Sitting of 23 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Clyde Navigation Bill [Lords]; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Liverpool Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill; London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill; London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Dublin United Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords], and Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords], Ordered, That a message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited in the cases, of Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords], and Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords], and Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bills if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 7).
Mr. BOND Mr. BOND reported from the Committee on Group 7 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—
1. "That in the case of the Great Central Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company's Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolutions agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
Sir HENRY AUBREY-FLETCHER Sir HENRY AUBREY-FLETCHER reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords], and Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords]. That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords], and of Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by this

1109
House, with a request that the same may be returned,
That they have agreed to—Epping Gas Bill, without Amendment.
Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill, with an Amendment.
Loughborough Corporation Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Weaver Navigation Trustees to improve their lift at Anderton, and to raise further moneys; and to confer further powers upon the Cheshire County Council with reference to such moneys; and for other purposes." [Weaver Navigation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to Adolph Leven in respect of an invention for Improvements in appliances for protection against Projectiles." [Leven's Patent Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the capital of the Darien Gold Mining Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [Lords.]
Weaver Navigation Bill [Lords]; Leven's Patent Bill [Lords]; Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Petition from Douglas Water, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Hull, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 447 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Merchant Shipping Legislation in Australia and New Zealand [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1904, and of the Proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 169.]
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 16th May; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 170.]
  SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 2, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage passing through the Suez Canal 1902, 1903, and 1904 (by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3379 and 3380 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Uganda Poll-Tax Ordinance.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Poll-Tax Ordinance, 1905, published in the Uganda Official Gazette of April 1st, 1905, which enacts that a poll-tax of two rupees per annum shall be payable in the same manner as

  1111
  the hut tax by each adult male native, and that any person who has not the means to pay the two rupees in cash shall in lieu thereof work for the period of one month; and whether His Majesty's Government has sanctioned this system of forced labour.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) My attention has been called to the Ordinance in question, which has been sanctioned by His Majesty's Government. The payment of any taxes appears to me to involve compulsory labour except in the case of those who have savings or accumulated capital available to discharge them.

  Importation of Intoxicating Liquor into the Lagos Hinterland.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the importation of intoxicating liquor into the Lagos hinterland, and its sale there, and particularly in the city of Ibadan, has largely increased of latter years; whether this is due to the facilities provided by the Government railway for the carriage and storage of spirits, among such facilities being a much lower freight on spirits between Lagos and Ibadan than the cost of carriage by road and the erection of special stores for spirits at various places on the line; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any steps to remove these facilities, and to discourage the importation of liquor, and particularly of overproof spirit, into the Lagos hinterland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) As regards the importation of liquor into the Lagos hinterland by road, systematic records have only recently been instituted on this subject; but, as regards the spirits carried by the railway, the general manager in his last published report says that the demand shows little or no upward tendency, and that the rail-borne traffic bears an infinitesimal ratio of the total imports. The importation of overproof spirit into Abeokuta and Ibadan is prohibited. The duty on spirits imported into Lagos has recently been increased to 3s. 6d. a gallon, and it may be added that the duty was 8d. a
  1112
  gallon in 1891. The total imports of spirits into Lagos has considerably decreased in the last two years. In the circumstances there does not appear to be any necessity to take any steps in the direction suggested, by the hon. Member.

  Advertisements in the Colonial Office Waiting-Room.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will explain why the walls of the waiting-room at the Colonial Office are crowded with placards, including an advertisement of special tours to Jamaica, by Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co.'s boats, a time-table of the firm's West African service, photographs of the steamships "Targerah" and "Nigeria," belonging to this firm, illustrations of their buoys, two drawings of the Lagos Office of the Bank of West Africa, a drawing of Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co.'s steamer "Porto Novo," and an advertisement almanac of the African Oil Mills, Limited; and will he say whether these advertisements were placed with his sanction in the waiting-room of the Colonial Office, in which there are no advertisements of other firms.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The waiting-room in question is that used by visitors having business to transact in connection with the West and East African Colonies and Protectorates, and it is for their convenience, as travellers to and from these countries, that such placards are exhibited in the waiting-rooms of the Colonial Office. The West African waiting-room is not exceptionally treated, nor is any preference shown to particular firms, and the placards referred to by the hon. Member are not the only ones in that room.

  Compulsory Vaccination of Pupil Teachers in Scotland
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Miss Haines was appointed a pupil teacher by the Peterhead Burgh School Board in the month of July last, and commenced her duties in the following September, but has recently been informed that her

  1113
  appointment cannot be confirmed until it can be certified that she has been successfully vaccinated; and will he explain why this rule has been imposed.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) It is the fact that in accordance with a general rule to that effect the Department have refused to confirm Miss Haines' appointment on the ground that she has not been vaccinated. The rule was imposed in the interests of the health of the children.

  Corner in Pig-iron at Middlesborough
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware, that the action of certain capitalists of Middles-borough has resulted in a corner in pig-iron, which is disorganising the iron and other dependent industries throughout the North of England; and, seeing that, under the same gambling systems, the late corners in cotton and other commodities were operated, whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of promoting legislation, in conjunction with other Governments, to prevent these constant upheavals in trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am aware that the iron trade has recently been affected by a rise in the price of pig-iron, attributed to speculative purchases of Cleveland pig-iron warrants in anticipation for a demand by the United States. I understand, however, that this temporary rise of prices is now at an end. As regards the last part of the Question, I am unable to add anything to the Answers which have been given to similar Questions by the hon. Member.

  Norton (Isle of Wight) Outfall Sewer.
  MR. MARTIN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on October 6th, 1903, the Board of Trade gave permission to the Isle, of Wight Rural District Council to construct an outfall sewer upon the foreshore, at Norton, near Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, in connection with the Freshwater and Totland sewerage scheme, upon condition that the length
  1114
  of pipe from high water mark to the point of discharge should be 1,300 feet and that the pipe was to be laid under the surface of the shore and sea-bed for the first 1,000 feet and partly under the surface of the sea-bed for the remaining 300 feet; and whether, seeing that the contractor has laid the pipe above the surface of the sea-bed, what steps the President of the Hoard of Trade proposes to take to compel the contractor to carry out the drainage according to the plan approved by his Board, in view of the danger to the sanitary condition of Freshwater and Totland, and the obstruction caused to in-shore navigation.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade on the 11th instant called the attention of the rural district council to the facts as stated in the Question, and inquired what steps the council propose to take in order to bring the works into conformity with the plans sanctioned by the Board. The Board are now awaiting the reply of the council. They are, however, not aware that any danger to the sanitary condition of Freshwater and Totland could arise from the pipe as now laid.

  Increased Annual Leave and Annual Increments for Assistant Clerks (Ab- stractor Class).
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the annual increment and annual leave to assistant clerks of the abstractor class in the various Departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Heads of Departments were notified this month of improvements in the annual leave and in the annual increments which the Treasury has decided to grant to the class of assistant clerks.

  Medical and Dental Practitioners struck off Register for Misconduct.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many medical and dental practitioners have been struck off the register during the last ten years for infamous or disgraceful conduct; and in how many instances the names of

  1115
  practitioners have been restored to the register during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have asked the General Medical Council to furnish me with this information, and when it is received I shall be happy to communicate it to the hon. Member.

  Materials used in the Manufacture of Beer —Board of Inland Revenue Cautions.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the materials used in the manufacture of beer in respect of which a caution as to their use has been issued, and those materials whose employment has been forbidden.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As regards the two years ending April 30th, 1905, the following is a list of the materials used in the manufacture of beer in respect of which a caution as to their use has been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue:—Heading Powders, etc.—Minoka juice, Dublin stout heading, optacreme, clarifoam, cortex quillaia pulvis. Preservatives, etc.—Alginol, universal preservative tablets, phylax, salicylic acid, kalia meta sulphite, antacid neutralisers, gypsum, magnesia sulphate. Hop Substitutes, etc.—Optanin, Bradley's hop supplement, Estcourt's hop supplement. In the following cases the use of the article was objected to by the Board of Inland Revenue:—Flavouring Essences: malt, yeast foods, glucose, invert sugar, etc., containing arsenic. Peptomides, containing arsenic and copper. Stoutine, Baines combined heading and beer preservative, optacreme, ecumin, moussine, clarifoam, heading powders and liquids, containing quillaia extract. Saccharin, sucramine, and other compounds containing saccharin.

  Erection of New Buildings at Glasnevin— Irish Slates.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland are inviting tenders for the erection of buildings at Glasnevin, and that a supply
  1116
  of Westmoreland slates is specified; and, seeing that Irish slates of first-class quality can be supplied at a much lower cost, whether arrangements will be made to allow of competition between the Irish and English article.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The fact is as stated in the first inquiry, but the Commissioners inform me that their architect will be instructed to allow any contractor, who so desires, to submit an alternative tender for the supply of Irish slates. The Commissioners will further consider the matter when selecting a contractor for the works.

  Compensation for Injuries to Volunteer Officers while on Duty.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Volunteer officer, injured in proceeding, in accordance with battalion orders, to attend a guard of honour, is entitled to compensation for injuries under the provisions of paragraph 617, Volunteer Regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As the Answer depends on the nature of the guard of honour, and the authority by which the guard was ordered, it is not practicable to give a reply without further particulars on these points.

  Insanitary Condition of the Island of Lewis—Date of Second Reading of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the statements contained in the report of the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty concerning the insanitary condition of the Island of Lewis, and the inability of the authorities to cope with the evils complained of until the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill becomes law, will he state whether arrangements will be made to take the Second Reading of the Bill before Whitsuntide.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Government are anxious to obtain the Second Reading of this Bill at an early date, and I can only regret an opposition to it which delays its progress.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Unanswered Questions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled Mr. Deputy-Speaker's attention to the fact that a "starred" Question addressed to the Colonial Secretary, which was not reached on the previous day, had not, according to custom, been answered with the printed Papers. He had asked the Colonial Secretary why the walls of the waiting room at the Colonial Office were hung with advertisements of Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co., and he desired to know how he could obtain an Answer.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Colonial Secretary why the Answer has not been circulated.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Thank you, Sir.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked the Colonial Secretary why the Answer to his Question had not been circulated. He attempted to read the Question in full but was stopped by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington)said it was a pure oversight that the Question was not answered. Owing to other events of a rather disturbing character that occurred the previous day, the matter escaped his attention, but he had sent to the Colonial Office for the Answer and it would be circulated with the next morning's Votes.

  Torpedo School at Sheerness.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been definitely decided to form a torpedo school at Sheerness; and, if so, when the formation of the school is to take place.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,: It has been decided to form a torpedo school at Sheerness, which it is hoped may be done very shortly.

  School of Gunnery—Removal to Chatham.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has definitely decided to remove the school of gunnery from Sheerness to Chatham; and, if so, when the removal is to take place.
  MR. PRETYMAN: This removal has been decided on, but no definite date can yet be stated, as this depends upon how soon the new accommodation at Chatham can be available.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD: When is it expected that the school buildings will be finished?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I cannot tell; the arrangements are not quite settled.

  Employment in Government Departments for Ex-Soldiers.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement of Lord Roberts on May 15th to the effect that only nine places had been found for retired soldiers during the past twelve months in Government Departments; and what he proposes to do in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: My hon. and gallant friend has already drawn my attention to the number of vacancies among messengers in public offices, other than the War Office, which have been filled by pensioners last year. He may rest assured that I have not lost sight of the matter and that I am taking steps towards ensuring increased civil employment in the direction suggested.

  Cost of Military Prisons.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total cost, including buildings, upkeep, staff, and administration, of military prisons at home and abroad, exclusive of India.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The total cost, as provided in Estimates 1905–6, may be taken at about £65,000.

  Fortifications of London.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how much has been expended out of the money provided by Military Works Bills on the fortification of London.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,: A sum of £85,200 has been expended on the mobilisation centres around London, to which the hon. Member doubtless alludes, out of the loans provided by the Military Works Acts.

  India—The Recent Earthquake—Goorka Losses.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the special terms under which Goorkas are enlisted in the Indian Army, he can state what steps, if any, the Government of India propose to take in order to compensate them for the losses sustained in the recent earthquake.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,: It is not correct to say that Goorkas are enlisted on special terms so far as any claim to compensation is concerned, but recommendations for special consideration to those who have suffered have been submitted by the Commander-in-Chief in India, and the decision of the Government of India will shortly be notified.

  Mosquitos and Yellow Fever—Mexican Remedy.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the efforts of the Mexican Government and the Superior Board of Health at Mexico to stamp out yellow fever and all malarial diseases by exterminating the mosquito by the adoption of certain scientific methods have met with considerable success; and whether, having regard to the fact that malarial fevers are constantly prevailing in parts of India, he will cause inquiries to be made in connection with the Mexico
  1120
  experiment with the object of giving it a trial in India.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have seen a pamphlet on the subject by the Superior Board of Health at Mexico; and propose to send a copy of it to the Government of India. Experiments of a somewhat similar kind have for some time past been in progress in India, and the experts conducting them are doubtless aware of what is being done in the same direction in other parts of the world.

  Congo Commission of Inquiry.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he knows when the publication of the Report of the Congo Commission of Inquiry may be expected, and the reasons given by the Congo Government for the delay; and whether, having regard to the correspondence with His Majesty's Government which preceded the issue of the Commission, any steps can be taken by His Majesty's Government to hasten the publication of the Report and evidence, in order that its value may be judged.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The three members of the Congo Inquiry Commission have, we understand, only just reassembled at Brussels after a brief holiday, and are now engaged in preparing their Report. His Majesty's Government will not fail to urge upon the Congo Government the importance of early publication.

  Income-Tax Statistics.
  MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state, for the financial years 1903, 1904, and 1905, the total amount of income-tax discharged by the Commissioners of Income-Tax on fines applied as productive capital under Rule 5, of No. 2 Schedule A, s. 60, 5 and 6 Victoria, e. 35.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: There is no separate record of amounts discharged under this

  1121
  head. It may, however, be said that the number of cases of the kind in any one year is very few.

  Underground Cable to Glasgow.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the electric cables for the pipes which are now laid between Carlisle and Glasgow are likely to be drawn in, and the telegraphic communication completed with Glasgow, before the stormy period of the equinoctial gales; and whether it is in contemplation to extend the underground cables to Dundee and Aberdeen.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: The orders for the Carlisle to Glasgow cable were given at the earliest possible moment in this financial year, and were placed with three different makers in order to expedite delivery, but they will not be completed by the equinox. It is not in contemplation to extend the underground line to Dundee and Aberdeen at present.

  Freight on Paper to New Zealand.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freight for paper by the New Zealand Shipping Company from Rotterdam to New Zealand via London is 29s. per ton, whilst the freight for the same goods by the same line from London is 40s. per ton; whether he can state if this shipping company receives any subvention for the carrying of mails; whether any explanation can be offered of the fact that it costs less to send goods from London to Rotterdam, back again to London, and thence to New Zealand, than from London to New Zealand direct; whether he is aware that the difference represents over ten per cent, on the cost price of the cheaper kinds of paper; and whether he has instituted or will institute an inquiry into the effect of such discrimination on British trade.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,: (1) The Board of Trade, are informed by the New Zealand Shipping Company that the rate of freight on paper from London to
  1122
  New Zealand ranges from 28s. 9d. to 55s per ton according to quality, and that the rate from Rotterdam to New Zealand is as stated, viz., 29s. per ton. (2) The Board of Trade understand that the company receives no subvention for the carrying of mails, and the company regard this as placing them at a disadvantage as compared with German lines. (3) The Board of Trade are aware that freights from the United Kingdom to Australia direct are often higher than those from the United Kingdom via a Continental port. The reason is alleged to be that there is keener competition in the latter case. (4) I regret that the result of this competition is that the rates are lower from the Continent than from the United Kingdom, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry as is suggested by the hon. Member.

  New Government Buildings in Parlia- ment Street.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether there has been any cessation in the external work of the Government buildings at the south end of Parliament Street; and when approximately it is expected that the scaffolding will be removed.
  LORD BALCARRES: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The scaffolding will probably be ready for removal in about a year's time.

  Untenanted Houses in Galway City.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that sections of town property in Galway City are covered with ruined houses that the landlords will neither sell nor let, that such properties, although situate in some of the best streets of Galway, are free from municipal taxation, and also constitute a disfigurement of the city, and in view of the need for sites upon which to build habitations for the working classes, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation dealing with the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: I have no information as to the facts stated in the Question, but, in any event, it is not the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on the subject this session.

  Case of Sergeant Major Murphy, Con- naught Rangers.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland is he aware that the boy, P. D. Williams, who is the principal witness in the charge against Sergeant-Major Murphy of the Connaught Rangers, has been arrested for desertion from his regiment which took place on 1st February last; and, if so, can he state who ordered the arrest of Williams, pending the hearing of the charge against Murphy, who is the sergeant-major of the regiment to which Williams belongs; is Murphy at present doing duty as sergeant-major; and, if not, when did he cease to act, and where is he at present.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The arrest was made at the instance of the military authorities. I cannot say whether Sergeant-Major Murphy is at present doing duty, but he is with his regiment at Mullingar, whereas the witness Williams is retained at Dundalk.

  Waterville Steam Laundry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is proposed to start a steam laundry at Waterville; and whether, in view of the employment that would be there by given, the Congested Districts Board would be prepared to advance a loan towards the erection of the necessary buildings and machinery.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,: The Board have decided that they cannot make a loan for the purpose mentioned.

  Kerry Technical Instruction Schemes.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  1124
  Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution, passed by the County Kerry Technical Instruction Committee on the 4th inst., to the effect that it would be impossible to continue to work satisfactorily technical schemes in that county if arrangements are not made between the Department and the Congested Districts Board to give grants towards the county schemes in respect of technical schemes in congested districts; and whether he will take steps to secure to the congested districts of the county the advantages of the county technical instruction schemes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The resolution has been received. I informed the hon. Member on April 11th † that the Department's funds, under the county scheme, are applicable to congested districts and non-congested districts alike, but that the Congested Districts Board have no funds to contribute to the county scheme. I fear I can add nothing to that reply.

  Domiciliary Visits by Police at Athenry.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police, who have recently entered the houses of families in the neighbourhood of Athenry, have done so without first obtaining the permission of the owners; whether the police were furnished with special warrants or orders to enter the houses of certain individuals, or whether the police patrol exercises a discretion to enter the house of any person they think fit to enter; what instructions are given to police as to the action they are to take in the event of any resistance being offered to their entrance, and are they instructed to immediately leave the house if ordered by the owner to do so; and were there any criminal charges against the persons whose houses have been entered by the police.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The police have recently entered the houses of certain persons with their implied permission, as anybody else would enter. No express permission was asked for, and no objection was made to their entrance
  † See (4) Debates, cxliv., 1275.

  1125
  or presence; had any such objection been made, they would have at once yielded to the objection, unless they had come to execute a warrant or had legal justification for remaining. No special warrants were issued nor special orders given on the occasions referred to. A patrol is sometimes instructed to make inquiries at a particular house and to enter it for that purpose, and sometimes it is left to their own discretion to enter for such purpose. The doors are often found open; they are never forced; and any objection, as I have said, to the police entering or remaining in the house would be at once yielded to. No criminal charges were made against any of the persons whose houses were entered.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Did the police visit any of the landlords' houses on the occasion?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say, Sir; but the police in England have often visited my house.
  MR. DILLON: Is it proposed to continue to allow the police who patrol this district to exercise this discretion of entering the houses of any peasant during the night?
  MR. WALTER LONG: If I had reason to think that the police entered the houses of the people against their wishes I would give instructions that the practice should be discontinued; but no such information has reached me.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Did the police enter the right hon. Gentleman's house after 10.30 at night without his permission?
  MR. WALTER LONG: My permission has never been asked, but the house has been visited late at night.
  MR. DILLON: Do you leave your door open?
  MR. BLAKE: I wish to know how the permission he infers was "implied." Was any effort made before opening the door and walking in to know if the occupants of the house were willing?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that the police constantly visit the houses of the residents in the district in which they are stationed, and that they are on the best possible terms with the population. No objection was raised to these visits on the part of the inhabitants. If, however, I had any reason to believe that the police exercised their powers in an improper way I would take care to see that regulations were issued to prevent it.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, for the information of English Members, what object the police serve in invading the privacy of those homes with or without permission?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I assume that the police have a general duty in regard to the protection of life and property in their district.
  MR. CLANCY: What was the purpose for which the police visited the house of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

  Horse Disease in County Waterford.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution adopted at the last meeting of the Waterford County Council, with reference to the spread among the horses in the county Waterford of the disease known as the South African disease; and whether the Government will bear the entire cost of horses destroyed by orders of the veterinary inspectors in the county Waterford, with the view of exterminating this disease, which was introduced into Waterford by artillery horses sent there on the conclusion of the war in South Africa.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The resolution referred to suggests that a general order for the slaughter of diseased horses should be issued, but the Department of Agriculture consider that the requirements of the case have been met by the

  1127
  local order which has been issued, and which is applicable to the particular out-break. A further local order will be framed if necessary. The reply to the last inquiry is in the negative.
  MR. POWER: Is it not the fact that the disease was introduced into Waterford by Army horses?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not, know whether that is the case or not.
  MR. POWER: The Secretary for War has admitted it.

