Sitting of 13 June 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North East Lincolnshire Water Bill. Lords Amendments considered and agreed to. Bristol Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (Purchase) Bill [Lords]; Crellin's Patents Bill [Lords]; Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords]; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [Lords]; Manchester Churches Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; Trent Navigation Company Bill [Lords]; Warboys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [Lords]. Read a second time and committed.
Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read a third time to-morrow.
Local Govornment Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Metropolitan Borough of Saint Pancras," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by Mr. John Burns.
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill, Ordered, That, in the ease of the Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill, Standing Order 193a be suspended and the Bill be read the first time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]
Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Clapham (Yorks); Danby and Castleton; Edmonton; Fylingdales; Glaisdale; Goathland; Grosmont; Hawsker; Hinderwell and Staithes; Langton-on-Swale; Montford; Sleights; Sneaton; Stirchloy; Tilehurst; and Ugthorpe; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Basildon, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Bardsey; Bardsey cum Rigton; Chapelthorpe; Crondall; Darton; Deal (two); Holmfirth; Langton on Swale; Lindley; Mirfield (three); Monk Hopton; Newborough; Randwick (two); Saddington (two); Sandal; Thornhill (two); Thornhill Lees (two); Upper Hopton; Wakefield (four); West Haddon; Wetherby; and Woolley; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law; from Battle; Elham; Hardingstone; and, Hastings; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL (LORDS).
  Petitions for alteration; From Aberdeen (North); Arbroath; Banff (two); Bath (two); Brighouse; Clapham (two); Dover; Elland; Harwich (two); Houghton le Spring; Islington (East) (two); Leamington and Warwick; Leeds (two); Leeds (North); Ludlow; Newbury; North Worcestershire; Nuneaton (two); St. Rollox, Glasgow; Shrewsbury (two); Stranraer (two); West Mailing; Whitehaven; and, Worcestor; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  Return [presented June 7th] to be printed. [No. 193.]
  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  Return [presented June 7th] to be printed. [No. 194.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the City and County of Bristol and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the Horfield Ward of the City and County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into charities (County of Wilts). Further Return relative thereto [ordered August 9th, 1901; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 195.]
  2. Inquiry in Charities (County of Berks). Further Return relative thereto [ordered March 28th, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 196.]

  CROWN LANDS (RECOVERY OF CROWN RENTS).
  Committee to consider of authorising the limitation of time for proceedings for the recovery by the Crown of quit and other Rents in Ireland in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1894 (King's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Purchase of Mr. Stoney's Estate, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the acreage of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board from Mr. Stoney, of Rosturk Castle, county Mayo, dividing it into arable and mountain land respectively, what was the date of purchase and the price paid for the whole, what was the price paid for the arable and what for the mountain land respectively; did the Board re-sell any of the land to Mr. Stoney, and, if so, when; whether it was arable or mountain, and how does the price Mr. Stoney paid for it compare with
  936
  that which the Board paid him in the first instance for the same; how much did the Board re-sell to Mr. Stoney and on whose advice, and why did they re-sell it to him; did the Board use for grazing purposes the mountain which they re-sold to Mr. Stoney, and, if so, for what period; did it pay the Board to take in cattle and sheep for grazing purposes from the neighbouring tenants, and, if so, what was the amount of profit that was realised; if it was run at a loss for the grazing of the sheep and cattle of neighbouring tenants, what was the amount of the loss to the Board; could he give the names of the tenants who sent cattle and sheep to graze on this mountain while it was in the hands of the Board, the number of cattle and sheep belonging to each and the amount paid per head for cattle and sheep; did the Board graze on it with their own stock, if so, for what length of time; what was the amount of profit or loss during the time the Board grazed on it with their own stock.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The total area of the land purchased by the Congested Districts Board from Mr. Vesey Stoney is 5,217 acres, of which 2,292 acres were tenanted. Of the remaining 2,925 acres, 405 acres were arable and 2,520 mountain land. 5,019 acres were bought in June, 1900, and the purchase of 198 acres, not yet vested, was agreed upon on May 1st, 1905. The price paid for the first purchase was £7,300 and for the second £3,975. These prices included £5,667 for the 405 acres of arable land in the landlord's hands, and £800 for the 2,520 acres of mountain land. The Board were enabled to purchase the second portion of the estate by agreeing to a condition made by the owner, viz., that they would resell to him 1,965 acres of mountain land at £600, the price which the Board had paid for it. Mr. Stoney paid this sum on; May 3rd, 1906. This re-sale was made on the advice of the Board's officers, in order to obtain 175 acres of arable land for enlarging the small holdings on the estate. The tenants did not send sufficient cattle to graze the mountain land, and the Board therefore bought thirty-four cattle on April 27th, 1903, and put them on the land. As the cattle did not thrive, they were taken off the mountain on October 15th, 1903. Two bullocks were drowned in ditches,

  937
  and there was a loss of £6, including a portion of the herd's salary. The Board received for the grazing of the tenants' cattle on the mountain; in 1901, £9 5s. 6d; in 1902, £13 3s. 6d.; in 1903, £3 5s. 9d.; and in 1904, £9 16s. 4d.; total, £35 11s. 1d. It would not be convenient to give, in reply to a Question, separate particulars as to the cattle sent to graze by the various tenants in each of four years, but it may be stated in general terms that the number of tenants was over forty, the number of cattle or horses sent to graze by each tenant ranged from one to ten, and the rate per head per month from 1s. to 2s. 6d. The total profit on the tenants' grazing for four years was £8 14s. 8d., viz., £35 11s. 1d., rents received, less a pro portion of herd's wages at £1 per month, estimated at £26 16s. 5d. The loss involved in the Board's six months' grazing operation was, as already stated, £6.

  Candidates for Naval Cadetship.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state how many candidates competed for cadetships, how many passed into H.M.S. "Britannia," Dartmouth, in July, 1901, and July, 1902, respectively; and will he state how many candidates presented themselves for the first examination held for admission to the Royal Naval College, Osborne; how many were successful; and how many who then entered the college still remain
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In July, 1901, 239 candidates were examined for cadetships and sixty-four entered. In July, 1902, 226 were examined for cadetships and seventy-seven entered. In July, 1903, 278 boys offered themselves for cadetships, eighty were selected to attend the qualifying examination, and seventy five entered Osborne. Of these, sixty are now at Dartmouth.

  Irish Land Purchase Interest—Case of Michael Lucey.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the case of Michael Lucey, Kilcranthan, county Cork, tenant on the Hunt estate; are they aware that the tenant was verbally informed that interest on the purchase money would be charged at the
  938
  rate of 3¼ percent.; that when signing the purchase agreement before a magistrate it was not read over to him, and he was never acquainted with the fact that the interest was 4 per cent., which he would not have agreed to had he known the contents of the agreement; and what steps the Commissioners are prepared to take in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that in the purchase agreement signed by Michael Lucey, the rate of interest payable by him, pending the completion of the sale, is set out at 4 per cent. The Commissioners have no knowledge that the tenant was verbally informed that the rate of interest to be paid by him was 3¼ per cent. The agreement was signed in the presence of a magistrate, and it does not appear that the agreement was first read over and explained to Lucey. The necessity for such explanation does not seem to have arisen, seeing that Lucey is not illiterate. The Commissioners are prepared to consider any application in reference to the matter which the tenant may desire to make, duo notice being given to the landlord.

  Revaluation of City of Dublin.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that revaluation of the city of Dublin was a part of the consideration offered to the townships of Clontarf and Kilmainham to induce them to consent to be added to the City of Dublin; that in consequence of the delay in revaluation they are not getting what they contracted for; and will he represent to the Treasury the importance of commencing the revaluation at once?
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have been able to obtain no evidence in sup port of the hon. Member's statement in the first part of the Question; indeed such information as I possess tells some what against his assumption. I am advised that the delay is probably not inflicting any hardship on the townships in question.

  Evicted Tenants on the Knight of Glin Estates.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are several evicted

  939
  tenants on the estate of the Knight of Glin, situate at Glin, in the county of Limerick; and whether he will direct the Estates Commissioners to send down an inspector to report on these cases, with a view to bringing about their reinstatement?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received applications from fourteen persons seeking reinstatement on the estate in question. The Commissioners will have the cases inquired into by one of their inspectors in due course.

  Reinstatement of Michael Dalton, of Pallas.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will approach the landlord, the Rev. John T. Waller, of Pallaskenry, who evicted the late Michael Dalton from his holding at Pallas in the year 1884, and who is working the evicted farm, in order that they may reinstate his representative.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Michael Dalton has not lodged an application for reinstatement. If he should do so his case will be inquired into.

  Eviction of Mrs. Baker, of Ballingrane.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on Lord Southwell's estate, in the county of Limerick, have signed agreements to purchase their holdings, and if he can say how the Estates Commissioners intend to deal with the case of the representative of Mrs. Baker, of Ballingrane, who was evicted from her holding; and whether they will refuse to complete the sale until the evicted tenants' representative be reinstated?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements for purchase by 120 tenants on Lord Southwell's estate in the county Limerick have been lodged. An application for reinstatement as an evicted tenant on this estate has been received from Mrs. Baker and will be duly inquired into.

  Reinstatement of Thomas M'Hugh, of Rockfield, Rathkeale.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  940
  of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas M'Hugh was evicted from his holding at Rockfield, Rathkeale, by Lord Southwell; and whether now that the sale is about to be completed, the Estates Commissioners will see that his holding be given to him?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Thomas M'Hugh, and will have inquiries made into his case as soon as practicable.

  Eviction at Ballinagould Croagh, County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that William and Thomas Bourke were evicted from their holdings at Ballinagould Croagh, in the county of Limerick, by the Reverend John T. Waller, of Pallaskenry, in the county of Limerick, in the year 1895 for non-payment of rent; and whether he will say what action the Estates Commissioners intend to take in the matter with the view to bringing about the reinstatement of one of them and the representative of the other who died since the eviction.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement from the persons named, and will have the cases inquired into in due course.

  Railway and Canal Rates in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to institute an inquiry into the working of the railway and canal systems operating in Ireland with a view to enable cheaper rates and greater facilities; and, if so, whether the evidence will be taken in Ireland at various suitable centres.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) A Commission on canals is already sitting, and will, in due course, visit Ireland and inquire there. The question of instituting an inquiry into the railway system is under the consideration of the Irish Government.

  Cost of Upkeep of the Imperial Institute.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, as stated in the Treasury letter

  941
  of Sir Francis Mowatt to the Under-Secretary of State for India, published at page 58 of House of Commons Cd. No. 268, of Session 1900, the cost of the repair, upkeep, and decoration of the Imperial Institute Buildings, of maintaining the heating apparatus, and of defraying rates falls upon the Office of Works, with the exception that the cost of repairs, decoration, and lighting of the Indian section, or some parts thereof, is met from Indian revenues: and whether he will give a Return showing full particulars of the total cost from the date of transfer of the Institute to the present time of all repairs, alterations, and other expenses incurred by the Office of Works, distinguishing as far as possible the proportion

  Year.

