the Shillington Street crossing was at the time of the construction of the railway simply a private farm road which terminated in a field, remote from any public or private road.
  1480
  I am informed, however, that this is not the case. There is a public right of way, which has existed from time immemorial, along Shillington Street, and through a lane and footpath into the public road on the west side of the railway. There are inhabitants in the town who will prove it to have been open for seventy years. The crossing was constructed for the purpose of preserving this right of way, and if it is now closed without a bridge being constructed a most important artery will be stopped. The second crossing, which is known as McFadden's crossing, is very largely used by factory workers, several hundreds of whom pass over it four times daily; and if they were compelled to go round another way it would involve a very considerable loss of time to them. I observe that the promoters of the Bill point out that the owners of factories lying to the west of the railway will be compensated for any inconvenience which they may suffer by the closing of this crossing. But, Sir, I am concerned for the workpeople, who would be seriously inconvenienced if the most direct means of access to their work were stopped. If the Railway Company find it desirable in their interests to close these two crossings they ought to construct bridges over their line for the accommodation of the public. I should like to point out that the directors of the railway company declined to discuss this question of bridges with a deputation from the district council. The Portadown Council were, therefore, compelled to take measures to oppose the Bill, and this course has been unanimously approved by the people whom they represent. This Motion is not moved with any desire to hamper the operations of the railway company. The clause may be easily omitted without injury to the rest of the projects contained in the Bill, and time and opportunity would thus be given to the railway company and the district council to arrive at an arrangement by which important public interests would be preserved. I submit, Sir, that there is nothing unreasonable in the request of the Portadown Council, and I venture to ask the House to give me its support in behalf of the people of Portadown, whose interests are threatened by the action of the railway company in this instance.
  MR. SLOANsaid that if the railway company concerned in this Bill had been willing to meet in all frankness and fairness the representatives of the Portadown Urban District Council there would have been no case for the Notice which appeared upon the Paper that evening. All that was desired was to safeguard rights of way which had been in existence for seventy years. When they took into consideration the fact that the employees in one of the factories who used one of these rights of way four times a day would have to make a detour which would take a quarter of an hour, and thus be robbed of the limited time they had for their meals; and when they took into consideration all the other inconveniences and hardships that arose from closing up these rights of way it was not unreasonable, surely, for them to appeal to the House of Commons to safeguard the rights of the people. Another reason why they urged on the House the necessity of having this clause deleted was the fact that if the Bill was passed as now worded there would be no possibility of remedying this injustice, but the railway company could in future years insert this clause in their Bills and then the Urban District Council of Portadown would have an opportunity of appearing before a Committee of the House and presenting a petition. He asked the House not only to sympathetically listen to the remarks in favour of the removal of the clause but to give them their practical support, and so safeguard the people from an injustice which otherwise would be inflicted on them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Clause 33 of the Bill."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG, in putting before the House the case for the promoters of the Bill, said that the local authority had taken a very unusual course in having such a Motion brought forward in the House, and he trusted that the House would show their disapprobation of it by their vote. The reason why he asked the House to vote against the Motion was shortly this:
  1482
  that the House was not the proper place for the difficult questions which were involved in Clauses 31 and 33 to be decided, but they were essentially questions which could only be decided by a Committee. His hon. friend on behalf of the Portadown people said that they had been deprived of their right of appearing before the Committee, but he wished to point out that though they had undoubtedly been deprived of the privilege of appearing before the Committee of the House of Commons, they would have the right to appear before the Committee of the House of Lords before which the Bill must go. The expense they would be put to in appearing before the House of Lords Committee would be no greater than would have been entailed in appearing before the Committee of the House of Commons. He asked the House to reject the Motion on the ground that the House of Commons was essentially unfitted, where questions of law and intricate questions of fact were concerned. to give a proper decision.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid they had witnessed one of the most remarkable comedies ever witnessed in that House. They had arrived breathlessly in order to hear the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochester on the subject of Home Rule, but they were treated instead to an arranged performance of the loyal Ulster Party.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Motion and the date of the discussion on the Private Bill were put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means before the Home Rule Motion was thought of.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that was not the case. Even if it was it only made the matter worse.
  MR. LONSDALEasked what authority the hon. Member had for making that statement?
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had uttered two sentences and had been twice interrupted. The hon. Members, however loyal they might be, might allow him to develop his argument. Nationalist Members came down to the House to hear the impeachment, as it were, of the right

  1483
  hon. Member for Stirling Burghs at the hands of the hon. Gentleman for Rochester, but what were they treated to instead? By an arranged and concerted device of the loyal Orange Party, two of whom supported the instruction and one opposed it, there was an endeavour to prevent the Home Rule Motion being discussed. Was this mere runaway tactics?
  MR. LONSDALE: Divide, divide!
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether there was no other night in all the year to discuss this level crossing at Portadown but that night when the hon. Member for Rochester had put down his arraignment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman who moved the instruction was the secretary, the Chief Whip, and treasurer of the loyal Ulster Party, the Member who seconded was the Grand Master of that great institution. And what was the subject that they chose to discuss? Portadown was the most Orange town in Ireland. When a person passed the railway station there he was in the position of a kind of Mohammedan Hadji bound to kiss the carpet. But when the fortunes of their country were in the balance, when the great question of the dismemberment of the Empire was to be under discussion, these loyal Ulster Gentlemen occupied the time of the House in the interests of a level crossing at Portadown.
  MR. GORDON: Is the hon. Member in order in wasting the time of the House in this way?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not felt called upon to interfere, but I hope the hon. Member will not be long.
  MR. HEALYsaid that but for the fact that he had been interrupted three times he would have been done long ago. He asked the House what reality there was in all the Motions which had been placed on the Notice Paper for a time when the Empire had been invited to watch the development of the question of Home Rule. The Party opposite had balloted fourteen Tuesdays in succession, and at last fortune had gilded the eagles of
  1484
  Rochester. He rose for the purpose of expressing his sympathy with the hon. Member for Rochester, who was sitting on the back bench seeing his valuable time devoured by the Ulster wolves.
  MR. SPEAKER: In the speech of the hon. Member there is too much on the question that is to follow and too little on the question now before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he appreciated that ruling to the full. He would only express the regret he felt at the delay in the introduction of the important business which the House had met to consider, through the ill-considered action of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He moved the adjournment of the debate in order that the hon. Member for Rochester might be able to proceed with the Motion he had on the Paper. It was unseemly that time should be wasted even by the Ulster Orange Party on the trivialities which had been brought forward.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

  HOME RULE.
  MR. TUFFrose to call attention to the speeches of certain Members of the Opposition on the question of Home Rule for Ireland, and to move a Resolution. He said: In moving the Resolution that stands in my name I feel quite certain that the House will give me some indulgence in making what is almost my maiden speech. I appreciate the fact that I have undertaken to speak on a subject which is of the greatest possible importance, and in which the keenest interest is taken by Parties in this House and also outside. I am aware that the great question of Home Rule for Ireland has been debated in this House for twenty years or more, and it would be presumption on my part to attempt to obtrude my personal views on the subject. I have been at some pains to discover what the present views of prominent Members on the Opposition side are with regard to Home Rule,

  1485
  and in accordance with my Notice I will submit them for your consideration. Lord Rosebery, speaking at Epsom on 18th March, 1905, said—
  "An independent Parliament in Dublin and the Parliament that exists in London do, in their strictest sense, represent my idea of duality. If Mr. Redmond is in favour of that, I venture to tell him explicitly that he has yet to win over, not merely the majority, but the great mass of the nation that inhabits Great Britain, to his views."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, speaking at Manchester on 13th May, 1904, said—
  "Whether they had that, or a settlement which had been called by the name of administrative Home Rule, in either case he thought, and hoped, he was not wrong in saying fur that great assembly, representing so much, that when the Liberal Party was asked to unsay all it had been saying with such vehemence, fortitude, steadfastness, and constancy for all these years—to unsay all these things was what would not be, what could not be, and what ought not to be."
  Lord Rosebery, speaking in the City of London on 9th March, 1905, said—
  "You may do much for Ireland, you may do her inestimable good by proceeding on grounds of administrative reform, but there is one thing to which no statesman will ever expose his country, and that is the curse of dual government at the heart of the Empire. What are the results of dualism—a vulture gnawing at the very vitals of the Empire, and we, at any rate, may be forgiven who will not expose our Imperial heritage and our Imperial future to any such danger."
  The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, speaking at Derry on December 2nd, 1904, said—
  "They (the Nationlists) had forced one great English Party to accept the doctrine of Home Rule, and to-day Home Rule was a living issue at every election in England, Scotland, and Wales; and in many of these elections Home Rule would be the dominant factor in the decision come to."
  Now we will turn to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who, I am sorry is not in his place. In a manifesto written to the Chairman of the East Fife Liberal Association, 1st March, 1902, he said—
  "If we are honest we must ask ourselves this practical question: 'Is it to be part of the policy and programme of our Party that, if returned to power, it will introduce into the House of Commons a Bill for Irish Home Rule?' The answer, in my judgment, is 'No.'"
  Now, after deep consideration and with the greatest possible respect, I turn to the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  1486
  for the Stirling Burghs. In the House of Commons, 4th May, 1904, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh who had just sat down had referred to a matter which was rather beyond their scope that night—namely, the question of the self-government of Ireland. That, of course, was the remedy which they (the Radicals) would apply."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Did I say "Radicals"? That is your word, not mine.
  MR. TUFF: I would not dare to put any word of mine into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Withdraw."] I do not withdraw, I substantiate it. I stand by the words I have read. [Cries of "Quote."]
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Gentleman is reading a report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I interrupted the hon. Gentleman—for which I apologise—because, while professing to quote my words, he stated that I said something about the remedy which the Radicals would apply. I do not think that I ever in this House spoke of myself as the Leader of the Radical Party.
  MR. TUFF: This is almost my first occasion to receive a compliment from the right hon. Gentleman, and I only hope that I am entitled to it. I am sorry that the leaders of the Opposition have not turned up in greater force this evening. I should like to tell the House what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick said. Speaking at Northallerton on March 15th, 1905, he said—
  "If the Liberal Party had not a good majority without the Irish Party, his opinion was that they had better not take office at all."
  Now let us see what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has to say. Speaking at a banquet held in London on March 16th, 1905, he said—
  "He did not himself think that Lord Rosebery's speech was likely to intimidate the Liberal Party, but if it did then so much the worse for the Liberal Party. [Cheers.] The position of the Irish Party was perfectly clear. They would support and keep in office in the next Parliament no Liberal Party, no Liberal Government, which took the Rosebery view