  Carntall School-Mistress' Action.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in a case concluded in the Chancery Division, Dublin, on the 18th inst., at the suit of Miss Rose Sweeney, manual instructress of the National School, Carntall, county Tyrone, who sought an injunction and damages against Mr. William Coote, grand master of the local Orange lodge for conspiring to procure her dismissal from her position in the school, Mr. Justice Barton gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, with costs; and whether, under the circumstances, he will see that Mr. Coote's action is brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor with a view to his removal from the commission of the peace.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The judgment in this case was only delivered a few days ago, and there has been no time yet to fully consider it or ascertain whether there may be an appeal.
  MR. DILLON: Is this the same gentleman who was charged with a similar offence in relation to the same school some months ago, and who paid heavy damages in older to avoid a public trial?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In the event of an appeal, will care be taken that the Crown Solicitor for county Tyrone and the Solicitor-General for Ireland do not appear for a man who has been found guilty by a competent Court
  1128
  of an attempt to intimidate a peasant Catholic girl?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot answer a Question of that kind.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Let the Irish Solicitor-General, who is present, answer for himself.
  MR. DILLON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot.
  MR. DILLON: I will raise the matter on the Estimates.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it intended to prosecute this man on a charge of boycotting?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is this one of the cases returned as an agrarian outrage?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do press for a reply to my Question to the Solicitor-General for Ireland.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You had better give notice of it.
  MR. REDDY: When will this ruffian be removed from the commission of the peace?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Knocklane (Sligo) Grazing Ranch.
  MR. WILLIAM MCKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board purchased a grazing ranch at Knocklane, Magherow, county Sligo, and that instead of dividing the ranch amongst the fishermen and the occupiers of non-economic holdings in the vicinity the Board has let it for grazing; and will he see that this ranch is divided up as soon as possible.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Board have agreed to purchase these lands, but cannot divide them until they become legally vested in the Board. The

  1129
  necessary proceedings will take some months, and in the meantime the lands have been let for grazing.

  The Police and the Member for East Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will now give the House the report which he has received from the county inspector in reference to the action of police at Cappatagle on 7th inst. in regard to the Member for the Division.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I can only read this Answer, which has already been circulated, by the permission of the House. I have received the following report from the county inspector of Constabulary, to whom this Question was referred:— "No violence was used by the police. Mr. Roche persisted in maintaining that he had a right to address his constituents and he was moved away from the crowd by my orders. I had first informed him that the meeting was proclaimed and that I had a copy of a proclamation which I would give him. I gave it to him when he had been moved about twenty-five yards away. He was not dragged, nor was he moved off his feet. One policeman held him by each arm. District-Inspector Heard did not order his men to drag Mr. Roche down. I was the very first person to go to Mr. Roche and tell him he could not address the meeting, and when he began to argue that he had arranged two months before to address his constituents I took hold of his coat and pulled him off the stile, about eighteen inches from the ground, on which he was standing. Mr. Heard, I think, also caught his coat and said he must come down. No roughness was used, when pulled he stepped off. I then told him he must move on and told the crowd to disperse. He was moved on as I have already mentioned. He was not moved fifty yards, not quite thirty yards. I heard him say, 'Is the county inspector here'? I did not tell the police to let him go. When they had moved him from the crowd they loosed their hold of his arms. There were no reporters present or regular representatives of the Press. Mr. Roche says he held on to the platform. There was no
  1130
  platform. There was a proclamation posted on the wall opposite Mr. Roche, not twelve feet from him. Mr. Roche must have been well aware the meeting was proclaimed. He had been staying the night with Father Fahy, and I myself had told Father Fahy of the proclamation. The police did nothing that was not perfectly consistent with their duty in preventing the holding of the meeting, and no violence was used to Mr. Roche nor any rough treatment that could be construed as violence."

  Mountmellick Action for False Arrest.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in a case lately heard in the King's Bench, Dublin, before Mr. Justice Kenny, at the suit of a man named Carroll, against Constables Masterson and Cryan, Royal Irish Constabulary, Mountmellick, for alleged false arrest, and imprisonment, and assault, the jury found for plaintiff on all issues, and assessed damages at £100; and whether he will state, as Constable Masterson has been suspended from duty, what course he proposes to adopt with reference to Constable Cryan.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Judgment was only delivered in this case a few days ago. The Inspector-General has the matter under consideration, but, I have not yet received his report.

  Irish Agrarian Outrages.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, during the year 1904, a total of 206 agrarian outrages were reported to the Inspector-General of Constabulary in Ireland, including twenty-eight incendiary fires; eleven killing, cutting, or maiming cattle; 124 cases of intimidation; thirteen injury to property; twelve firing into dwellings; and that in 188 cases offenders were neither convicted nor made amenable; can he explain why such a large proportion of offenders escaped the consequences of their acts; and whether he will take steps to strengthen the powers of the constabulary

  1131
  in discovering the perpetrators of these outrages, and bringing them to justice.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My hon. friend has correctly stated the facts, which are set out in the Return of Agrarian Offences recently presented to Parliament. The immunity from punishment of so many of the offenders arises to some extent from the fact that many of the offences are committed under the cover of darkness, and that in cases of threatening letters and notices it is difficult to prove the handwriting of the offender. I think, however, that the chief cause of this immunity is an unfortunate and unwise reluctance on the part of the victims of intimidation to come forward and give evidence against the guilty persons. It is quite obvious that constabulary action alone cannot completely overcome these difficulties, but if the sufferers would only seek the protection of the law, and if those members of the community who are entitled to share in the administration of justice would do their duty, I believe that disorder would be effectually grappled with. There is no ground for any imputation against the constabulary.
  MR. FLYNN: In how many of the cases of alleged intimidation did the people send the intimidatory notices to themselves?
  MR. KILBRIDE: Seeing that there are 188 cases In which no one has been made amenable, can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the offences wore committed by the police themselves?
  MR. WALTER LONG: None.
  MR. DILLON: Was any person injured in any of these manufactured outrages?
  MR. MACVEAGH: How many of the cases of cattle-maiming and killing were the work of Sergeant Sheridan?
  MR. MALCOLM: Does the right, hon. Gentleman contemplate any further reduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

  Charge against Constable Reddy, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what was the result of the recent investigation held at Mountmellick by order of the Inspector-General of Constabulary into the charge made against Constable Reddy of using offensive and insulting expressions towards respectable residents of the town; and whether, seeing that this policeman was obliged to make a public apology before the County Court Judge at Mountmellick within the past twelve months, in a case in which he was charged with assaulting and using insulting language towards a resident in the town (which offence was alleged to have been committed outside complainant's door), he proposes that the services of Constable Reddy should be retained in Mountmellick.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Constable Reddy was found to have made an unbecoming observation, but it appeared to have been made jestingly and in reply to a remark addressed to him. He has been cautioned by the Inspector-General as to his future behaviour. In the second case referred to, an action was taken against the constable for a technical assault, which consisted in his seizing a man whom he found hiding in a gateway at night. There was no charge of using insulting language on that occasion. The County Court Judge justified the constable's conduct, but suggested that he should apologise, which he did. It is not intended to transfer the constable at present.

  Land Purchase Agreements.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Clause 9, Form P, under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, gives no protection to the tenant from the day he signs the agreement until the sale is sanctioned by the Land Commission; and that one or two years may elapse from the date of the agreement and the confirmation of the sale, the tenant in the meantime being liable for his old rent not withstanding his having agreed to pay interest to the Land Commission at £3 10s. per cent.; and whether, seeing that Clause 8 in Form F

  1133
  gives protection to the tenant between the date of his agreement to purchase and completion of sale, some similar protection can be given to the tenant in Clause 9 of Form P.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Form P is an undertaking signed by the tenant that he will purchase his holding from the Land Commission in case they purchase the estate of which it forms part. The signing of this undertaking does not alter the legal position of the tenant unless and until the Land Commission buy the estate. No ground, therefore, exists for making the arrangement suggested in the concluding query.
  MR. FLAVIN: But why the difference?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Because in the one case there is a definite and in the other only a conditional agreement.
  MR. FLAVIN: But have not the Estates Commissioners a right to either accept or reject the agreement?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No
  MR. FLAVIN: I will ask the Attorney-General whether under Form F protection is given and inspection must take place?
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member is probably wrong, but I had better have notice.
  MR. FLAVIN: Well, I am not paid a big salary like the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure I am right.

  Youghal Auxiliary Asylum.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an inquest held to inquire into the circumstances attending the death of Michael Healy, an inmate of the Youghal Auxiliary Asylum, which took place on the 12th inst.; and whether, in view of the fact that the jury in their verdict urged a separate hospital for inmates suffering from infectious disease, and that the frequency of deaths from consumption and contagious disease is caused by the absence of isolation of such patients from other
  1134
  inmates, it is still intended to retain such cases in the auxiliary asylum.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is the fact that the jury made a recommendation to the effect stated. The patient died of consumption, a disease which has only in recent years been recognised to be of an infectious nature. I am informed that, so far, a few of the largest asylums only have attempted to isolate such cases, but doubtless, as experience is gained, the question will receive further consideration.

  Belfast Police and Medical Attendance.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the result of the Inspector-General's inquiry as to why members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in C District, Belfast were obliged to seek medical attendance at their own expense other than that provided for the purpose.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Inspector-General found that no sufficient grounds of complaint against the medical attendant existed.
  MR. SLOAN: In view of the facts that came out, will the right hon. Gentleman agree, to pay the expenses of the constabulary? Will the expenditure the men have incurred be refunded to them?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I will consider that.

  Irish Judicial Officers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any communications, verbal or written, have passed during the past twelve months between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and any Irish County Court Judges or Recorders on the subject of their retirement from the bench.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Do I understand that no communications have passed, whether direct or indirect, oral or written?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is the information given me by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has been again misinformed.

  Newman Estate, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with the sale of the Newman Estate, Dromore, Mallow, county Cork, it is proposed by the landlord to exclude from the scheme the holding of a tenant, Mr. T. O'Callaghan, D.C., although he holds under a judicial tenancy and is prepared to purchase on the same terms as the other tenants; and whether, in view of the fact that this case does not come under any of the sub-heads (a), (b), (c), and (d), which deal with the exclusion of holding in the Interim Report of the Estates Commissioners, the Commissioners will decline to sanction the advance in connection with this estate unless this tenant be included in the general arrangement.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The first part of the Question was answered on 21st February last. † As to the second part; the sub-heads referred to are merely examples of sufficient reasons for exclusion, and not a complete statement of such reasons. The advance to the landlord has been made.

  Sneem Mail Delivery.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mails used to be delivered at Sneem at 9.45 am., but that they are now only delivered at noon, and that it is consequently impossible for traders to reply to letters until the following day; and whether arrangements could be made, so that the mail car should leave Head-ford at an earlier hour, and thereby ensure an earlier delivery of letters at Sneem.
  LORD STANLEY: I will have inquiry made on the subject of the mails to Sneem and inform the hon. Member of the result.
  † See (4) Debates cxli., 761.

  Irish Lights Commissioners—New Appointments.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether additional appointments are about being made under the Board of Irish Lights Commissioners; and, if so, will he state at whose suggestion those appointments are being made, what expense they will entail, and will the additional expense come within the purview of the House of Commons.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Two additional appointments under the Commissioners of Irish Lights have recently been made. An assistant inspector of lights at a salary of £250 rising by annual increments of £15 to £350 per annum; a typewriting clerk at a salary of £60 rising by annual increments of £6 to £96 per annum. The appointments were proposed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights and were sanctioned by the Board of Trade after being considered by a special Committee appointed by them for the purpose. The additional expense will not come within the purview of the House of Commons, as it will fall upon the General Lighthouse Fund and not upon any Parliamentary Vote.

  Foreign Pilots in British Waters.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the risk arising from the fact that fifty-nine foreign pilots are employed on our coast, he will consider the advisability of granting pilotage certificates for English waters to British subjects only.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: It is quite true that a certain number of foreigners are allowed to be pilots in our waters, although there are no foreign pilots registered in other countries. I have great sympathy with those who think that, if we admit foreign pilots in our waters foreign countries ought to admit British pilots to their waters. The matter is engaging the attention of the Government, but I ought to add that I do not think the circumstances are productive of any serious national danger.
  MR. LOUGH: Has any complaint ever been made of the way in which they discharge their duties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather that the complaint would come when this country was at war with some country to whom these foreign pilots belonged.

  Scottish Churches Dispute—Position of the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the impending legislation promised by the Government on the questions in dispute between the United Free Church and the legal Free Church, it is with his knowledge and sanction that the Solicitor-General for Scotland appeared in the Court of Session, on Tuesday, May 16th, as counsel for the legal Free Church.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Solicitor-General for Scotland was interested in this case before he was Solicitor-General, and it would be a hardship to his clients to abandon the case which he has undertaken. It is perfectly consistent with the Treasury Minute that the Scottish law officers should undertake practice when it does not interfere with public duties. It is conceivable that cases might arise where there would be conflict. But the Solicitor-General ought not to have, and will not have, any part in the drawing up of the Bill which the Government propose to introduce before Whitsuntide.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it in the interests of the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman is about to introduce for the purpose of settling this serious ecclesiastical difficulty that a member of the Government should be closely associated with one of the parties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this is a matter well understood in Scotland and Scottish practice. I confess that I think it is an unfortunate thing, but clearly the Solicitor-General is not to blame.
  MR. DALZIEL: He ought to have given it up when he was appointed.
  AN HON. MEMBER: They never give up anything.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only persons who would suffer if he were to withdraw would be his clients.
  MR. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Solicitor-General shall not appear in other cases?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree that he ought not to take on fresh cases dealing with impending legislation.

  THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE. VOTE OF CENSURE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice—whether, in view of the confusion created by recent declarations of Ministers with regard to fiscal policy, and in particular with regard to the proposed Colonial Conference, he will give a day on which we may bring forward a vote of censure on the Government.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Before my right hon. friend answers this Question, I crave the leave of the House to ask him one other Question—whether, in the possible event of his giving facilities for another discussion, he will make an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to offer at all events some expression of regret for the obstruction and insulting language levelled against a Cabinet Minister of the Crown for fifty minutes last evening.
  MR. LOUGH: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I ask you whether it is in order to attribute insulting language to the Leader of the Opposition.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that expression was very happily chosen. There was a great deal of clamour and noise, but there were no expressions which I think could be called insulting—at all events, none

  1139
  which reached my ears. There were some expressions which were of a somewhat offensive character, no doubt, but not what would be called insulting.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I will withdraw the word then, Sir, and substitute the word you used from the Chair— "offensive."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I was somewhat surprised at the note which the right hon. Gentleman has sent me, wherein he talks about the confusion created by recent declarations of Ministers. There were two Ministers prepared to clear up that confusion, if it existed; they were prevented from doing so by the disgraceful scene which took place last night, and I did not notice that the right hon. Gentleman took any steps to prevent that disgraceful scene. I have, so far as I am concerned, no objection to giving time for the further discussion of the matter, interrupted in the manner which I have just described, provided that we have some undertaking that the debate shall take place under ordinary conditions of decency and fair play.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the Prime Minister give that undertaking?

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Soares and Mr. Mooney; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Herbert Samuel and Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Sir George Fardell.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  MR. SOARESmoved as an Amendment to reduce the tea duty from 6d. to 4d. He was, he said, very pleased that it had fallen to his lot to move that reduction, because if there was one tax to which he objected more than any other it was the tea duty. They had long been anxious for a free breakfast table, but so long as the present Government remained in office the vision of a free breakfast table receded more and more into the dim and distant future. When one considered the incidence of the tea tax he was driven to the conclusion that it was not defensible. It affected the rich infinitely less than it affected the poor. Very few wealthy people had suffered from the heavy duties which had been placed on tea by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, on the other hand, there could be no doubt that the poorest classes had suffered to a very considerable extent. On the preceding day one of the hon. Members for Ireland complained very bitterly of the effect which the tea tax had on the peasantry of that country, and anyone who knew anything about the poorer classes was bound to admit the existence of the grievance. In his own constituency there were a large number of agricultural labourers who consumed considerable quantities of tea, and this tax had proved to them a very heavy burden. Many of these unfortunate people were in receipt of out relief, and it was well to bear in mind that the increase of the tea duty had not been followed by a proportionate addition to their out relief. This was a class of people who lived very largely on tea and bread and butter, and they were consequently the chief sufferers by the tax. Again, the Colonies had been hit very severely by it. Of course, the burden was borne by the consumer and not by the producer, but when a tax was put upon an article one effect

  1141
  was to reduce the consumption of it and in that way the producers were hit. It was an extraordinary fact that a Government which was always boasting of its interest in the Colonies should have chosen that particularly thick stick with which to beat them. No doubt the money was required by the Government, but the necessity arose to a not inconsiderable extent from the inefficiency of the War Office. If the recent speech of the Prime Minister meant anything at all, it meant that there should be a reduction in the War Office Estimates, but instead of that they had an increase of £1,000,000.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that.
  MR. SOARESsaid he did not propose to deal with the Prime Minister's speech. He was only pointing out it was because of the increase in the Estimates that this tea duty was imposed. He would like, however, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he reconciled his action in imposing this tea duty with the fiscal views he was known to hold? Did he consider that the tea tax was the best tax which could be imposed in the light of those views?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word sixpence and insert the word 'fourpence.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
  Question proposed, "That the word "sixpence' stand part of the clause."
  MR. FLYNNsaid he was prepared to support the Amendment. Having failed on the previous day to get Ireland excluded from the operation of the tea duty, he certainly felt justified in trying to get it reduced to as low a figure as possible. He had never heard any solid argument in or out of the House in favour of the taxation of tea at such a high rate. The hon. Member who last spoke had suggested that there might be something to be said in its favour if it were an ad valorem duty. Having regard to the fact that tea at 1s. Per 1b., such as was consumed by the very poorest of the poor, bore exactly the same
  1142
  duty as the higher priced teas, he did think no valid argument could be advanced for keeping it at its present level. Undoubtedly a duty of 6d. per 1b. was out of all proportion to the value of the article. Poor people had to consider every penny they spent, and when a protective duty to the extent of at least 50 per cent. was put upon their tea, they were driven to drink bad and deleterious preparations. In the days of the late Mr. Gladstone, who was one of the greatest Finance Ministers this country ever had, they very nearly approached their ideal of a free breakfast table, but since then they had travelled very far in an opposite direction. In the interests of the poorest classes of the country, and especially of the poor of Ireland, he supported the reduction of a tax which pressed the most heavily on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid he wished to press the Amendment on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to support his hon. friend in his endeavour to get the tea duty back to the point at which it stood before the war tax was put on. They had had increased taxes put upon beer, spirits, tobacco, tea, sugar, and other articles of consumption, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that the first tax of which there should be a remission was the tax on tea. Indeed, the right, hon. Gentleman had already realised that by reducing the duty on tea by 2d. He thought the time had come when they ought to make a protest against these war taxes being retained, especially those taxes which had been placed on the necessities of life. He was not speaking particularly of the taxes on beer and spirits, about the removal of which he was not specially concerned, but in regard to the taxes on tea and sugar he thought they ought to take every opportunity of pressing on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance and necessity of at once removing them. Of course they would be told by the right hon. Gentleman that there was a certain amount of revenue to be raised, and a certain amount of expenditure to be met, and that, therefore, it was necessary to look round to see where he could get the money.