  Proportion incurred for London University.

  Proportion incurred for Imperial Institute.

  £

  £

  1899–1900

  3,651

  2,434

  1900–1901

  12,430

  8 286

  1901–1902

  973

  649

  1902–1903

  4,078

  2,719

  1903–1904

  3,168

  2,112

  1904–1905

  2,279

  1,520

  1905–1906

  9,172

  6,114

  1st April—12th June, 1906

  21

  14

  £35,772

  £23,848

  Grant to University College of Wales at Aberstwyth.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the grant of£4,000 per year paid to the University College of Wales at Aberystwyth is for general expenses or for certain specific purposes; and whether he will agree to present a Return to the House of the salaries and wages paid to the staff of the college during the last five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The grant is in aid of the general expenses of the college. I have no official information as
  942
  of the cost incurred for the London University and the Imperial Institute sections of the buildings during the period the University has been accommodated there?
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The charge for the external maintenance of the Imperial Institute Buildings is borne upon votes, the Imperial Institute and the University of London bear the charges for internal maintenance out of funds administered by those bodies. The expenditure defrayed by the Office of Works is as follows: the proportions being charged in the ratio of Imperial Institute two-fifths, and the London University three-fifths:—
  to the salaries and wages paid to the college staff, which are not subject to Treasury control.

  Elementary Education.
  MR. SPICER: To ask the President of the Board of Education what was the total cost of elementary education in the years 1873, 1879, 1884, and 1900, and the number of children in average attendance for each of the above-mentioned years; and how much was received towards the cost during the same years from grants, rates, fees, endowments, and voluntary subscriptions, respectively.

  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)

  Table showing Abstract of Income for maintenance of Public Elementary Day and Evening Schools inspected for Annual Grants.

  Year.

  Government Grants.

  Rates.

  Voluntary Subscriptions.

  Endowment.

  Fees and Books.

  Other Sources.

  Total Income.

  Total Expenditure Day and Evening.

  Average Attendance.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1873

  Day and Evening

  772,072

  *61,209

  539,502

  73,405

  688,296

  31,562

  2,166,046

  2,206,640

  1,528,453

  Day Schools only

  749,293

  Not known

  separately Evening

  as distinct Schools.

  from

  —

  2,143,267

  —

  1,482,480

  1879

  Day and Evening

  1,828,703

  636,792

  754,134

  136,079

  1,372,365

  48,841

  4,776,914

  4,773,825

  2,647,525

  Day Schools only

  1,804,165

  Not known

  separately Evening

  as distinct Schools.

  from

  —

  4,752,376

  —

  2,594,995

  1884

  Day and Evening

  2,515,776

  915,474

  734,128

  157,124

  1,734,115

  64,922

  6,121,539

  6,131,887

  3,297,558

  Day Schools only

  2,503,481

  Not known

  separately Evening

  as distinct Schools.

  from

  —

  6,109,244

  —

  3,273,124

  1900

  Day and Evening

  8,002,981

  2,959,717

  812,104

  156,012

  262,135

  ‡144,037

  12,336,986

  12,453,006

  4,872,465

  Day Schools only

  †7,827,837

  2,809,666

  801,202

  154,519

  237,962

  104,145

  11,935,331

  12,045,046

  4,666,130

  * Includes £4,157 paid by School Boards under Section 25, Act of 1870.

  † This total is made up as follows: Annual Grant, £4,820,674 ; Fee Grant, £2,327,416 ; Aid Grant, £669,772 ; Science and Art Grants, £9,975.

  ‡This total includes £35,930 County Council Grants to Evening Schools.

  Moving of Male and Female Prisoners.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is customary for male and female prisoners to be moved together to and from prisons, which some times involves long railway journeys; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of making arrangements by which this practice may no longer be carried on.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Male and female prisoners are never removed together between one prison and another by the prison authorities; but it is, doubtless, the fact that when the police bring remand prisoners and prisoners committed for trial to prison, and take remand prisoners from prison to court, prisoners of both sexes some times travel together. It is not easy to see how this is to be avoided in country districts, where the number of police available is small and the prisons are far from some of the committing courts. The matter is one for the local police authorities, who have to deal with it as best they can. I agree with the hon. Member in thinking that it should be avoided as far as possible.

  Docking Council Allotments.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Allotments Act, 1887, empowers local authorities to acquire land for allotments within or without their district; whether the Local Government Board have required the Docking Rural Council to give the St. Edmunds allotments holders notice to quit at Michaelmas, on the ground that the Board cannot allow the Docking Council to control allotments out of their district; and, if so, what reasons have induced the Local Government Board to take this action.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the power conferred by The Allotments Act, 1887. In the presentcase the allotments appear to have been provided by the rural authority for a parish, part of which was afterwards formed into an urban district. The allotments are stated to have been situate in the urban area, but I am informed that the urban district council
  946
  are not inclined to take them over. The rural district council seem to be within their powers in giving notice to the allotment holders, but they have not been required by the Local Government Board to do so.

  Boarded-Out Poor Law Children.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of Poor Law children at present boarded out within and beyond the union, respectively; also the number of committees which exist for the supervision of children boarded out within the union; and the number of children in their care.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) On January 1st last the numbers of pauper children who were boarded out within and beyond the union were 6,963 and 1,818, respectively. There are 284 authorised committees in respect of children boarded within the union, and the number of the children under their care is about 2,000.

  Railway Brake Vans on Goods Trains.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the Rhymney Railway Company's violation of the Board of Trade Rules, issued under The Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, dated August, 1902, relating to running trains without brake vans between Cardiff Docks and Heath Junction, about two miles, gradient one in forty-five, load forty-five empties up and forty loaded trucks down; between Cardiff Docks and Llanishan, about three miles, gradient one in forty-five, similar loads, and several other sections; if he is aware that the guards in such cases have to ride on the buffers or on top of the loaded wagons to the detriment of their own safety; and whether he will take steps to compel the company to carry out the Board's rules regulating such working.
  *(Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) This matter has been recently brought to the notice of the Board of Trade and is engaging their attention. Whether or not the specified sections of line fall within the operation of the statutory rate referred to, I am advised that, with the

  947
  gradients mentioned, the provision of brake vans is necessary for safe working. I propose so to inform the Railway Company. The Company inform me that in every case where a train runs outside station limits they have already given instructions that an empty vehicle must be provided for the guard.

  Pensions of Daughters of Deceased Members of the Indian Civil Service.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the fact that in the Bombay and Bengal Presidencies, daughters of deceased members of the Indian Civil Service draw as pensions £100 a year if living in England and 60 rupees a month, which amounts to £48 a year, if living in India, and that this difference is due to the fact that at the time this arrangement was made the rupee was worth about 2s. 3d., he will, now that the value of the rupee is only 1s. 4d., take measures to equalise the pensions drawn in India and those drawn in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The rates of pension drawn from the Bombay and Bengal Civil Funds by the children of subscribers resident in India and in England, respectively, were fixed by the subscribers, and no alteration in either rate was suggested when the funds were transferred to Government, though the rate of exchange had then fallen to about 1s. 8d. The Funds have no surplus assets, and the increase in the rupee value of pensions paid in England has already thrown a charge on the revenues of India. I am not prepared further to increase this charge by raising the rates of pension payable in India.

  Army Meat Contracts
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has arisen amongst agriculturists on account of the change in the tender forms, which enables the meat of imported animals to be supplied to the troops stationed in Great Britain and Ireland; whether he can state the amount of money approximately which is paid to the importers for meat and forage raised outside the three Kingdoms; and whether he will represent to the Army Council the advisability of supporting the
  948
  agriculturist taxpayer and employers-resident in the three Kingdoms.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In reply to the first part of the Question: a few representations on the subject have been made to the War Office. As regards the second part of the Question, I am it would not be possible to give any even approximate figures without very elaborate inquiries. As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to the hon. Member on the subject of the; change in the tender forms.

  Free Pardon for Patrick Ryan and Henry George Baxter
  MR. MOONEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the fact that on the sole evidence of Detective Sergeant Rose, lately dismissed from the police force for giving false evidence, two lads named Patrick Ryan and Henry George Baxter were convicted, on 17th November, 1905, on a charge of attempting to pick pockets, but released on further inquiry establishing their innocence; whether he is aware that the wrongful conviction has injured the prospects of the lads referred to; and whether, in the circumstances, he can see his way to grant them a free pardon.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) On a reconsideration of all the circum stances, and after consultation with the magistrate who tried the case, I have advised His Majesty to grant a free pardon.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Obsolete War Vessels.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, during the last eighteen months, the usual sums of money required for the maintenance of the following vessels have been spent, viz., "Anson," "Howe," "Benbow," "Camperdown," and "Rodney," officially classed as first-class battleships, "Colossus," "Edinburgh," "Thunderer," and "Devastation," second-class battleships," "Hero," and "Conqueror," third-class battleships; whether

  949
  these eleven battleships were not all omitted from the list of ships of the Royal Navy, on page 270c, at one time; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for including them again.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): One of these battleships is in commission as a gunnery training ship, and is the only one which has required any considerable sum for maintenance during the past eighteen months. Eight of the ships are in special reserve and have cost very little to maintain. Two are lying at the Holy Loch and have cost nothing beyond the expense of caretakers. All eleven are on the verge of becoming obsolete, and it is therefore a matter of choice whether or not they should be included in a list which is meant for general information and does not profess to contain any detailed classification. It has been considered on the whole preferable that they should be included for the present until they are finally removed from the list of the Navy.

  Greenwich Observatory.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will take into consideration the advisability of approaching the London County Council with a view to substituting steam turbines for the reciprocating engines at present in use at the London County Council's power station at Greenwich, in order to abolish the vibration at present experienced at the Royal Observatory.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: At the present stage of this extremely serious question, the Admiralty do not consider that it would be in the interests of the public service to make any statement on the subject.

  Chicago Canned Goods
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will consider the advisability of sending a civilian officer of health with the officer to be detailed to visit the packing houses in the United States on behalf of the War Office, so that he can furnish a report, from a medical and sanitary point of view, as to the conditions under which the work is done and the sanitary condi-
  950
  tion of the buildings used by the contractors.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Lieutenant-Colonel Hobbs is considered thoroughly qualified and capable of carrying out the inspection necessary to protect the interests of the War Department. It is not proposed to send out a civilian officer of health to assist him.
  MR. LEA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that Colonel Hobbs is merely a layman; whether this is not a question in which a knowledge of medical science would be of great use, and whether a medical report would not go much further than a report by a military officer to allay the apprehensions that are felt in this country? Would not a medical report be of infinitely greater value?
  *MR. HALDANE: Colonel Hobbs is a highly trained officer.
  MR. LEA: Is it not the fact that the officers whose conduct is now being investigated by the South African War Stores Commission were also highly trained officers?
  MR. SLOAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that this officer is highly trained in medical science?
  *MB. HALDANE: I mean that he is highly trained in the Army Service Corps, and therefore is highly trained in this kind of work.
  MR. SLOAN: Is he medically trained. at all?
  *MR. HALDANE: A man cannot do this work without a certain amount of medical knowledge.