  1487
  of Home Rule for Ireland. [Great cheering.] And in a spirit of the most complete friendliness to the Liberal Party he gave them this word of warning, that even if they succeeded in the coming election in returning to the House of Commons with a majority which was nominally independent of Irish votes—a thing that he thought a good many were anxious for, but which he did not himself believe would take place—that even if they returned in that position to the House of Commons they would find the government of Ireland a sheer impossibility."
  We have now to go back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Speaking at Ladybank, September 28th, 1901, he said—
  "For my own part, I believe as strongly as ever I did in the two governing principles, namely, the necessity of maintaining the universal, absolute, and unimpaired supremacy of the Imperial Parliament."
  Now we go back again to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. I have been most careful in my references, and if I am wrong the mistake can be quickly discovered. Speaking in the House of Commons on February 21st, 1905, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Those who, like myself, have supported and still continue to support a policy of thorough and fundamental alteration in the whole system of Irish Government."
  I hope hon. Members will follow me, and notice that I have given a few mild extracts along with some of heavier weight. Lord Rosebery, speaking in the City of London, March 9th, 1905, said—
  "It is not possible for any Government, however potent it may deem itself, to bring in any measure for establishing a Parliament, however subordinate, in Dublin, without first having made it a matter of special appeal to the country."
  The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in another place, speaking at Wandsworth, 8th March, 1905, said—
  "That unless they gave more self-government to Ireland, the state of the country would be as had in the future as it had been in the past."
  There is another Member of the Liberal Party, who, though not a leader at the moment, is, we are given to understand, going to be one. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I refer to the hon. Member for Carnarvon. Speaking at Carnarvon on October 18th, 1904, he said—
  "He agreed with the chairman (Mr. J. E. Graves) that there was no hope of reintro-
  1488
  ducing such a Home Rule Bill as that of 1886 or 1893. The question must be faced as a matter of business. They must have an effective Parliament for the whole country, and they could not have Home Rule for any one section without granting it to all. Legislation under existing conditions was impossible."
  The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs, speaking in the House of Commons, February 3rd, 1904, said—
  "It was quite unnecessary to enter on an argument in favour of this policy of Home Rule, or upon any question of machinery, or how such a policy was to be carried out. It was a question of principle. The policy was brought forward, not as a matter of plain expediency, but as a matter of sacred duty."
  Another of the accepted and accredited leaders of the Liberal Party of the future who is absent—[An HON. MEMBER: Go on.] I will ask the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me if he is making the speech, or if I am. The junior Member for Oldham, speaking at Sheffield on March 31st, 1905, said—
  "It was all nonsense to pretend that the Irish question presented an insuperable obstacle to their agreement. Of course Mr. Morley was a Gladstonian Home Ruler; Lord Rosebery was opposed to Home Rule; but there was no question of a Home Rule Bill being brought forward in the next Parliament. It was a physical impossibility."
  The hon. and learned Member for Waterford is so deeply interested in this question that I must be excused if I mention him a little too often. I will not mention one of his English speeches at the moment I will tell the House what he said in America. Speaking at the Convention in America on August 31st, 1904, he said—
  "I have come here to say to you that in our deliberate judgment all the efforts of the Irish race ought now to be concentrated on a determined advance towards the road to Home Rule. Home Rule is our platform to-day. National self-government, and that alone, is the plank on which we stand.
  "I believe that it would be just as possible for Ireland to have a prosperous and free separate existence as a nation as Holland, or Belgium, or Switzerland, or other small nationalities."
  Now we will go back again to Lord Rosebery. Speaking in London on June 10th, 1904, he said—
  "There is one further stumbling-block in the way of some of our friends, and some who would be our friends if this stumbling-block were removed. It is the stumbling-block of Irish Home Rule, by which we understand the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin. But

  1489
  I am perfectly certain, as certain as that I am standing here, that there is no possibility whatever of the next Liberal Government establishing, or attempting to establish, a Parliament in Dublin."
  What does the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford say to that? On October 23rd, 1901, he said—
  "Rather than be held by force, as we are to-day, under the British Empire, we would prefer to be linked with the meanest free country on the face of the earth."
  [An HON. MEMBER: Next please.]
  I have a few more here, and I intend to read them before I sit down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds, in a letter sent from the Liberal Central Association, Parliament Street, London, S.W., writes—
  "So far as I am concerned, I am a Home Ruler, but as I have frequently said to my constituents, the Nationalist Party has accepted, at any rate for the present, the alternative policy of the Conservative Party, and it is essential that we should see what result that policy is likely to have on Irish opinion and what are to be its further developments."
  We will see what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has to say to that. In the House of Commons, on February 3rd, 1904, he said—
  "Now I repeat that for us there is no such thing as an alternative policy to Home Rule. If your government in Ireland were as good as it is notoriously and admittedly bad, we would be still Home Rulers. Our position is that we assert we have the right to rule ourselves. Our position is perfectly plain. We are a Party of independent opposition. We are in opposition to every Government that does not accede to our demand for legislative freedom. For myself, I have sat in opposition in this House for twenty-three years. I have taken part in the overthrow by Irish votes of Conservative Governments and of Liberal Governments. I know not, of course, what the future may have in store for us, but I have a pretty clear conception of what our duty is. In my judgment, it is our duty to offer a vigorous and active opposition to the Government unless they show that they have made some appreciable advance on the road to Home Rule."
  Mr. A. Birrell, K.C., President of the National Liberal Federation, speaking at Oxford on June 11th, 1904, said—
  "The Liberals were supposed to be at loggerheads about Ireland. It was utterly out of the question in the coming Parliament to stand up by the Treasury Bench and introduce either of Mr. Gladstone's great Home Rule measures. No such measure, by whomsoever introduced, could possibly pass, and, therefore, to hold it up as a thing which was to affect people's votes was ridiculous; it was a bogey, a bugbear."
  1490
  The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in another place, writing in March last on the Liberal policy, said—
  "At home, also, local government needs development, and the powers of local bodies are susceptible of judicious extension. Nor can we in this connection ever forget Ireland. Liberals will always be ready at the proper moment to extend the application of the principle of self-government in that country, whose sufferings from misgovernment have so often been a danger to the State."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Fife, speaking at Canterbury on March 31st, 1905, said—
  "That Mr. Tuffs Motion was intended to make mischief between the Liberal Party and the Irish Party. Surely this would not be possible, when we remember the close alliance there is between them, and how much the Liberal Party rely upon the Irish representatives to bring about the downfall of the Government."
  Hon. Members saw in the all-night sitting of last week what happy and united friends they are. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that it was my intention to make mischief between the Liberals themselves. There is not much fear of that, especially as it seems to be quite understood that all the important offices of the State are to be triplicated in order that there may be room for a good proportion of Liberal aspirants to office. I was very glad, however, to see that the right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by saying that it was not their intention to run away, and that he agreed that the time had come when the House of Commons might very well devote three hours to a discussion of the present position of the Irish question.
  I am not going to detain the House any longer. [OPPOSITION cries of "Go on."] I make a strong appeal to all hon. Members to show the country by their presence in the lobbies what their opinion and their idea is as to Home Rule for Ireland. Do they wish Ireland to have a separate Parliament, or do they wish for a loyal, devoted, and united Parliament? I beg to move.
  *SIR WALTER PLUMMER: After the manner in which the House has listened to the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Rochester, perhaps they will allow me, as still a young Parliamentary hand, to congratulate him upon what is virtually his maiden speech. By the fortune of

  1491
  the ballot he has not only been able to address us upon an important question of the day, and one which after the next general election will become an important question of the hour, but he has been able to please the Party opposite by preparing for them that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has foreshadowed as an agreeable and profitable evening. It has been said, and I believe sometimes with great truth, that the pleasures of anticipation not infrequently exceed the pleasures of realisation, and I am not altogether sure that in the case of the right hon. Gentleman that may not be the case to-night. The Resolution which I have the honour to second proceeds upon the lines with which we have been made very familiar of late by the Party opposite, of endeavouring to arrive at and analyse the policy likely to be adopted by those who may form a future Government. The precedent has been established by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, however awkward it may now be, I do not think they can object to the same tactics being applied to them. No doubt we shall be told that circumstances alter cases, and that the circumstance that we are in office and they are not—though very anxious to be—makes permissible and legitimate in the one case that which in the other is not permissible. The whole argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite has, however, been for many months that we are an expiring Government. The charge has been reiterated again and again, and in this matter the Opposition is something like the long-expectant heir, who in somewhat indecent haste complains—to use the words the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich used the other night, though in a different connection—that the present occupant will not get on with his dying. I am glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not take exception to that interpretation of the view they take on this question, because it proves the right to base this Resolution upon that which it is practically based—namely, the assumption and presumption upon the part of Gentlemen opposite that they will come into power at the next general election.
  I am quite prepared to admit that there are two difficulties which
  1492
  confront the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and which, indeed, are inherent to this process of endeavouring to analyse in advance future actions and future intentions. The first is that he cannot quite know before the general election whether the incoming Government will have the sweeping majority which they so desire, and which will enable them to snap their fingers at the Irish Party in this House, and postpone Home Rule to the Greek Kalends—or whether they will only be returned to office instead of to power. It is conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman will declare that this Motion is premature, though if we are supposed to be, as hon. Gentlemen opposite do suppose that we are, on the eve of a general election, at which they are certain to be returned by a sweeping majority, I do not see on what grounds the Motion can be declared to be premature, unless it is upon the question whether they will be returned to power or merely to office. For upon that distinction a very great deal will depend. If they are returned at all, office is, of course, assured; but power is quite a different thing; and if I may employ a quotation which has been used before in this House by a former Member for Newcastle—Mr. Joseph Cowen—I would say with respect to that, ''There's the rub." But if the belief in a Parliament for Ireland amounts to a sincere conviction on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, his recommendation to the electors will not depend upon considerations of policy, nor upon popularity, nor even upon questions of time. The Resolution does not ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do after the general election, but it asks him what he proposes to recommend to the electors of the country.
  The other difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman does not know and cannot tell who may constitute or may not constitute this future Government. The demand greatly exceeds the supply. I venture to think that I who know who would like to be and expect to be members of that Government, and in this latter category I should like to place an hon. Member who is conspicuous by his absence to-night,