  1143
  But he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better for him to direct his attention to the necessity for a reduction of expenditure. That was the best possible economy, and it would prove the easiest way of making a reduction in the taxation which was becoming such a great burden on the people.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,said there could be no advantage in attempting to discuss on each individual Motion the far wider questions which were raised by the Bill, and he would therefore confine his remarks to this particular Amendment. This was a Motion to double the amount of the remission on the tea duty he had proposed. He had this year a much smaller sum than he could have wished for to devote to the remission of taxation, and, for reasons which he had already I explained, he chose the tea duty as the subject of remission, and he was bound to say that under this Bill the proportion of taxation was more favourable to the indirect taxpayer than it had been for a long time. He did not, however, attach much importance to that matter, though in the remission of the year and the amount he had available for remission, it seemed to him obvious that this tax was the best subject for that operation. It was complained that the tax stood above what it was before the war. Sir Stafford Northcote had once laid down the very true dictum that no progress could be made with paying off the burden of a great war except by retaining some proportion, at any rate, of the war taxes. But his defence did not rest on that only. His predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, had pointed out that the difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not to provide for the great and heavy expenses of a war which had lasted longer than any one had anticipated that it would, but to make provision for the increased expenditure that would remain in peace. For the expenditure of the present day they needed the money provided for in this Bill. They could not dispense with the money that would be involved in the further remission asked
  1144
  for, and it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment.
  It had been suggested by the hon. Member for North Cork that the tea duty should be an ad valorem duty. There was a great deal that was attractive in the idea, but there were great difficulties in its practical application. No one in the tea trade would give him the slightest encouragement in any effort he might make to convert the tea duty into an ad valorem duty, their view being that it would cause much disturbance and interruption; in the trade as well as injustice to dealers and producers of different qualities of tea. An association which had been pictorially very active in this City recently, had not scrupled to use the arguments for a high ad valorem duty; but when a gentleman went to ascertain whether they were in favour of an ad valorem duty, they disclaimed all sympathy with the idea, although they had adopted this as the most effective method of stating their case against the tax. He did not think that was either very honest or very creditable to them. It was said by hon. Members opposite that the Irish people always drank good tea. If that were so, the effect of an ad valorem duty must be pro tanto to encourage them to drink inferior tea and discourage the drinking of the better class teas. On the other hand, if it did not change their taste—and so far as the Irish were concerned he did not think it would—it would impose a heavier tax upon them. He did not feel called upon to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Barnstaple as to how he reconciled the tea tax with his views on fiscal policy. That was not material to the issue before the House. He could only add that he saw no way in which the revenue necessary for the expenditure of the country could be better raised: than the proposals he had put before the House.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had rather objected to his hon. friend's action in raising on that discussion the question of national expenditure, but, in his

  1145
  opinion, that was the only opportunity which Members of the House of Commons had of raising that important question and of pointing out that all these extra taxes on tea, sugar, tobacco, and spirits were entirely due to the increased expenditure to which the Government had put the country in connection with the late war. With regard to the tea duty they ought to bear in mind that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, said that that was specifically a war tax. The unfortunate thing, however, was that although the war was now over the tax was still retained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that it was necessary to retain a certain amount of taxation in order to pay off the debt incurred in time of war, but unfortunately that was not what the Government were now doing. They were not paying off the extra burdens imposed in time of war, and, therefore, he contended that the tea tax, as it was presumably put on as a war tax, ought now to be dropped. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the question of the importance to be attached to the proportion which direct taxation bore to indirect taxation. Well, he was bound to confess that he could not agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in the conclusions which he had drawn from those figures, but that question they would be able to discuss later on. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that he had a better way of raising revenue. Surely it was inconsistent on his part to make a proposal to the country which he believed to be not the best for the consumer and the taxpayers of the country. It was not a position in which he would like to find himself. But apparently the right hon. Gentleman had taken it in order to retain office. The Government were bound by the pledges they had given.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject of discussion is the tea duty.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid his point was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the country that he knew a better way of raising the revenue than by
  1146
  means of the tea tax, and they were entitled to ask him what that way was. The Opposition were not responsible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's inability to take off the 2d. put on as a war tax, and were entitled to protest against its continuance now that the war was over.
  *MR. LEVYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to justify the tax on tea, by his statement that he required the money, but on that ground they could justify any other tax by saying that so much money was required. The answer to that was that the expenditure of the country ought to be kept within reasonable limits. It should be borne in mind in regard to the duty on tea that a great proportion of the tea received in this country was now obtained from our own Colonies, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was closely allied to those Members in the House who believed in the preferential treatment of the Colonies, this extra 2d. per 1b. in excess of the duty prior to the war was probably being retained to give to the Colonies in exchange for some advantage which it was suggested they could give to us but which was purely mythical. It certainly did appear unwise on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep up the extra duty on tea, a duty which was imposed for the purposes of the war, and the necessity for which ought no longer to be existent. In his opinion the duty was unfair, it was unnecessary, and had pressed extremely heavily upon the working people of the country. They heard a good deal now-a-days about the unemployed, and about people who were starving in all parts of the country, and it certainly did seem to him to be unwise that they should keep up a tax upon tea equivalent to 100 per cent. of its value whilst at the same time they had to legislate to find employment for the people who paid this tax. He thought, therefore, there were very considerable and strong reasons for rejecting the proposal of the Government.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that those who tad proposed the reduction of the tea duty had not suggested any alternative, but he thought

  1147
  that there was an alternative which might well have been used, and that was a revision of the duties upon licences.
  THE DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is scarcely relevant to the tea tax. At present the Committee is only asked to decide as to the imposition of the tea duty.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he had respectfully to submit that in discussing whether the tax on tea should be 4d. or 6d. they were entitled to suggest an alternative method of raising the money, and he was attempting to do so. He was simply pointing out that there was an injustice in the present scale of licence duties, and if the Government would only level up those duties and make them to accord with the views which the Government expressed when the Licensing Bill was before the House they would produce the necessary revenue, and it would be unnecessary to tax the tea consumers of the country.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that for his part he attached very little significance to any equality between direct and indirect taxation in the allocation of revenue, but he seemed to think that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House attached very great importance to that subject. As one who had had to trouble the House two or three times on the point, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that none of them attached the smallest importance to any equality in the total sum raised by indirect or direct taxation. What they did attach importance to was the weight of taxation resting upon individuals, and they held that that weight of taxation should not be greater on the average poor man than it was upon the average rich man. They wanted a Committee of inquiry which would give them some authoritative information upon this question. Those of them who had honestly and laboriously made inquiries had come to the conclusion that the actual burden of taxation was heavier on the working classes than upon the middle and rich classes, and, so long as the contrary was not proved by an official inquiry they
  1148
  should feel it their duty to vote against the present unfair system of indirect taxation. It was a sound principle that each man should pay according to his; ability to pay, and as that principle was not observed in our system of finance, it was their duty to vote against maintaining the tea duty at its present level. The right hon. Gentleman had justified this tax by saying that after the war it was necessary to keep on war taxation in order to meet additional charges which the war had necessitated. The present Government had increased the expenditure of the country by £49,000,000, and out of that total only £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 could properly be attributed to the war. The other £45,000,000 or £44,000,000 had nothing whatever to do with the war; and therefore it was absurd to justify this expenditure by saying that it was necessitated by the war. For these reasons he hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow this debate to close without giving the House some assurance on the points brought forward by his hon. friend Without discussing the whole question of war taxation, surely they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, it was his intention to regard the present taxation as a permanent peace taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made many statements on this subject, and they wished to know whether if he occupied his present official position next year, he would keep in mind the pledge which had been given to the House, that the tax they were considering was a war tax which ought to be repealed with the least possible delay. With regard to the tea duty he was pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with it as he did, and he ventured to say that that was one of the principal reasons why the Budget was so generally popular, because the great mass of the people benefited by it. It was felt that there was a stronger claim for relief in regard to tea than any other article. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Budget, admitted that he was largely influenced in the course he took by the

  1149
  fact that his proposal would benefit the Colonies. That showed that, after all, there was something in agitation, and there was very little doubt that, but for the vigorous agitation which had been carried on by the Colonies, the importance of the reduction he had made would not have been brought home to him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them about his enormous sympathy with the Colonies, and surely that was a reason why he ought still further to reduce the taxation upon tea.
  The case put that afternoon was absolutely reasonable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do anything which would be more gratefully received by all classes than to still further reduce this tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept this Amendment he thought they would be able to find some other direction from which to raise the money which would be more acceptable to the House. While they were grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for small mercies they were not unwilling to accept others. This duty was one of the first things which ought to claim his attention. Of course they could not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them any outline of his policy in regard to a future Budget, but if he would tell them that he was fully alive to the justice of what they were demanding it would be received with satisfaction by the Committee. Some very distinguished authorities were absolutely at loggerheads as to the actual bearing of direct and indirect taxation, and they were to some extent in the dark as to the actual facts. Therefore he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the appeal made by his hon. friend and consent to the appointment of this Committee. This had been asked for several times, and he could easily select certain financial experts in the House, thus showing some indication of a desire to meet the reasonable request which had been made from the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. FIELDsaid he wished to support the appeal which had been made by his hon. friend for the appointment of this
  1150
  Committee. He thought there ought to be no tax at all upon tea. From a temperance point of view, and because tea was a necessity of life which came from other countries, it ought not to be taxed, more particularly when it was so largely consumed by the working classes. The ratio of indirect taxation was only 50 per cent. in the case of the English taxpayer, whereas in Ireland, with a much poorer population who drank more tea in proportion than the people of Great Britain, the ratio of indirect taxation was 72 per cent. A labourer in Ireland earning 15s. a week paid as much in indirect taxation as a labourer in England earning 25s. to 30s. a week. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not adopt a non possumus attitude, because there was a very large amount of public feeling in favour of lessening taxation on tea, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that he owed to the country and to the House some recognition for receiving his Budget so quietly, not withstanding the large expenditure which it entailed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the appointment of this Committee.
  MR. J. A. PEASEappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he would consider the propriety of appointing a Select Committee or a Departmental Committee to inquire as to the way the tea tax affected the various classes of the community. On his side of the House they would like to see a Committee appointed to consider the whole question of the incidence of direct and indirect taxation. He was quite in favour of everybody contributing to the funds of the State, and he thought they should do so in proportion to their means. Such a Committee as had been suggested by his hon. friends might ensure a recommendation which would do away with the taxes on necessary articles of life. He believed tea was a necessary article to the working classes as they at present lived in this country. The tax pressed unduly on the working classes, and especially the class he represented. To agricultural labourers with 12s. a week the tax upon tea was a very great burden, and it was more than their means justified.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not undertake to deal at once with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Nobody who had spoken had contended that an inquiry into the tea tax alone would be of any value. What hon. Members really desired was an inquiry into the circumstances of the whole system of taxation. Those who had given any attention to the subject at all knew that probably a more difficult question to solve could not be submitted to any body of individuals, and the suggestion really was to devolve upon a Committee, he did not know exactly how denominated, duties essentially pertaining to this House—those of seeing that their system of taxation was just and fair. Hon. Gentlemen had some idea that possibly a Committee of that kind could demonstrate to the satisfaction of everybody and place beyond dispute the exact incidence of their present system of taxation. He believed that to be impossible. Great minds, learned men, deep students, had devoted a great deal of attention to that subject, but he was not aware that anyone had arrived at conclusions satisfactory to any other expert, and certainly not to conclusions which were generally acceptable. The task which would be propounded to a Committee would be, he thought, an impossible one, and unless they could show him there was practical work to be done, which he had not yet appreciated, he could not agree to appoint such a Committee as suggested. Of course, if the mover had a definite idea which he would care to discuss with him, he would be pleased to do so. He submitted, with all respect, that it was extremely difficult for a Minister or for the House to discuss a Bill of the present kind if on every clause, and at every stage, wide issues such as would be raised on a Second or Third Reading were raised again and again. He did not believe it had ever been attempted to be done before, and he ventured to submit it did not tend to the efficient discharge of business.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not quite fair to the House in giving this lecture as to how the debates should be conducted. This was the first Motion on which they could deal with direct
  1152
  and indirect taxation, and the hon. Members who had spoken had conducted the debate with due regard to the rules of the House. With regard to the appointment of a Committee, he thought that all the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said had rather strengthened the suggestion made by his hon. friends. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he had not been able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the question at issue, and that itself was a reason why he should agree to the appointment of a Committee. Great advantage had been derived from the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Certainly the Government had not dealt with the question as it might have done, but in the evidence, and in the conclusions which the Commission had laid before the House they had a valuable mine of information. He submitted that the same advantages would follow if the right hon. Gentleman consented to the appointment of the Committee which in this case had been asked. He wished to press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that the tea duty of 6d. now proposed included 2d. which was put on for war taxation. While it would not be fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to outline his future policy with regard to finance, or what he intended to do in his next Budget, he might inform the House as to his views with regard to the tea tax remaining at 6d. in time of peace. The tax was equal to 75 per cent, of the value of the article, and that, he submitted, was far too high a percentage in time of peace. The Committee would certainly appreciate the statement if the right hon. Gentleman could really tell them that he did not consider 6d. the normal duty to be imposed on tea, and that he would take the first opportunity of bringing it back to the old level of 4d. which existed before the war.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exceedingly well advised in declining to remit this question to a Committee. What the difference was between direct and indirect taxation no man had ever been able to pronounce with certainty. One school of economists held that

  1153
  one kind of tax was direct, while another school held that it was indirect. The different schools of economists were not agreed, and therefore it would not be reasonable to expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree where the doctors so considerably differed. Could any hon. Member say whether a licence was a direct or an indirect tax? He got no answer. In the rough-and-ready classification adopted by the ordinary financier at the Treasury it was classed a direct tax, but he himself held that it was absolutely indirect because the licensee put the charge on the price of the beer. Customs duties were generally held to be indirect, but he held that in one respect they were very direct. This was a very complicated question which a Committee could not solve. He went further.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: You are travelling away from the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this was a Ways and Means Bill for raising money to meet the supply of the year. In his opinion it did not afford a field on which economists should assert themselves in moving the reduction of taxation. It was in Supply that should be done. Once they had agreed to the grant they must find the ways and means. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He admitted that there might be different methods. When hon. Members came forward with a proposal to take two pence off the tea duty they should be prepared with an alternative.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: We have been ruled out of order on that point.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not rule the hon. Member out of order. He thought it was pertinent when a reduction was moved to show that there were other means of raising the money. Many hon. Members opposite were as anxious as he was to reduce the expenditure of the country, but he wished to impress upon them that this was not the best opportunity. It should be done not only in Supply, but when Works Bills were brought before them. Every one of these
  1154
  Bills ought to be strangled remorselessly. He very much doubted whether any reduction of taxation would be in the true interest of economy this year. The present need was to get rid of the load of debt, and that implied rather increased taxation.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the purpose for which the Committee was proposed. They were dealing now with the tea duty, and the argument that the tax was heavier on the poorer than the wealthier classes. The question of the whole incidence of these taxes should come before the Committee. He was assured that the consumer paid the tea duty. Of course, such a Committee as had been suggested would have to exclude from its purview the coal tax; but it would be its business to assess the proportion of taxation which ought to be borne by certain articles——
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is out of order in pursuing that line of argument.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that he ventured to move last year that the tea duty should be reduced from 8d. to 6d. per pound, and he was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken his advice. But there was another piece of advice he had given the right hon. Gentleman which had not been adopted. He felt assured that if the right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee on the incidence of taxation, the Committee might have approached more nearly than now to a solution of this great problem, which was to adjust taxation so that it should fall on the shoulders of those who could bear it with the least inconvenience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on his advice last year, made this reduction on the tea duty; but he wished that the right hon. Gentleman could have carried it further, because the very poor who bought their tea in very small quantities would not derive much benefit from the reduction. He was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Budget Bill, say that this reduction would be beneficially felt in

  1155
  every household in the United Kingdom. That was sound economic doctrine, because it was undoubtedly the consumer who had to pay this impost, although the foreign producer gained a certain benefit. He ought to say that in the case of tea it was the colonial producer in India and Ceylon. Undoubtedly the tendency of a large tax on a particular article was to diminish consumption. It should be remembered that India was a miserably poor country, and anything which diminished employment in India diminished the chances of these poor natives of obtaining a decent existence. India was the most thickly populated portion of His Majesty's dominions. It had been afflicted with plague and famines, and all the ills which afflicted humanity; and anything which could benefit that country would benefit this country. They heard a great deal about colonial preference and the desirability of doing anything we could for the benefit of the Colonies. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conferred, by this reduction of the tea duty, a practical benefit on India. In Ceylon the tea industry had been the industrial salvation of the island, the population of which was the most loyal in the whole Empire. Ceylon, twenty years ago, was in a state of bankruptcy, and the tea cultivation saved it. The tea duty, imposed a few years ago, crippled that colony; and he
  hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, if not this year, the next, accept a further reduction of the tea duty. He trusted that, by measures of economy, it might be possible to have a further reduction next year of 2d. per 1b. on the tea duty. He had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend, and he trusted that he would press it to a division.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that this discussion had been largely academic, but he could not let pass the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite who urged that such a tax as the duty tea fell wholly on the consumer. He was old enough to remember that the late Earl Russell said he was quite convinced that moderate indirect taxation fell in equal proportions on the producer and the consumer.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he had only quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was following his lead. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not also follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 157.

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Bond, Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Allsopp, Hon. George

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. Hugh O.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, J. H. M. Dublin Univ.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cavendish, V. C. W. Derbyshire

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

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

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Finlay, Sir R. B Inverness B'ghs

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

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Coddington, Sir William

  Fison, Frederick William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bigwood, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bill, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Garfit, William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'rHamlets)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew).

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Spear, John Ward

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mitchell, William(Burnley)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Moore, William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stock, James Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stroyan, John

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Helder, Augustus

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Myers, William Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hoult, Joseph

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tuff, Charles

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Percy, Earl

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Jebo, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Kerr, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

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

  Renwick, George

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Lowe, Francis William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Loya, Archie Kirkman

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Viscount Valentia.

  Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cameron, Robert

  Elibank, Master of

  Allen, Charles P.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndnw'sB'ghs

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Emmott, Alfred

  Austin, Sir John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Field, William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Blake, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boland, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Brigg, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Gilhooly, James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Delany, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb.John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Grant, Corrie

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dillon, John

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Burt, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Caldwell, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  1158

  1159

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Schwann, Charles E.

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Murphy, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth,South)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Johnson, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

  Labouchere, Henry

  O' Dowd, John

  Toulmin, George

  Lambert, George

  O'Malley, William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Langley, Batty

  Parrott, William

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Leng, Sir John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Levy, Maurice

  Pries, Robert John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Priestley, Arthur

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rea, Russell

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lough, Thomas

  Reddy, M.

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

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Young, Samuel

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M' Fadden, Edward

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  H'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Soares and Mr. Cawley.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Russell, T. W.

  M' Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Question put "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 157. (Division List No.171.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Carlile, William Walter

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

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inverness B'ghs

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Forster, Henry William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Garfit, William

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Denny, Colonel

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Bigwood, James

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Bond, Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Helder, Augustus

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Moore, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Hoult, Joseph

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Myers, William Henry

  Stroyan, John

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Percy, Earl

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kerr, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tuff, Charles

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Purvis, Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

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

  Pym, C. Guy

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

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

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Renwick, George

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lowe, Francis William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Robinson, Brooke

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wylie, Alexander

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Malcolm, Ian

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Grant, Corrie

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Austin, Sir John

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bell, Richard

  Dillon, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Blake, Edward

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Boland, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Brigg, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ellice, Capt E. C (S Andrw's B'ghs

  Joicey, Sir James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burt, Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Joyce, Michael

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Field, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cameron, Robert

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Labouchere, Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Langley, Batty

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gilhooly, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  1162

  1163

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O' Dowd, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lough, Thomas

  Parrott, William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lundon, W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Philipps, John Wynford

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

  M'Crae, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Price, Robert John

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Reddy, M.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Richards, H. C. (Finsbury, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, Luke (York., E. R.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roche, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Runciman, Walter

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Murphy, John

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Young, Samuel

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Shackleton, David James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

  Slack, John Bamford

  Russell Rea and Mr. Toulmin.