  Army Pensions.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that Army pensioners shall be paid weekly through the medium of post, office orders at local post offices; and making it a criminal offence for people, other than the pensioners themselves or

  951
  with their written permission, to apply for such pensions.
  *MR. HALDANE: The whole question of the payment of pensioners is receiving careful consideration. As regards the last part of the Question, sufficient provision will be found in the existing Acts, viz., The Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Act, 1884, and the Army Act.

  Sea Passages for Officers' Wives.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the wives of officers ordered abroad are now allowed to join their husbands free of charge for sea passage.
  *MR. HALDANE: Yes, Sir. The new regulation applies to the families of officers embarked on or after April 1st, 1906, under the conditions set forth in Army Order 126 of June 1st.

  South Africa—Court Martial on Natives.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the evidence upon which the Natal natives were condemned to death by a court martial has been received at the Colonial Office, and whether he proposes to lay it upon the Table of the House.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The evidence has been transmitted to the Secretary of State by the Governor, and Lord Elgin will ask him by telegraph whether there is any objection on the part of the Government of Natal to its publication.

  Dinuzulu.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the repeated charges of disloyalty against Dinuzulu, and whether, in view of Dinuzulu's position in Natal, His Majesty's Government or the Natal Government have taken any steps to protect him against the effect of the publication of such statement, or to prosecute the originators or publishers of these charges.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Reports and rumours have been prevalent charging Dinuzulu with disloyalty, but it has been made clear in the papers presented to Parliament that Mr. Saunders, the Commissioner for native affairs in Zululand, has not considered that those suspicions were justified. It is a matter for the Natal Government to decide what steps, if any, should be taken with regard to the publication of statements at once so injurious and unwise.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether Dinuzulu has recently boon summoned to appear at Pietermaritzburg, and, if so, on what ground the summons has been issued.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I believe the Governor, on the advice of Ministers, has requested Dinuzulu to go to Pietermaritzburg. Dinuzulu is unable to do so owing to the state of his health. I believe he is troubled with a very acute and painful disease, and that possibly he could only undertake such a journey at the peril of his life. He is sending several of his principal indunas, who will be fully empowered to speak frankly for him on all matters to the Governor; and I have reason to believe that the Governor and Ministers in Natal consider Dinuzulu's answer in that respect to be satisfactory.
  MR. J. WARD: Was it not a similar summons which drove Bambaata into rebellion?
  MR. CHURCHILL: In this case there appears to be no further difficulty.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the summons cast any reflection on Dinuzulu's loyalty, or whether he had been asked to go to Pietermaritzburg simply to give information to the Governor and other persons.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I should not consider that such a summons reflected in any way on Dinuzulu's loyalty. He has been invited to confer with the Government on native affairs at a time when those affairs are exercising all minds.

  Kowloon-Canton Railway Scheme.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can communicate to the House any information regarding the Kowloon-Canton railway project, especially with regard to that section of the line which will pass through British territory; whether, for a period of about six months, rapid and substantial progress was made in the construction of this section of the line by the Public Works Department of the Government of the Crown Colony of Hong-Kong; that in the month of April the Colonial Government was relieved of further responsibility in the matter, and that the work is now being continued by a special staff of engineers appointed by the Crown Agents under the sole and direct authority of His Majesty's Colonial Office; and, if so, will he state the reasons for withdrawing the undertaking from the management of the Government of the Colony of Hong-Kong.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Negotiations are still proceeding with the Chinese Government for the construction and working of a line from Canton to Kowloon. The British section, which is in active progress, has been constructed from the first under the supervision of the consulting engineer, and there has been no change of policy in this respect. All the steps taken have had the full concurrence of the Governor of Hong-Kong.

  Chinese Coolies in South Africa— Repatriation Notice.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government are prepared to withdraw the notice, recently circulated, on the advice of Lord Selborne, among the Chinese coolies in South Africa, relating to their repatriation, to which there has been little response, and issue a new notice informing the Chinese coolies that they would not be permitted to continue work in the mines in South Africa after the expiration of the term of their original three years' contract, and that they will then be required to leave the country.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State desires me to say that he sees no reason to withdraw the recent notice to the Chinese coolies of the conditions by
  954
  which they may obtain relief from their contracts and return to China at Imperial expense. While it continues in force it is at the very least a safety valve against cruelty or oppression, and will become increasingly effective in proportion as the coolies grow familiar with it. No further proclamation to the coolies is in contemplation at the present time.
  MR. LUPTON: Does the proclamation really give the coolie an opportunity of going back to China?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Prohibition of the Importation of Coolies.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to putting a stop to the further recruiting of Chinese coolies intended for South Africa under the license granted by the late Government, the Government is prepared to fix a date after which no more Chinese coolies will be allowed to enter South Africa.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: My hon. friend should be aware from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question during the debate on the address, and from other statements of ministerial policy, that so soon as a constitution conferring responsible government upon the Transvaal has issued under the authority of the Crown, a date will be fixed when the existing Chinese Labour Ordinances will be revoked; and unless before that date expires the Transvaal Legislative Assembly re-enacts a new ordinance to which His Majesty's Government are not unable to assent, the whole system of Chinese indentured labour will cease and determine, not only in respect of coolies already in South Africa, but also of any coolies for whose importation licences have already been issued but not exercised.

  British Central Africa.
  *MR. REESI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the future development of the British Central Africa Protectorate, the Government has under consideration the question of revising arrangements made under the general Act of the Conference of Berlin and the general Act of the Brussels Conference,

  955
  whereby the inclusion of the said Protectorate in the South African Customs Union is practically prohibited.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: The information at the disposal of the Secretary of State does not allow him to take it for granted that the provisions of the two general Acts to which my hon. friend refers are detrimental to the development of the Protectorate of British Central Africa. But even if that assumption could be made, the revision of the Acts would raise a large number of difficult and important questions, and could not be undertaken with reference to the interests of that Protectorate alone.

  Chinde River Bank.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that though it will be many years before the whole British Concession at Chinde will disappear owing to erosion, it is the fact that the bonded portion of the Concession on the river bank has already almost gone, and that it is no longer possible to land goods for transmission to the British Central Africa Protectorate on the beach and foreshore of such Concession; and whether the Colonial Office can see its way to re-establish the bonded portion of the Concession upon the foreshore, the recent arrangement made by the Commissioner, in concert with the Portuguese authorities, having established the bonded portion too far from the foreshore to serve the purpose for which it is intended.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has within the last few days received a despatch from the Commissioner of the British Central Africa Protectorate which shows that the facts are accurately stated in the hon. Member's Question. The steps to be taken to secure additional frontage on the river are under consideration.

  Protestant Mission in Malta.
  *MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Protestant mission services in Malta were disallowed by the Governor of the Island at the demand of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Malta; and, if so, will he
  956
  state why this refusal of religious liberty was made.
  MR. SILCOCK: I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of Malta recently took steps to prevent the Rev. J. McNeill, a well-known Presbyterian minister, from continuing to hold religious services in the Theatre Royal, Valetta; whether he will furnish the House with an explanation of this action; and whether he can assure the House that the Government will take immediate steps to safeguard the right of free speech in this portion of the Empire.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor of Malta apparently fearing that the continuance of the mission services referred to by the hon. Members for the Wells and Cirencester Divisions would lead to breaches of the peace, decided in the exercise of his discretion, as the authority responsible for the peace and good order of Malta, that the services should be stopped a day earlier than was originally intended, and the Secretary of State did not see any sufficient reason to criticise the Governor's action in the matter.
  MR. SLOANasked whether it was a fact that permission was given, and that it was not until opposition came from the Roman Catholic Archbishop that the permission was withdrawn.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: I believe that statement is not altogether out of harmony with the facts.
  MR. SLOANasked whether that was a sufficient reason for the cessation of the right of this particular person.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: I think it is a matter for the Governor to decide in his discretion, and the Secretary of State does not feel called upon to take any action.

  Native Defeat in South Africa.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any information has been received at the Colonial Office from Pietermaritzburg, announcing another victory gained by the European forces

  957
  and the slaughter of several hundred rebels.
  The hon. Member in putting the Question complained that the words "so called "had been struck out at the Table from before the word "rebels."
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor has reported that the fight lasted from day light to dusk, and that the rebel losses are estimated at 575, including Mehlokazulu and Nondubula, one of Kula's principal headmen. Bambata escaped, though reported wounded. Among the Natal troops there were ten casualties, including one officer killed, and one mortally wounded. The rebels are said to have numbered twenty companies. Colonel Mackenzie has reported that he has now no fear of the rebellion spreading in Zululand.

  The Indian Budget
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state when the Indian Budget will be discussed.
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MOKLEY,): I hope to state the date in a day or two. I will give full notice.

  The Clive Fund.
  MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Clive Fund is still in existence; if so, what are the qualifications required to claim upon the same.
  MR. MORLEY: The Clive Fund is not in existence. Under the terms of Lord Clive's bequest the capital sum mentioned in the Trust Deed has reverted to his representatives. Pensions to widows of officers of the late East India Company's Forces are, however, still granted under the Clive Fund Rules, subject to such amendments as have from time to time been made by the Secretary of State in Council.

  Macedonian Finance.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that it is proposed to apply the funds at present absorbed by the deficits
  958
  in the Macedonian budget, and which will be sot free by the proposed increase in the Customs duties, of which the greater part are levied on British trade, towards finding the kilometric guarantee for the Baghdad Railway; whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the declaration made by Lord Lansdowne that it shall be a condition of their consent to an increase in these duties that the expenditure of the money so obtained shall be controlled by a competent body controlling also the finances of Macedonia; and whether he will take steps to secure, firstly, the regulation of Turkish military expenditure in Macedonia, and, secondly, the recognition of the principle that funds derived from an increase in the Customs shall be devoted, after satisfaction of the needs of the Macedonian budget, to the promotion of foreign trade with Turkey in general and not to the setting free of revenues for any particular enterprise.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): In reply to the first part of this Question, His Majesty's Government have no control over Turkish revenues, the allocation of which has not formed the subject of any agreement between the two Governments. 2. The increased revenue—less the 25 per cent, due to the bondholders—will, under the arrangement now under the consideration of the Porte, be devoted to meeting the deficit in the Macedonian Budget, which is already under the supervision of the Financial Commission. The establishment of this Financial Commission was accepted by Lord Lansdowne as the best control that it was practicable to obtain. 3. We have not stipulated for the regulation of Turkish military expenditure in Macedonia, but the Turkish Government have undertaken to make good from imperial funds all deficits in the Macedonian Budget, whether due to military or civil expenditure. 4. As at present estimated, the increased duty will be more than absorbed by Macedonia, and there will be no funds from this source for any other purpose; but, as will be seen when negotiations are concluded and Papers can be presented, His Majesty's Government have made some conditions which will be to the advantage of foreign trade.