  1493
  and for whose absence there are, I think, reasons not difficult to assume—I mean the junior Member for Oldham, who observed the other day, in a speech at Sheffield, in that self-assumed role which he has already taken of one of the coming Leaders of the Liberal Party—that there was no question of a Home Rule Bill being brought forward in the next Parliament or I presume of Home Rule being recommended to the electors. Now this sweeping assertion which, if I did not know the hon. Member fairly well, I should at once have assumed to have been made after consultation with his recognised leader in this House—this sweeping assertion is no doubt also made upon the assumption that he and his new-found friends will have a sweeping majority at the next general election, and that under such circumstances they would be able to do just what they like, irrespective of the eighty votes led by the hon. Member for Waterford, fortified, as I for one thoroughly believe they will be, by some thirty members of the Labour Party, which will be an increasing factor in the Parliament. The Member for Oldham may know or may not know a great deal, but he does not know everything—and until and unless he is in the councils of the leaders of the Liberal Party he has no right to lay down the policy to be pursued by that Party in the next Parliament, or to rule certain things out of Court in this light and airy way. I have heard of a great and distinguished man in the last century whose learning was so great and whose opinion of that learning was so high that it used to be said of him: "I am the Master of Balliol College; what I know not is not knowledge." The hon. Member for Oldham seems to be qualifying as a twentieth century Jowett. This Resolution is, however, mainly concerned, not with would-be or expectant leaders, but with the official Leader of the Party opposite—with him who, having borne the burden and the heat of the day has, I venture to think, a right to expect the highest honour when the time comes. But we want to know, in view of their conflicting statements, whether the right hon. Gentlemen opposite remain on the respective sides of the fence which hitherto they have occupied with regard
  1494
  to Home Rule, and in respect to those who are now sitting upon that fence upon which side they mean to climb down. We want to know that, too, before the general election, for if we wait until after the general election I can readily conceive circumstances in which the question of the adoption of Home Rule will not depend upon the leaders opposite, or even upon the hon. Member for Oldham, but will rest with the hon. Member for Waterford and his Party, reinforced by the Labour Party. As the House well knows, there is an historical illustration of the ease with which a proposed course of action with regard to Home Rule before a general election can be suddenly changed after the result of that general election has become known.
  Now, let me direct attention to some of the conflicting statements of the leaders of the Party opposite in respect to Home Rule. First, however, let me clear the air by quoting one of the declarations of the hon. Member for Waterford, who leads his Party in this House with conspicuous ability, and with whom, whatever other faults we may find with him, we cannot quarrel on the score of ambiguity. On St. Patrick's Day the hon. Member for Waterford said—
  "They would support and keep in office in the next Parliament no Liberal Party, no Liberal Government, which took the Rosebery view of Home Rule for Ireland."
  There we have a definite ultimatum, which matters little so long as no Liberal Government exists, but which may matter a great deal after the next general election. What, then, are the Rosebery views in respect to Home Rule, and how far are hon. Gentlemen opposite in agreement or conflict with them. Let us for a moment try and separate the sheep from the goats. Here is a recent statement of Lord Roseberry—
  "There is one thing to which no wise statesman will ever expose his country, and that is the curse of dual government at the heart of the Empire."
  But, lest anyone would think that these are hasty expressions, let me quote what the noble Earl said three years ago—
  "I am not prepared at any time, or under any circumstances to grant an independent Parliament in Dublin, and when I am asked an independent Parliament, or for anything

  1495
  that is to work up to an independent Parliament, I will tell you plainly that it is not on my slate."
  Now, having stated the Rosebery view, let me refer for a moment to the opinions of other Liberal leaders on the same subject. Take Lord Spencer. In another place that noble Lord said—
  "They heard that Home Rule must he given up by the Liberal Party. He confessed that he could not agree to that himself. If the Liberal Party gave up Home Rule he must take a back seat."
  I do not wish to repeat quotations given by the hon. Member for Rochester, but I should like to give this summing up of the opinions I have quoted to the House by the right hon. Member for East Fife, which, let me say in passing, I prefer to the equivocal reply which he gave to a Scotch heckler, who asked—
  "Should the Liberal Party be returned to power, will Mr. Asquith support Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman in introducing a Home Rule Bill for Ireland in Parliament?"
  to which the right hon. Gentleman replied—
  "That is purely an academical question which is of no practical or political urgency."
  Here is the unequivocal opinion written to the chairman of the East Fife Liberal Association—
  "If we are honest" (mark well that preamble) "we must ask ourselves this practical question: 'Is it to be part of the policy and programme of our Party that, if returned to power, it will introduce into the House of Commons a Bill for Irish Home Rule?' The answer, in my judgment, is 'No.'"
  Of course if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs is going to endorse the opinion I have just quoted, and to join Lord Rosebery in saying that under no circumstances will he grant a separate Parliament to Ireland such as Mr. Gladstone foreshadowed, then the situation will be completely altered in spite of his past assurances, and this debate will not have been without its value. But, if the contrary is the case, let it be stated here and now, or let the Liberal leaders take care to meet together quietly some time before the Liberal Federation meets in Newcastle next month, and agree upon some clear pronouncement of policy with regard to Home Rule in the new edition of the Newcastle programme. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House disagrees
  1496
  profoundly with Lord Rosebery and the right hon. Member for East Fife and would be prepared to carry out in the next Parliament, reluctantly and under force of circumstances, and to recommend Home Rule to the electors at the general election, then let him say so here and now, without delay. The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of obtaining blank cheques from the country. Let there be none of it on his part; no seeking to get into power on the strength of free trade and then to remain in power on the strength of Home Rule. I believe that directly the election is over, assuming the anticipation of hon. Members opposite is achieved, free trade and the fiscal question, though still important in the country, will no longer be a burning Parliamentary question, but will be supplanted in importance in this House by the question of Home Rule.
  In such circumstance I would ask the Leader of the Party opposite—"Is he, or is he not, going to join his Chief Whip and 'stand or fall' by Home Rule," as Home Rule was understood in this House and the country, and by the Irish Party in the time of Mr. Gladstone? The right hon. Gentleman has two answers, one of which he will probably give. The first is the familiar formula—"Put me in, and then I will tell you." As to which, I imagine the hon. Member for Waterford saying—"In vain is the net spread in sight of the bird." The other answer is—"Yes, I will stand by Home Rule at the proper time," which is not in the next Parliament, which cannot be in the Parliament following the next, because whatever consensus of opinion there may be as to the Party opposite being returned at the general election, there is an equal consensus of opinion that a little Liberal administration will go a long way with the country, and it will not, therefore, be until the third Parliament from the present time that the Liberal Party or possibly the Labour Party will again have an opportunity of bringing forward a Home Rule Bill; but by then where I will the "standing by Home Rule" be on the part of the leader opposite? By then, I doubt not, the right hon. Gentleman will have met his reward and be

  1497
  occupying a seat in that other House of Parliament, where the Irish Party cease from troubling, and the weary Liberal is at rest.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in view of the conflicting statements which have been made by the various leaders of the Opposition on the subject of Home Rule, it is expedient that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Stirling Burghs, should explicitly declare whether or not it is his intention to recommend to the electors of the United Kingdom the policy of establishing a Parliament in Ireland."—(Mr. Tuff.)
  *MR. SOARESsaid he wished to ascertain from Mr. Speaker his formal riding on the Amendment which stood in his name. This was a point of considerable importance not only in this debate but in other debates of a similar nature. He submitted that the Amendment was in order with the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Rochester, although, perhaps, not strictly in order with the Resolution which had been founded on the Notice of Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: An Amendment must be relevant to the Question put from the Chair. The Question put from the Chair relates to Home Rule; but the Question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member relates to the administration of Irish affairs by the present Government. That is a different Question altogether. The Amendment is not in order.
  *SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Speaker, a stranger situation than this never presented itself to the House of Commons. A stranger Motion never appeared on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Rochester seeks to elicit from the Member for Stirling Burghs—why he should seek to rob my constituency of the poor honour of the definite article I cannot understand; I will take the liberty of putting it in, and talking of, the Stirling Burghs—a statement of the advice which he will submit to his electors at the election. The election! Here is courage
  1498
  for you. I thought it was the word they never mentioned; an idea that only visits them in their worst dreams; its introduction is little short of profanity, but it marks a falling-off from the high standard pursued by the Party—no, not by the Party opposite, but by the Government opposite; I am not sure that they are unanimously supported by their Party [An HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.]—the high standard, I say, that they have set themselves in living up to the full limit of the Septennial Act. Sir, this is a new thing in the House of Commons. This kind of interrogation is a thing which all Scotch Members have encountered on the platform. We call it heckling. It is a wholesome practice between a Member and his constituents. I believe the word, and in some poor degree the practice, has, like many other good things, come south into England and established itself here; but this is the first occasion of it in the House of Commons.
  The hon. Member who introduced the Motion is a recent addition to our number, and he may have acted in the innocence of uninstructed adolescence. His Parliamentary childhood has been passed in strange scenes, and he probably has thought that one irregularity more or less does not much matter. But I am not so sure that the hon. Member can claim all the immunity which attaches to a young Member. I remember many years ago the late Mr. Bernal Osborne saying in this House when a Member claimed some indulgence on this account, "He may be a young Member, but he is evidently an old practitioner." The hon. Member by co-operation with other Members sitting around him obtained this great opportunity, and no doubt the Motion which stands on the Paper is the result of the co-operation of himself and of those other Members under high official sanction. That being so, I am afraid I am not able to congratulate the authors of the Motion either upon their ingenuity or their adroitness. I do not profess to be an accomplished draftsmen by any means, but if the hon. Member had come to me I could have drawn a Motion of a much better and more effective type. What does he do? He calls attention to a variety of declarations on the subject of Home Rule. His speech, in fact,

  1499
  consisted almost entirely of a recital of these declarations. I would complain of them first of all that they were not very well grouped; but the Members of this House, at least, whose opinions were quoted, I trust, before this debate finishes, will have an opportunity of explaining and justifying their statements and sentiments; and, after all, these are only the signs of a healthy, intelligent, and independent consideration of a difficult and complex subject. Having recited these declarations, which it is no part of my duty to deal with, the hon. Member fastened upon me, and called upon me to stand and deliver. But he seems to be ignorant of the fact that his leader—not, I believe, his fiscal leader—has already informed him that in his opinion—and that should be final with the hon. Member—my speech on the Amendment to the Address moved by the hon. Member for Waterford was saturated with Home Rule. So that ought to dispose of me in the estimation of the hon. Member.
  Sir, this Motion, I fear, is not to be attributed so much to innocent curiosity as to my views on Home Rule as to a desire possibly to furnish to the Unionist Party a field day in which they could disport themselves with some appearance of unity. It was no doubt thought that the hon. Member would regain that confidence which deserted him when his leader's policy has been called in question in the House of Commons, and make up for the incoherence and pusillanimity of the Party opposite by leading an attack in force upon another policy altogether, and a policy which in no sense can be said to be at this moment before the House or the country. When such an attack is made upon us we have no lack of strategical courses to pursue which have high example and authority to commend them. For instance, we might have searched about for someone who would move an Amendment which would altogether baffle the earnest inquirer. Again, we might have moved the "previous Question," and there never was a case more fitted for it. And, lastly, we might have run away. But we are all here, and the hon. Member will find that his kindly inquiries will be met with a
  1500
  not unfriendly smile. But, Mr. Speaker, wonders will not cease. Do my eyes deceive me? The Prime Minister is in his place. This is an abstract Motion brought forward by a private Member on a private Member's night and dealing with a question that cannot be dealt with in this Parliament. What more do we want to taboo it? If there is a debate and a division on such a Motion, it is of no consequence, "for he himself has said it"; and surely he will not think of wasting his time aid that of his faithful followers in listening to the discussion. If this would be true, according to the Prime Minister, where inquiries were addressed to a Minister of the Crown with regard to his public policy, while the country had been agitated by a great controversy raging from one end to the other, how much more certainly can we say that it is of no consequence when it merely deals with the opinions of a private Member on a subject which, as I say, is not now prominently before the country. Yet here the right hon. Gentleman is. I presume he must have been lingering in the purlieus of Westminster, and, looking up, he saw that the light was burning, and it occurred to him that the House might be sitting. He has looked in upon us; and I am sure that I express the desire and the feeling of every one on this side of the House when I say that I trust he and his friends will not spend more time among us than is entirely convenient to them.
  I pass from this light but still not unimportant aspect of the situation, and I say that the question which the hon. Member has lightly and in this absurd method brought before us is one of the gravest questions that can affect our country. In so far as he makes a demand on me that I should state what, in certain future contingencies, will be the particular policy which I shall recommend to my electors, I say it is a preposterous demand which he has no right to make, and which I altogether decline to satisfy. But as to my opinions on Irish government they are well known to all of you. They have been expressed again and again by action and speech in and out of the House, and I would say further that the course of events during the last two decades, so far from mitigating or weakening my views, has done much to confirm and strengthen them. I would say,