  O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Clause 2:
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the words he proposed to leave out appeared to him to be mere surplusage or else words put in to create a very fine and subtle distinction between "increased" and "additional" duties. The clause said, "additional" duties and Customs imposed by Clauses 2, 3, 4 of the Finance Act of 1900, including the increased duties mentioned in the fifth clause of that Act. He deprecated this legislation by reference, and could not see why the first words of the clause were not sufficient of themselves. But even if they were not, he thought it would have been much better drafting to put in "additional and increased" duties. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out the words 'including the increased duties imposed by Section 5 of that Act.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINpointed out that Clause 5 of the Finance Act of 1900 stood upon a different footing to Clauses 2, 3, and 4. Clause 5
  1164
  enacted duties some of which were described as "additional" and some as "increased," and unless in the present Bill they included the reference to the increased duties the form of the clause would merely repeal the additional and not the increased duties in the original Act.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the duties mentioned in Clause 5 were not levied before 1900.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid those articles were taxed before 1900, but by that Act the spirit duty by which the duty on those articles was fixed was raised, and therefore it became necessary to increase the duty on those articles.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather thrown the blame back on the Act of 1900. The matter, he thought, could be remedied in the present Bill, if, as he understood, the first part of Clause 5 recited only the additions to the existing duties imposed an account of the war, whilst the second part of the clause recited the new duties, the additional duties, imposed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member was quite accurate.
  MR. WHITLEYthought it was a pity that a method of this kind had been adopted, because it prevented the Committee from arriving at the actual amount of the duties imposed on these articles on account of the war, especially the minor articles. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at some future time would see his way to treat these articles on the same basis as tobacco, beer, and spirits. He begged leave, after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that by Section 2 of the Finance Bill an additional duty of 4d. a 1b. was placed on all tobaccos. Had it been placed on high-priced cigars he would not say anything more about it, but it was imposed on all kinds of tobaccos, especially those cheap tobaccos which were imported into Ireland, in respect to which lie thought the increased tax of 4d. ought to be repealed. By the extent to which the price of an article was increased the industry concerned in the manufacture of that article was penalised, and the growing industry of tobacco manufacture in Ireland had been seriously injured by the imposition of this additional duty. Ireland was not so rich in industries that she could afford to have any of them interfered with or handicapped, and he submitted that it would be perfectly easy by means of a sub-section to relieve the Irish tobacco industry of this imposition. A certain class of Irish tobacco was largely consumed by the working classes both of this country and of Ireland. Many working men would rather forego their breakfast or dinner than their pipe, and it was no abuse of language to say that to many of the poorer classes tobacco had become a necessity of life. It was one of the few alleviations of their lot of unremitting toil, and the working classes of Ireland felt it rather hard that this modest luxury and almost necessity should be taxed more heavily for the purpose of carrying on a great war to which they were always opposed. But the war had been over for nearly three years, and yet the taxes were maintained. He had
  1166
  not moved in reference to the Customs duties on beer and spirits; it was only right that they should bear their fair share of taxation, but he did claim an exemption in favour of Irish tobacco. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably give the stereotyped reply that money must be obtained. The amount involved, however, was so small, in comparison with the Budget as a whole, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to make the moderate concession asked for. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 8, at end to add the words, 'Provided, however, that the additional duty of fourpence the pound imposed by Section two of the Finance Act, 1900, shall not apply to un-manufactured tobacco imported into Ireland as from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and five.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. FIELDsaid he had just received a telegram from the tobacco manufacturers in his constituency asking him to support this Amendment. The manufacturing aspect of the question should not be lost sight of. It was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to co-operate with any attempt to prevent American trusts from monopolising the retail businesses in the country, and Irish manufacturers were seriously handicapped in their endeavours to compete with those trusts by the taxation they had to bear. The duty of 4d. operated gravely against the manufacture of tobacco, and the small allowance asked for by this Amendment would be of great assistance. He submitted that Ireland had an exceptional case for relief in this matter and that the growing of tobacco should be encouraged in every possible way in order the more successfully to cope with the foreign competition which was daily becoming more formidable.
  MR. FLAVINjoined his hon. friend in protesting against the continuance of this war taxation upon the poorest of the poor. The question was of importance from the point of

  1167
  view, not only of taxpayers generally, but of consumers of tobacco, English and Irish, in view of the fact that the Imperial Tobacco Company of America had secured practical control of the retail market. There was absolutely no competition, consequently no protection for the poor consumers, other than that supplied by the independent Irish tobacco manufacturers. But because the Irish manufacturers had to face the increased duty of 4d. the American combine were placing on the market an imitation of Irish roll tobacco at cost price in order to destroy the independent firms who had stood out from the combination. He believed in healthy competition and fair profits. The practical control of the tobacco trade by one syndicate was a serious matter for the working men of the country. Great credit was due to firms like Gallahers', who had had the wits, energy, and capital successfully so far to stand outside the ring, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to encourage such firms in their endeavour, even at loss and injury to themselves, to give the people the benefit of healthy competition. He was sorry that the average English manufacturer did not show a more enlightened spirit, and this was only an example of the way in which they took a selfish and narrow view of this matter as opposed to the welfare of the masses. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the grounds he had stated, first, in the interests of the poorest of the poor, and, secondly, in the interests of those independent firms who had stood outside the combination, and who were placing a good article on the market. He thought such firms ought to be encouraged. The Imperial Tobacco Company had made up its mind to drive all independent men inside their trust or else ruin them by unfair competition. In the interests of Irish industries the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to do something to protect them, and thus increase the amount of employment in Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he agreed with the hon. Member that in the progress of our commercial life and the world's commercial life trusts and great combinations were beginning, and
  1168
  probably would continue, to play a much larger part than had been the case in the past. Consequently, it would be necessary for any Government to watch their operation, and to see whether any regulation was necessary to prevent great private combinations from becoming a public danger. He did not think that case had arisen yet, but the matter was one which any Government must keep under observation. Other countries had deemed it necessary to have such legislation in contemplation, and in some instances had actually passed legislation on this question. He thought in the near future they might have to direct their attention to the new state of things which had been created. He thought he could show to the hon. Member that the particular Amendment now before the House was not the proper method by which his object should be pursued, and that it would not attain the end at which he aimed. He had spoken of the trade which was of special interest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it furnished a large portion of the revenue. He had stated that the tobacco trade in Ireland was at the mercy of a foreign combination. He thought he was wrong in saying that any foreign combination seriously menaced that trade. No doubt there had been a fight between a foreign and a home combination, which arose out of the attempt made to invade our own market by a great foreign trust. There was a sharp battle, but not a very long one, and it resulted in the defeat of the foreign combination, which came to an agreement with the home combination practically to the extent that they should not invade our market. Whatever disturbance there now was in the trade was not due to a foreign combination, but was largely due to a domestic combination. The hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the combination he alluded to included all the British firms. The Imperial Tobacco Company was a very powerful and a very large combination, but if the hon. Member made inquiries he would find that a very considerable number of firms still stood outside that combination in this country.
  MR. FLAVIN: Yes, but they are trying to force them inside.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was still a considerable number of firms in England who had stood outside. The hon. Gentlemen's Amendment would favour Irish firms in regard to Irish trade, and one of his arguments was that it would enable them to resist this combination. He wished to point out that it would give no assistance to firms which stood outside the combination in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pleaded for it on the ground that it would encourage Irish manufactures. He was glad to think that this was a most prosperous industry in Ireland, employing many hands, and he hoped it was profitable both to the country and to the people who carried it on. The Amendment would introduce a complication into their system which would be extremely difficult, because it would pick out for special favour one or two manufacturers to the detriment of all other manufacturers, whether forming part of the combination or not. As a matter of fact it would be protective in its nature as against the foreign manufacturers. He hardly needed to pursue that question, because, as they were all aware, the Government was not going to propound any changes of that character during the present Parliament. He was not insensible to the possible danger of these great industrial combinations, nor to the fact that they were a proper subject for the attention of the Government, because they might, in the course of their development render changes in our laws necessary which were not necessary when such great combinations were unknown. It was evident, however, that they could not deal with that question by a single small Amendment of this character, and he assured the hon. Member that it would not produce the result which he desired.
  MR. FIELDasked the right hon. Gentleman to answer his point as to the encouragement of tobacco-growing in Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was afraid that the question of tobacco-growing in Ireland would not be in order upon this Amendment.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, it would not be in order.
  MR. FLAVINsaid in regard to this matter they were not selfish and did not want any special treatment. What concession they made to the Irish manufacturers he was quite willing should be given to other manufacturers. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that some manufacturers in this country stood outside the combination. He suggested that they should also give them exemption and encourage them to stay outside the combination. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that the Imperial Tobacco Company were already in possession of the greater part of the tobacco trade of the United Kingdom. The proper time to tackle this trust was not after it had ruined all its opponents by unfair competition, but before it had grown to a fully-developed tree.
  MR. O'MARAsaid this Amendment was intended to provide an exemption in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Union. His hon. friend thought the Amendment should be used to help independent tobacco firms who stood outside the combination. He wished to point out that on the Second Reading of this Bill it was amply proved that Ireland could not be successful in its industries unless some abatement was made in the taxes imposed upon the country, and there was no tax upon which an abatement could more properly be allowed than on the tobacco tax. This was an article which was specially mentioned in the Act of Union. He was quite ready to admit that but for the Act of Union the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessors would have a great deal of weight. It was said that the poor man in Ireland was no worse than the poor man in England in regard to this tax, and, that therefore there was no injustice. His answer to that was that the representatives of the Irish nation were in the Imperial Parliament because of the policy of the Act of Union. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor had repudiated the Act of Union, but it might interest the House

  1171
  to know that the Act contemplated an abatement to Ireland on this particular tax. One of the grounds on which the taxation on tobacco and a number of other articles was to be calculated was the relative value of the exports and imports of the different countries. He might mention in passing that they were unable to arrive at the relative value of the exports and imports because the figures could not be ascertained. The figures were absolutely denied to them, so that they were unable to say precisely how much they were overtaxed. He thought no more suitable abatement could be given in the case of Ireland than that proposed by his hon. friend who moved the Amendment. They were entitled to a more sympathetic answer than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given. When
  Ireland was declining in wealth and population, and when taxation was increasing, the least the House of Commons could do should be to give this paltry abatement.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he should have liked not to press the Amendment to a division, but after the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was no other course open. Surely this war tax ought not to be continued in a country whose representatives opposed the war, especially when the war had been over for three years.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 236. (Division List No. 172.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

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

  Athenley-Jones, L.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O' Mara, James

  Austin, Sir John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Johnson, John

  Parrott, William

  Boland, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Burt, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Slack, John Bamford

  Dillon, John

  M' Fadden, Edward

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M' Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Toulmin, George

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellice, Capt E. C (S Andrw's B'ghs

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

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

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Flynn and Mr. Flavin.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O' Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Arkwright, John Stannope

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pirie, Duncan V

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

  Bigwood, James

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bill, Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pym, C. Guy

  Blake, Edward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, John S.

  Bond, Edward

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Helder, Augustus

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bowles, Lt-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Renwick, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Horner, Frederick William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas.Thomson

  Butcher, John George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Hoult Joseph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Robinson, Brooke

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Runciman, Walter

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Wore.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Langley, Batty

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Denny, Colonel

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stroyan, John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Tuff, Charles

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inverness B'ghs

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fison, Frederick William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Moore, William

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Garfit, William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Myers, William Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Partington, Oswald

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Percy, Earl

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Viscount Valentia.

  Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to move that Clause 2 should be left out of the Bill. That clause reimposed the war taxes on beer, spirits, and tobacco imposed in 1900. The House was beginning to be tired by the constant reiteration of these taxes put on ostensibly for a short period. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had got to admit full responsibility for what had been done in that regard by his predecessors. The additional duties on beer, spirits, and tobacco, for the purposes of war expenditure had caused very great inconvenience to traders, and there was a pledge on the part of the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman that they would not be permanently retained. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had devoted his mind to getting rid of these additional taxes I he might have done so by this time. There was a definite pledge given that when special money was raised for a great emergency, as soon as that emergency was over the special taxation would cease; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer renewed these taxes every year. The nation had a right to expect some relief from the war taxation in time of peace. An effort ought to be made to practise economy. The truth was that the Government had seemingly forgotten their pledges in regard to this matter, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to treat it in a perfunctory manner, but to tell the Committee when he could see his way to sweep away these war taxes.
  He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was getting as much money from the duties on beer and spirits as he would get if the extra duties were taken off. The extra beer tax, which was now renewed, was practically 1s. per barrel. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his predecessor got from the beer tax in 1900, when the duty was 1s. per barrel lower, compared with what he got from that tax this last year. And what amount did the spirit tax produce before the additional 6d. per gallon was imposed, compared with that now received by the revenue. It
  1176
  was admitted that a tax could be raised above a point of productivity. He believed that great distress had been caused to the brewing trade by the extra tax on beer, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had lost revenue, rather than gained it, by the additional tax. The right hon. Gentleman should have taken warning from the experience of one of his predecessors who lost revenue by raising the wine duties by 25 per cent. He would be very glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some pledge that in a reasonable time these war taxes would be removed.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could inform the Committee what effect these additional taxes had had upon the consumer. His impression was that these additional taxes on beer and spirits had led to the deterioration of the quality of these articles, and that the persons who sold these articles had to recoup themselves at the expense of the public. In the case of spirits especially, it led to the consumption of immature spirits which was provocative of violent crimes. Then the beer duty had also lowered the quality, which was to the detriment of the consumers. He was sorry that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had given up the practice of his predecessors, in bringing forward these new taxes, in warning the House of the necessity of exercising the strictest economy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol lectured the House annually in the interests of economy; but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the existing high level of taxation, and did not propose any substantial reduction in taxation. The Amendment raised the whole question of war taxation; which would now appear to be annexed for the permanent requirements of the nation.
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not attach the same value as did his hon. friend to the annual lecture of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol when Chancellor of the Exchequer. At one time, he himself was inclined to praise the right hon. Gentleman the

  1177
  Member for West Bristol as a sound financier; but all the right hon. Gentleman's statements evaporated in smoke. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman delivered a vigorous address in the interests of economy; but why should he not make any effort in the House of Commons itself? He, himself, liked the method of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer better, although he regarded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol as one of the ablest Members of the House. He objected to the continuance of war taxation, unless it was for the purpose of paying off war expenditure. War taxation should not, otherwise, be maintained in time of peace.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that it would be a futile proceeding on his part to pretend to forecast the course of the revenue or expenditure, or to indicate in advance what might be the character of the Budget next year. He had not the figures for which the hon. Member for West Islington asked, but he could give them if a Question was put on the Paper. It was, however, certain that a tax might be raised to such a high point as to diminish its value as a revenue producing engine, though he did not believe that the disappointment experienced in recent years had been due to the level at which these taxes had stood. Other circumstances had arisen to influence their productive power, such as changes in the social habits of the people and bad conditions of trade in the last year or two. He was surprised to hear an expression of sympathy with the brewers from the hon. Member for West Islington, and he could only wonder what the hon. Member would have said if he had selected these duties on beer and spirits for reduction this year in the Budget. It was said that the beer-drinker now received a less desirable article than previously. He did not believe that there was any proof to support the suggestion that a more "thirst-producing" article was being manufactured and consumed in consequence of these war duties. What had actually happened was that the price of a glass of beer had remained the same, though the amount of water in it had been increased. In the case of beer and
  1178
  spirits, therefore, there was no reason to suppose that a slight rise in the tax had seriously affected the consumption, or that there had been a deterioration in quality in the sense of adulterating beer with the object of producing thirst in the consumer. It had, however, led to the sale of a greater proportion of lighter beer. He declined to make any hazardous prophecies as to circumstances he was unable to forecast, but he could not dispense with these duties in the present year.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Government had no right, without adequate explanation, to continue taxes specifically put on for war purposes; and on that principle alone this clause ought to be opposed. The Government had no right to continue in time of peace taxes which were imposed for war purposes. He thought the Committee ought to take this opportunity of expressing its opinion on the larger principle, and on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not submitted this year any scheme or indicated any date when it might be anticipated that they might be relieved of this war taxation.
  MR. LOUGHthought he had some reason for complaint that the figures for which he had asked, and which would have been of very great use in this debate, had not been given. He also complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mixed up in his arguments two facts which ought to have been kept separate. The right hon. Gentleman had mixed up the elasticity of revenue with the promotion of consumption, which was quite a distinct matter. He asked the Committee to note that the right hon. Gentleman had not disproved his statement that the increase in these taxes had not had the desired effect, and that the violent action of the Government had simply resulted in the decline of revenue. With regard to those of his friends who might hesitate to support proposals of this kind, which would mean a reduction of the tax on beer and spirits, he would remind them that excessive taxation on those commodities did not promote increased temperance but simply made those who

  1179
  craved for liquor poor as well as drunken. In view of the answer he had received from the right hon. Gentleman he must press his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes, 160. (Division List No. 173.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denny, Colonel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants.,Fareham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Bigwood, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bill, Charles

  Garfit, William

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Bingham, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bond, Edward

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gorst, Rt.- Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Moore, William

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bull, William James

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Myers, William Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chapman, Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Randles, John S.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renwick, George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutton, John (York, N. R.)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stock, James Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Tuff, Charles

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wylie, Alexander

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harcourt, Lewis

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

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Austin, Sir John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Barlow, John Emmott

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

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O' Mara, James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bell, Richard

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Parrott, William

  Blake, Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Boland, John

  Johnson, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Joicey, Sir James

  Phillipps, John Wynford

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Burt, Thomas

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monmouth

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Robertson Edmund (Dundee)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leng, Sir John

  Runciman, Walter

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M 'Crae, George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Dillon, John

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Field, William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wallace, Robert

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  GladStone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Grant, Corrie

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gurdon Sir W. Brampton

  1182

  1183

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Buchanan and Mr. Soares.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Young, Samuel

  Clause 3:—
  MR. FLYNNsaid the Amendment he was about to move raised much the same principle as his previous Amendment, and an equally good case could be made out for relief in connection with the Excise duties as with the impositions already dealt with. He submitted that it was not unreasonable to demand that an exemption should be allowed from the additional duty on whisky consumed in Ireland—for that was what the Amendment amounted to. Probably the hon. Baronet the Member for the Camborne Division would not agree with the suggestion that the duty on so wholesome and exhilarating a beverage as whisky should be struck off. But there was good and bad whisky.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: What is good whisky?
  MR. FLYNNsaid that good whisky was a pot-distilled spirit sufficiently matured to decompose the element known as fusel, and resulting in the fragrant, mellow liquor known as Irish malt whisky. A duty of 11s. per gallon on such an article was altogether opposed to any principle of fair play or justice. In 1853 the duty in Ireland was only 2s. 3d. as against 7s. 10d. in Great Britain, but between then and 1860 the duty was increased to 10s. in both countries, and now stood at 11s. Therefore, while the duty had increased in England and Scotland by 33 per cent., in Ireland the increase had been no less than 400 per cent. Could that be called fair treatment? He submitted that instance of the dual system of taxation to the consideration of the hon. Member for Durham. If whisky was to be drunk it was better that a good wholesome liquor should be consumed, but a high tax tended to bring on to the market a large quantity of immature, raw, and impure spirit, which produced intoxication, led to acts of violence, and often resulted in insanity. He regretted the form of the Bill precluded him from moving a larger reduction of the duty, but,
  1184
  especially as there could be no Customs difficulty in this connection, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to the moderate suggestion he now made.
  Amendment proposed—
  "in page 2, line 15, at the end, to add the words, 'Provided, however, that the additional duty of sixpence per proof gallon imposed, by Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1900 shall not apply to spirits consumed in Ireland.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed, "That those words, be there added."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid this Amendment was one of a series placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Cork, intended to raise the same point in different forms, and directed towards securing for Irish manufacturers or consumers a privileged position as compared with manufacturers or consumers of similar articles in other parts of the United Kingdom. The question of the establishment of different rates of Customs or Excise duties in the two countries had already been discussed at length on two occasions. He had never contended that such a differentiation was impossible, or denied that it had existed. But it must not be assumed from that that there was no objection to it, or that it would not be a troublesome and costly proceeding. The percentage of collection was much decreased by the unification of arrangements which now prevailed. If this proposal was carried out the disadvantages would be great and the benefit small. Even if the Committee thought that some article of consumption should be taxed at a lower rate in Ireland that in England, he could not think that it would be this article that they would select for preferential treatment.
  MR. MOONEYsaid he could not follow the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the cost of collection would be very much increased. The Customs authorities knew

  1185
  where the spirit was going to and consequently there would be no difficulty. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget he spoke of the loss sustained by the revenue in regard to the spirit duties, which he attributed to a wave of sobriety which had been passing over the country. One thing which had caused great anxiety to medical men all over the kingdom was the extraordinary increase in the percentage of insanity; and a good deal of that insanity was alleged to have been caused by the consumption of raw and immature spirits. In most of our great manufacturing centres an epidemic of methylated-spirit drinking was breaking out. The fact that this tax stood at such a high rate led to the putting on the market of a spirit which must be bad for the consumers. If they put such a high tax on the spirit the vendor could not keep it long enough to enable him to get rid of the fusel oil. It was not the distiller who paid the increased price but the bonder. If a bonder had two sorts of whisky, one only two years old and the other ten years old, the ten year old whisky, when he came to pay the duty upon it, must be a dearer article than the whisky he had kept for two years only, and the result of that was
  that when they put a high duty on the bonder he must reduce the age of the whisky, and he had to sell it before it had had time to mature. Once they put a high tax on whisky they reduced the consumption in a way, but they also, at the same time, brought into the market more raw spirit. Medical men had asserted that one of the greatest causes of the increase of lunacy amongst the poorer classes was the consumption of this raw spirit. The time had come for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put an end to this additional tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had held out the same promise. He did not know whether the present Chancellor of the Exchequer called it a temporary tax or an additional tax. Surely it was about time that this additional tax, put on for a specific purpose which was now over, was taken off. It was a just claim that the tax in Ireland should be restored to the figure at which it stood before the war.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 283. (Division List No. 174.)

  AYES.

  Austin, Sir John

  Joyce, Michael

  O' Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  O' Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Blake, Edward

  Lambert, George

  O' Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Parrott, William

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Rea, Russell

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John

  Delany, William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Slack, John Bamford

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Dillon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Dunn, Sir William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wallace, Robert

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Young, Samuel

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Flynn and Mr. Mooney.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Johnson, John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Denny, Colonel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. SirJohn H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kitson, Sir James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Langley, Batty

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Douglas, Charles M (Lanark

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bell, Richard

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  M 'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Bigwood, James

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bill, Charles

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bingham, Lord

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Garfit, William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Brigg, John

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Moore, William

  Brown, Sir Alex H. (Shropsh.)