  Germany and the Persian Gulf.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official information that the German Embassy in Constantinople has made overtures to the Porte, for the purchase or lease of an island or station in the Persian Gulf; whether he has been officially informed of any negotiations between the German Government and that of Persia for a similar purpose; and whether he is officially aware of any application by Germany for a concession for a railway from Baghdad to Khanakin, on the Persian frontier.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): I have no official information which I can give to the hon. Member on the subject.

  Congo Free State.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the language used by the King of the Belgians with regard to the Congo Free State as essentially a personal undertaking, in which the Powers have no right to intervene, he will call the attention of King Leopold to Article 5 of the general Act of Berlin which denies the power to grant a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade; and whether he will press for some further security beyond that already given, to ensure the carrying into effect of the decrees consequent on the Reform Committee's Report.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): His Majesty's Minister at Brussels has recently explained to the Congo Government our views as to the right of the Powers parties to the Berlin Act to intervene in the affairs of the Congo State. With regard to the reform of the Administration, it would obviously be premature to make further representations to the Congo Government until we learn the effect of the new decrees.

  Gold Reserve.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the condition of Government securities on the Stock Exchange; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this by curtailing the export of gold from
  960
  this country, and by these means to increase our gold reserve.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The position of the gold reserves is a subject which is engaging my close attention, but I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject.

  Tram Ticket Lotteries.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that twenty-five servants of tramways companies have been dismissed from their employment for acts of fraud in connection with the system adopted by a number of newspapers of offering rewards of money for tram and bus tickets bearing certain numbers, and that in the same connection a child has lost its life; and, in view of these facts, will he take steps to put a stop, by legislation or otherwise, to this scheme of advertising.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): My attention has not been called to the dismissal of employees of Tramway Companies, but, as I have already said, I regret the practice of the newspapers referred to. The question of the legality of the system is still under consideration, and I under stand that application will be made to a magistrate who recently dismissed a charge to state a case for the opinion of the High Court.

  Postal Guides.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to publish a postal handbook at a cheaper rate than the present sixpenny Post Office Guide, so as to bring postal information within the means of a larger portion of the population.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a handbook of postal information was formerly issued at the price of 1d. The demand for this book how ever was small and had been declining for some years; and when the Post Office Guide was issued in a revised form.

  961
  in July last my predecessor decided to suspend the publication of the handbook. Hardly a single complaint of the suspension has reached me, and I have no reason at present to think that there is any considerable public demand for a cheap manual of postal information.

  Labourers' Dwellings in St. Pancras.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the London and North Western Railway Company has, in pursuance of Section 50 of the London and North Western Railway Act of 1900 and Section 21 of the London and North Western Railway Act of 1903, submittedand obtained theapproval of the Local Government Board to a scheme for providing new dwellings for the accommodation of persons of the labouring class, in lieu of the houses acquired under the said Acts in the metropolitan borough of St. Pancras; and, if not, whether any action is being taken by the company to fulfil its obligation.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The company have not obtained the approval of the Local Government Board to a scheme for the purpose mentioned in the Question. I am informed that the company have not incurred any obligation under the sections of the local Acts referred to, inasmuch as they have not at present acquired under those Acts twenty houses occupied by persons of the labouring class, but I am assured that there is no intention on their part to do this without fulfilling the conditions attaching to such acquisition.

  National Meat Supplies.
  MR. BAKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Goverment Board whether, in view of the disclosures in connection with some of the sources of supply of tinned and preserved meat consumed in this country, the importation of which has been largely increased by the exclusion of live cattle from Canada and elsewhere, he will take steps to institute an inquiry as to the conditions and sources of our meat supplies, and particularly as to whether the encouragement of the importation of of healthy live cattle is advisable in the interests of the meat consumers in this country.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am causing some inquiry to be made as to the conditions and sources of the meat supplied to this country. Any question as to the importation of live cattle would be one for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask whether it is not the fact that there is a sufficient supply of healthy live cattle to be obtained from Ireland?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question for the Local Government Board.

  Alien Pilots.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will direct that no applications for pilotage certificates be considered by Trinity House pending the passage of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill now before Parliament.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The Trinity House have called my attention to this matter, and I am considering what steps are necessary to ensure that no undue advantage will be taken of the interval before the proposed clause can come into force.

  Fire Insurance.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent disclosures in connection with certain fire insurance offices; and whether he will consider the desirableness of introducing legislation compelling fire insurance companies to make a substantial deposit with the Board of Trade before commencing business, as is done in the case of life insurance companies.
  MR. KEARLEY: My attention has been called to the facts in connection with the liquidation of two small fire insurance offices, but I do not think that there is any necessity to introduce legislation compelling fire insurance companies to make a deposit with the Board of Trade before commencing business.

  New St. Helen's Trams.
  MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board

  963
  of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the New St. Helen's Tramway Company to sell their undertaking to a new company; and, if so, will he call for an inquiry before completion, seeing that it bars the St. Helen's Corporation to purchase at the same price.
  MR. KEARLEY: So far as the Board of Trade are aware the tramways worked by the New St. Helen's and District Tramways Company, Ltd., are owned by the Corporation of St. Helens, who have leased them to the company. Under the terms of the lease the company cannot assign their rights without the written consent of the Corporation.

  Scottish Officials' Salaries.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what are the duties and what is the salary attached to each of the following offices in Scotland, viz., Medical Superintendent of Statistics, Registrar General's office, Inspector under the Inebriates' Act, and Assistant to the Medical Adviser to the Prison Commissioners; and will he say whether each of these offices is a pensionable office, and what time the holder of each devotes to its duties.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The information required by the hon. Member is as follows:—Superintendent of Statistics: Duties are to supervise the abstracting of vital statistics and to prepare the statistical reports issued by the Registrar-General. Pay is £450 rising by annual increments of £15 to £500. Assistant to the Medical Adviser to the Prison Commissioners: Duties are to assist the Prison Commissioners' Medical Adviser, whose duties are to express opinion on matters referred to him by the Commissioners and to medically inspect prisons. Pay £100. Inebriates Acts Inspector: Duties are to inspect institutions licensed or certified under the Inebriates Acts, to prepare an annual report, and to advise the Secretary for Scotland on matters referred by him. Pay £50. None of these offices are pensionable and I understand that together they occupy the officer's full time.

  Major Ferguson.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland with reference to his statement that Major A.
  964
  J. Ferguson, His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, never made any statement on the 16th May reflecting on the character of recruits to the police force from the Western Islands, and does not hold the opinions erroneously ascribed to him, what steps he will take to secure that this misunderstanding should be corrected, and Major Ferguson be given an opportunity of publicly contradicting it.
  MR. SINCLAIR: In contradicting the misleading report on which my hon. friend based his former Question I spoke for Major Ferguson as well as for myself. Owing to my hon. friend's action the contradiction in this House will no doubt have obtained as much publicity as the original report.
  MR. AINSWORTHwas understood to say that Major Ferguson should have publicity given to the contradiction equal to that given to the original statement.

  Scottish Churches' Dispute.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the delay in the settlement of many of the outstanding questions between the Free and United Free Churches in Scotland, as regards the ownership of Church property, is causing inconvenience; and whether he will use his influence with the Commissioners to expedite the settlement by the issue of a further interim Report or otherwise.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The settlement of questions referred to by the hon. Member has taken somewhat longer than was anticipated on account of the great mass of statistical and other information which has had to be collected by both Churches. The Commissioners had been anxious to expedite the investigation of all cases where congregational property was in dispute, but were informed that many of them were not ready for submission to the Assistant Commissioners. They are hopeful that this difficulty will now soon be overcome, and so far as they are concerned they have throughout been anxious to give every facility for the earliest possible determination of the questions submitted to them.

  Sales of Westmeath Estates.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  965
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what causes the delay in completing the sales of the Ridley, the Murphy, and the Wilson Hospital estates, in the parish of Fore, Westmeath, agreements having been signed in 1904; will the Commissioners, before sanctioning these sales, ascertain the value of the tenants' occupation interest and improvements, in order to deduct this tenants' property from the gross amount, and advance only the value of what the respective owners are legally and equitably entitled to sell; how soon will the estates be inspected for this purpose; and how soon may the tenants expect the sales to be completed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estates mentioned in the Question have not yet been reached. The agreements for purchase in the estate of E. Ridley were lodged on March 10th, 1905; in the estate of Wilson Hospital on July 5th, 1905; and in the estate of L. P. Murphy on April 6th, 1906. These estates will be dealt with in their order of priority and as soon as possible, but the Commissioners cannot state with any accuracy when the estates will be inspected or the sales completed. The Instructions to Inspectors which have been laid on the Table and Form E. therein contained show what the practice of the Commissioners is in estimating price and security.

  Land Act Administration—Tenants' Interests.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the importance and urgency of the question, whether, under the Land Act of 1903, Irish landlords are to be paid with public money for the tenants' occupation, interest, and improvements, and those tenants are to be made liable for the repayment of a price for their own property, and of the fact that there has already been a hearing by the Commissioner, will a preliminary second hearing on a fairly chosen test case be taken at such an early date as will allow of the whole matter being heard and decided by the Court of Appeal before the long vacation; and will a sufficient sum be retained from
  966
  price and bonus in each case of sale to await the result.
  MR BRYCE: In regard to the first part of the Question, I beg to refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member's Question of May 23rd, † in reference to the case of King Harman and Hayes. The Commissioners will bring the matter forward as soon as they can, but cannot fix a date. The reply to the concluding inquiry of the Question is in the negative.

  Murphy Estate, Knocknagree, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Murphy estate, Scrahan, Knocknagree, county Cork, whether any offer has been made to the Estates Commissioners to sell it under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; are they aware that two tenants, P. Guiney and Mrs. O'Connor were evicted in 1880 for the non-payment of one-half year's rent each and the hanging gale, and, as a consequence, a police protection hut was established at Scrahan which has involved an expenditure of £3,000 of public money since its establishment; and whether, in view of these facts and of the public feeling in the locality, the Commissioners will refuse to sanction the sale of the property unless an undertaking is given to reinstate these evicted tenants.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no originating application or request in respect of the sale of the estate in question has yet been lodged with them. They have, however, received applications for rein statement from both of the evicted tenants named, and have referred these applications to one of their inspectors for inquiry and report. It is the fact that since the year 1881 a protection post has been in existence at Scrahan for the protection of the new tenant of the evicted farms, at an expense from public funds of upwards of £3,000. In regard to the concluding inquiry of the Question, the Commissioners are unable to state what action they may take until proceedings for the sale of the estate have come before them.
  † Sec (4) Debates, clvii., 1291.