  1501
  whatever may be the right solution of it, this question of the better government of Ireland directly and imperatively confronts both Parties in the State. That has been admitted by us on this side of the House when we voted for the Amendment on the Address moved by the hon. Member for Waterford. It has been admitted by the Government in the terms and the circumstances of Sir Antonym MacDonnell's appointment made with the express concurrence of the Prime Minister; and it has been confirmed by the justification offered for the recent Irish policy of the Government by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place. This marks the conclusion which both these great Parties have come to within this very year. Let me take first the words of Lord Lansdowne, who said—
  "Anybody who has studied this question is aware that there is room for considerable improvement in that old-fashioned and complicated organisation."
  And he said again—
  "In endeavouring to arrive at that result and to break down the barrier which has too long and too often divided Dublin Castle from the rest of the country my right hon. friend "(that is the late Chief Secretary)" was taking a step in the right direction."
  These are true words and significant words. Lord Lansdowne is an Irishman, a great personage in that country, devoted to Ireland and spending a great part of his life there, thoroughly acquainted with affairs, and here, he speaks of the "barrier which has too long and too often divided Dublin Castle from the rest of the country." I pass from this confession to the Amendment to the Address which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. What were the terms of that Amendment?—
  "We humbly represent to Your Majesty that the present system of government in Ireland is in opposition to the will of the Irish people, and gives them no voice in the management of their own affairs; that the system is consequently ineffective and extravagantly costly, and that it does not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population; that it is productive of universal discontent and unrest, and has been proved to be incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people."
  Sir, we voted for that Amendment, and hon. Members opposite voted against it; and I think it was perfectly natural that
  1502
  they should, do so, and this not only on the ground of the familiar excuse that an Amendment to the Address cannot be accepted by a Government for it would constitute a vote of want of confidence, but on this other ground, that I admit it is so wholesale an indictment of the whole system of government in Ireland that I could well imagine men of moderate views on the subject shrinking from committing themselves to it. But I invite the House calmly and quietly to take this Amendment clause by clause as I propose to do; and I ask how many Members, if any, will dispute its accuracy? Does any one say the system of government in Ireland is not in opposition to the will of the Irish people? Who can say that with the presence of this huge majority of Irish Members? Does anyone deny that the Irish people have no full voice in the management of their own affairs? Does anyone say that the system is effective and that it is not extravagantly costly? Who is there will say that the system enjoys the confidence of every section of the population, or that there is any section whose confidence it does enjoy? Why even that little section on the other side of the House only gives a grudging confidence when the Government does everything it tells them to do. Lastly, is it disputed that there is great discontent and unrest in Ireland? Is it disputed that the material and intellectual progress of the people is not promoted by the present system? Why, take them one by one, and I will venture to say there is not one man out of ten, be he Unionist, Home Ruler, or be he what he may, who can deny this tissue of charges brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.
  For a moment let us look back over a period of twenty years. Ireland was then, and had been for years before, seething in social disorder. The old traditional remedy, of course, was coercion; but the time had come when the people of this country were sick of coercion, and on either side men were declaring in a loud voice that they would have no more of it. Then came Mr. Gladstone with his two heroic attempts at remedy. They failed; but who will deny that the attempts, although they ended in failure, had a deep effect in

  1503
  the pacification of the country? There is no man who took a part, humble though it may have been, whether as Member here or as a voter at the polls, in helping towards the adoption of those remedies who has not a share of the credit and satisfaction in bringing about that improved state of things. What was the principle at the root of this policy? It was the right of the Irish people to the management of their own domestic affairs. The successive plans by which this was to be given to them failed to satisfy the country, as I have said; but the principle of self-government, the principle of an elective element that shall be the governing element in Ireland, remains, in our view, the only principle consonant with our constitutional habits and practice, and, what is more, the only principle that will ever work. I came the other day upon a phrase that admirably expresses the matter—
  "Popular control, and popular confidence, which cannot be had without it, are essential to administration of the best kind."
  Well, these are our views. I have to ask the House to allow me to make a quotation—and I do not use the words for any purpose of taunt or controversy. They are words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham uttered in 1885. They were often used in the controversy of those days, and I quote them because they are incisive, memorable words, and accurate in their description of the truth—
  "An Irishman at this moment"—
  and this is as true now as it was then—
  "cannot move a step without being confronted with, interfered with, controlled by an English official appointed by a foreign Government, and without a shade or shadow of representative authority."
  Sir, this is what lies at the root of the mischief; and until the principle of representative authority is applied in such a form as shall give the people of Ireland the effective management of Irish affairs—You will go on if you like with a system like the present, the value of which may be judged by the words I have quoted.
  I for my part would be for adopting such methods and such a plan as may appear to me most likely to bring to a successful issue this principle and the
  1504
  policy arising from it. But if I am further asked tostate details to as the particular plan or a particular method to be adopted, I altogether decline to do so. Again, I may be asked questions as to time and priority. We are all aware of the fact that there are great masses of arrears of British legislation to be dealt with, and there are other questions brought forward calling for consideration, one of the most urgent which I would name being the education question which the Government have raised. If a demand is made that I should say as a private Member what precise priority should be given to each one of those great questions, I say that it is a preposterous demand which ought not to be made. But, the fact is, if we are to have an interrogatory raised on the question of Irish government and Government policy, am I the proper person to be interrogated. ["Yes."] Is it not, rather, the responsible Government? [An HON. MEMBER: They never answer.] I find that a few years ago, in 1895, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham laid down this as a general principle. He said, "He" (the Minister to whom he was replying)
  "is a member of a Government that has forgotten how to govern and has not learned how to resign. Let the right hon. Gentleman resign; we will find him a policy. But we are not going to lend him our prescriptions while he takes the fee. What is he on the Front Bench for? I do not see why we should prescribe until we are called in."
  But passing from that, which is, I think, a very sound view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, where is the responsibility in regard to the future policy in, as well as the present condition of, Ireland? It is there (pointing to the Treasury bench). Is there ambiguity? It is there. Is there obscurity? It is there. What is the Irish policy of the Government? Is it a continuance of what they themselves called twenty years of resolute Government, with coercion, as its implied sanction and its ultimate development? Is it, on the other hand, the policy of conciliation and co-operation, of which Sir Antony MacDonnell was the herald angel? Or is it the policy—their present apparent policy—of satisfying the Orange faction, which spoke and Sir Antony MacDonnell was dropped at once? Or is it a mosaic or alternation of these three policies?

  1505
  We have seen how that distinguished public servant was called in and installed in order to carry out the new policy in a new spirit. The Prime Minister was well aware of the views of the man he was employing. "I am an Irishman," said Sir Antony MacDonnell, "a Roman Catholic, and a Liberal in politics. I have strong Irish sympathies." And he added, "I find that there is a substantial measure of agreement between us." Why did this new policy break down? Because it was discovered that Sir Antony MacDonnell, with the concurrence of the Viceroy, was assisting a little group of Irish landlords and leaders of moderate Unionist opinion to carry out this policy of reform and administrative conciliation with the help of the Irish people. That was his offence; but the mention of the elective principle, attenuated as it was and restricted in its scope' brought about the explosion. What a spectacle! To see this strong Government, which set before itself ends in themselves worthy and honourable, shrinking back in terror when it found that there was a danger that the adoption of the only means by which these ends could be attained might expose them to the charge of touching the accursed thing and being tainted with Home Rule. They became the slaves of unfounded prejudice. The charge was made. It was carried into the lobbies. Sir Antony MacDonnell was rebuked and the Chief Secretary was sent into the wilderness. Our only puzzle is why he went there unaccompanied—why, when he went into the wilderness he did not take with him the head of the Government, who was well aware of the general drift of the policy the Under-Secretary had in view. This was all owing to the action of a knot of—I do not want to use an offensive expression—a knot of intolerant politicians. Let the House consider for a moment. Supposing this knot of intolerant politicians had acquiesced, would Sir Antony MacDonnell have been told that his conduct was indefensible? Would the Chief Secretary have resigned? No, Sir, on land purchase these hon. Members and their Party were with Sir Antony MacDonnell and Lord Dunraven; but any recognition of the desires of the majority in Ireland, any check on the domination of their own
  1506
  fraction of the Irish people, raised an outcry, the Government ran away, Sir Antony MacDonnell was rebuked, and the Chief Secretary was thrown to the wolves. With this Government the voice of this little section is the voice of Ireland. For the moment, the Government have capitulated, but it cannot be for long. They cannot fight against fate. They are themselves on the high road to the evolution of a new and wholly altered system of government in Ireland, whether they like it or not.
  I wish to take no partisan view of this question; but what is the situation? We have had this MacDonnell episode; the Government found that the turning point was reached, and that they must embark on a policy of conciliation, not only of generous and open-handed gifts of money and other methods of kindness to the Irish people, but of conciliation, which meant sympathy and co-operation in the management of the affairs of the country. We see glimmerings of apprehension on the part of the Government of the lesson learned by Ministers and high officials one after another who have gone to Ireland with undetermined minds, or full of prejudice against the Irish view, and yet who have found by experience how indefensible and how devoid of light and hope is the present system of government in Ireland. If the Government had designed to pave the way for what they call and denounce as Home Rule, could they have done better than they have in setting their stamp on the character of the Irish people by inducing Parliament to agree to so vast a grant of British credit, and by entrusting the mass of them with the responsible duties of local government? The Government have gone bail for the Irish people, for their character, for their capacity, for their integrity and—to adopt the poetic word of the late Chief Secretary—for their chivalry. Are you going to say, "Thus far and no further?" Are you going to trust them only up to the doors of Dublin Castle? Is this the last word of your statesmanship? Let me tell the hon. Member for Rochester that it is not the last word of ours. The Liberal Party, through twenty years of effort and sacrifice, amid misrepresentation and vilification, have pursued and