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bull, William James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Burt, Thomas

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry SEdm'nds

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Caldwell, James

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moss, Samuel

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

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carlile, William Walter

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Newnes, Sir George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heath, sir James (Staffords. NW

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Helder, Augustus

  Percy, Earl

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Purvis, Robert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Randles, John S.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  1188

  1189

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir. William H

  Renwick, George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

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

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

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks)

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Spear, John Ward

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Robinson, Brooke

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Stock, James Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wylie, Alexander

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Shackleton, David James

  Tuff, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E. H (Sheffield

  Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  MR. FLYNNsaid that his Amendment ought to be received with sympathy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, There was a great deal of parrot talk with reference to equality of taxation, but hon. Members might not be aware that for half a century after the Union Ireland was exempted from the income-tax. In 1853 it was imposed for seven years; but more than fifty years had now elapsed; and yet it had not been repealed. Both Sir Robert Peel and Lord Palmerston had declined to extend the income-tax to Ireland. Mr. Gladstone, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, did. Lord Beaconsfield, however, spoke strongly against it; and his was admittedly one of the first names in the litany of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Other Englishmen had also expressed similar opinions. The repeal of the tax would not involve any change in Customs or Excise; and he, therefore, hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the question. Every penny taken out of the country in the form of income-tax was a drain on Irish resources and on employment in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 35, after the word 'charged, to insert the words 'in Great Britain.'"— (Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that on each clause, as it had been discussed the Committee had been asked to accord to Ireland some advantage over the other parts of the United Kingdom. He had not been inclined to accept any other proposals, and it seemed to him that the income-tax payer had the least claim of all to preferential treatment. He could quite understand rich man living in Ireland if they could be exempt there from income-tax. Wealthy people would be inclined, perhaps, to put their fortunes in any refuge where they would be free from taxation; but he could see no ground for granting this remission to rich men because they happened to live in Ireland. They had been told that one of the defects in the present financial system as it affected Ireland was that so small a portion of the taxation came from the direct taxpayers, and yet the hon. Member would have him abandon the most important source of direct taxation.
  MR. O'MARAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had repudiated the suggestion

  1191
  and the plea that Ireland was entitled to any exemption or abatement whatsoever, but he could not expect the Irish Party to agree with him in that. They took their stand on the fact that by the Act of Union they were so entitled. The right hon. Gentleman could not have it both ways. At the present time Ireland was exempt from the tax on armorial bearings and the house tax. They were either entitled to exemptions and abatements or they were not. If they were not why were they exempted in those two matters, and if they were entitled then the right hon. Gentleman's argument did not hold good. He claimed that they were entitled, and that the country was pressed down by the system of taxation forced upon it by Great Britain. It was not justice that a poor country like Ireland should be taxed in the same way as a rich country like Great Britain. Everyone in the House would acknowledge that the income-tax was one of the best tests of the capacity of a country to pay taxes, but while the proportion of income-tax paid was only one to thirty-two of that of Great Britain, in relation to taxation as a whole it was one to fifteen. Ireland was so poor a country that some exemption should be granted from the heavy taxation under which even Englishmen were groaning. If her proportion of taxation were reduced to the ratio of one to thirty-two it would be only just and fair, and in accordance with what was contemplated under the Act of Union.
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. WHITMORE,: The hon. Member is now repeating what he was saying when I called him to order.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he would merely point out that the income-tax afforded one of the readiest means in existence of granting an abatement or exemption to Ireland. That country could be exempted from the income-tax just as she was exempted from the house tax, and every Irish representative would rejoice if such an exemption were made. It was a striking fact that for fifty-three years after the Union there was no income-tax at all; it was first levied in England for the specific purpose of lightening the burdens on English industries, and
  1192
  Sir Robert Peel did not allow it to be extended to Ireland. At the time of the great famine a sum of £2,000,000 was granted to the people of Ireland to meet the ravages of the famine, and Mr. Gladstone proposed the imposition of an income-tax for a certain number of years to repay that money to the Imperial Exchequer. But the amount had been repaid over and over again and still the tax remained. On every possible ground, moral and economic, Ireland was entitled to exemption or an abatement.
  MR. FIELDheld that it could not be denied that the income-tax pressed with undue severity upon Ireland. Irishmen, however, objected not only to the tax itself but to the manner in which it was assessed. The whole subject, as it affected Ireland, deserved far more attention than it had hitherto received. In England there were local assessment committees acting in conjunction with an official assessor, but in Ireland there was an official appointed by the Government upon whose valuation——
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means from the remainder of this day's Sittings.
  Whereupon Mr. Jeffreys, the Deputy-Chairman, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 6:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 35, after the word 'charged, to insert the words 'in Great Britain.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question again proposed, 'That those words be there inserted."
  MR. FIELDsaid he rose to support the Amendment because overtaxation in Ireland constituted an enormous commercial drain on the country. He called attention to the fact that the exemption that they now claimed was never questioned until half a century after the Act of Union, and even at the present moment there were taxes imposed in England that were not levied in Ireland. With regard to the income-tax, various Chancellors of the Exchequer had always opposed its imposition in Ireland by reason of the fact that Ireland was a poor country. It was, in fact, imposed by Mr. Gladstone, "the wizard of finance," as he was called, in 1853, and then it was only imposed as a temporary tax for the purpose of paying off the Consolidated Loan of £4,500,000 which was required to establish the Poor Law system in Ireland. Never since that time had the income-tax been remitted, although it was then understood, though it was never stated, that it was to be taken off at the end of seven years.
  He, himself, was in favour of direct rather than indirect taxation, but the difficulty in this case was that they had no means of judging the amount of indirect taxation that was paid in Ireland; they had no statistics of the duties on exports and imports on which to go, and they had never had a separate vote of credit for Ireland. Therefore they had been unable to judge the amount of indirect taxation. The only way they had of obtaining restitution from the Government in respect to over-taxation was by means of the incometax. The position he took up was that the condition of Ireland at the present time was infinitely worse than it was in 1853. They had less wealth and less population, and therefore, from an economic point of view, were in an infinitely worse position now than then. The point of view he wished to put before the House was that this was not to be considered as a question of money alone: it must be considered from a wider point of view; it must be considered from the point of view of fair play in the administration of financial
  1194
  matters between the two countries. When he imposed this tax Mr. Gladstone made what was practically a declaration of policy when he said in this House that the income-tax was not to be looked upon as a permanent charge upon Ireland, but was to be only regarded as a temporary measure imposed for the purposes of paying off the Consolidated Loan. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he had proved his case under the terms of the Union, and under the terms on which this tax was imposed on Ireland, and he appealed to the right hon. Member to say whether they had not at least justice on their side and solid commonsense reasons for claiming that its remission might be considered by the right hon. Gentleman.
  He contended that the income-tax paid by Ireland was disproportionate in amount to that paid by England and Scotland because there was a difference in the valuation in England and Scotland. In those countries there was a system whereby local assessment committees assisted the Government Department in assessing the tax, but in Ireland the whole responsibility for the valuation was placed in the hands of a non-elective Commissioner from whom there was hardly any appeal. If the Valuation Bill now before the House was passed into law Ireland would be the poorer by £1,000,000 a year. He did not wish to make this a Party question, because it was a purely economic and financial question. It was upon a question of taxation that England lost America, and it was only by resisting the income-tax that they could bring before the Chancellor of the Exchequer their grievances. Ho trusted before this debate closed some hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland on the opposite side of the House, whose constituents suffered from the same grievance as the rest of Ireland, would join in the protest they were making against the overtaxation of Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had dealt with this question in half-a-dozen speeches already, and he could only say now that even if it was admitted that Ireland was overtaxed, and that a remedy must be found, it was not likely

  1195
  that hon. Members would choose a remedy that would relieve the well-to-do in Ireland while leaving the less well-to-do to suffer from their present burdens.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Ulster Members had not taken part in this campaign for the exemption of Ireland from taxation because they believed in the Imperial destinies of the United Kingdom, and were prepared to bear their share of its burdens.
  MR. FIELDsaid when he advocated the remission of the income-tax he admitted he preferred direct to indirect taxation, but the only way in which they could resist overtaxation in Ireland was by attacking the income-tax, because the statistics did not enable them to judge of the value of the export and import duties. He agreed that
  the income-tax payers were the persons who ought to pay most but there was no denying the fact that this was the only way to resist taxation.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he was not astonished at the remarks which fell from the hon. Member opposite for he and many of those who sat with him, and even two hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench, were the lineal descendants of the traitors who sold the blood of their countrymen as well as their country at the time of the Union.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 175.)

  AYES.

  Austin, Sir John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Parrott, William

  Boland, John

  Johnson, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reddy, M.

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roche, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dillon, John

  M 'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Field, William

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

  Young, Samuel

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Dowd, John

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O' Mara, James

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bell, Richard

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Bigwood, James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bond, Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brigg, John

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim. S.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Crombie, John William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets)

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Doughty, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chapman, Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Langley, Batty

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Shackleton, David James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Stock, James Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tillett, Louis John

  Gretton, John

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gurdon, Sir W Brampton

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tuff, Charles

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hunt, Rowland

  Purvis, Robert

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Randles, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

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

  Renwick, George

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Kerr, John

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monmouth)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  MR. J. H. LEWISrose to move an Amendment to extend the principle of graduated income-tax. His proposal was that the rate in respect of incomes between £1,000 and £2,000 should be 1s., £700 up to £1,000, 10d.; —600 to £700, 9d.; £500 to £600, 8d.; £400 to £500, 6d.; £300 to £400, 4d.; and £200 to £300, 2d. The object he had in view was to have a debate upon the graduation of the income-tax. This was by no means the first time that this question had been raised in the House of Commons. He could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a very large number of the members of his own Party outside the House were keenly interested in this matter, and if he saw the letters he received from Conservatives and Unionists who were in favour of this graduation he would be surprised. The principle had become an integral part of our fiscal policy, and he wished to see it carried further. Mr. Pitt once said that
  1198
  a man who could afford to keep two carriages should be charged on each at a higher rate than the man who could only afford one. That was a sound and equitable principle of taxation, but it was not put into operation until the passing of Sir William Harcourt's Estate Duty Act. The burden of taxation under the present system pressed more heavily upon the poor than upon the rich. When taxes were high the rich man had only to deprive himself of comforts and luxuries, but the poor man under those circumstances would have to deprive himself not only of comforts, but also of necessaries. He held that Customs duties were paid by persons of small means in greater proportion to their incomes than persons of large means. The Government had been asked to levy an ad valorem duty upon tea, tobacco, and the different classes of wines. At the present time they levied exactly the same duty upon the cheapest

  1199
  kind of tea, tobacco, and wines as they did upon the most expensive kinds, notwithstanding the enormous difference in the cost. Some change in this respect was absolutely necessary in order to adjust the pressure of taxation. Sir William Harcourt said—
  "If a tax is to be maintained at a high figure it is necessary that we should make some attempt to adjust its pressure so as to make it less intolerable to those least able to bear it. Everybody must agree that the pressure of the income-tax is most severe upon the class of men of small and moderate incomes."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had declared that if the income-tax was to be maintained at anything like the high rate it was at when he spoke, it would be absolutely necessary to make some further change in the incidence of that taxation. Some hon. Members held that the Estate Duty Act had redressed the inequality between the taxation of the man of small income and the man of large income. But at the time of the passing of the Estate Duty Act the yield of the income-tax was £17,000,000, whereas it was about £30,000,000 now, so that in order to redress the balance a new estate duty must be passed or a graduated system of income-tax established.
  They had repeatedly asked that this question should be inquired into by a Committee. He could not see what earthly harm it would do to the Government to have this question of the incidence of taxation inquired into by an impartial Committee. He asked the Prime Minister last year whether he would not appoint such a Committee or make it one of the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee already appointed, and he replied that anybody with ordinary industry could ascertain the facts for himself. So far as his own industry went, he could say that the present system of levying income-tax was outrageous. The hon. Member for Cleveland had made some very industrious investigations, and his conclusion was that what the working man paid was equivalent to an income-tax of 1s. 7d. in the £, and that statement had never been contradicted upon any official authority. He thought it was simply monstrous
  1200
  that men receiving £800, £8,000, or £80,000 should, so far as the income-tax was concerned, be paying exactly at the same rate. He thought the time had come for the extension of a principle which had been admitted on all hands to be sound and equitable. The question was, How was that principle to be extended, how far was the operation to proceed, and what were the difficulties in the way? Sir William Harcourt had occasion to consider the question of a graduated income-tax in 1894, and he said£
  "I shall be asked the question if you are graduating the income-tax down on the lower scale, why not graduate it up on the larger incomes in proportion. There is nothing to be said against such a system; indeed, there is every argument in its favour. The difficulties which lie in the way are of an administrative and practical nature which, as yet, I have not been able to find means to overcome."
  What were the difficulties which so far had been raised to a graduated income-tax? First of all, they were told that there was the difficulty of testing the aggregation of a man's income. With regard to the individual himself, he thought there would be no difficulty in aggregating his income. If he did not know what his income was he ought to know. They compelled tens of thousands of people to aggregate their incomes in order to secure remissions. If that could be done in regard to small incomes why could it not be done in regard to larger incomes? The poor people had to do it, and why should there be any difficulty in aggregating larger incomes? As to testing the aggregation of incomes that was a task which did not present any insuperable difficulties. A man, for instance, might present his list of investments and the income he derived from them. How were they to test the correctness of that aggregation? His income would either consist of profits he derived from business or from investments. So far as the profits from business were concerned, the Inland Revenue authorities had just as full information now as they could reasonably expect to possess. It was their business to ascertain what the profits from a man's business amounted to now, and there would be no greater difficulty in testing that in the future than in the past. So far as income derived from

  1201
  banks and companies were concerned, there would be no difficulty whatever on the part of Somerset House in testing the returns, because they had there the lists of shareholders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head, but he could not see any insuperable difficulty in making an alphabetical list, which would only mean the employment of unskilled clerical labour of the lowest description, and there would be less difficulty about it than in compiling the London Directory. The work was of a purely clerical character, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state in what respect there would be any great difficulty in testing the aggregation of a man's income so far as Somerset House was concerned.
  He recognised, however, the force of the objection which was entertained by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the present system of taxing the profits at the source was far more convenient than a system of aggregation of incomes, although he did not say that that objection was insuperable. He had some observations to make upon that. In the first place he thought it was desirable that people should know when they were taxed, and he was afraid that there was a good deal of extravagance due to the fact that people did not realise that they were taxed. In the case of indirect taxation many people did not realise that they were being taxed. He thought it would be a very good thing if the smaller income-tax payers were obliged to aggregate their incomes, and a system of directly graduated taxation would in the end be far more just to the individual taxpayer. He recognised the difficulties in the way of abolishing the collection of the tax at the source, for they were very serious, and very strong objections were entertained to it on both sides of the House. He was not, however, at all sure that those objections were insuperable, but they did exist. He wished to draw attention to the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Elland, which entirely obviated the difficulty of collecting the tax at its source. His hon. friend the Member for Elland had an Amendment on the Paper proposing a different scheme of graduation,
  1202
  and he would not, therefore, press his own Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether it would not be for the convenience of the Committee to take the whole discussion on one of the Amendments.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid it would, but he had understood the hon. Member was going to move his Amendment, otherwise his speech was out of order.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that in that case he would move the Amendment of his hon. friend, namely, that the income-tax should be 10d., and that persons with incomes between £5,000 and £10,000 should pay an additional penny, and with incomes of over £10,000 an additional 2d. It was unnecessary for him to add very much to what he had already said with reference to this Amendment. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel that this question, which came up annually, deserved the careful consideration of the Government. It was felt by a large number of persons outside the House that the present incidence of the income-tax was not just, and that a greater share of the national burdens should fall on those who were receiving incomes of £5,000, £10,000, and £20,000 a year than was the case at the present time. That, after all, was the vital question which underlay this Amendment. Would the Government take its courage in both hands and make these great incomes bear a fair share of the national burdens? He did not want to see any class of the community casting off any portion of its fair share of taxation, but he felt that the present incidence of this tax was not equitable as between class and class, or between man and man. He trusted that next year they would see an advance made in the direction he had indicated. He begged to move.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one shilling' stand part of the clause."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the object which his hon.

  1203
  friend and himself had was very much the same, although the two Amendments proposed different methods. They were constantly told in this connection that the authorities at the Treasury, and all past Chancellors of the Exchequer, were against them. In the last debate on the subject the Chancellor of the Exchequer cited the authority of Mr. Gladstone against the graduation of the income-tax, but it must be remembered that in Mr. Gladstone's time the income-tax held a very different position in national finance to what it did now. Then it was a small and temporary tax, regarded as an emergency war tax; now it was the pillar of our national finance, standing at 1s. in peace time with no apparent prospect of reduction. No doubt the official view of the Treasury was at present against the practicability of the graduation of the income-tax, but that opinion had hitherto been generally based on the impossibility of breaking up the present system of collection at the source. He was glad, therefore, his hon. friend had accepted his Amendment, the proposal of which was to leave the income-tax as it was now, except that it should be considerably reduced, but that, over and above the present tax, there should be an extra tax on large incomes levied on certain individuals who would have to state their incomes and declare them as they were, in some cases, declared at the present time.
  He should like to deal with a few of the objections which had been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman said that to require men with large incomes to declare those incomes was inquisitorial, and that consequently it would lead to considerable irritation. It was worth while considering that part of the income-tax at present was levied on incomes which were arrived at by inquisition. In the case of Schedule D declarations had to be made as to professional incomes. The Chancellor in the speech he made recently quoted an informant who said he was amazed at the evasions that occurred in arriving at the incomes under Schedule D, yet that was not given as a reason for declaring that income-tax should not be imposed on those incomes. It was true
  1204
  that any system of taxation requiring this kind of declaration would cause irritation among the people who had to declare their incomes; but the unpopularity and inconvenience would be less in their case than the present heavy tax was on people of very small incomes, who were suffering very severely under the taxation, and whom they wished to relieve by this proposal.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer relied most on the argument that it was not worth while undertaking the graduation of the income-tax, because as a matter of fact there would be a very small increase of revenue from it. Of course, it was a more or less speculative question how much revenue would be raised, and he did not want to go into the figures with the view of disputing them. They were speculative figures, even although drawn up by Treasury officials. The right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that a moderate graduated income-tax would result in an increase of £3,000,000 gross revenue, realising altogether £1,500,000 net revenue, and he asked the House whether it was worth while raising that amount from a tax of this kind. It was worth while mentioning that in so far as the income-tax was an emergency tax in case of war—to take the best concrete instance—it was obvious that we might place a heavy tax on big incomes in time of national necessity, and, therefore, it need not be assumed that for purposes of necessity a great deal more than £1,500,000 could not be got. Taking the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman as showing the ordinary normal advantage which we could get from a graduated income-tax he held that £1,500,000 increase was not so despicable. He believed that that was a very moderate estimate; but, even so, it was an amount worth having if they could get it in this legitimate and desirable way.
  The real importance of the proposal lay in the general feeling which was growing up against the high income-tax as it was. The last time the question was debated in the House some very strong things were said about the tax standing at a shilling in time of peace, and it was stated that unless some effort was made to reform the incidence of this

  1205
  tax it would create well-merited resentment in the country. The remedy suggested was indirect taxation, because it would not be felt. To his own mind that threw an interesting light on the action of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the question of a graduated income-tax. The graduation of the income-tax was one of the alternatives to protective taxation, one of the alternatives to the indirect taxation which existed now, and to the indirect taxation proposed by fiscal reformers. The action of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been peculiar compared to that of his two predecessors. They had practically on two successive occasions given a promise to the House that when the investigation was made by the Committee appointed to look into various matters connected with the income-tax the question of the practicability of graduation should also be included.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As a matter of fact my predecessor did not promise that. It was alleged the other day in the House that he did promise it.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid he practically promised it. He did not give a definite promise, but the right hon. Member for West Bristol did so.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the hon. Member was referring to my immediate predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the occasion to which he was referring was when the right hon. Member for Croydon was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the right hon. Member for West Bristol was going to act as Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into questions concerning the income-tax. On that occasion his hon. friend withdrew an Amendment similar to that which he had on the Paper that day because the right hon. Member for West Bristol gave the House to understand that he would raise no objection to the question of
  1206
  graduation being inquired into by that Committee. The right hon. Member for Croydon did not indicate that he would refuse to allow that question to be sent to the Committee. These two right hon. Gentlemen, holding the Treasury view that graduation was practically undesirable, had both admitted that the question ought to be inquired into, but neither of them had banned graduation as a thing which was undesirable in itself if only it could be proved to be practicable. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken abundant opportunity and trouble to prove that graduation was undesirable, not dealing with the question of practicability. He was hostile to the proposal, and probably saw that the more effective was the taxation of luxuries the less chance would there be for taxation of food. He begged to second that Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 30, to leave out the words, 'one shilling,' and insert the words, 'tenpence, and every person whose total income from all sources upon which income-tax is now paid exceeds five thousand pounds shall pay an additional tax upon the following scale:—Incomes over five thousand pounds up to ten thousand pounds at the rate of one penny; incomes over ten thousand pounds at the rate of twopence.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid when the hon. Gentleman took upon himself to explain the thoughts that influenced his actions, he travelled into a region of speculation far removed from the truth and the subject before the Committee. The subject of the graduation of the income-tax was interesting, but not novel. He had often heard it discussed, and if he continued to have the honour of a seat in the House he would probably hear it discussed in future, and in some happy distant time leaders of the Party sitting opposite would be defending the attitude now taken by himself, and pointing out the impracticability of the proposal. To the hon. Member who moved the Amendment he would say that the possibility of evasion and of deliberate fraud was extended with every extension given to the voluntary assessment of individuals for the tax. The smooth working of the gigantic financial engine depended