  St. Johnston (East Donegal) Evicted Tenant.
  MR. MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the eviction of William Lapsley, of St. Johnston, East Donegal, who was evicted from his farm many years ago from the Duke of Abercorn's estate, on the ground that his farm was wanted for improvement purposes; and whether, seeing that no improvements have since been made, but the farm has been let from time to time for grazing to different men, and that the present occupant has been only four years in possession, the Commissioners, now that the estate is about to be sold, will instruct their inspector to inquire into Lapsley's case, and, if it was found that he was vindictively evicted, whether they will decline to sanction the purchase until he is reinstated in his farm or compensated for the loss of it.
  *MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their attention has not been called to the eviction of William Lapsley, and they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. The Commissioners have received no application for reinstatement from Lapsley, but they will duly consider any such application which may be lodged with them.

  Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state approximately the number of labourers' cottages in each province of Ireland on which loans will be outstanding on March 31st, 1907.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state approximately the number of labourers' cottages in the county of Armagh on which loans will be outstanding on March 31st next.
  *MR. BRYCE: A Return which was presented to this House on the 7th inst., on the Motion of the hon. Member for North Kerry,†gives full particulars, both by counties and provinces, of the numbers
  †See Col. 520.
  968
  of labourers' cottages, built, or in course of construction upon which loans were outstanding on March 31st, 1906. I take it that this will be sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose, without preparing an approximate Return for a year ahead, assuming that this could be done with any approach to accuracy.

  Mr. Jeremiah Hurley, J.P.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the fact that Mr. Jeremiah Hurley, who was sworn in as a magistrate at Rosscarbery, county Cork, on May 9th last, is identical with the Jeremiah Hurley who, on October 8th, 1891, was convicted of an assault on a man in a Glandore public-house and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, was known to the Lord-Lieutenant when the addition of his name to the commission of the peace was sanctioned.
  *MR. BRYCE: The Lord Chancellor has informed me that there was no information in his Department to the effect stated in the Question, and, having regard to the fact that the incident is alleged to have occurred so far back as fifteen years ago, he does not think it necessary to inquire into the matter.

  Coalisland Disturbance
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 3rd instant, at Coalisland, a number of revolver shots were fired from an excursion train filled with members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, at persons standing on the railway embankment; and what steps he proposes to take to put a stop to such incidents.
  *MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that on the occasion in question five shots were fired from the excursion train in the direction of persons in a field about thirty yards from the railway line. It does not appear whether the persons were actually fired at. No one was injured. A constable who was on duty on the line saw the shots fired from the train, but could not identify the offender. A man named Quinn was subsequently arrested and prosecuted by the police upon information received, but the case was

  969
  dismissed by the magistrates. The excursion train was accompanied by a force of eight policemen for the purpose of preserving the peace. Every possible precaution is taken to prevent firing from trains on such occasions and to bring offenders to justice. This very objectionable practice does not appear to be confined to one party in the North of Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I think the last few words of that Answer were super fluous.

  The Irish Language.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Intermediate Education have declined to modify their rules, so as to provide that the Irish language should have equal recognition with French and German; and what steps he proposes to take in these circumstances.
  MR. BEYCE: Communications in reference to this matter are still passing between the Irish Government and the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the rules regulating the standard of efficiency of the members for the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force is the absence of crime or complaint upon the part of the public residing in the area or the number of cases the men succeed in making.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the efficiency of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force is judged by the success of their efforts in the prevention of crime and in the detection and arrest of offenders.

  Dublin Police Superintendents.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the superintendents of the Dublin Metropolitan Police are compelled to make a.monthly Return to the Chief Commissioner of the number of cases brought by the patrol and section sergeants under
  970
  their control; whether the Return contains a column setting forth the number of cases made by the same men during the corresponding month of the preceding year; and, if so, will he state what is the object of this comparison.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the first two branches of this Question. The Return shows the number of licensed promises visited, and the number of irregularities observed and of prosecutions pending. The comparison effected with the corresponding period of the previous year relates to cases made in the same division, and not necessarily by the same men. The return is considered necessary in order that the performance of this important duty may come periodically under review. The practice of furnishing the return is of many years standing.

  Trinity College Commission.
  MR. RAWLINSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin University, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the interest of the Church of Ireland in the Divinity School of Trinity College, Dublin, and the number of graduates and students who belong to that church, he will consider the advisability and fairness of adding a member of that church to the Commission appointed to inquire into Trinity College, Dublin.
  MR. BRYCE: It would be undesirable to make any addition to the Commission appointed to inquire into Trinity College, Dublin, as it is now sufficiently large, and the members, four of whom are (I believe) Episcopalian Protestant, are fully competent to deal with the interests mentioned in the Question. I may add that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who is a member of the Commission, has special qualifications for enabling him duly to represent to his colleagues those interests.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the terms of reference to the Commission would include an inquiry into the Divinity School.
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member can ascertain that as well as I can by reading

  971
  the terms of reference which, have been published.

  Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, despite the repeated declarations of Ministers, he proposes to include The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, or any other temporary Irish Coercion Acts, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill this session.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I am not able at this period of the session to give a definite Answer to the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what would be the business of the House on Friday, and what would be the business on Monday and subsequent days. There were rumours of such a character regarding the business on Monday as made it desirable that the Prime Minister should give the House as soon as possible any information in his power.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The first order on Friday will be the Public Trustee Bill, which has come down from the House of Lords. The next order will be the Bills of Exchange Act Amendment Bill, and then we will proceed with the Bills on the Paper to-day so far as they have not been over taken. On Monday I propose to move, or my right hon. friend will move for me, a Motion determining the future course of progress on the Education Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The intimation just made is one of importance. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how soon the proposals which we are to discuss on Monday will be on the Paper? The sooner they can be in the hands of hon. Members the better.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope to-morrow; that is to say, they will be handed in to-morrow; they will not be on the Paper to-morrow.

POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]
NEW BILL.
  TEACHERS OF MUSIC (REGISTRATION) BILL.
  "To provide for the Registration of Teachers of Music," presented by Mr. George White; supported by Mr. Wyndham, Sir John Brunner, Sir Henry Craik, and Mr. Neild; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, June 27th, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the interval which had elapsed since the introduction of the Bill and an examination of its clauses enabled him to say that he was confirmed in the view which he had expressed on the First Reading, viz.: that, speaking broadly, the measure was a fair and satisfactory one. There had naturally been criticisms upon details, but on the whole he believed the general opinion in Ireland was, in the words he had used on the First Reading, that it was a comprehensive and satisfactory attempt to settle the question. He did not intend to go into details on the present occasion, but when the measure came before the Committee it would be necessary to examine with some care many of the proposals, and he was quite sure the Government would go into Committee upon these matters of detail with a perfectly open mind prepared to accept the decision of the Committee upon subsidiary matters. A careful examination of the Bill would doubtless lead to amendments of certain portions of it and would tend to improve the machinery of the measure. On the Second Reading, however, he would confine himself, as he had said, to the broad general principles which were embodied in the Bill. The conditions of

973
the Irish agricultural labourer had been in the past, and he was sorry to say, still were, to a considerable extent, a disgrace to the Government of Ireland and a reproach to civilisation and humanity. Irish labourers had lived, and still were, to a certain extent, living, under conditions which were absolutely fatal to health and habits of cleanliness. They lived under conditions which in almost any other country in the world would prove fatal to religion and morality. But the Irish agricultural labourers were a remarkable race of men. As a class they were highly intelligent, and they were keen and brave politicians; they had, too, proved themselves most patriotic and self-sacrificing. They had, notwithstanding the conditions under which they had been living, amongst all their poverty, misery, and squalor, preserved a deep religious feeling and the highest possible standard of morality. There was no class in the world where the moral standard was so high as among these men. From a national point of view, the Irish agricultural labourer was the very best of the population in Ireland. During the past twenty-five years their condition had been described in remarkable language by travellers and statesmen, yet less than twenty-five years ago no effort was made by Parliament to ameliorate their lot or change the conditions of misery and squalor under which they lived. One of the first results of the great movement commenced by the late Mr. Parnell was the passage through this House in 1883 of a measure dealing with the agri cultural labourers of Ireland. It was provided under the measure that money should be lent to local authorities in Ireland to enable them to acquire land and build cottages for the agricultural labourer. Originally the land was to be acquired in quarter acre plots, then that was enlarged to half acre plots, and at the present time it was an acre. Not withstanding all these amendments made rapidly in the Acts, the Acts had proved a failure. They had been in operation for twenty-three years, and according to the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary during the First Reading debate on the Bill there had been only 17,000 or 18,000 cottages built throughout the whole of Ireland. What was the reason of the failure of these Acts? The reason was perfectly simple and patent to everyone. The procedure
974
under the Acts had been so blocked, the expense attendant upon that procedure and the delay necessitated by the procedure so heavy, and the burden thrown upon the rates so excessive, that for his part he wondered, not that there should have been so few cottages erected, but that there should have been so many. Money had been lent in Ireland during the last twenty five years for many purposes at a comparatively cheap rate. In 1893 money was given for the purposes of landlords and tenants in Ireland at 3¼ per cent, including interest and sinking fund. They had, however, demanded in vain cheap rates for the purposes of Labourers Acts from successive Governments. The last Government made promises to them, but those promises had not come to anything. Things, however, were worse than that. When they came to the last Government upon the question, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far from relieving the burden upon the rates in connection with the building of labourers' cottages, actually increased it. He increased the rate of interest by some 12s. 3d. per cent, upon the loans. And so, whilst the rate of interest for such loans stood in the past at 4½ per cent, they were now at 5 per cent. Thus the precise figures of interest were £4 17s. 6d. per cent per cottage, and this, coupled with the blocked machinery and long delay, had brought the working of the present Act to a standstill. The heavy rate of interest, coupled with the expense and delay of the machinery, meant that for every cottage built in Ireland under the existing system local authorities, after deducting rent, became liable to an annual payment of £6 per cottage including sinking fund. The system was fatal to the rapid, smooth, and satisfactory working of the Acts, and thus the intentions of successive Parliaments to deal satisfactorily with the question had been completely thwarted. The principal reform they impressed upon the Government, therefore, before they could obtain a satisfactory Labourers' Bill, was cheap money for land purchase and simple and expeditious procedure. The present Bill provided that reform. The whole money required for the purchase of land and the building of cottages was to be limited to £4,500,000. This sum was to be provided in the future on land purchase terms, that was 3½ per cent, including interest and sinking fund.