  1507
  contended for the cause of good government in Ireland; and so, as time and circumstances allow, we will prosecute the same beneficent course, believing that we shall have the sympathy of our countrymen with us, believing also that the divisions between the different sections of society in Ireland are healing, and will heal the faster as better government extends, and not without hope, I thank Heaven, that both Parties in the State, as the goal is better realised, will unite in the effort to attain to it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: When notice was given by the hon. Gentleman opposite of his intention to raise the question of Home Rule, I understood that the hon. Gentleman's object was to challenge the principle and policy of national self-government in Ireland, and I rather welcomed the opportunity which seemed to be opening before the Irish Nationalist Party in this House of once more stating the case of Ireland. But when I read the terms of the Motion I was surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman did nothing of the kind, but confined himself to asking certain Questions—relevant or irrelevant, pertinent or impertinent, of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to what his action would be in a contingency that has not yet arisen. I am not sure that in such circumstances there is any necessity for the Irish Party to take part in this debate at all. The Motion does not challenge us; it does not challenge our cause—the cause of Home Rule; it cannot be meant to embarrass us, and, therefore, it seems to me we have only an indirect interest in the discussion. Still I think that if we remained silent our silence would probably be misunderstood and misinterpreted, and, therefore, I propose to state once more frankly to the House the position of the Irish Party and of myself on the question of Home Rule.
  If the hon. Gentleman imagines that we are likely to budge one inch from our position on the question of Home Rule, he is likely to be grievously disappointed, and if he expects to confuse the mind, either of the House of Commons or of the country, as to what our attitude on the question of Home Rule is he is likely to be still more grievously disappointed. Our attitude on this question has been ab-
  1508
  solutely unchanged for twenty-five years. We regard the government of our country by this Parliament as a usurpation; we deny the validity and dispute the moral binding force of the Act of Union. What you call a treaty we say was vitiated ab initio by force and fraud. We demand self-government, not as a favour, but as a right; we base our demand, not upon grievance, but upon the inherent and unalienable right of the Irish nation to govern itself. We say plainly that we would rather be governed badly by our own Parliament than well by this Assembly. We are accused of disloyalty. Disloyalty to what? Why are we in Ireland not given something to be loyal to? By nature I believe that Irishmen are as loyal as any people in the world. Yes, but to a system of government maintained by force against the will of the people we are disloyal, and will continue to be disloyal.
  The hon. Gentleman did me the honour of quoting a number of speeches of mine. He quoted some speeches of mine delivered in America, and I rather think he did so with the idea of conveying to the House the impression that I had spoken in one sense in America and in a different sense here. [Cries of "No."] I am glad to hear from hon. Members who have been longer in the House a disavowal of any such accusation. I would feel utterly dishonoured and ashamed of myself if I had ever made a statement in America or Ireland more extreme than the statements I have made in this House. I believe in frankness in these matters. I believe we have nothing to gain—I believe that no Party has anything to gain—by a policy of make-believe, evasion, or concealment. I have no objection to state again to this House what my individual attitude on this question is. I believe the present system of government in Ireland is in principle so unconstitutional and in practice so ruinous to all classes and interests in Ireland that, if I had to choose between the continuation of the present system and absolute separation from the Empire, I would not have the slightest hesitation in deciding in favour of separation. More than that, if I believed that there was the smallest reasonable chance of success, I would have no hesitation in

  1509
  advising my fellow-countrymen to endeavour to end the present system by armed revolt. But Sir, while those are my views, I am and always have been profoundly convinced that by constitutional means and within the Constitution it is possible to arrive at a compromise, based upon the concession of self-government, or, as Mr. Gladstone used to say, autonomy, to Ireland, which would put an end to this ancient international quarrel upon terms satisfactory and honourable to both nations. Such was the settlement proposed to Ireland in 1886 and 1893. For reasons which perhaps will be understood, I wish to recall the fact that Parnell accepted in this House the principle and policy of the settlement of 1886 and 1893. He accepted it in the name of the Irish Nationalist Party, and his acceptance of it was ratified by the public opinion of Ireland and of the Irish race in America and elsewhere. I have been recently accused by a distinguished nobleman of having in some way or other repudiated the acceptance of that compromise and settlement. I deny that, and, if necessity arose, I could prove that my denial is true. But, after all, the individual statement of the hon. Member for Waterford, when he was not the representative of the Irish Nationalist Party in the House of Commons, and when he spoke for himself, was a small matter. I repudiate and deny that statement; but, after all, what is important is that, speaking here now, with full authority and responsibility, in the name of the whole Irish Nationalist Party, I say that that Party has not departed one hair's breadth from the position which was taken up in 1886 by Mr. Parnell, and after his death in 1893 by the Irish Members of the day. To-day the position is this. No doubt time and experience have pointed out to us many defects, as we think, in the clauses of the Bills of 1886 and 1893; but so far as the principle and the policy of the settlement contained in those Bills are concerned we never have repudiated them, and to-day we would be willing, as we were in 1886 or 1893, to accept them as bringing to an end, as we would hope for ever, the wretched and blood-stained chapter of English misrule and of consequent Irish disloyalty and resistance.
  1510
  I cannot in the time at my disposal deal as fully as I would have liked with this question. But let me very shortly recapitulate—summarise, so to speak—the main features of the system of rule in Ireland which, in my judgment, make the Home Rule question an urgent and vital question to-day before both the country and the House of Commons. The present system of rule is unconstitutional, quite apart altogether from its tainted origin in the Act of Union, and in its everyday working practice it is unworkable. The majority of the people who are ruled have no power in the government of the country. The country is governed by a minority. The representation of Ireland in this House has been reduced almost to a farce. Five men from a small corner of Ulster have more power in this House in the government of Ireland than eighty-six men representing the rest of the country. It is unconstitutional in another sense. The people of Ireland have not the benefit of the British Constitution. They are suffering under a permanent disability in the form of an exceptional law which does not exist in England, Scotland, or Wales, or in any other portion of the British Empire—a law under which at the caprice and the will of a single man trial by jury may be suspended and trial by paid servants and deputies of the Executive Government substituted for it. The government is not only unconstitutional; it is a bad government. It does not fulfil any one of the elementary duties of a government. It does nothing for the industrial development of the people; our industries in Ireland were destroyed by Act of this Parliament, and ever since the Union your English Government has done nothing to help in their resuscitation; the population has gone down, and is still going down; labourers and artisans have not decent dwellings; our seaport towns are falling into decay because the piers and harbours built by one of your centralised and nominated boards are crumbling into the sea; our fishing industry is dying; and, above all, our educational system in all its stages—elementary, intermediate, and University—is fifty years behind the educational system of the least progressive country in Western Europe. And this government, unconstitutional,

  1511
  bad, and inefficient, is the most costly in proportion in the world, and, on the statement of your own financial experts, Ireland is over-taxed every year £3,000,000 as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Is it any wonder in those circumstances that no class in Ireland is satisfied with British rule? Fifty years ago Lord Chief Justice Whiteside used these words:—
  ''He was compelled by respect for truth to admit that the government of Ireland was very inefficiently conducted. He was a Protestaet and a Conservative, but he must say that were Ireland as far removed from England as Canada, the system of government there would be blown to pieces as easily as a house of cards. He would say that the Government of Ireland was opposed to nine-tenths of the intelligence and intellect of the people."
  That was fifty years ago, but every word of that was as true of the government of Ireland to-day as it was then. Unfortunately Irish Unionists in the days of Whiteside, just as they have been ever since and are to-day, were silenced by the horrible system of preferment which alone has induced the Irish minority to consent to the robbery and misgovernment of their country. There are some signs to-day of the truth coming to the surface in Ireland. I will not allude to the Uunraven movement, and I will not allude to the recent declaration of men like Sir West Ridgeway, but I do desire to quote two or three words from a recent letter published by Lord Rossmore. Lord Rossmore was, at one time, a Grand Master of the Orange Society in Ireland. He was a man whose name was associated with the most extreme hostility to the principle of self-government for Ireland. He declared that he had come to the conclusion that the extreme section of Unionists in Ireland were seeking to establish the worst form of slavery, and that this was being done by the men who professed no constructive policy whatever in relation to their country or their fellow-countrymen.. His Lordship declared that their policy was purely negative, and that the so-called Loyalist minority in Ireland were blindly following the lead of a few professional politicians who felt that their salaries and positions depended on the divisions and antipathies of those who should be working together for the good of their common country. That minority ha
  1512
  not changed. Its sympathies have not widened, and its heart has not softened for a hundred years. It is the same minority which in 1793 opposed the first efforts of the Irish Parliament to secure Catholic emancipation, and which, on the testimony of Cromwell and Lecky, drove the Irish people into open revolt. It is the same minority that sold their country in 1800 for emoluments and honours, and that has ever since opposed every single measure of reform proposed for Ireland. Catholic emancipation, land reform, Church reform, the ballot, the franchise, local government, and every single reform they have opposed, and to-day these place-holders and place-seekers alone oppose Home Rule. Such a system cannot continue. Some people say that Home Rule is dead and others say it is sleeping. Mr. Speaker, this debate has proved that Home Rule is neither dead nor sleeping, but it is a live, urgent, and insistent question, and in my judgment it is now merely a matter of selecting the particular form of the remedy that has to be applied. In my opinion, it is now as someone has said quite recently, a question of time, method, and opportunity.
  I have listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with great attention and some anxiety. I am not called on to declare that that speech is in all particulars alsolutely satisfactory. As far as the right hon. Gentleman himself is concerned, I needed no declaration from him. The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent and courageous all through; and as the Leader of the Liberal Party and as the man who I, for my part, hope will soon be guiding the destinies of this country, his declarations to-night have been worthy of himself and his record. I think the right hon. Gentleman is wise and right in refusing to answer the irrelevant and impertinent Questions which were addressed to him as to what his method would be of advancing the policy he avows in a contingency that has not arisen. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party that when they succeed to office they will find that the difficulties of the Irish question have been seriously exaggerated, and that the supposed hostility of most of the English people to a fair and moderate settlement

  1513
  of the Irish demand has been enormously exaggerated. They will also find that this will be an urgent and insistent question which will knock loudly at the door of the next Parliament.
  So far as our position is concerned words have been quoted to the House, and if I may take a phrase from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, all I have to say in regard to those quotations is, "What I have said I have said." I have been taunted in regard to our relations with British Parties. Sir, we are an independent Party in this House, and we cannot ally ourselves with any English Party, Liberal or Tory, which does not make the concession of self-government to Ireland a principle in its programme, or which attempts to shelve the demand of Ireland for Home Rule. There is only one way of ruling any intelligent people, and that is by consent. A great Irish statesman, whose greatness has not yet, in my judgment, been fully acknowledged either by his own countrymen or by this House—I allude to the late Mr. Isaac Butt—said in the year 1867—
  "There is but one secret in governing Ireland, as there is in governing any country, and it is to govern for the good of the whole people. Abandon the policy of maintaining any English interest, or any Protestant interest, or any class interest, or any interest but that of the Irish people. … When Irish legislation is influenced as exclusively by the wants and wishes of Ireland as English legislation is by those of England, then, and not till then, will Ireland be governed as a free country."
  That should be the Irish programme of any wise British Administration, and that Irish programme can only be carried out by the restoration in Ireland of that national Parliament to which the hon. Member alludes in his Resolution.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have only a few minutes in which to address the House, but I think in those few minutes I can compress all that it is needful for me to say on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken with his wonted lucidity and force, and no man who has heard him can have the smallest doubt as to what
  1514
  his meaning is. He is of opinion that the only cure for the ills of Ireland is a Home Rule scheme on the broad lines of the Bill of 1886 or the Bill of 1893. He does not deny that in certain circumstances he might like more, but he is perfectly prepared to take that, and he is not prepared to take anything less than that. He also thinks that this is a vital question to Ireland and also an urgent question for Ireland, that it cannot be allowed to slumber, and that the next Parliament, if he can manage it, will have to deal with this question in this sense. I am not sure that I interpreted rightly the phrases of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but, at all events, if they meant anything different from the principles of the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893 that would not content the Irish Party; it would not, in their opinion, solve the Irish question, and it would not be even a step in the right direction which would be worth taking. That is the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. [An HON. MEMBER: He never said that.] If the hon. and learned Member for Waterford differs from anything I have said let him contradict me. He was amply satisfied with the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the Opposition, and he appeared to think that that speech might be summarised in the way I have just summarised his speech—that the right hon. Gentleman opposite holds, as the Member for Waterford holds, that nothing short of the Bill of 1886 or 1893, in its broad principles, will meet the Irish case, and that the Irish case is an urgent case and should be dealt with immediately and on those lines.
  That was the interpretation put by the hon. Member for Waterford on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. I confess my powers of interpretation did not quite lead me to the same conclusion. I did not see that clear utterance upon this question which I should have thought he would have given after all the reproaches he has levelled against me for obscurity. I should have thought he would have found it within his powers to make a statement to the House as clear as the one I am making on this subject. He could have left us