  1207
  on the tax being collected automatically, and the yield of the tax had steadily increased since the adoption of the practice of collection at its source with less dependence on individual payers. All his predecessors had taken the view that it was undesirable to disturb that practice.
  The proposal of the hon. Member for Elland was one to reduce the contribution of the direct taxpayer to the expenditure of the State. This would mean the reduction of the revenue for the present year, and the contribution would have to be made good out of indirect sources of taxation. The suggestion also was that a fresh impost should be placed upon every one who was in possession of an income over £5,000. A proposal of this kind must fulfil at least three conditions—(1) that such a scheme should be possible and feasible; (2) that it should produce a substantial gain to the revenue; (3) that this gain should be purchased at a reasonable cost of inconvenience and trouble, not merely to the revenue authorities, but to the general bodies of taxpayers. He did not believe that this plan would fulfil in practice any one of these conditions. The opinion of his predecessors had been referred to. One hon. Member had stated that his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon had pledged himself to refer this question to a Committee for inquiry. That was not the case. He had the authority of his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon for saying that he was not in favour of graduation, and did not intend to refer the question to the Committee that was to have been appointed by him. He admitted that the right hon. Member for West Bristol did at one point of the session of 1902 contemplate a reference of this question to a Committee, but no opinion of his would be found indicating that the proposal was either practicable or possible. These opinions were not confined to one side of the House. The late Sir William Harcourt said that he had carefully considered the subject, and had arrived at the conclusion that there could not be a graduated income-tax unless the whole sources of income were inquired into, and that would be so unpopular that it could not be maintained.
  1208
  The right hon. Member for West Bristol was equally strong in his opposition to graduation. He concurred with the view of the late Sir William Harcourt that to call on every one to declare his income would be to make just that kind of inquisition into private affairs which had prevented the income-tax from being adopted in many foreign countries, while it would be certain to destroy our power to maintain it in this country.
  A calculation which he submitted to the Committee last year showed that a moderate graduation would only produce a very moderate result. The income-tax affected a great deal of movable property; and if the tax were graduated to the amount which had been suggested, there would be an enormous inducement on persons to remove their income outside the area of taxation. There was a great deal of income that could be treated in that way without any fraudulent evasion, but by legitimate measures. [OPPOSITION cries of "How?"] People could remove their property abroad and so escape the tax. It would be quite impossible to aggregate accurately the incomes of these persons, while the hon. Member allowed nothing for the cost of creating a new system of collection and a new procedure by which this additional revenue was to be collected under the new method of assessment. If the tax were doubled, and the maximum raised to 2s., it would result in nothing but infinite disturbance and dislocation to business, in addition to great friction between the revenue officials and the citizens from whom the tax was collected. It would be an inadequate return for all the sacrifices which had to be made in the so-called interest of relief to the taxpayer, while it would afford no consolation for the disturbance that would be created. He admitted that an income-tax of a shilling was too high in a time of peace, and he was anxious to lower it. But it was by lowering, and not by tampering with the methods of its collection that they could remove inequalities and injustices, and so make the tax, as it should be, a great and convenient instrument in our national finance, capable of rapid, almost instantaneous, expansion in any great emergency.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that his hon. friend did not profess that the particular scheme of graduation he had submitted was ideally perfect. What was wanted was that the House should agree to the principle of graduation. He, himself, had never concealed his opinion that there was very great difficulty in graduating the income-tax beyond a certain figure; but in the last few years opinion on the subject had advanced considerably, and he believed that there was now a general feeling, both in the House and in the country, that there ought to be a practical inquiry into the question whether, assuming the principle of graduation, it could be carried out in detail with due regard to the income-tax as a great engine of finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted Mr. Gladstone as being against the principle of a graduated income-tax; but he would point out that the right hon. Member for West Bristol had pledged himself to an inquiry into this matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol had, he believed, changed his attitude in regard to this question. When he contemplated the reference of the matter to a Committee, the right hon. Gentleman explained that he himself did not believe in the graduation of the income-tax.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he admitted that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had always said that he did not see how a graduated income-tax could be carried out practically, but that he did think that it would be of advantage that a Committee should be appointed to make full inquiry into the matter. That was also the position taken up by his right hon. friend the Member for Berwick.
  SIR GEOEGE BARTLEYsaid he always had taken a considerable interest in this subject. Previous to the passing of the Death Duties Act he felt that the poor paid a larger share than the rich of taxation, and that that was inevitable under the
  1210
  present system. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment had made a somewhat aggressive attack upon rich people. He was not one of them himself, but he did not think this question should be approached with the idea of attacking people who flung away money in luxuries. The real question was, What would be the effect of a graduated income-tax on the Exchequer? That was a point which should be very carefully gone into. He had got a Return which threw a good deal of light on the subject. Under Schedule D there were half a million of people whose incomes ranged from £150 up to £50,000, and there was the startling fact that those who had a gross income of £50,000 and upwards were only fifteen in number.
  MR. DILLONasked if the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee how these aggregates were arrived at.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid it was the Return of those who were assessed under Schedule D of the income-tax in 1901. It was quite true that those persons might have other sources of income besides that included under Schedule D. Now the gross income of those persons tabulated in the return amounted to only £1,500,000, and if they were to tax those persons who had over £50,000 another shilling, it would simply yield £70,000 or £80,000 more, so that unless they put on a very high differential tax the Exchequer would only receive a comparatively small sum. If any graduated system were tried the tax on large incomes would have to be made so large to get in any return as to amount practically to confiscation. After all, the men who made large incomes had made the country rich and prosperous and provided employment for the people, and he could not think it would be wise or politic to make it almost a crime for a man to be successful in business. He agreed that it was most desirable that all those who were rich should contribute handsomely and liberally to the taxation of the country, but if they took the whole income of every person over £50,000 referred to in the schedule he had mentioned,

  1211
  they would not receive an amount equal to what a one shilling tax produced upon incomes of £160 to £200 a year. From the standpoint of public policy it was not advisable to discourage men from being successful in trade and commerce.
  The whole question of taxation and the burden of the income-tax were subjects which required careful consideration. To his mind the burden was enormous at the bottom of the scale. He felt that the great increase in the expenditure of the country was a matter of very great concern. He was not so much concerned about the burden of the rich as those who were at the bottom of the scale who paid income-tax on incomes of £160 to £200, for these were the men who paid more taxation in proportion to income than any other class. He thought, however, the payment of income-tax was a matter that needed inquiry. In many cases people paid in an unfair proportion. Further, he had always advocated that there should be a separation between spontaneous and industrial income. In his opinion the tax would not be made fairer by the introduction of a graduated system, which would, he believed, be so irritating as to render the collection of the tax almost impossible; but by careful adjustment it might be made simply a tax upon income, which it was not always now, and a different scale might be introduced for persons who earned their income by their labour and for those who received their income from inherited property. He would hail with satisfaction an inquiry into this question, which he had so many times solicited from different Chancellors of the Exchequer.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had used certain figures without apparently understanding what their meaning was. He had told the House that in the Returns for income-tax only fifteen persons were given out of nearly half a million as persons who enjoyed incomes of over £50,000 a year. If he looked through the list of Members of the House of Commons he would find a far greater number than he had men-
  1212
  tioned with incomes of more than £50,000 a year, and if he looked through the list of the Members of the other House, he would find a still larger number.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Not in trade.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that outside the Houses of Parliament there were many more persons with incomes of more than £50,000 a year. The figure which the hon. Member had given was so obviously false that he was surprised——
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that he never said that was the total number of persons with incomes over £50,000 a year. All he said was that that was the number given in the column he had quoted, and that it might be accepted as a fair proportion.
  MR. MCKENNA: What was the use of taking figures which did not represent the total number of rich persons and saying that if their incomes were taxed under a graduated system they would only get a sum equivalent to a tax of one shilling on the smaller incomes? He was surprised that the hon. Member had brought those figures forward.
  Upon one point he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer's memory was a little at fault. There had been an implied promise by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that the subject of graduation of income-tax should be submitted to the Committee. He remembered some time ago the hon. Member for Flintshire moving an Amendment in favour of graduating the income-tax, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol on that occasion said he would be willing to act as Chairman of that Committee, and upon that statement his hon. friend withdrew his Amendment. It was understood that the graduation of the income-tax was to form part of the discussion upon that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was then in the House, and although it was perfectly true that that right hon. Gentleman did not get up

  1213
  and say that he agreed that this subject should be included in the discussions of the Committee, he allowed his hon. friend the Member for Flintshire to withdraw his Amendment under the belief that the subject was going to be discussed. Therefore, it was entirely out of the question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allege that a promise had not been given that the subject of the graduation of the income-tax should be submitted to the proposed Committee. The principle of graduation had been admitted by the House over and over again. What they complained of was that, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward reasons to show that the particular form of graduation proposed would not work from the point of view of raising revenue, he was not entitled to refuse to give them the benefit of seeing if a Committee could not find some way in which the principle could be worked. It was obvious that there were various ways. They might tax an income either on its receipt or expenditure. Why not place a heavier duty upon inhabited houses, estimating the amount of every person's income upon the amount he paid in house rent? That system would admit of extension to any degree. As a matter of fact, with rare exceptions, most people spent upon house rent in a reasonable proportion to their incomes. If they put a graduated tax upon house rent they would be putting a very fair tax upon the expenditure of rich men who would be taxed in respect of all their houses, and in this way they might arrive at some form of the graduation suggested. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if they had to assess their own incomes the assessment they would make would probably be very moderate ones, but in the case
  of expenditure there was no means of disguising it, and they would only have to hit upon certain items in order to get at the man who spent a great deal. Consequently the men who spent most would be taxed most.
  The hon. Member who spoke last argued as if the very rich man should not be taxed more than the poor man. In fact, he seemed to think that the rich ought to be exempt because they were the foundation of the wealth of the country, and the means of providing a good deal of employment for the people. In his opinion, if the rich were taxed more there would be just as much labour employed as at present. The argument of the employment of labour as applied to the rich man was absolutely fallacious. The object of a graduated system was to take more from those who did not feel the burden of taxation in order to relieve those who did feel it most keenly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not treated this Amendment in the spirit in which it was moved. Their object was to impress upon the House the need for some alteration in their system of taxation which would enable a larger proportion to be borne by the very rich classes. He thought this was a question which ought to be submitted to a Committee upstairs, and although he agreed that individual assessment was not the best form, nevertheless he should vote for this Amendment because this was the only means by which they could force upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need for this great subject being discussed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 188; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 176.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bingham, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

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

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Bull, William James

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Percy, Earl

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords,N. W

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Randles, John S.

  Chapman, Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hoult, Joseph

  Renwick, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Royds, Clement Molyneux)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Davenport, Wm. Bromley

  Kerr, John

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Denny, Colonel

  Keswick, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Smith, H C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Spear, John Ward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tuff, Charles

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Forster, Henry William

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moore, William

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Garfit, William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Gretton, John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrw's B'ghs

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Emmott, Alfred

  Bell, Richard

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Benn, John Williams

  Crean, Eugene

  Fenwick, Charles

  Boland, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Field, William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Crombie, John William

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Brigg, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

  Delany, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Burns, John

  Dillon, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  1216

  1217

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Mooney, John J.

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shackleton, David James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sullivan, Donal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Johnson, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O' Dowd, John

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Ure, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parrott, William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Lambert, George

  Partington, Oswald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Langley, Batty

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Levy, Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lloyd-George, David

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsfi'd

  M'Crae, George

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'uth

  Young, Samuel

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  M'Kean, John

  Roche, John

  Herbert Lewis and Mr.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Runciman, Walter

  Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  MR. MCCRAE,in moving to provide that all incomes under Schedule D, derived from trades and professions and not derived from investments, should be subject to a rebate of fourpence per pound, said there was a growing feeling that the same rate of income-tax might press quite differently upon the individual according to the source from which his income was derived. This was especially shown if they considered the difference between incomes derived from the labour of the individual and incomes derived from realised wealth in the form of investments. Parliament had already given effect to the principle that an income-tax might press unequally on individuals, inasmuch as abatements were made on incomes under £700. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he objected to the Amendment on principle or only on the ground that there would be difficulties in the way of its operation. John Stuart Mill was in favour of the taxation of
  1218
  temporary and precarious incomes on a lower scale than permanent incomes, and Mr. Gladstone agreed with the principle because he stated that the income-tax as a whole bore too hardly upon intelligence and skill and not hardly enough upon property. In 1853, when that statement was made, the produce under Schedule A was double that under Schedule D, but the proportions were now reversed, so that the grievance was even more pressing. In case of war or trade depression incomes derived from trades or professions were reduced in amount while taxation was increased, so that the holders of such incomes suffered in a double sense as compared with the holders of incomes derived from investments. He submitted that his proposal was an equitable one, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give it favourable consideration.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 36, after the words 'one shilling,' to insert the words, 'provided always

  1219
  that all incomes under Schedule D derived from trades and professions and not derived from investments shall be subject to a rebate of fourpence per pound.'"—(Mr. McCrae.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsuggested that before the hon. Member claimed the support of Mr. Gladstone for this proposal he should re-read again his speech of 1853.
  MR. MCCRAE: I did so to-day.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the hon. Member would read it once more he would see that Mr. Gladstone, so far from giving any encouragement and support to a proposal of this kind, devoted himself in the speech referred to to proving that it was unjust, undesirable, and impracticable, and so recently as three years ago he was declared by the late Sir William Harcourt to have disposed of the matter once for all. Did the hon. Gentleman propose to give a rebate on the dividends of the large shareholder in a trading company, who might be said to derive his income from trade? On the other hand, did he propose to tax at the full rate the landlord who was constantly engaged in the management of his estate? Surely the hon. Member must see that his Amendment would not at all realise the object he had in view, which was partially to exempt from the income-tax people whose income was due to their own personal exertions. If the matter were gone into carefully, it would be seen that it was impossible to distinguish between one source of income and another. The extremes in the scale were no doubt far apart, but they in-
  1220
  sensibly approached each other, and it would be impossible to set with accuracy or equity the point at which a dividing line should be drawn. Mr. Gladstone, in the speech referred to, held that the only persons who did not derive their incomes from their own personal exertions were the Fund-holders. It would not be a wise policy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to single out the Fund-holders as the only people who were to be deprived of any exemptions and abatements given on the income-tax.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not dealt with the principle involved. The wording of the Amendment covered the objection taken in reference to incomes derived from investments.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked what was to happen to incomes derived partly from trade and partly from investments in that trade.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that in practice it would be perfectly simple. If a manager of a business had some shares in the company by which he was employed, his salary as manager would be income derived from trade or profession, and the yield of his shares would be income derived from investments. There was, however, this objection in principle to the proposal of his hon. friend. Speaking generally, all accumulated money was the savings of income from the individual exertions of the owner or had been received by inheritance. In the first case income-tax had been paid, and in the latter case the capital sum had been subjected to estate duties. Therefore, in either case the property had already

  1221
  borne taxation, and that was a reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. The object of his hon. friend could be secured only under a system of graduation of income-tax, and he regretted he could not support him on this occasion.
  MR. SLACKsaid there would be no difficulty in meeting the objection raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If a man had capital invested in his business it was the simplest arithmetical process to charge interest on the capital invested, and deduct it from the total profits of the business in order to ascertain the profit derived therefrom.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. DALZIELsaid it might facilitate progress if the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated how far he intended to proceed with the Bill to-night. Would he be content if he got Clause 6?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had hoped to make further progress with the clauses, but he thought it would be unreasonable to ask the Committee to embark on Clause 7 at that time of night, and so he would be content with getting Clause 6, provided hon. Members met him in the same spirit and facilitated progress.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid the matter dealt with in his next Amendment was rather technical, but most important. He submitted that the rule referred to should be made compulsory, as in its present
  1222
  form it worked very inequitably as between trade and other forms of property. If a merchant made an extra £1,000 in his business, he had to pay income-tax upon it, and then, if invested, the same £1,000 was liable to income-tax, whereas if a proprietor derived the money from the renewal of a lease, and could show that he was going to invest it, it would be exempted from income-tax. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter with a view to putting both forms of property on the same footing.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 1, after the word 'granted,' to insert the words 'Provided that the following words in Rule 5 of No. 2, Schedule A, s. 60, 5 and C Vict., c. 35, "Of all fines received in consideration of any demise of lands or tenements (not being parcel of a manor or royalty demisable by the custom thereof) on the amount so received within the year preceding by or on account of the party, provided that, in case the party chargeable shall prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for General Purposes in the district that such fines, or any part thereof, have been applied as productive capital on which a profit has arisen, or will arise, otherwise chargeable under this Act for the year in which the assessment shall be made, it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners to discharge the amount so applied from the profits liable to assessment under this Rule "shall be read as if the words" it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners to" were omitted, and instead thereof the words "the said Commissioners shall" were inserted.'"— (Mr. McCrae.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the fines referred to were differently treated as compared with other kinds of income.

  1223
  The exemption applied only to owners who treated the fines as capital, and, of course, the income from that capital then became subject to taxation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.) moved an Amendment providing that the annual value of any property which had been adopted for the purpose of income-tax under Schedule B in the Income Tax Act, 1853, "shall be assessed at one-fourth instead of one-third." He said that he raised the question nine years ago, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to look into the matter, but nothing practical had resulted. His object was to get the right hon. Gentleman to proceed upon the lines followed by the late Sir W. Harcourt and gradually to lighten the burden under Schedule A upon occupiers of land. It was a very small matter in one sense, as the total amount collected under Schedule B was, he believed, only £200,000. Very few farmers were able to keep such accounts as would satisfy a surveyor of taxes for assessment under Schedule D, as everyone conversant with farming operations knew that, although the valuation might appear to show a handsome profit, the farmer had very likely made no profit at all. The remission, though comparatively small, would, in the present state of agriculture be extremely welcome to those affected by it, and the proposal might also be recommended on the ground that the income in question was income arising from personal exertion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 7, after '1853,' to insert the words' provided that the value under Schedule
  1224
  B shall be assessed at one-fourth instead of one-third.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if they gave a reduction to all whose incomes were earned by their personal exertions they would afford that reduction to some of the richest men in this country. He doubted whether the Committee would be prepared to give this reduction in respect of one class of persons whose incomes were earned by their personal exertions without extending it to other classes. If the hon. Member desired to make a case for the Amendment it must be on the ground that at the present time farmers were paying more than their due share of the tax. Having regard to the capital invested by the farmer it could not be said that his profits were over-assessed, and no case had been made out for relieving him at the expense of those to whom the alteration of assessment would not apply.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRE LAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision.
Read, and agreed to.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill [H.L.]. Presented (pursuant to leave given on Tuesday (last); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Stockport Corporation Bill. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on Thursday and Friday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Great Berkhampstead Gas Bill; Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill; Croydon Gas Bill; Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill; Otley Improvement Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South Suburban Gas Bill; Nottingham and Retford Railway Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Tees Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [H.L.]; Hythe Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (No. 86); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (No. 87). Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No 2) Bill [H.L.]; Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order) An Amendment made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
East Cowes Gas Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]; McConnell's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [H.L.]; Lautour's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the cases. Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.

WOOLWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
*LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name, viz, "That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they shall strike out Clause 20." The Bill which has just been read a second time contains a number of provisions which, no doubt, may very properly be considered hereafter in the usual manner by a Committee of the House. There is, however, one clause which, if allowed to pass into law, would, as it seems to us, work grave injustice and form a dangerous precedent. Clause 20 proposes to abolish certain rights at present possessed by docks and railway companies in the Borough of Woolwich and almost everywhere in the Kingdom. The general district rate is one imposed by local authorities for services rendered in respect of lighting, sewers, streets, recreation grounds, etc., and in virtue of a series of Public Health Acts beginning in 1848 and culminating in the Public Health Act, 1875. In these Acts a special allowance of 75 per cent, has always bean allocated to railway companies and owners of land covered by water outside the Metropolitan area. No doubt the reason for this special allowance was to alleviate in some degree the hardship to railway and dock companies of the established system of the rating of
1076
their property. These companies contribute on a very onerous basis towards local expenditure, receiving in return but little benefit. As an instance I may mention the fact that they provide their own police, repair their own roads, maintain their own system of sewage, light their own property, require no baths or free libraries, and last, but not least, they have no votes. That the exemption or allowance is justified therefore in theory, no one will, I think, be bold enough to dispute.
I do not, however, base my objection to the clause on this ground—strong as it is—but because the provisions of a Public Act ought not to be nullified by a Private Bill. For some reason, into which I need not now enter, this provision, though extending to all the rest of the country, was not applied to the Metropolis. Until 1899 Woolwich did not form part of the Metropolis. In 1899, however, His Majesty's Government introduced a Bill which brought Woolwich and some other districts within the Metropolitan area. In doing so, however, the Prime Minister pledged himself that all the then existing rights would be upheld. This promise, I need not say, he scrupulously fulfilled. The exemptions were carefully considered by the House of Commons in Committee of the Whole House on the 15th of May, 1899. There was a lengthy debate on an Amendment which had for its object the abolition of these very exemptions. The Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General both strongly resisted the Amendment, and the Prime Minister said that he could not imagine that privileges conferred by Act of Parliament should be taken away by a stroke of the pen and without compensation. The House of Commons, by 207 to 114, adopted the Prime Minister's view and agreed to Section 10, by which it is expressly provided that—
"Any scheme under this Act … shall make provision for protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of any hereditament which is exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments."
Scarcely, however, had the Act become law when the Borough of Woolwich endeavoured to evade the law and defeat the express undertaking of the Prime Minister. The question was fought out in the