975
He wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that these terms were not retrospective. The whole amount of outstanding loans in connection with the Labourors Acts was not much over £3,000,000 and certainly under £3,500,000, and some small ameliorations of the terms upon which those loans stood would be of great benefit to the labourers of Ireland. It would relieve the rates and enable the more expeditious building of cottages, while at the same time it would not impose a serious burden upon the Treasury. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give consideration to this point, otherwise the unfortunate result would be that those portions of the country which had used every effort and had tried most patriotically to deal with this question would be mulcted, whilst those portions of the country who for some reason or another had refused to make any effort in the matter would reap the whole benefit. The Government in their Bill went on the basis that £4,500,000 would be a sufficient amount for the settlement of the question; at all events, it would suffice for the building of 25,000 cottages. He contended when the Bill was introduced, and he was still of the same opinion, that that sum was not sufficient to settle the matter. He admitted that is would be sufficient to keep the local authorities in Ireland busy for some years to come, and he would say further that the estimate of the Under-Secretary of £170 per cottage was an excessive estimate; the £4,500,000 would build more than 25,000 cottages. This was of great importance, because the more cottages they built the less would be the annual burden upon the rates. In addition to giving them cheap money the Bill also provided for a grant of £50,000 a year in relief of the rates, and to assist the working of the Act. The Chief Secretary made a most remarkable calculation when he introduced the Bill, and he (Mr. Redmond) preferred to abide by that calculation, because it was made with official knowledge and assistance. His calculation was, that whereas the building of 17,500 cottages in the past had left an annual liability upon the rates of the country to the extent of £66,000, under the now system the building of 25,000 cottages would levy upon the rates a burden of only
976
£23,000. Further than that, the law costs, under the Bill, would undoubtedly be greatly reduced together with the whole working expenses of the labourers' scheme. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that the expenses of the scheme would be reduced by one-half. He believed the right hon. Gentleman, or the Attorney-General, had said that in their opinion it would be reduced by more than one-half, probably two-thirds. However that might be, it was quite clear there would be a reduction. He would pause one moment here before going further into details to say that on the broad underlying principles of the Bill they had undoubtedly an enormous advance upon anything which had ever before been proposed in connection with the subject. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman in having approached the matter in so courageous and bold a manner. They seemed now to be approaching the time when the question would be solved rapidly without any undue burden being thrown upon the ratepayers of the country. By way of criticism, however, he wished to say a few words. He bad mentioned a grant of £50,000. £28,000 of that money was to be given by the Treasury, and the remainder— £22,000—was to come from interest upon certain Irish funds which had really been allocated for the purposes of education. He knew of no possible Irish object to which Irish funds could be more properly devoted than a settlement of the labourers' question. Therefore, it was difficult for him to oppose; it, but at the same time he felt bound to make a protest against such allocation. Knowing, as the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, the injustice under which Ireland was suffering owing to her financial arrangements with England, he contended that they should have allowed the whole of the £50,000 to be paid out of the Treasury. He thought it was a monstrous hardship that the fund should be drawn upon for the aid of these objects simply for the purpose of saving the Treasury at the expense of Irish education. There was another fund drawn upon by the Bill, viz., the Irish Petty Sessions Fund. £150,000, as a capital sum, was taken from that fund, and hero he had a serious complaint to make—he did not make it against the Chief-Secretary and still loss against the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

977
because he did not believe either of them were aware of the facts he was going to state. There had been a deception in the matter, which had been hidden from them, and which they had discovered for themselves. There had been what he might call a trick, whereby the local authorities were going to be deprived of £5,000 or £6,000 a year. It did not appear on the face of it, and it was not until after minute investigation that they discovered the trick. He laid the responsibility for that upon the Treasury, but he exempted the Chancellor of the Exchequer who he did not believe had ever heard of it. He would explain the facts. The Treasury were giving a free grant of £28,000 a year, and then they said they must make up the balance by the interest upon a capital sum of money—£150,000— taken from the Petty Sessions Clerks' Fund. The annual interest on the £150,000 amounted to a sum of between £5,000 and £6,000. That sum now formed part of the Fines Fund from which the petty sessions clerks were paid. For the purpose of keeping that fund at a uniform figure from year to year the Lord-Lieutenant was empowered to supplement it every year by such a sum from the Dog Licence Fund as he thought fit, the balance of which latter fund went to the local authority. Already £26,000 on an average was taken from the Dog Licence Fund to supplement the Fines Fund, and that sum must now be increased by the amount of the interest on the £150,000, if the £150,000 was used for the Labourers' Acts. That meant, therefore, that a yearly sum of between £5,000 and £6,000 was with drawn from the local authorities for the purpose of the Labourers Acts. The matter was a little complicated, but he hoped he had, made it clear. That, he declared, was a trick. It really meant that so far as the local authorities were concerned they were getting a grant of £28,000, but they were losing £5,000 or £6,000 a year interest upon the £150,000. It that was new to the Chief Secretary and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was certain that it was, he fancied there would be no difficulty in putting the matter right, and it would be nothing less than a fraud to offer them a free grant represented as £28,000 when at the same time £5,000 or £6,000 was taken away. That was a course of
978
conduct which he was sure the Government would never have been guilty of, and it was an eloquent instance of the way in which the permanent officials of the Treasury seized every opportunity to endeavour to perpetrate a swindle upon Ireland. It was provided by the Bill that it should not come into force until April, 1907. Why was that? It was a very serious matter, There were at the present time a number of schemes being worked out. What was to happen to them? Why should they not get the benefit of the new terms? The result of putting April, 1907, into the Bill would be that all schemes at present being worked out in Ireland would be at once hung up, and nothing whatever would be done for the next year in connection with the Labourers Acts. The moment the Bill was passed it ought to come into operation, so that all the schemes at present on foot should get the benefit of the new terms. There were two other matters of detail to which the must refer for a moment. The question of obtaining a title had been one of the most serious obstacles to the rapid working of the Labourers' Acts in Ireland. When a local district council purchased half an acre of land they had to go just as minutely into the question of title as if they were buying a million acres, and the proving of title became a most costly proceeding. This Bill provided that where the amount of the purchase was not more that £60 the district councils might pay the sum to the vendor on the simple proof that he has been receiving the profits of the land for six years, That was a most valuable provision if it stood unqualified, because it would at once do away with the enormous delay and the enormous cost of the present system of proving title. Unfortunately, however, the provision did not stand without qualification, because it went on to say that for six years anybody claiming to be the real possessor of the title could take proceedings against the district council for the recovery of the amount. That took away all the value of the previous provision. He did not suggest that a safeguard was not necessary, but he did say that a safeguard so sweeping in character as this was not needed. This was a matter of enormous importance, and he therefore hoped the Chief Secretary would take a note of it when he came to deal with the Bill

979
in Committee. Another detail was the question of appeal to the Local Government Board. That was a very debateable matter. The old system of appeal to the Privy Council was monstrous, but that had been abolished, and the present procedure was short and simple. It was proposed in the Bill that on the requisition of three labourers or upon no requisition at all the district council might initiate a scheme for the building of labourers' cottages. It went further than that, because it provided that if a local district council did not initiate a scheme where it ought to do so, the Local Government Board could step in and do the work at the local district council's expense. When a scheme was initiated the Local Government Board inspector came down and held an inquiry, and, having held the inquiry, made an order. If there was no opposition that order was final, but if there was opposition a right of appeal was given. He did not say there should not be a right of appeal. The question was where the right of appeal should be. It used to be to the Privy Council. The right hon. Member for Dover proposed in his Bill that it should be to a Judge of Assize, and they objected to that. Another alternative suggested was a County Court Judge. Personally, he objected to that also. Then the Government proposed an appeal to the Local Government Board from their own inspector, and the provision in the Bill was that the Board, having considered the evidence already given by its inspectors and any farther evidence it might consider necessary, should then make a final order. He did not like any of these suggestions. The suggestion he proposed was that the appeal should be to a judicial sub-commissioner of the Land Commission specially appointed for that purpose. That was of course a debateable matter, and he did not know the view of all his colleagues on the subject, but he thought they all agreed that some sort of appeal was necessary, and he mentioned the matter in order to show the right hon. Gentleman that that was one of the points on which he must preserve an open mind and listen to all that was said by respresentatives of the Nationalist Party and representatives from Ulster. If the right hon. Gentleman did that they would easily come to a satisfactory settlement on the point. The Bill undoubtedly opened up the possibility of the labourers of
980
Ireland rising in the social scale from the position of labourer to that of farmer. The whole future of Ireland lay in the breaking up of the great grass ranches. The English traveller who visited the country for the first time went there having heard a great deal about congested districts. Leaving Dublin, he travelled across the island through uninhabited plains and the most magnificent grass lands to be found in any part of the world, and it was only here and there that he came across patches of congestion. Having travelled for some hours across these magnificent plains, he suddenly came on a bog the cultivation of which would not give sustenance to anyone, and there he found huddled together thousands of people who had been driven off those rich plains which had been turned into grazing lands. There could never be a settlement of the Irish land question or any other Irish question until that system was destroyed, and those grass lands were broken up into moderate sized holdings. Under the Act of 1903 the granting of new holdings with these untenanted lands was restricted to three classes—tenants, sons of tenants, and evicted tenants. The present Bill proposed to include in that category farm labourers. There was no class in Ireland from which a better set of men could be obtained to farm these small holdings than the labourers, and for his part he would not regard any settlement of the labourers' question as satisfactory which shut them out from the possibility of obtaining a foothold on these untenanted lands. He hoped that by this Bill labourers would be able by their own industry and thrift to raise themselves from labourers to farmers. The Bill would undoubtedly pass its Second Reading without a division, because he did not think that the representatives from Ulster were in disagreement with the Nationalist Party as to the main principle of the measure. In Committee all Parties would be represented, and they would have one common object— to fashion this Bill into a really effective measure. If that was so, all the Chief Secretary had to do was to keep his ears open for the suggestions that would come to him from those who represented Irish opinion in this matter, and who had an intimate knowledge of the question, and to accept the proposals that would be made to him