  1515
  in as little doubt as the hon. and learned Gentleman has left us. He has not done so. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] He has not only not done so, but he has done nothing towards answering the appeal made to him in the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman says the appeal is of an unusual character. He says it deals with a matter not before the present Parliament. I agree that it deals with a matter not before the present Parliament, and I agree that up to a relatively recent date appeals upon subjects not before the Parliament in existence were not usually addressed to those who were, or those who expected to be, Ministers of the Crown. But a new practice has arisen, and as the right hon. Gentleman has rather lent himself to that practice, I should have thought he would have been the first to jump up and tell us what it was he was going to recommend in the name of his Party at the next election. And that reminds me. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, in all the latter part of his speech, assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking for his Party. I did not catch that from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think he claimed to speak for his Party, and I can easily guess the reason. If he had spoken in the sense assumed by the hon. Member for Waterford, with whom he agrees, he could not have spoken for his Party without at once being disavowed by Gentlemen on his own bench. He wisely refrained from placing himself in a position which no doubt he would have found extremely embarrassing. But when he claims his right as a private Member to hold silence in this matter [OPPOSITION cries of "He did not hold silence," and "He did not run away."] I think he forgets that if the prophecies of which he has been so lavish, and which have been re-echoed by almost every Gentleman who sits behind him, as to the results of the next general election prove true, we are dealing with a period at which he will have ceased to be a private Member, and this Resolution touches a period in which he will no longer be able to claim the privileges of a private Member. I shall have regained that enviable position, [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] according to the right hon. Gentleman [renewed
  1516
  OPPOSITION cries of "When?"]—when the next general election takes place.
  There is one peculiarity which I wonder whether hon. friends of mine have noticed in this debate and in the utterances made by the Party opposite on the subject of Home Rule. I think some statements have been quoted by my two hon. friends to-night in which distinguished Gentlemen belonging to the other side have told us that they will not take office unless they are returned independently of the Irish Party, and that their difficulties will be very great if they depend upon Irish support.
  MR. LOUGH: What about the Education Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let me translate that into practical language. It means that if hon Gentlemen are returned in a large majority, then the Members for Ireland may whistle, but if they are returned in a small majority, then in "Heaven's name justice for Ireland." And I think some of the difficulty hon. Gentlemen opposite have in stating what exactly they may like to do if they are returned to power in the next Parliament is because they are not yet quite certain whether they will or will not be independent of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, and until some revelation on the subject is vouchsafed to them we must expect hesitating and ambiguous answers to such questions as have been asked of them by my hon. friends to-night.
  The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to interpret certain recent events, of which he gave a most erroneous account—["Oh"]—an utterly and hopelessly erroneous account ["Oh"] as indicating some approximation between the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen on this side with those which he himself holds. There is no such approximation if he holds, as I believe him to hold, the doctrines to which he has constantly given utterance. There is, I believe, not a single man on this side of the House who does not hold as the cardinal article of his political faith that Home Rule for Ireland would be a gift fatal to Ireland and fatal to England. We stand now, one and all of us, as far as I know, exactly where we stood in

  1517
  this matter in the year 1886, when the first Home Rule Bill was introduced, and in the year 1893, when the second Home Rule Bill was introduced, and if, in the course of that political evolution of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, a time should come when, under the impulse of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, the Radical Party opposite should attempt again, for the third time, to try the same unhappy adventure, I promise them they will find on this side of the House opponents absolutely unanimous and strenuously resolved to say that the unity of the kingdom shall be preserved.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYcontinued the debate, amid Ministerial cries of " Asquith."
  Mr. TUFFrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  THE SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion. The Question was only put from the Chair at half-past ten, after speeches from the proposer and seconder lasting nearly an hour, in which the opinions of a great number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were challenged. Since then there have been only three speeches, and, therefore, I do not think it would be right to put the Question.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY,amid considerable interruption from the Ministerial side, continued speaking until twelve o'clock.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Bill be now read the third time."
  *MR. BRIGHTmoved that the Bill be recommitted in
  1518
  order to insert a new clause to abolish corporal punishment in military prisons. He asked the House to allow him to state the fact sin regard to this subject, which, in his opinion, were of great importance. When the Bill was last before the House the subject was discussed at seven o'clock in the morning when it was impossible to deal with it properly. He thought the flogging which went on in military prisons was unnecessary and inexpedient, and it was a blot on the national name which should be deleted. He was not going to take his stand on the narrow ground that the military prisons were not governed by statute by the more humane Prisons Act of 1898 instead of the Acts of 1865 and 1877. The offences for which flogging in military prisons would be inflicted were mutiny and incitement to mutiny, and gross personal violence to an officer or servant in prison. The rules provided that corporal punishment for these offences should only be inflicted (1) on the order of three visitors specially summoned after inquiry upon oath and determination concerning the matter reported to them; and (2) on approval by the general or other officer commanding the district or station. They further provided that corporal punishment should be inflicted with a "cat" or birch rod, and that the instruments in both instances should be of a pattern approved by the Secretary of State; that the number of lashes or strokes inflicted on a prisoner should not exceed twenty-five; and that the order for the punishment should be duly entered in the appointed manner, and the number of lashes or strokes and the instrument with which they were to be inflicted should in all cases be stated in such order.
  The men who were sent to military prisons were committed for military offences. Flogging could not be inflicted for these offences outside the prison. While the number of cases of flogging was not very large, it should be noted that in the best managed prisons that they did not occur at all. It was in the smaller and inferior prisons that they occurred. He had looked carefully into the reports for the last few years, and he found that, in almost every case where flogging was resorted to as a punishment, there was something wrong in

  1519
  the discipline or efficiency of the prison. In 1902 the prisoners at the following places were—Aldershot, 2,986; Dover, 1,757; Gosport, 1,783; York, 1,302; and Malta, 1,638. These were all the prisons in which there were more than 1,000 prisoners. At Dover, two prisoners, at Gosport, fourteen, and at York, six, had to be put in irons, but at none of the prisons mentioned did flogging take place. In the same year the prisoners at the following smaller prisons were—Woking, 228; Curragh, 852; Stirling, 248; Bermuda, 309; Cairo, 408; and Pietermaritzburg, 294. At Woking, four prisoners, Curragh, five, Stirling, two, Bermuda, one, and Pietermaritzburg, one, were put in irons; and the floggings were—Woking, one, Curragh, two, Stirling one, Bermuda, two, Cairo, one, and Pietermaritzburg, one. The statistics for 1903 in regard to the large prisons were:—Aldershot, 3,454 prisoners; Dover, 1,706; Gosport, 1,346; York, 1,417; Dublin, 1,585; and Malta, 1,351. There were put in irons at Dover four, Gosport, eight, and York, eight; while the floggings were—one at Gosport and two at Dublin. As to the smaller prisons for the same year the statistics were—Woking, 899; Curragh, 770; Stirling 265; Bermuda, 274; Cairo, 547; Pietermaritzburg; 117, and Jamaica, 189. There were put in irons—seven at Woking, three at Curragh, one at Stirling, and one at Jamaica. The floggings were—three at Woking and one at Jamaica. These statistics showed that it was all a question of management. He had put together the figures for the three largest prisons—Aldershot, Dover, and Malta. In two years the number of prisoners in these was 12,892; and there was no case of flogging. In the three smaller prisons—Woking, Curragh, and Bermuda—the number of prisoners was 3,332 and there were eight cases of flogging. That was, that in the best managed prisons they did not find the same number of floggings as in small, ill-constructed prisons. He would give one or two extracts from the reports on certain prisons. Alder-shot: The Governor's report for 1902 said—
  ''From careful observation during the year I am led to believe that the reforms instituted since 1898 are either proving a better deterrent than the system or are so inuring soldiers to
  1520
  strict military discipline that they keep clear much oftener than they used to do."
  In Dover they found a similar state of things. The Governor reported in 1902—
  "The new system of treatment is now thoroughly established and the improvements wrought in the condition and general demeanour of the men are evidence of its effectiveness."
  Malta was not only a great garrison town, but also a half-way house to those bounds of the Empire, where, as it had been said—
  "There ain't no ten commandments,
  And a man can raise a thirst."
  But the conduct of the prison was highly creditable in every way, and led to the most satisfactory results. In 1902 the Governor's report stated—
  "The good behaviour in prison is chiefly due to the tactful manner in which the prisoners are dealt with by the subordinates."
  And in 1903 the Governor reported—
  "Experience proves that the present system of dealing with military offenders is both deterrent and beneficial to the soldier. It is a distinct advance on the old conditions when punishment in the form of hard manual labour was the only recognised means of effecting the reform of the soldier."
  He came now to the prisons where the treatment was exceedingly severe or the buildings bad and where the results were not good. The first was Woking where the authority, was evidently of the martinet order. The Governor reported in 1902—
  "The destruction of equipment and clothing has lately been pulled up with a very sharp turn, two prisoners having been the same day convicted of the offence and sentenced to eighteen months and seventeen months respectively. The promulgation of the Court-martial proceedings brought about a most salutary effect and warning."
  At Curragh he found the Governor made a complaint of want of accommodation. He said in his report for 1902—
  "I sincerely hope that the enlargement scheme will be carried out shortly as the prison is deficient of offices, stores, workshops, reception rooms, etc."
  At Bermuda the Superintendent's report Was—
  "I consider that the prison is badly built for discipline."
  Now, he was convinced that in those cases there was no need for flogging to maintain discipline. Where there were a large number of prisoners discipline was easy, with good management. He