1077
Law Courts, and the Lord Chief Justice decided against the local authorities. He said—
"We are all clearly of opinion that this contention cannot be maintained. … We think that it was clearly intended that though Woolwich and other outlying places were to come within the Metropolis generally, yet that exemption should continue."
That the Bill does propose to repeal provisions contained in a Public Act indeed is very fairly admitted by the promoters of the Bill. Clause 20 proposes to change the incidence of the rate—
"Notwithstanding the regulations and conditions contained in the London Government Act."
Avowedly, therefore, the local authorities come before us and ask that the rights given by the Public Health Acts, which the Prime Minister promised should be maintained by the London Government Act of 1899, which were maintained by that Act, and which the Lord Chief Justice says were clearly intended to be, and as a matter of fact were, protected by that Act, should be swept away by a Private Bill.
My Lords, I think it would be easy to show that there were good grounds for the rights conferred on the companies. Moreover, large sums have been invested on the faith of these rights, and surely the shareholders are entitled to claim the support of His Majesty's Government and to call on them to carry out the pledge given by the Prime Minister. It cannot reasonably be contended that the railway or dock companies have gained any benefit whatever by their property in the Borough of Woolwich being included in the Metropolis, or that the borough have been saddled with any extra expense by the change. I believe I am right in saying that the general district rate at its present figure would bring in something like an additional £1,750 per annum if levied, in full on the properties which at present enjoy the three-fourths exemption. Now, as your Lordships are all, no doubt, aware, there have been proposals for some time past to expropriate all the London dock undertakings for the purpose of forming a public trust, and only this year the London County
1078
Council promoted a Bill with that object. The effects of Clause 20 of this Bill would, I am told, be a clear loss of over £1,000 a year to the London and India Docks Company alone, and if the purchase of their undertakings is carried out while the Woolwich rates are at anything like their present figure, the purchasing body would be in a position to claim that their undertaking is worth £30,000 less than it is to-day. This would manifestly be most unjust.
The present system, which rests on a series of Public Acts and the pledge of the Prime Minister, is just and right in itself. But even if Parliament considered that there were sufficient grounds for depriving the companies of their rights, I submit to your Lordships that this should be done openly and by a Public Act. On these grounds it has seemed to those whom I have consulted that we are justified in asking your Lordships to withdraw the clause from the cognisance of the Committee. Rights, given by a Public Act and confirmed by Parliament over and over again, ought not to be over-ridden by a Private Bill. I submit to your Lordships that if we pass the Second Reading of this clause we shall be establishing a mischievous precedent, that we shall strike a blow at public confidence, and I confidently ask His Majesty's Government to support the instruction and thus give effect to the pledge of the Prime Minister, on the faith of which the Metropolis Management Act of 1899 was passed by Parliament. Moreover, if this clause is allowed to stand it will infallibly be urged hereafter as a precedent in such an event, for instance, as that of the great districts of East and West Ham being hereafter brought within the Metropolis, a contingency that has already been seriously suggested in Parliament by the Prime Minister. In thos boroughs there are very extensive dock and railway systems, and it would doubtless be attempted to extend the injustice against which we now protest, and to quote this Bill as a direct precedent in favour of doing so. My Lords, I have no direct personal interest in this matter, but it seems in the first place unfair and unjust to interfere with an arrangement deliberately made by Parliament; and,

1079
in the second, most improper that provisions deliberately adopted by a succession of Public Acts, and on the faith of which large sums have been invested, should be upset by a Private Bill.
Moved, "That it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they shall strike out Clause 20 of the Bill."—(Lord Avebury.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a word with regard to this Bill, which has come up from the House of Commons, where the matter has been considered by a Committee of that House. As soon as I saw the notice standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, I asked that I might be supplied with a copy of the evidence which was laid before the Committee of the other House. I only received that evidence on Saturday, and I have, therefore, been unable to express to the noble Lord the views of my Department with regard to the Bill; but after having carefully looked into the matter, I find that, as the noble Lord has informed your Lordships, this particular question has been under the consideration of the High Court, who took the view which the noble Lord has already stated. And perhaps it would be as well if I quote to your Lordships the words of the Lord Chief Justice in delivering judgment. The Lord Chief Justice said—
"Section 10, Sub-section 1, of the Act of 1899 provides expressly that a scheme shall make provision for protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of any hereditament which is exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments. We think that it was clearly intended that though Woolwich and other outlying places were to come within the Metropolis generally, yet that exemption should continue."
The object of the Bill is to over-ride the decision of the High Court, because, of course, nothing short of an Act of Parliament could do so, and it is claimed that the Act as it appears upon the Statute-book does not in truth convey the intention of Parliament. I did not, under those circumstances, feel it my duty to take the usual course of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and it has been moved by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Carrington). The Act of 1899 is a general Act affecting the whole of the
1080
Metropolis, and I think I am right in saying; that when it was passing through Parliament the intention of the Government was expressed that all existing saving, rights ought to be and should be protected, and I am therefore not able to concur in the view that the intention of Parliament has not been properly expressed in the Act.
It is not in any way desirable that it should become the practice of this House to move instructions to Committees. As a general rule, it is much better that all Private Bills should go to Committees to be thrashed out, but when a Bill is introduced to say, not what is the law, or how the law ought to be altered, but what was the intention of Parliament in making a law, then I venture to think that your Lordships as a body are entitled to express your opinion. I cannot contend that the moving of instructions to Committees is without precedent. There have been two precedents, one a good many years ago and one in the year 1902, which dealt with a Bill promoted by the London County Council to bring tramways over Westminster Bridge. On both of those occasions an instruction was moved in this House, and on the last occasion, although my predecessor in the office which I now occupy held the same view that I do, that it was inexpedient and undesirable that instructions should be moved to Committees, your Lordships decided otherwise, and the instruction was carried. In the circumstances of this case I do not propose to ask your Lordships to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, but I confess I think it would have been much better if, in view of the expression of opinion that has been given to them, the promoters of the Bill had adopted the usual course and withdrawn the clause rather than compel your Lordships to go to a division upon it.
*EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words on this clause as I had the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble Lord who moved the instruction to the Committee went so far as to say that the provisions of Clause 20 of this Bill constituted an unjust and unfair arrangement, I hope it is hardly necessary to say that if we had considered

1081
that there was anything unjust or unfair about the arrangement we should be the last persons in the world to have given any sanction to it; but I think the case is really not a very difficult or complicated one. The borough of Woolwich as it now exists, consists of the parish of Woolwich, the parish of Plumstead, and the parish of Eltham, all welded into one large borough. It is, I believe, the second largest borough in London. The parish of Woolwich was the only parish in the Metropolis which retained its local board till it was dealt with by the London Government Act of 1899, and when the Government passed that Act they intended, I believe, that Woolwich should be placed under the general law applying to Metropolitan boroughs. The Chairman of the Committee, who had paid great attention to the arguments urged by counsel on both sides, said—
"We had to consider what was the probable intention of Parliament in framing these clauses. The intention of the Government was to place Woolwich under the general law applying to metropolitan boroughs."
They never intended that the London and East India Docks Company, the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, and the Great Eastern Railway Company should be exempted from paying three-fourths of the rates of the parish of Woolwich. The intention was that they should pay the whole of the rates payable, as they do in the parishes of Eltham and Plumstead.
I do not think that the promoters of this Bill have any reason to complain at all of the attitude taken by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House. He was quite frank on the subject, and said he would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. It should be remembered that this Bill has been approved by the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons and by the House of Commons itself, and that the Local Government Board and the Treasury have carefully considered Clause 20, which is as follows—
"From and after the thirtieth day of September next, after the passing of this Act, all kinds of property within the parish of Woolwich, for the time being by law assessable to the general rate to which Sub-section (1) (B) of Section 211 of the Public Health Act, 1875, applies, shall be assessed on the full net annual value of such property not withstanding the exceptions regu-
1082
lations, and conditions contained in that section and the provisions of the London Government Act, 1899, or any scheme or order made there under. Provided always that nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any exemption from any rate or any right or liability to be assessed to any rate at a less amount than other hereditaments under or by virtue of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, or any other enactment applying to London,"
and are satisfied that the change proposed to be effected is necessary and desirable. In these circumstances I do most respectfully submit that we have a very strong case. We have been told that this is an attempt to alter a Public Act by a Private Bill. No doubt that would be a very improper thing to do, but I submit that this public law, as it is called, never did apply to London at all. Before the passing of the Act of 1899, Woolwich was not a part of London for local government purposes. It became an integral part of the Metropolis when that great Act was passed, and all country Acts relating to Woolwich were supposed to have been repealed and the London Acts applied. The present state of affairs, which Clause 20 proposes to remedy, arose really through a mistake in the drafting, and advantage—I will not say unfair advantage—has been taken of the mistake that was made.
I am empowered to say that the borough of Woolwich does not object in any way to proper opposition to this Bill; they do not object to opposition from any of the companies. They wish for fair play, and are quite ready to accept the result. But they do object to this side wind being brought in to prevent an inquiry which I respectfully submit ought to be made before the proper tribunal, namely, a Committee of your Lordships' House. I have nothing more to say. I leave the case of the borough of Woolwich with the greatest confidence in the hands of your Lordships. I would only repeat, in conclusion, that both the Local Government Board and the Treasury have carefully considered the clause and are satisfied that the change proposed is necessary and desirable. Surely, in those circumstances, it is a little hard that the clause should be disposed of by an instruction to the Committee, thus depriving the Committee of the opportunity of giving the matter the

1083
consideration it deserves. The companies concerned, whose interest Lord Avebury seeks to protect, would still have every opportunity of opposing the Bill before the Committee, who may safely be left to safeguard any rights they may have. I hope your Lordships will not accept the instruction moved by Lord Avebury, but will allow the Bill to go to a Committee and proceed in the ordinary course.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on the second point raised by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I will not touch on the merits of the Bill. What I object to, on principle, is that by the provisions of this Bill—a Private Bill—it is sought to repeal a Public Act. I can assure your Lordships that by Section 10 of the Act of 1899 any scheme under that Act must make provision for protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of any hereditaments exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments. That provision, so far as it affects Woolwich, is sought to be repealed by this Private Bill. I hope this House will not agree to that. Some years ago in the House of Commons a Private Bill sought to repeal a Public Act of Parliament. I ventured then to call the attention of the House of Commons to the matter, and, with the full sanction of the Speaker, the House condemned the principle, and that Bill, so far as it proposed to repeal a Public Act, was not proceeded with.
I would remind your Lordships that the mode of procedure in passing Public and Private Acts is entirely different. In the case of Public Acts public opinion is brought to bear on their procedure through both Houses of Parliament, and they are discussed on their merits by those who know what public opinion is; but in the case of Private Bills no such procedure takes place except in a very modified form, and if this principle is to prevail you may have a Public Act, the principle of which has been discussed in both Houses of Parliament repealed by a Private Bill, at the consideration of which by the Committee the public were totally unrepresented. The promoters of a Private Bill and the opponents might,
1084
for instance, come to terms as to a clause, and that clause might repeal a Public Act. The principle is altogether a bad one, and I hope your Lordships will not sanction it. If the contention of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill is right, let them remedy the matter by a Public Act.
There is another objection—a practical objection—in referring to which I am certain I shall receive the support of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. The Judges who have to administer the law have records of every Public Act, but no library, except a few local libraries, possesses copies of Private Acts. Judges have no records of Private Acts, and yet they are supposed intuitively to know that a clause of some Private Act has repealed another clause of a Public Act. This mode of legislating places those who have to administer the law in a false position, and I hope, for the reasons which have been stated, the Motion moved by Lord Avebury will be carried.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords. I should like to offer a few remarks with regard to what has just fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite. I think he has put the case in rather too strong a light. He says that Clause 20 of this Bill proposes to repeal a Public Act. I think that is far too strong an expression to use. I quite admit that it proposes to modify conditions which hold good under a Public Act, but only in order to bring it in accordance with the London Government Act, 1899, which has been passed for the whole of London. These conditions which it is now proposed to apply to the Borough of Woolwich are conditions which were applied by a Public Act to the whole of the rest of London. You have at this particular moment the Borough of Woolwich alone in which these particular corporations are exempt from the payment, of a certain share of the rates.
The noble Lord who moved the instruction to the Committee argued this question rather on the justice of the case. He said it was hard on the dock and railway companies that they should be subject to these rates because they did not use the baths and washhouses or the public library, and derived no benefit

1085
from the objects of the rate; but I do not think that is a good argument. It does seem to me that whoever holds property in a particular district is bound on that property to pay for the benefit of the whole district and for the services which apply to the whole district. Therefore, I say it is a fair thing and common justice that these great corporations should be brought in to contribute fairly to the general rate of the Borough of Woolwich. I had thought it was accepted by all parties that one of the great desideratums was that in London the burden of the rates should be equalised. In every other part of London, as I have already informed your Lordships, the rates fall on corporations of the kind which my noble friend now endeavours in the case of Woolwich to exempt, and I do not think it is fair that they should be so exempted in the case of Woolwich.
As the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading has pointed out, the Bill has passed through the House of Commons, has been examined by a Committee of that House, and has received the support of the Treasury and the Local Government Board there. I should like to know what the view of the representative of the Local Government Board in your Lordships' House is with regard to this Bill. We are now asked by Lord Avebury to pass an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out Clause 20. All we are asking is that this particular clause should be allowed to go to a Committee of your Lordships' House to be discussed, in order that the whole merits of the case may be brought before the Committee and thoroughly threshed out. I had always thought that there was nothing this House was more opposed to than limiting the discretion of its own Committees. The Committees of this House have deservedly obtained a high reputation for the way in which they deal with Private Bills, and I urge your Lordships not to depart from the ordinary practice in this case, but allow the Bill, without this instruction, to go before the Committee and be discussed and decided on its merits.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I only rise to point out the view of Sir
1086
Erskine May in regard to the repeal of Public Acts by Private Bills. Sir Erskine May says that it had been questioned whether a Public Act might be amended by a Private Bill, but that—
"No rule has been established which precludes the promoters of a Private Bill from seeking to amend a Public Act,"
though such a proposal required proper supervision. He gives a good many precedents, and states that in 1887 the Dover Harbour Corporation Bill was passed through Parliament repealing the Dover Harbour Public Act of 1861.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I only wish to say that I entirely associate myself with the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord James. It may be, where some great case has been made out and where there is an overwhelming necessity for it, that a Private Bill may, as Sir Erskine May says, be allowed to repeal a Public Act; but it is idle to say that there is any such overwhelming necessity in this case. The Borough of Woolwich wishes to obtain more rates, but that is not an overwhelming necessity such as would justify the repeal of a provision in a Public Act. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not sanction the clause in question going to the Committee.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rather regret being obliged to say anything on this matter, but I feel some difficulty in agreeing to the course urged by my noble friends behind me. I am not going into the merits of the matter as to whether the clause is a just one or not, and I will not even go into the question which Lord Tweedmouth has so clearly put with regard to the general Act, and the bringing of Woolwich into line with the other boroughs in this matter; but I do confess I feel strongly that the view put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord James is the correct one, that a, Private Bill should not be allowed to repeal a clause in a Public Act. The Act in question is a very important general Act, and I feel very great difficulty in the matter. This is a case of a Private Bill seeking to set aside a clause in a Public Act, and, without going into the merits of the case at all,

1087
I should feel great difficulty, if it came to a division, in following my noble friends behind me and voting against the instruction proposed by the noble Lord.
There is another matter which I cannot help referring to as a layman who does not find it always easy to interpret Acts of Parliament. I allude to the fact that in this clause there is a greater sin of reference than almost any that has been committed. I consulted a very distinguished lawyer on the question, and he said he was ready to look into it, but the clause was so complicated that even he could not in a few hours give a clear view upon it. That, I think, is a good example of what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble and learned friend opposite referred to last night—the evil of legislating by reference. I regret to have had to make this statement, but I feel that there is considerable force in what has been said against overriding a Public Act by a Private Bill. If it is unjust to exempt Woolwich in this matter, that injustice should be remedied by a Public Act, and not by a clause in a Private Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOURS OF SALE) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of inhabitants of Gloucester; Chillenden; Liverpool (2); Stockton-on-Tees; Derby; Glasgow; Reading; Leytonstone; Birmingham (2); Atherton; Croydon; Dorset and Southern Counties Temperance Association; Welsh Good Templars, East Anglia Lodge; Probus Society; Bible Christian (Methodist) Church; Summerfield Latter Day Saints; London Good Templars; Kent Temperance Federation; Durham Good Templars (2); Midland Temperance League; Scottish Temperance League; Scotch Good Templars. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3379. United States (Porto Rico); No. 3380. Western Pacific (Samoa).
  COMMERCIAL No. 2 (1905) (SUEZ CANAL).
  Returns of shipping and tonnage, 1902, 1903, and 1904 (in continuation of "Commercial, No. 4 (1904)").

  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
  Correspondence relating to merchant shipping legislation in Australia and New Zealand.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade to the 31st December, 1904, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners to the same date. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  LORD MONKSWELLmoved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 3, the object of which was, he said, to bring the Bill in conformity with other Bills of the same character which had been passed from time to time. The clause which he proposed was the ordinary one to prevent compensation being claimed in respect of improvements made after a Bill for compulsory purchase had been introduced. A precisely similar proviso was inserted in the London County Council General Purposes Bill of last year, and he was told that the clause was the ordinary one in those cases.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 3 to insert as a new clause, the words 'In settling any question of disputed purchase-money or compensation payable under this Act by the Council, the Court or persons settling the same shall not award any sum of money for or in respect of any improvement, alteration, or building made for or in respect of any interest in the lands created after the 18th day of October, 1904, if in the opinion of such Court or person the improvement, alteration, or building, or the creation of the interest

  1089
  in respect of which the claim is made, was not reasonably necessary, and was made or created with a view of obtaining or increasing compensation under this Act.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the noble Lord has stated with clearness the object of his Amendment. The Board of Education were not prepared to introduce a clause of this kind themselves, inasmuch as it did not come within their sphere, but as it has been proposed by the London County Council we do not offer any opposition to the Amendment. I understand that the clause is intended to protect the ratepayers, which is a very important matter at the present day, and to prevent any land which is taken compulsorily being built upon in order that a heavy compensation may be obtained when the Act comes into force. On behalf of His Majesty's Government; therefore, I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to. Standing Committee negatived: the Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, the measure which I venture to submit for your Lordships' consideration this evening is, in my humble judgment, as simple as it is necessary and as necessary as it is simple. Its object is to enable the people of a district, when there is no other suitable provision in the neighbourhood, to hold public meetings in the rooms of public elementary schools in order that they may be able to hear the views of their candidates for Parliament or for the local bodies of the district in which they live. I venture to hope that I shall be able to show your Lordships in the first place that the measure is necessary; secondly, that its principle has had the
  1090
  direct sanction of both of the great Parties in the State; and thirdly, that it can be carried into effect without damage to the educational value of the schools or financial loss to the ratepayers or the school managers.
  In order to show your Lordships that the measure is necessary at the present moment I shall have to trouble you with a short history as to how the necessity came about. The necessity far this measure arose in consequence of the Franchise Act of 1884, when, for the first time, agricultural labourers became the majority of the rural electors in county constituencies. Previous to that time the majority of the electors in those constituencies were farmers, or other well-to-do people, and their candidates or Members were accustomed to take advantage of the farmers' ordinary or some similar occasion in order to address them; but when the agricultural labourers became electors it was necessary for candidates to go into the various villages in order to come face to face with those who were to have the power of returning them to Parliament; and when I mention to your Lordships that in a large agricultural constituency which I had the honour of representing for many years, though it comprised eighty villages, there were only five places which it was possible to hire in which to address meetings, I think it will be seen that in that constituency at any rate the rooms of the elementary schools were the only places available for meetings.
  A difficulty arose in 1885, because it was found in some of the villages that while the managers granted the use of the school to one of the candidates they objected to letting it to the other political candidate, or else put such conditions upon its use by him as to make it practically prohibitory. In the autumn of 1885 the question of disestablishment, which had not previously been very much before the electors, suddenly came to the front, and in a constituency which I myself know well the Conservative candidate went down to a certain village, obtained the use of the school, and made an attack on his opponent with regard to his views on disestablishment, although that opponent had never put disestablishment in the forefront on his programme.