981
on the various details of the measure. He (Mr. Redmond) could only say, speaking for the Nationalist Party, that they would certainly not regret any time given to the Government for the full consideration and perfecting of their larger schemes for dealing with the whole question of the better government of the country if the interval was utilised by the passing into law of this measure, which would give some degree of justice to one of the worst used and most deserving classes in Ireland.
COLONEL SAUNDEKSONsaid he must congratulate the Chief Secretary on bringing in a Bill dealing with a question of deep interest to the Irish people in all parts, and for the first time uniting Members below the gangway and Members above the gangway. When he entered the House of Commons forty years ago, and for many years afterwards, he felt that the class of persons most deserving the attention of Parliament were the tenant farmers, and he backed that opinion up by supporting each successive Land Bill brought in by various Governments. There was, however, another class which deeply touched his sympathy, and that was the labouring class in. Ireland, and when he read the Bill on his return from France it gave him great satisfaction to see that its leading characteristics were to do away with those difficulties which had prevented the labourers obtaining the relief and assistance which he believed the House of Commons meant them to obtain. So all through the Bill, whenever it dealt with the removal of these obstacles, it would receive his support, and, he believed, the support of his colleagues. Of course there were details of the Bill on which there might be differences of opinion, but he had no doubt that when the Bill left the House there would be no alteration of any kind made which would render it more difficult for the labourers of Ireland to obtain the relief they deserved. He had no intention to enter into the financial matters so ably dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, which he confessed he did not under stand. When they came to chop logic with the Treasury he never knew a man who understood the result ultimately achieved. With regard to the general principle of the Bill, he approved the
982
proposal that the appeal should be to the Local Government Board, because he thought such an appeal would be the least expensive, and would have a considerable effect in undermining the profits which that worthy class, the Irish lawyers, hoped to obtain from any Bill passed by the House of Commons. There were points in the Bill to which he took some exception; but these might, he thought, be dealt with in Committee. One thing he wished to congratulate the framers of the Bill upon was an expression in the ninth clause, where provision was made as to insanitary dwellings. He much approved of the provision that the improvement scheme which the Local Government Board might require a district council to make must be adequate. Up to now the erection of two or three labourers' cottages had been supposed to suffice, but a bogus representation of that kind could not be upheld if there was an inquiry as to whether there was adequate accommodation. He feared that the eighteenth clause would militate very much against the principle of the Bill, which was to facilitate the building of labourers' cottages. In that clause it was proposed that the residue of the Exchequer contribution was to be divided between the rural districts in Ireland as nearly as might be in proportion to the number of cottages provided before the commencement of the Act. In the county he represented he had found great fault with the inaction of the authorities. He would only say that in going round his own constituency he had been some times struck with horror at the gloomy hovels in which labourers were lodged, and though he was bound to say that recently there had been a change, that many more labourers' cottages had been erected, yet up to the present nothing like enough had been done to house the labourers. Some of the houses in which labourers dwelt were unfit for stabling cattle. Yet the difficulties in the way were so great that those who dwelt in these hovels were unable to set in operation any method by which redress could be secured. He felt that the clause was not an encouragement to such a county to build houses, but would have exactly the opposite effect. He would throw out as a suggestion which might be considered in Committee, that if local authorities failed to carry out their duty in building

983
labourers' cottages, the money to their credit which it was now practically proposed to take away should be applied by the Local Government Board to carry out the schemes which the local authorities were not willing to undertake. He could only say for himself and his colleagues that their great object in supporting the Bill was to see that it should be effective in carrying out its object, and make the Irish labourer an independent man living in a good house—for how could a man be independent who after his hard day's work lived in a hovel? He congratulated the Government on bringing in the Bill at that period of the session, and again he congratulated them on bringing in a Bill which had on the whole the united support of the Members for Ireland, in whatever part of the House they sat.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he rose principally for the purpose of eliciting some information from the Chief Secretary as to the proposals of the Bill. He approved most heartily of all that had been said by the hon. and learned Gentlemen for Waterford with regard to the Bill as a whole. The Bill, however, was rather a complicated measure. There were a number of Labourers Acts, and this Bill had to be read in connection with them. It was not until they compared it with those Acts that they could arrive at anything like the meaning of its clauses. First of all, as regarded the expense of the proceedings under the Labourers Acts, every one knew that that had been the great drawback in the past. Lawyers and architects between them had ruined the proceedings under those Acts; but he was not very hopeful that they were now going to get rid of either the one or the other. The lawyer would endeavour to assert himself in these proceedings unless he was more effectually barred than he seemed to be. The question of proving title was the happy hunting-ground of the Irish lawyers in connection with all these questions. He saw a bill delivered by an Irish attorney to a rural district council in the north of Ireland for proceedings in connection with these Acts which totted up to the respectable sum of £1,152.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Was he paid?
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was Really it was no joke to the ratepapers or to the labourers, because a rural district council dealt with in such a manner was not likely to be favourable to the working of this Bill. Then there was the question of proving title, There, of course, the great difficulty arose. He watched the Attorney-General for Ireland as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford was catechising him, and he noticed that he did not agree with the position taken up by the hon. and learned Member. As he (Mr. Russell) read the Bill, it was practically the procedure of the Land Act of 1903 adapted to these Acts. Under the Land Act the landlord who desired to sell had to lodge an abstract of title. That was prima facie proof to the Estates Commissioners, but they did not sell the estate upon that abstract of title. Nearly a score of examiners of title had been appointed since the Land Act was passed to go into the question of whether this abstract of title was correct, and the court was blocked at this moment in this very process. The lawyer came in head and shoulders through the Land Act of 1903 in the matter of proof of title, and if Parliament was going to do the same thing here the lawyers would come in hero also. Let them not be under any delusion. The difficulty of title would remain. The rural district council could not compulsorily take land from a man without knowing what they were doing. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford so far as this was concerned that no rural district council was going to buy land with the chance of being assailed by a man claiming to be the owner after tho whole thing had been settled. That sort of thing could not be done. He must say that when the Bill got into Committee the whole question of expenditure upon proof of title would have to be carefully watched and dealt with. He quite agreed that title must be proved; the only thing was the expense of proving it. Then there was the question of appeal. He was disposed to agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh in this matter. He had a communication only that morning from a very experienced official in the East of Ireland on this very question. Every body agreed that an appeal to the Privy Council was a monstrous thing. The

985
Judge of Assize was as had. He should he satisfied himself with a county court judge, but that also meant law and lawyers. He thought that upon the whole the Local Government Board was as cheap and as effective a Court of Appeal in a case like this as could be had. He did not see how one of the legal Commissioners under the Land Act would be in any better position to deal with the question than the Local Government Board, and it was not an unusual thing for them to sit in appeal on their own inspectors. On the whole, the provision in the Bill that the Local Government Board should be practically a Court of Appeal was as good a provision as could be found. There was a matter he wanted some information upon, namely, whether Clause 18 was intended to be retrospective, because on that a good deal would hang. Those counties where the Exchequer grants had accumulated because they would not enforce the Act to provide labourers' cottages, did not deserve much consideration. They were defaulters, and were not entitled to the consideration of those counties which had taxed themselves and strained their resources in order to provide cottages. There was another question which affected the north of Ireland in a way in which he did not think it affected the south. There was one reason why those Acts had not been put into operation in the north, which did not apply to the same extent in the south. They all know that tillage farming had continued in the north of Ireland long after it went out of fashion in the south. Tillage farmers in the north had been compelled by the necessities of the case to provide cottages to a certain extent for labouring men. And that was the case at the present time. In his own constituency the Clogher Rural District Council had been in default upon this question. He thought they had been wholly wrong. He had endeavoured to pull them up, but he would say for them that there was something in their case. They appointed a sub-committee the other day to go into the whole question of labourers' cottages. There were two farmers and two landlords on that sub-committee, and they visited the whole of the area. Their report was that a certain number of cottages ought to be built, but they maintained that there were a large number
986
of cottages in the area that might be enlarged and put into proper order, and that the money of the ratepayers would be largely saved if they; were entitled under this Bill to acquire these cottages, repair them, and make them proper cottages. The Bill did, in one of the earlier clauses, speak of the council acquiring cottages. What he wanted to find out was what was to be done in a case like that of the Clogher Rural District Council that had admitted the lack of cottages to a certain extent, and had been fighting the Local Government Board upon this very point. They thought that if a council were empowered to acquire cottages in existence now, they could be made habitable, and so the ratepayers' money could be made to go further. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would give the House a little light upon that matter. He would say frankly that he thought a good deal had been gained by waiting. They had escaped, he thought, a great deal. If they had accepted the Bill before the Grand Committee last session, they would have been in a very different position than they now were. The labourers had gained everything by waiting. The Land Act of 1903 had its drawbacks which were not inconsiderable. They would have to be put right. But the Land Act made it certain that in the near future the Irish farmor would be the owner of his own farm. He thought that this Labourers Bill did for the labourers, and did it better for them, what the Land Act of 1903 was intended to do, and would ultimately do, for the farmers. He therefore rejoiced that they had waited, and he thanked the Chief Secretary for what he had done. Of course, they would have to watch the Treasury all through the Bill as they had to do on every Irish question. What he had to say was that he thought this was a right good Bill in the main, and that he believed that Irish Members aided by the Government would be able to make it in Committee what it really ought to be.
MR. HAYDENsaid that if he read Clause is aright the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh was mistaken in his interpretation of it. The complaint made by those counties which had put the Labourers Acts into operation in the past was that

987
they would get no relief whatever. If a county had built a sufficient number of labourers' cottages to supply the wants in the county they would continue, so far as this Bill was concerned, to be "without any relief whatever, whereas the counties in the north of Ireland which had neglected to put the Labourers' Acts into operation could now for a very trifling expenditure of the rates meet all the wants of the labourers in the matter of housing. Instead of having ground for complaint the Ulster Unionist Members ought to congratulate themselves upon the financial terms of the Bill. The counties which had some reason to complain were those almost entirely situated in Leinster and Munster, which had put the Acts into operation in the past. A Return which could be seen in the Library showed that up to March 31st last over 20,600 cottages had been erected in Ireland, 1,600 of them were in Ulster, and 300 in Connaught, so that over 18,000 had been erected in Munster and Leinster. These cottages had been erected at a cost of £3,415,000, and, so far as he could estimate, the average interest on the loans was close upon 4½ per cent. What they might claim here was that so far as possible the system of finance adopted in the Bill in respect of loans should be applied to the loans now outstanding. He was perfectly certain that this could be done without any inconvenience or loss to the Treasury. It was a mere question of book-keeping. It was a mere matter of treating the outstanding loans as having been paid off and opening them up as new loans under the new system of a prolonged period and a reduced rate per annum. The average rate at present was something approaching 4½ per cent., whilst under the new system the rate would be 3¼ per cent. By making the system retrospective it would not be necessary to go to the public to raise additional money, it having been already raised. Supposing that 1 per cent. could be saved to the ratepayers without any loss whatever to the public Exchequer, the saving to the rates would amount to over£34,000 per annum. Many of the rural districts were now heavily burdened with rates for this matter alone—some of them over 6d. in the £1—and this relief would enable the district councils to build additional cottages and really to come to a settlement of the question
988
in their own districts. In this matter the interests of the labourers and the interests of the ratepayers were one and the same thing. By relieving the rates they would enable the ratepayers to build cottages. This was a Bill to make it easy for the ratepayers to provide cottages for the labourers. He would impress upon the Chief Secretary the absolute necessity of urging upon the Treasury the adoption of a new system of finance. It was of vital importance to make the Bill operative in those parts of the country which had shown most zeal in the past in putting the Acts into operation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh had referred to Connaught as being in pretty much the same position in regard to the working of the Acts as Ulster. They were not situated there at all in the same way as in Ulster. They were exactly similarly situated in the sense that the Acts were not operative in either Ulster or Connaught until quite lately when some cottages were built in Ulster. They had been inoperative in Ulster because of the neglect or the default of the district councils and the boards of quardians. It was quite a different matter in Connaught; they had been inoperative in Connaught because the labourers question presented quite a different aspect there from that which it presented in the other provinces. In Connaught with few exceptions the labourers were really small farmers—the people for whose relief the Congested Districts Board had been brought into existence. But even where there was a distinct labouring class it was not easy to compel the small farmers in the congested districts to undergo the burden of the heavy rate which had been necessary in past financial schemes under the Labourers Acts to provide houses for the labourers, and therefore even in Con naught this system of finance would enable a certain number of cottages to be erected in future. For that reason in the main the Nationalist Members desired to express their satisfaction with the Bill. In regard to procedure he thought it would be possible to shorten it even more than was now proposed. The Bill undoubtedly would go a long way to shorten and cheapen procedure, but it was possible to go further. There were, for instance, two proceedings at present—an inquiry held in a rural district as to the suitability and necessity