  1521
  had been himself a visiting justice in a large lunatic asylum and discipline was maintained there without flogging. Flogging was not only brutal, but it fell unequally and more heavily on the weak than on the strong. An hon. Member had spoken of the cat-o'-nine-tails, which formerly had three knots on each lash but had now only one; and that the handle which formerly had a spring grip now had no spring; and the hon. Member for Taunton said that when he had seen a prisoner flogged the prisoner laughed. But the hon. Member forgot to say that that might have been a hysterical laugh and he also admitted that the doctor and the nurse had fainted at the horrible sight. He did not believe that the House wished for the continuance of this brutal treatment. He should be told that flogging was necessary to maintain discipline. Necessity was the excuse of tyrants and the creed of slaves. He, himself, did not believe in the necessity. He would remind hon. Members opposite that if they gave a vote for the continuance of this punishment they would be justly accused of voting for inflicting methods of barbarism on the British soldier.
  *MR. TOMKINSONsaid that the real point at which his hon. friend and colleagues were aiming seemed to have been missed or ignored by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. When a soldier enlisted, although he was told that this odious punishment of flogging was not to be inflicted upon him, he might get into trouble over some trivial offence without any moral stigma attaching to it. There were a number of such for which he might be tried by Court-martial—such as for striking a superior officer, no matter how great the provocation might have been. He was then taken to a military prison. As soon as he came to that military prison he became amenable to the punishment of flogging. But in that prison he remained a soldier. That was the great point of improvement he gladly recognised in their military prisons. The great object was to keep him a soldier, to improve the man as a soldier, and instead of putting him to degrading and useless tasks to improve him in every way in his profession, and with the very best results.
  1522
  But what might happen? The soldier might be a passionate man, and under a warder utterly unfit to have the care of prisoners. That was the very great drawback of military prisons. The hon. Member who moved the recommitment had shown the great difference between the smaller old-fashioned prisons and the large well-appointed prisons. There were double as many corporal punishments inflicted in the former as the latter. That proved that the so-called necessity for punishment of that kind was only an excuse for inability to maintain proper discipline by other methods. In confirmation of that statement, he came across only the previous day the latest Report on the Civil Prisons of Ireland, including the Convict Prison of Mountjoy. Out of 35,765 prisoners and 1,796 punishments for offences, there was not one single case of flogging and only one case of the use of handcuffs. It was a deg ading and brutal form of punishment. It was the punishment of slaves and left its marks upon a man, which was as bad as servitude and was a disqualification for civil employment. It left still deeper marks of hatred, revenge, and resentment—exactly the opposite effect to what curative and ameliorative punishment ought to have. From the sympathetic Answers given to Questions by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State he was convinced he would be very glad to be able to dispense with corporal punishment altogether, and he appealed to him whether he could not see his way to the total abolition of the punishment of flogging in military prisons, because, the inmates of those prisons being still soldiers, so long as that existed it could not be said that flogging had been abolished in the British Army.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'now read the third time,' and add the words 'recommitted in respect of a New Clause' (Prohibition of corporal punishment)."—(Mr. Bright.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)said he could not agree to the Motion for the recommittent of the measure, but he

  1523
  had no complaint to make whatever of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He knew the subject had engaged the hon. Member's attention for many years. He had only one complaint to make of the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry. He thought the hon. Member must know as well as any other hon. Member in the House that the words he used were inexact. It was as true to say that flogging was a necessary part of the institutions of his own family as to say, as he said, that it was part of the institutions of the British Army. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that apart from prison punishment for certain kinds of offences there was no flogging in the British Army, and he knew perfectly well that he himself and any member of his family, if they were to commit any offence and to be committed with hard labour into any civil prison, and were to commit whilst there any of those offences to which flogging applied in military prisons, would be liable to corporal punishment. He could not see what view of duty could compel an hon. Member to make a statement which seemed so very far from the exact fact. The hon. Member for Crewe, he believed, desired that that punishment should be excluded from all prisons. That was a view which might be most consistently held and to which he took no exception, but were they to say that in military prisons an immunity was to be given to those who committed those horrible offences, and in military prisons alone?
  Let him give an example of the kind of offence for which such punishment was awarded. He would give them an account of what happened in a military prison—a brutal attack upon a warder, in which a man fell upon the warder, gouged his eye out, committed nameless mutilation upon him, and nearly killed him. That offence was made a subject of inquiry, as all those offences must be, with evidence under oath, and was punished in the way prescribed. Why should there be an immunity for a man committing that offence in a military prison and not in a civil prison? The management of civil prisons at the present day to a large extent discouraged anything of that sort, it was true, but he would remind the hon. Member that the per-
  1524
  centage of punishments of that sort was far less in military prisons than in civil prisons, and that in the whole of the United Kingdom there was not last year a single punishment of that kind in the whole of the military prisons. He was glad the hon. Member for Owestry had abandoned the point that there was any distinction in this matter between military and civil prisons with regard to the operation of the Act of 1898. The Rules on this point were clear, the reason being that in the passage of the Act of 1898 the military authorities took legal advice and incorporated the provisions of the Act into the Rules. That was not an accident; it was the deliberate action of the authorities.
  The hon. Member had made a somewhat exaggerated statement. It was said that there were fifty per cent. more punishments in the prisons badly reported on than in the prisons well reported on, but when one found that in three years there were two punishments inflicted in the one, and only one in the other class of prison, the fifty per cent. was not quite so formidable. If hon. Members really desired to remove corporal punishment altogether as a protection to warders in prisons, that was a matter which might fairly be argued on the general question; but he failed to see why soldiers who happened to be warders should be deprived of the protection which the jurisprudence of the country considered necessary for warders in ordinary prisons. It was unfortunate that such statements as had been put forward should be made with regard to the Army. If he really believed that hon. Members were as solicitous as they expressed themselves for the private soldier and his welfare he would receive——[Cries of "Order."]
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in calling in question the motives of hon. Members.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really went so far as to cast any imputation on the motives of hon. Members. He said he did not think they were as solicitous as they

  1525
  professed to be. That is not a very courteous expression.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERthought his meaning was perfectly clear.
  MR. DILLON: It is grossly offensive.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid his point was that it was unfortunate that this distinction should be drawn to the detriment of the soldiers, and the soldiers should be given to understand that an arrangement existed for their punishment which did not exist for members of the community at large. That was not the case. Whatever the disabilities might be they had been supported by hon. Members opposite, and the Party opposite had introduced a similar Bill year after year. He thought he had given sufficient reasons why the Bill should not be recommitted, and he hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONdeeply regretted the attitude the Government had taken up in this matter, as, after the discussion of last week, he had been hopeful that they would, upon reconsideration, have been prepared to make such changes in the Bill as would place soldiers in the position in which the public believed them to be, viz., that of members of an Army in which flogging had been entirely abolished. The occupants of military prisons were soldiers, and when they were flogged they were flogged as soldiers; therefore it could not truly be said that flogging had been abolished in the British Army. He yielded to no man in his desire to get in the Army the very best class of men, but, speaking from communications he had received from men who served in South Africa, he could assure the House that the unnecessarily harsh treatment to which they were subjected, and the neglect to pay the arrears due to them——
  MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that arrears of pay are one thing, but flogging is another.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he would be sorry for the impression to be spread abroad that soldiers in military prisons
  1526
  were subjected to a greater stigma than criminals in civil prisons. It was true that by rule the Act of 1898 had been applied to military prisons, but it was quite possible for the authorities to withdraw from them the benefits of that Act, whereas the occupants of civil prisons enjoyed those benefits as a legal right. He regretted that the Amendment had not been accepted by the Government, because its acceptance would have shown a desire to mitigate any unnecessary hardship and merciless treatment to which soldiers might be subject.
  MR. DILLONreminded the House that the abolition of flogging in the Army itself was one of the first works of the Irish Party. He remembered that when twenty-six years ago, under the leadership of Mr. Parnell, they endeavoured to free the British soldier from the liability to punishment by flogging they were denounced by military men as being anxious to destroy the morale of the Army. All the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward that night were made familiar to Members at that time; over and over again the details of the hideous crimes committed by soldiers were related; and the House was asked whether they were going to withdraw from officers the protection which the power to give this punishment afforded them. But were there no outrages committed in the streets of our cities? Why should a warder have special protection and the ordinary policeman not? Many years ago flogging was abolished in the ordinary prisons of Ireland, and the universal testimony of inspectors was that discipline was improved. In the penal prison of Mountjoy flogging was legal, but, seeing the good effect the abolition of flogging had had in the ordinary prison, the governor decided to attempt to maintain discipline at Mountjoy without physical punishment. The effect of the experiment was such that the same course had been followed by successive governors, with the result that flogging, although legal, had been practically abolished for many years. If discipline could be not only maintained, but improved, without flogging and with the

  1527
  worst class of criminals, surely a similar result could be secured in military prisons. In military prisons there were always a number of men who had not committed any moral offence whatever. A great number of military offences arose from men losing their temper, perhaps under great provocation, and committing breaches of discipline which, although they had to be punished, did not indicate any depravity of moral character.
  No man, unless he had served a term of imprisonment, could really realise the conditions under which prisoners lived. Subject to prison discipline, knocked about by warders, no man could be sure that he would not lose his temper and become liable to this horrible punishment. The terrible thing about the flogging system was that a man of really good moral character might have inflicted upon him this hideous punishment from which the victim never wholly recovered. If in a moment of exasperation a man committed some offence against prison discipline he was liable to be subjected to this hideous punishment from which he never recovered, and he was never the same man afterwards, for he received marks of degradation which remained with him for life. It was the degradation that was so horrible, and this punishment was frequently inflicted on account of momentary explosions of passion. The Secretary for War had met this argument in a most improper way. The majority of the cases in which flogging was resorted to were instances of conflicts between the prisoners and the warders in which the prisoner was very often brutally treated in the first place by the warder. He had known cases where warders had provoked prisoners by striking them with heavy keys, knocking them down senseless, and even after this punishment the unfortunate prisoner was charged with assaulting the warder and punished again. It was nothing short of insolence for the Secretary of State for War to recite a case of an atrocious assault upon a warder. He deeply sympathised with the hon. Member for Oswestry who had introduced this subject, and he thought the common-sense of the country would support his views. He thought the more humane treatment now in vogue in the prisons of Ireland ought to be good enough for military prisoners.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLreminded hon. Members that in time of war flogging was regarded as the only alternative to being shot. Other punishments were now substituted, but care should be taken that the capital punishment was not increased. He thought that in regard to flogging his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War was as sympathetic as anybody else. He was of opinion, however, that both in civil and military prisons they might adopt some form of punishment instead of flogging. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be anxious to do this if he could see his way clear to adopt it.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he had refreshed his memory in regard to a statement he made on this question upon a previons occasion, and he had very little to withdraw. He found that the position had been very materially altered, and instead of men being flogged for very trivial offences they were only punished in this way for the more serious offences. In 1895 there was a case of flogging for barricading the cell door, another for attempting to commit suicide, and another for damaging prison property. He was glad that now there were only two offences—mutiny and assault—for which prisoners could be flogged. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that flogging was not a deterrent. He did not see what object could be gained by flogging—it was no protection to the warders, and there were other methods which would prove a much greater deterrent without the infliction of pain. He objected to the system of flogging because it brutalised not only the person who was flogged but the individuals who inflicted it and also those who witnessed it. They had all heard of the prison doctor who, although accustomed to all sorts of horrible sights, actually fainted at the sight of a prisoner being flogged. That was only one instance of the brutalising effect of flogging. The sight of flogging might be shocking to those who witnessed it for the first time, but after one had seen it three or four times he became callous and demoralised. Flogging a man lowered his self-respect