  1091
  Yet when the Liberal candidate asked for the use of the schoolroom, the vicar granted his request on condition that in the course of his speech he did not mention the word disestablishment, and so the unfortunate man had to go down to that village to answer an opponent who had attacked him a week before, and the main point in the attack was to be barred.
  I want to say at once that I bring no accusation whatever against Conservative candidates. On the contrary, I am quite certain that they are just as anxious as we should be that their opponents should have full opportunity of putting their views before the electors. Nor do I bring any sweeping charges against school managers generally. I believe the class to which I refer are in an absolute minority, but at the same time in the small out-of-the-way places which this measure would practically affect, political hostility is often of a bitter nature, and it is in those places that it is necessary that agricultural labourers, who, after all, are not the best educated of the electors generally, should have an opportunity of hearing both sides of those great political questions upon which Parliament has given them the right and the duty of voting. And here I would mention a fact, which I would venture with all humility to commend to the right rev. bench. It is this, that the chairman of the managers is in many cases, if not in most cases, the vicar or the rector of the parish, and as I do not believe for a single moment that the majority of the clergy take such a view as I have pointed out of refusing their schools to particular political candidates, I think it is very hard that on account of a few political zealots there should be an injustice done to the clergy at large. It is on that account that I would ask, with all submission, for the support of the right rev. Prelates to my Bill.
  There have been several Resolutions and Bills brought in on this subject. There were Resolutions in the House of Commons in 1887, in 1889, and in 1892. In 1887 and 1889 interesting discussions took place on the subject, but no vote was taken. But in 1892, on the eve of a general election, I was fortunate enough to persuade the House of Commons to
  1092
  unanimously pass a Resolution of which this Bill is the embodiment. More than that, with the assent of the present Prime Minister a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by the Government which was practically on all fours with this Bill. But, as your Lordships know, a general election shortly afterwards took place and the Conservative Government had not the opportunity of placing the Bill on the Statute-book, as no doubt they very ardently desired. It may be said that the succeeding Gladstonian Government ought to have brought in a Bill of their own on this subject. I do not know that it is necessary to remind your Lordships that during the somewhat strenuous Government of 1892–5 the House of Commons was occupied with a good many very large and far-reaching measures, and owing to the gallantry and eloquence of the Opposition of the day those measures took considerable time to debate. That may form an excuse for their not having dealt with the matter in a special Bill; but, as a matter of fact, the principle was embodied in the Local Government Act, 1894, which is generally known as the Parish Councils Act. Therefore I claim that the Government of 1892–5, busy as they undoubtedly were, yet embraced the only opportunity at their disposal of placing this principle on the Statute-book.
  It may be said that in consequence of the Bill which was brought in by the Conservative Government and the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons of 1892 the necessity for this measure, after all these years, has practically passed away. It is, of course, impossible for me or any private individual to obtain accurate information with regard to what has taken place throughout the whole of Great Britain, but I have been able to obtain some information with regard to the home counties, and though I do not pretend for a single moment that the information I have received is entirely complete, yet it goes to show that in the limited area of the home counties during 1904–5, at the by-elections that have taken place and at other elections, there have been eighty-four refusals of schools when they have been applied for, and that, I venture to think, is a very large

  1093
  number. I would also mention that there are cases among those I am referring to in which the schools have been refused to both political candidates. Then there have been cases where the charges for the hire of the schools were so high as to be practically prohibitive, and the managers of the schools have been able to avoid the obloquy of direct refusal of putting a prohibitory charge on the schools.
  Then there are cases, not at all uncommon, in which the managers do not like the political opinions of the persons who apply for the use of the schools. I do not wish for a single moment to gibbet any particular place or any particular person, and if I venture to give some instances of replies that were received in answer to applications for schools I do not intend to mention names, but the authority, of course, is at the disposal of the noble Marquess or anyone else who desires to see it privately. One of the refusals was to this effect. A rev. gentleman wrote that the Conservatives had had a meeting at the "Red Lion," and he added—
  "I presume that is available for you, too."
  I venture to think that advocates of temperance on both sides of the House will agree that a public-house or an inn where wine, spirits, and beer are sold is not a very desirable place for a political meeting. The heady wine of politics is sufficiently exciting in itself, but if it is leavened by the beer of the "Magpie and Stump" it may have disastrous effects. The vicar of another place wrote to this effect—
  "Not being myself a Liberal, but, on the contrary, a staunch Conservative, I cannot accede to the request contained in your letter."
  Well, my Lords, that is very much to the point. I should have preferred that his answer had been of a more judicial character. Then there is a case which concerns a member of His Majesty's Government, and the story I am going to tell is immensely to his credit. A meeting was held by this gentleman, who was the Member for the constituency, and shortly afterwards his Liberal opponent applied for the use of the same school, but it was refused to him, and the gentleman to whom I refer intervened on behalf of his Liberal opponent, obtained the use of the school for him, and the meeting was held.
  1094
  But what a condemnation of the system that very fact is! The amusing part, however, is the result, for the clergyman said there should be no political meetings, held in the school at all for the future, I think I have said enough to show that there is, even at the present moment, a necessity for this measure.
  The principle of this Bill has the direct, sanction of both political Parties. I have referred to the unanimous reception by the House of Commons of the Resolution moved in 1892, to the Bill which was brought in by the Conservative Government of that day at the instance of the Prime Minister embodying that Resolution, and, finally, to the Local Government Act of 1894, which received the assent of your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, endorsing the principle. The Bill of 1892, which, as I have said, was brought in by a Conservative Government, was practically on all fours with this measure. It provided that schoolrooms might be used for meetings in respect to elections to Parliament and the local bodies free of charge. I would emphasise the words "free of charge," because a noble Lord who criticised this measure pointed out that there ought to be some charge for the use of the schoolrooms. My answer is that when I originally drafted the Bill I had considered putting in a limited charge, but when I read the Conservative Bill of 1892, which, as I have said, was sanctioned by the present Prime Minister, and found that it provided that the use of the room should be granted without any charge, I felt that it was impossible for me to do other than follow that example.
  As recently as 1902, when a debate took place on this subject during the discussion of the Education Bill, a Member of the other House moved a clause by which the schoolrooms would be at the disposal of Parliamentary candidates, and the Prime Minister said:—
  "He was not saying that a provision of the kind, made universal—"
  in that proposal it was restricted to voluntary schools—
  "Could not be so safeguarded as to make it a reasonable and proper addition to the Statute-book, but he ventured to suggest that it should be introduced as a separate Bill and at a time when the House would have an opportunity of discussing it."

  1095
  I have introduced it as a separate Bill this evening, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will find time to discuss it if it be necessary so to do. When Mr. Balfour accepted the Resolution of 1892 he said—
  "We are all agreed on both sides of the House that it is in the highest degree desirable that these schools, in districts where no other public place of assembly is obtainable, should be open to every side of politics."
  I have every hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will accept this Bill. It can be adopted without interference with the use of the schools for educational purposes, and without loss to the ratepayers or the managers of the schools. It is laid down that any expense incurred shall be borne by the person in whose behalf the school is taken, and he will also pay for any damage that may be done. Moreover, except during elections, the use of the schools in these villages is to be limited to twice a year. Therefore, I claim that the Bill contains adequate safeguards. I do not know what the attitude of the Government will be, but I am sanguine that they will accept the Bill. If they do not I shall be curious to know on what ground the noble Marquess will base his refusal. If he opposes it on principle he will be opposing a principle which has been affirmed by his own Prime Minister and by his own Party in both Houses of Parliament. I venture, on my part, without hesitation to commend the measure to the common sense and justice of your Lordships' House and of the country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down, in the course of his exceedingly interesting, pointed, and lucid speech, appealed specially to the Episcopal Bench in the hope of obtaining their support for the Bill which he asks your Lordships to read a second time to-night. I am not empowered to speak as the representative of the Bishops generally on this subject, for we have not had an opportunity of jointly considering the measure; but, speaking for myself, and simply for myself,
  1096
  I wish to say that I believe the principle of the Bill to be sound, and one which your Lordships ought to accept. The noble Lord, in speaking of rural schools, presumably had in his mind the schools which are now described as "non-provided," and formerly as "voluntary," but he did not touch at all on the question of the ownership of the buildings in which the school work is carried on. It was, perhaps, not necessary for his argument that he should do so; but I would remind your Lordships that, while the buildings are largely used for public purposes—and those purposes are largely dependent upon public funds—the buildings still remain private property, and that fact has to be borne in mind when considering the difficulties with which this subject is surrounded. But, in whomsoever the actual ownership of the schools is vested, I maintain that they ought, in fairness, to be available for such purposes as this Bill describes, under careful restrictions against possible misuse and with definite limitations: the condition being carefully observed that they ought not to be so used except in places where no other suitable building is available. Holding that principle to be sound, I am prepared to vote with the noble Lord in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill.
  But I desire to point out that the Bill will require a great deal of consideration in regard to its details before it can, without harm, become an Act of Parliament. It gives so great an extension of the right which now exists on the part of the public to the use of school buildings for other than educational purposes, that difficulties of no inconsiderable kind might, to the detriment of education, arise in some villages. I believe that those difficulties ought to be faced and can be overcome. The noble Lord stated that except during elections the use of the schools in these villages was to be limited to twice a year, but the Bill provides that after reasonable notice given by any Member of Parliament, county councillor, or member of any public body elected by the ratepayers of the area in which such district is situated, or any Parliamentary candidate, or candidate for the county council or other

  1097
  elective body for such area or district, the schoolhouse may be used in pursuance of the candidature of such person on two occasions during the year, which is a very different matter. There might be a very large number of individuals in the course of the twelve months who might wish to take advantage of this Bill.
  I am all in favour of facilitating the ventilation of public questions on all sides, both in town and country. I believe that by carrying out that principle alone can we expect to advance the popular intelligence on public questions; and, holding that opinion most strongly, I am prepared to go as far as possible to meet the necessities of the case. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill spoke of the measure as being as simple as it was necessary. Necessary it may be, but simple in working, I venture to think, it certainly is not as at present drafted; and I believe a great many of the provisions will require much careful consideration before they can be satisfactorily placed on the Statute-book. I do not think that the safeguards which the Bill provides against the harassing use of the buildings are sufficient. The noble Lord quoted letters which had been received; from the chairmen of boards of managers, before, I think, the passing of the recent Education Act.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: No; during the years 1904 and 1905.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The letters the noble Lord quoted were from the chairmen of managers respecting the use of buildings, and the writers of those letters were clergy in charge of parishes. Now it is doubtless true that there are a good many men who in matters of this kind are not very far-seeing, not very widely sympathetic, and possibly not very wise; but this is not confined to one class of men or to one side of politics. I could mention case after case of obstructive action taken at this moment by authorities with respect to schools which provide that kind of religious education which Parliament in its wisdom allows to be given; and I venture to think that a candidate for a county council who, like one who came the other day
  1098
  under my own observation, was a large employer of labour and declined to employ anyone who came from a Church of England school, would not be at all careful to avoid difficulties in the demand which this Bill would enable him to make on those in charge of the school buildings. Again, in the Bill there is a very invidious distinction drawn between secular and religious instruction, for there is this proviso—
  "Provided that such public meeting shall not be held at such times or in such manner as to interfere with the hours set apart for secular instruction."
  I maintain that religious instruction is an inherent part of instruction as a whole, and must be placed in no such secondary or insignificant position as would be implied by the proviso as it stands. Very emphatically shall I—if the Bill goes forward as I hope it will—vote against the retention of any such distinction. The noble Lord gave us no explanation of that very remarkable and somewhat prominent distinction, and I should be curious to know on what ground it is made part of the Bill.
  I am merely pointing out difficulties of detail and not in the least opposing the principle of the Bill. But the difficulties are not imaginary. For example, there is a provision in the third clause that if any question arises under the Act as to what is reasonably suitable or convenient it may be determined by the Board of Education. I daresay the Board of Education is as good an authority to refer educational questions to as could be found, but I should feel a little sorry for the Board of Education in London if it had to decide such local problems as whether or not there was any building in a parish suitable for the purposes of a particular meeting. That is not necessarily an educational question at all. For example, suppose there is in the village a public hall which can be hired for, say, ten shillings. Does that charge render the building unsuitable or unavailable, or inconvenient, and necessitate falling back upon the school. Or again, is the existence of a chapel which has hitherto been used for political meetings an adequate provision of another building? Those are the kind of details that will require to be carefully

  1099
  considered before this Bill is finally passed into law; but as regards the large principle embodied in the Bill, I believe it to be laid on sound lines, and I see no reason why such facilities should not be made practicable everywhere, provided the necessary limitations, which cannot be beyond our wit to devise, are carefully thought out and worded.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced this Bill in words of a most practical character, and his speech showed that he has the interests of the measure thoroughly at heart. The House also heard from the most rev. Primate a speech of a broad-minded character and one which will be of practical use in considering the important details in the future stages of the Bill. Lord Burghclere has been a consistent supporter of the cause of affording facilities for the holding of public meetings in schools. I am not going to follow him back to the year 1884 as to the facilities afforded to agriculturists for listening to political speeches, but I quite agree with him that the extension of the franchise has entirely altered the system of addressing electors.
  I noted with interest how Lord Burghclere alluded to the fact that in 1892 he, as a then Member of the House of Commons, was responsible for a Resolution which was passed through that House without opposition from the Government of the day. The noble Lord did not exaggerate in the slightest degree the manner in which that Resolution was received in the House of Commons, but when he went on to say that the Bill introduced afterwards by Sir William Hart Dyke was on all fours with the Resolution for which he was responsible I am afraid I must differ from him on one point. The Bill of Sir William Hart Dyke was based on the speech he made when he accepted but criticised the Resolution of Lord Burghclere. In that speech Sir William Hart Dyke pointed out that there must be certain safeguards, and in the Bill which he introduced all those safeguards were provided to which Sir William alluded
  1100
  in his speech on the Resolution. Moreover, the Bill of Sir William Hart Dyke did not interfere with schools which were under private ownership. It is there that the difference comes in between the Bill of 1892 and the Bill which Lord Burghclere is now asking your Lordships to pass. In the speech in which Sir William Hart Dyke criticised the Resolution of the noble Lord he laid great stress on the fact that those who were responsible for the school must have security for damage done to the premises. I think that last objection has been met sufficiently by the noble Lord in the Bill now before your Lordships, and therefore on that question I will say no more.
  I recall to my mind that when the noble Lord introduced an Amendment into your Lordships' House on this subject during the passage of the Education Bill of 1902 I was privileged, under the direction of the noble Duke who was responsible for the measure, to reply to that Amendment. Lord Burghclere said with great truth that that Amendment was not altogether on all fours with the Amendment which was moved in the House of Commons. Mr. Trevelyan in the House of Commons proposed that the obligation to give these facilities should apply only to voluntary schools, but Lord Burghclere differed from that in his Amendment and his proposal embraced all schools. I remember pointing out at the time that even though the noble Lord felt so strongly that these facilities should be given, the Government could not accept that proposal as an Amendment to a Bill which was already overloaded, and following the example of the Prime Minister, I said that if Lord Burghclere felt so strongly on the matter he might introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House. Therefore I would be the last person to complain of the introduction of this Bill. But it does not follow because the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and myself in your Lordships' House suggested that a separate Bill was the proper way of dealing with this subject, that we agree with the whole of the provisions now before us.
  The noble Lord in this Bill lays stress on the fact that where there is no other

  1101
  suitable building the school should be available for meetings of all sorts and kinds. He alluded to the Parish Councils Act which gave facilities for the use of these schools, but solely for parochial or district council matters. This Bill goes a great deal further. The noble Lord also laid stress on the fact that a certain number of those who were capable of granting facilities for meetings had objected to schools being used for political purposes. He referred to the home counties, but evidently the home counties are different from that part of the country in which I live. There we have always given the greatest facilities, and I have myself lent a hall for the purpose of political meetings at which I have been very much abused. Great consideration must be shown towards the owners of schools, who perhaps do not share the opinions of those desiring to hold meetings. Everyone has a right to his own views, and it might be objectionable to some that a school of their own should be used by a political opponent for the purpose of abusing them.
  Undoubtedly the noble Lord has a stronger case now than before 1902, because the ratepayers now subscribe to the maintenance of the schools, which before enjoyed no assistance from the rates. On this ground the claim of the ratepayers, therefore, cannot be ignored. They have a right which they did not possess in years past to the use of the schools. But it must be remembered that many of the schools are the private property of individual owners, and although they now receive rate aid the requirements of the local authority are so heavy that the advantage they derive from receiving rate aid places them on no better floting than in 1902. These are matters which should be very carefully considered before we decide on giving virtually free access to the schools by Act of Parliament. I endorse what has been said by the most rev. Primate as to the lack of any provision in the Bill to prevent interference with religious instruction, and I consider it a most important omission. The most rev. Primate has declared himself in favour of the principle of the Bill, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I have to say that we offer no opposition to the
  1102
  Second Reading. At the same time I think your Lordships will realise that there are many of the details of the Bill which will require most careful consideration. I therefore suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I did not catch the last words of the noble Marquess, but noble Lords beside me tell me that he proposes that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I think it is a very unusual course for a short and simple Bill like this to be referred to such a Committee. I admit that there may be clauses in the Bill which require alteration, but it seems to me almost unparalled to refer so simple a Bill as this to a Select Committee. I therefore hope His Majesty's Government will not insist on that course. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be ready to consider any proposals made to check injustice and to meet the criticisms of the most rev. Primate. In the circumstances I can only suppose that the object of referring the Bill to a Select Committee is to endanger its passing by causing delay.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I greatly regret that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition cannot accept the considerate proposition made by the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The noble Marquess told your Lordships that His Majesty's Government were favourable to the principle of the Bill, The principle of the Bill is no doubt a simple matter enough, but when you come to consider the proposed application of that principle you at once find yourself face to face with a number of points of detail of very great difficulty. I am sure those of your Lordships who listened to the speech of the most rev. Primate must have felt that the matter was by no means so simple as the noble Earl supposes. The principle of the Bill, I take it, is this, that it is desirable that Parliamentary candidates and others should be given an opportunity of making use of these schoolrooms in connection with their candidature when no other

  1103
  suitable rooms or places are available, and the noble mover has made it clear that that privilege is not one to be exercised constantly but only on rare intervals. But when you come to the manner in which that simple principle is to be interpreted the matter ceases to be so easy, and I cannot help thinking that the feeling of your Lordships will be that the difficulties in points of detail require the kind of examination which they will be more likely to receive in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I must say I listened to the earlier parts of the speech of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education with the greatest gratitude, but the sting unfortunately came in the tail. For my part I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government require a Select Committee on this Bill, when in the year 1892 they produced a Bill of their own on this subject in eight or ten days without a Select Committee at all. It is open to the noble Marquess and His Majesty's Government in Committee to move stock and block, as Amendments to my Bill, the very precautions they themselves brought forward in 1892. The proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee can only be explained by a desire indirectly to defeat the Bill. I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for accepting the principle of the Bill, which, after all, is the only question before the House on Second Reading, but the proposed reference to a Select Committee is a dilatory process and absolutely unnecessary. I do not wish to take up an unreasonable attitude, but I do make an urgent appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, seeing that the Government have accepted the principle of the Bill, not to persist in the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. I am perfectly willing to meet the most rev. Primate and His Majesty's Government in any Amendments they may bring forward in Committee of the Whole House, which is surely the proper place for questions of this sort to be dealt with. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision and allow the Bill to be read a second time and considered in the usual way by the Standing
  1104
  Committee, which I think is better than any Select Committee, and the Committee of the Whole House.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is only by the indulgence of the House that I can say another word, but I should be sorry to have it supposed that the suggestions I had made were of a character to render necessary the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. It may be that I may have led His Majesty's Government to suppose that I, for one, as possibly representing many outside, thought the Bill could only be adequately amended by a Select Committee; whereas, so far as I know, there is nothing in the Bill which may not be dealt with satisfactorily in the Committee of the Whole House, and in the Standing Committee; and I therefore venture to hope that the proposal to commit the Bill to a Select Committee may be reconsidered.
  LORD NEWTON: I must confess that I share in some measure the surprise expressed by noble Lords opposite at the proposal of the Government to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The principle of the Bill is generally accepted; all that is required are certain Amendments in Committee which I cannot believe are of so complicated a nature as has been represented. Take one, for instance—the point as to religious instruction. The clause at present provides that the public meetings shall not be held at such times or in such manner as to interfere with the hours set apart for secular instruction. Surely the point raised by the most rev. Primate could be met by the simple omission of the word "secular." That is an instance of the kind of Amendment which would be required. I am afraid that the prospects of the noble Lord's Bill passing are not of the brightest in any event, but if it is referred to a Select Committee it will have but a small chance. I would add that there is considerable difficulty in finding Members of your Lordships' House to serve on these Committees, and that is an additional reason why the Bill should be considered in the Committee of the Whole House.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships

  1105
  that nothing is further from our thoughts than to defeat the Bill either by dilatory tactics or vexatious opposition. We proposed the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee because we believed there would be a number of comparatively minute points which would be better disposed of by such a Committee; but in view of the feeling which has been expressed by some of your Lordships, and particularly in view of the appeal made by the most rev. Primate, by whose arguments I was certainly influenced in favour of the Bill going to a Select Committee, I propose not to press the Motion.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole, House.

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading, resumed (according to order).
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE, BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I have, to thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Avebury, for the courtesy he has shown in allowing the Motion for the Second Reading to be further adjourned until to-day, and I regret any inconvenience that may have been caused him. The Bill, as the noble Lord informed your Lordships in moving the Second Reading, has passed through all its stages in the other House without opposition. Its object is to amend the law as to the hours of closing of licensed premises on Christmas Day in Ireland, and it merely makes compulsory what I am informed is practically the general custom in Ireland—namely, the closing of public-houses on Christmas Day. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have no objection to the Second Reading.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess and His Majesty's Government for accepting the, Bill, and I should like to ask whether, as all the Amendments suggested by the Government were accepted in the other
  1106
  House, he will allow me to move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I was under the impression, from the course taken on a previous occasion by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and by His Majesty's Government, that the Bill would be resisted. As, however, the Government are in favour of the Second Reading it is no use attempting resistance, but I beg to give notice that I shall at a later stage move that Ulster be exempted from the Bill.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I think my noble friend, before he submits any such proposition, should ascertain whether the proposed exemption would be approved of in Ulster. So far as I know, the Bill has been received with a great deal of commendation throughout Ireland.
  THE EARL, OF WEMYSS: What, in Ulster?
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: The Bill, as I have said, has received a great deal of commendation in Ireland, and the leading clergy in every part of the country are, I believe, in favour of it. The General Synod of the Church of Ireland, the most representative body of Church feeling in Ireland, attended by Bishops from every part of Ireland, including Ulster, and by the leading clergy and laity from every part of Ireland, including Ulster, passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the Bill.
  LORD DE ROS: I can assure your Lordships, as an Ulster man, that the people in Ulster are in favour of the Bill and that much good is anticipated from it. I hope, therefore, that if the noble Earl at a later stage moves exemption in the case of Ulster the proposition will not be entertained.
  On Question, Bill read 2aa, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.