  1529
  and if they did that they spoiled the chance of reforming him. In one of his books on India Lord Roberts referred to a case in which men were flogged for destroying saddlery, and stated that as soon as they got new saddles to replace those destroyed they at once destroyed them. Lord Roberts expressed himself very much aggrieved at their having been flogged, and his gratification that they were not flogged again for the second offence. These men afterwards had a high record in the British Army. If they had been punished in another way discipline might have been equally well supported. He thought discipline could be maintained in military gaols without recourse being had to this cruel treatment. The prisoners in these gaols were sentenced for special offences for which no civilian could be indicted. The fact that these men had volunteered their service for the defence of the country was a consideration which made it the duty of the House to see that no act of injustice was done by which they might be brutalised. The sooner flogging was abolished the better it would be for the country and the Army. He was informed that in the military gaols of France and Germany flogging had been abolished. If these countries could maintain military discipline without that form of punishment surely the same thing could be done in Great Britain.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid he had listened carefully to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and as there was another aspect of the question he would endeavour to place it before the House in a temperate way. The hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division had referred to the degradation which the punishment of flogging involved. While he himself was in the Army he had seen many men flogged, but he never knew of a good man being flogged. He had known many bad men flogged who became good men afterwards. As a child he had himself been flogged, and he believed he well deserved it. [An HON. MEMBER: You ought to get more of it.] They knew the proverb "Spare the rod, and spoil the child." If it was good for a child, surely it was not altogether wrong for the
  1530
  soldier who transgressed against the first duty of his profession, namely, obedience. If a soldier on the field was guilty of insubordination, what were they to do? The alternative to flogging him was to shoot him. The hon Gentleman opposite had stated that discipline was maintained in the French and German armies without flogging. If a French or German soldier struck an officer he would be shot at once.
  MR. SPEAKER: The debate is rather tending to a discussion of the old methods and circumstances under which the punishment of flogging was imposed. The question now before the House is merely in regard to flogging for particular offences.
  COLONEL SANDYSaccepted the ruling. A certain class of men were so brutal to start with that the only way to deal with them was to flog them. In the case of unmitigated ruffians who committed assaults on women and children the penalty of flogging was the only one that appealed to them. Men of that class were more comfortable in prison than in their own homes. If they knew that when they offended against prison discipline they would have to suffer in their person they would hesitate before they did anything to bring this punishment upon themselves. It did not brutalise them because they were brutal to start with.
  MR. SOARESsaid he would instance a case which he thought afforded the most scathing commentary on the whole system. In 1902 in Curragh Gaol two prisoners received corporal punishment. In one of these cases the punishment was inflicted because the prisoner struck at the chief warder with his dinner knife on that officer opening the cell door to disarm him, he being seen in the act of cutting his throat. Instead of being flogged that man ought to have been sent to a lunatic asylum. That was a complete answer to the case brought forward by the Secretary of State for War. He thought his hon. friend had made out a very good case indeed for his Motion. That case was that in good, well-constructed prisons there were no instances of

  1531
  corporal punishment, whereas in ill-constructed and badly conducted prisons there was a good deal of corporal punishment. He would give two instances of a good prison, and two of a bad. The Medical Officer of Malta Military Prison said in the report for 1902—
  "I am certain that the present system of treatment in military prisons is proving very beneficial to the welfare of the soldier, and shows its value more and more as time goes on. I know that the prisoners are now better off, morally and physically, give little or no trouble, take an interest in their work, and are improved in many ways by their stay in prison, whilst their soldier qualities are not depreciated. In this prison there are now no cases of violence or attempted suicide, very little malingering, and the numbers reporting sick are much less than in former years. In a word, the soldier is not now treated as a hopeless, degraded, troublesome item, to be got rid of as quietly as possible, but is made to feel that he is still a soldier capable of regaining, by good conduct, his lost position."
  Now, in that prison there were 1,638 prisoners and not one single case of corporal punishment. He now turned to Aldershot Prison, on which the Governor reported—
  "From careful observation during the year, I am led to believe that the reforms instituted since 1898, by which the prison system became strict military discipline, strict separation, drill and gymnastics, and industrial work, instead of convict garb, convict discipline, shot drill and oakum picking, are either proving a better deterrent than the old system, or are so inuring soldiers to strict military discipline that, having once undergone a sentence of imprisonment, they keep clear much oftener than they used to do."
  Now in that prison there were 2,986 prisoners, and not a single case of corporal punishment that year. He now came to the Bermuda Prison, which was one of the bad prisons. The Superintendent of that prison in his report for 1902 said—
  "I consider that the prison is badly built for discipline when there are more than ten or twelve prisoners, owing to the number of passages and turns, and it is therefore nearly impossible for one warder to superintend more than four prisoners when moving about the prison, especially as five out of seven prison officials are on probation, and at present rather inexperienced in the Work. The consequence is that there is a great tendency among the prisoners to communicate with each other and this offence is of frequent occurrence."
  In that prison there were 309 prisoners; one was in irons and two had received
  1532
  corporal punishment. The report of the Governor of Stirling Military Prison was—
  "The present accommodation is most inadequate."
  and of the 228 prisoners two were in irons and one had received corporal punishment.
  Now, having regard to these facts, he considered that his hon. friend had made out his case; and that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should institute an independent inquiry, and, if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to do so, his friend would, he believed, withdraw his Amendment with the approval of a considerable number of hon. Members on that side of the House. But, if the right hon. Gentleman resisted that proposal and continued the high and haughty manner which he had hitherto exhibited, that conduct was sure to meet with the reward which it deserved.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that he could not continue to treat this matter in the cavalier manner he had done in his first reply. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the most important changes that had taken place in the recruiting of the Army had been secured by discussions on the Army Annual Bill. Everyone acquainted with the Army knew that the soldiers thought a great deal about this flogging of their comrades in military prisons. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that when the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich brought forward the question of recruits bringing characters from former employers, that was only carried by discussion on the Army Annual Bill. In point of fact the whole scheme of the Army Annual Bill had been greatly modified as a result of such discussions as were now in progress. If that were so, then the Third Reading of the Army Annual Bill was the proper moment to raise questions of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had argued that it was unreasonable to discuss all these points, because former Parliaments had passed this Bill; but he contended that when such matters of great importance

  1533
  to the welfare of the Army were raised, they ought to be fully discussed. The right hon. Gentleman also argued that it was only soldiers who committed assaults on warders who were flogged; and he gave an instance. But that case was well countered by his hon. friend who showed that on two other occasions flogging was inflicted for assaults which were the very natural outcome of a soldier being driven to desperation. The soldier was liable to be imprisoned for so-called crimes, which were not only not misdemeanours, but which could hardly be designated by the name of faults if not committed by a soldier. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that it was possible for a soldier who omitted to pay for a chartered vehicle after a certain time to be imprisoned. But that was not the only part of the Annual Act which permitted a man to be be imprisoned. It was a fact that soldiers, especially on active service, or in the period immediately preceding active service, were imprisoned for offences of the slightest character. There was a case which came before his notice in South Africa in which a soldier was Court-martialled for sleeping at his post. There was no doubt whatever this unfortunate man had suffered most severely from toothache and was in a most debilitated condition, having had little sleep for many days. Curiously enough he was about to be sent home under the terms of his enlistment, and had only about half an hour more to stand at his post. It was actually within ten minutes of that man becoming free from service that an officer came round and found him a sleep. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for several years, and might easily have been shot. Could it be wondered at that military prisoners, sentenced in that way for such offences, were frequently violent?
  Military prisoners, as the hon. Member for Crewe and those who had studied the question well knew, bitterly resented very often the offences for which they were sentenced. If they bitterly resented them, could it be right that those men, sentenced for crimes for which no civilian would be sentenced, should be liable to be flogged? It would be wise that they should abolish flogging in all prisons, but whether they did that or not in all
  1534
  prisons, undoubtedly they had better abolish it in military prisons. It was an added reason for so doing that it was extremely likely that unless some change took place in their present Government, a greatly increased number of men would be subject to military law. Under the provisions brought before the House only the previous day, a greatly increased number of men would be subject to military law and liable to imprisonment for offences which would not be even faults except under military law. There would be an increased number of men who would vehemently resent the results of a law which they never foresaw. There would, therefore, be all the more reason why that flogging, which was much more prevalent in military than in civil prisons he still contended, and which did no good to the man and certainly harm to the system, would be on the increase. Therefore he asked the right hon. Gentleman to make some concession. Hon. Members on that side had not raised that discussion in any factious spirit. There might have been some resentment on a prior occasion, when there was a failure to disclose information which they thought ought to be given, but there was no such feeling on the present occasion. But there was a very general opinion on the part of hon. Members that flogging in military prisons should be abolished, and there had been very forcible reasons adduced to show that flogging in well-managed prisons did not obtain at all, but in badly-managed prisons did obtain. Therefore there was reason to suppose that flogging might be unnecessary in well-managed prisons, and therefore that, after all, hon. Members on his side might be right, and that flogging in itself was a bad thing. Taking all those things into consideration, he would beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the answer he had given, and if possible to grant some inquiry into the flogging in military prisons in order to see whether it might not be possible altogether to abolish a degrading, unworthy, and altogether unwise punishment.
  Mr. Secretary ARNOLD-FORSTERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 136.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, Jamas Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reyneil

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Greene, Sir E. W (Bury S Edm'nds

  Percy, Earl

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pym, C. Guy

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Randles, John S.

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rankin, Sir James

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bill, Charles

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords, N. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bingham, Lord

  Helder, Augustus

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bond, Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brassey, Albert

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Bull, William James

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Butcher, John George

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Kerr, John

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Keswick, William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stroyan, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allen, Charles P.

  Caldwell, James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rea, Russell

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Roche, John

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Slack, John Bamford

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Crae, George

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gilhooly, James

  Murnaghan, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Murphy, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hammond, John

  Norman, Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Mara, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Johnson, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Bright and Mr. Tomkinson.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 137.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gardner, Ernest

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Chapman, Edward

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gretton, John

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Groves, James Grimble

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Doughty Sir George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W.

  Bill, Charles

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Bingham, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Finlay, Sir R. B.(Invern'ss B'ghs

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Brassey, Albert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Bull, William James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Butcher, John George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon. Col. W

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Kerr, John

  Keswick, William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks.

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Spear, John Ward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stroyan, John

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Randles, John S.

  Tuff, Charles

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Rankin, Sir James

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Renwick, George

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Maxwell, W. JH. (Dumfriesshire

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Charles P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)

  Boland, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Johnson, John

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, Lief (Appleby

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W)

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shackleton, David James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B,)

  Cullinan, J.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Slack, John Bamford

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R. (Northants

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Toulmin, George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murnaghan, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flynn, Jamas Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Harwood, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Bright and Mr. Tomkinson.

  Whereupon Mr. Secretary ARNOLD-FORSTER claimed, "That the Main Question be now put"
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 138.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O.

  Gordon J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn, John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balcarres, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Purvis, Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Randles, John S.

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Renwick, George

  Bill, Charles

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N.W.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bingham, Lord

  Helder, Augustus

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bond, Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Brassey, Albert

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

  Bull, William James

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Butcher, John George

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Kerr, John

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Keswick, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Smith, Rt. Hn. J. P. (Lanarks)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

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

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Spear, John Ward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Fellows, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Viscount Valentia.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Boland, John

  Caldwell, James

  Allen, Charles P.

  Brigg, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Johnson, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reddy, M.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshr.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath. N.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Delany, William

  Langley, Batty

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sheehy, David

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Elibank, Master of

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MaeVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Murnaghan, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

  Harwood, George

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Mara, James

  Partick O'Brien and Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  Keir Hardie.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without
  Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes before Two o' clock.