989
of a scheme when promoted, and later on an arbitration inquiry as to the value of the land. He understood that those intimately acquainted with the working of the Acts saw no reason why these two inquiries should not be held together. There was no reason why the inspector who conducted the first inquiry should not also be the person to ascertain and declare the value of the small plot of land upon which it was proposed afterwards to erect a labourer's cottage. In that way one costly step in the promotion of a scheme would be saved, and so also in regard to other matters which would be brought forward when the Bill was in Committee. There was another aspect of the labourers question which ought as soon as possible to engage the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Land Act of 1903 was going through the House, the late Chief Secretary promised that in the following year he would deal with the labourers question as a whole— agricultural labourers and urban labourers. They were still awaiting the fulfilment of that promise. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to introduce as soon as possible another Bill dealing with the question of the urban labourers, which was equally pressing and important. He heartily supported the Second Reading of the Bill.
*MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that owing to the fact that this Bill was put down for Second Reading to-day, and that it was not expected for another week or ten days, he had not had as great an opportunity of studying its details as he would have liked. But while he said that he would like to add that he welcomed the Bill and he thought it contained—with the exception of a few points here and there with which he did not agree—practically everything which had been expected by Members who had espoused the cause of the labourers for some years past. The question of the labourers in Ireland had been discussed so frequently that he thought every person in the House who had taken any interest in it had long ago come to the conclusion that any improvement must be along three lines. The first and most important point was the cheapening of the money to carry out the Labourers Acts; the second was the simplification and cheapening of the procedure
990
for obtaining a cottage; and the third was the provision of some means by which rural councils which had not up to the present done their duty in carrying out the Labourers Acts should be compelled to do so, or if they refused to do so the powers which were vested in them by the Labourers Acts should be transferred to some person—either a permanent official or a person appointed temporarily for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Acts in reference to the particular district. He was glad to see that the Chief Secretary and the draughtsman of the Bill had worked on those well-known lines. In fact it would have been absurd and quite futile to introduce a Bill which did not proceed upon the lines he had indicated, for, undoubtedly, such a measure would have met with the fate which the Bill of 1904 received. They were promised in 1903, when they were asked not to press the labourers clauses in the Land Act of that year, that in the following year that question would be fully dealt with. Irishmen knew how that promise was kept. A Bill, it was true, was introduced in 1904 which achieved absolutely nothing. Even the hon. Member for South Tyrone admitted that they had done right in not allowing that Bill to become law. With reference to the cumbrous nature of the proceedings which led up to obtaining a cottage for a labourer in Ireland he agreed with the hon. Member for South Roscommon that, those proceedings, although they had been very materially simplified in this Bill, could be still further simplified. Those who had read the various Labourers Acts knew that there was an enormous number of operations to be gone through, many of which could be perfectly well done without. Labourers cottages did not cost very much money. The whole of the land and the cottage together cost from £150 to £200. It was evident that dealing with a cottage of that size was not the same thing as dealing with an entire estate, and although it might from a legal point of view be equally necessary to safeguard the title of the one as of the other, it was often the case that they had to spend a sum of money in proving title almost equal to the value of the land itself. Thus the money and the energy they were spending was altogether out of proportion to the object which they had

991
in view. He had always maintained that the procedure ought to be simplified in the following manner, and even if a mistake did occasionally happen, and it was found that the money was paid to the wrong person, such an accident would be so rare that it would not materially affect the question at all. In Section 2, it said that—
"Where the compensation payable to a person claiming any interest in land does not exceed the sum of £60 and the claimant gives prima facie evidence that he is a person having power to sell under the Land Clauses Acts, and satisfies the district council that for not lees than six years immediately preceding he, or his immediate predecessor in title, has been personally, or by an agent, in receipt of the rents or profit of the land, the claimant may be dealt with by the district council as the absolute owner of the interest in respect of which he claims," etc.
In this case they should leave out all reference to "prima facie evidence. "He thought a very great advance would be made in this matter if they took the fact that money had been paid for a specified number of years as sufficient evidence of title to a plot of ground. If they had to get prima facie evidence they would be just in the same position that they were in at the present moment. It had been suggested that the money which at present stood to the credit of several counties of Ireland and which unfortunately had not been used would not be touched by the Bill. If so, some of his objections to Clauses 17 and 18 would fall, but he still thought every inducement ought to be given under the altered conditions to those counties to make up the leeway in the future as to the building of labourers' cottages. If they took away a penny under this Bill from those counties which had not built many cottages, they would be hitting the wrong man. The farmer would not be affected in any way. It would be the labourers who would be affected, and it would be un just to punish them for the faults of other people, a fault which Ulster Unionists had always done their best to remove It had been pointed out that in some counties there was no necessity for the expenditure of large sums of money. That was not the case in his county, county Antrim. There was great necessity for it in that county, and a great deal of leeway had to be made up in that respect there. He welcomed very heartily the
992
improved facilities given by the Bill, but he still objected very strongly to any of the facilities which existed at the present moment being taken away. He did not see any necessity for it. It seemed to him that by taking away the sum of £2,468 from his own county and converting it into a few hundreds owing to the small number of cottages which had been built in that county, they were doing an unjustice. With regard to the question of appeal there was a very considerable difference of opinion amongst all sections of Irishmen. He personally thought that an appeal of some sort should be had beyond the Local Government Board. He did not want to say anything against the Local Government Board, but he believed that in most country districts in Ireland the persons interested in transactions of this sort were the tenant and the landlord. The feeling amongst them was that there should be an outside tribunal to which appeals might be made. He thought either the assize court or the county court was the proper court to go to. The procedure of the county court was not very expensive. These courts were always fairly accessible, and they sat with sufficient frequency to meet all the necessities of the case. When the Bill went to the Committee he should certainly endeavour to have an Amendment to that effect introduced. The advance of £4,250,000 out of the Land Purchase Fund, at 3¼ per cent. instead of at a minimum of £3 9s. 4d. was a great advance on the present condition of things. That was the greatest benefit which the Bill would confer on the rural district councils and the labourers in Ire land. He would be the last person in the House, although he belonged to the Party opposed to the right hon. Gentleman, to withhold his small meed of praise from him for the Bill. He saw before him a future for the labourer which he had been long looking forward to. He fully admitted that the larger question of land purchase had up to the present blocked the way, but now that the land question had been settled in a satisfactory way and that this question of labourers' cottages had come to the front, he was very glad that the Irish Executive had lost no time in tackling it, and, he thought, tackling it in a very proper and statesmanlike manner.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid the Chief Secretary for Ireland deserved the thanks of the labourers of Ireland for introducing this Bill and for the liberal grant of money he was making for the erection of labourers' cottages. Undoubtedly the giving of the grant-in-aid from the Treasury would be a great boon to the labourors and to the rate payers of Ireland. While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the Bill, he regretted that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to give relief to those councils which had done most and had taxed themselves most heavily to luring the old Acts into operation. He hoped that the Chief Secretary would make Clause 18 retrospective so as to give some relief to those rural and district councils which had done so much in the past. If Clause 18 were made retro spective, it would undoubtedly afford some measure of relief to the ratepayers. He thought, moreover, the Chief Secretary should give to those councils who had worked the Labourers Acts fairly and honestly a bonus or a premium in the way of an additional grant in order to encourage them to continue to carry on the public work which they were doing, and which tended greatly to the national good. Under the Bill if those councils continued this philanthropic work they would tax themselves still more heavily than they had done in the past, and some assistance should be afforded to them, especially when it was considered that the councils in the North of Ireland had done nothing in this matter, and would get the same benefits under the Bill as the councils who had acted. The additional rate would press rather heavily upon the ratepayers, and he was not pre pared to object to it, but he expected that the Chief Secretary would give them some additional relief. He trusted, in addition to making Clause 18 retrospective, the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to have the conditions as to the repayment of outstanding loans made retrospective. That would help the district councils to continue to work the Labourers Acts and to build cottages at a comparatively small cost. Those were the only points to which he now desired to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary but he intended in Committee to deal with the simplication of procedure, the question of reducing the clerical and legal expenses, and other
994
matters. He believed that on the whole the Bill was a good one, and that, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said, it was an honest attempt to settle the labourers question. For that reason he heartily supported it.
MR. DILLONsaid he desired to associate himself most heartily with what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. In its main features he thought this was a most satisfactory Bill. It was a large and generous attempt to settle the question. With regard to Clause 18, he did not understand how there could be any doubt as to its meaning. It loft all moneys now standing to the credit of the counties for Exchequer contributions untouched, but it provided in the future what really would be a substantial measure of relief to those counties which had spent large sums under the Labourers Acts. All those counties in future would draw an increased share in proportion to the number of cottages they had erected. That provision would undoubtedly be a hardship on the county of Mayo. That county had standing to its credit an un expended balance of the Exchequer grant larger than any other county, namely, £9,558. It was not the fault of the county; it was derived from the condition of its population. The small farmers were labourers who made use of their liberty to work over in England as labourers under circumstances of hard ship, and therefore labourers' cottages had not been erected in Mayo because the people did not need them so much. An appeal was made that the county of Mayo being a poor county ought not to be deprived of its share of the grant because they could not share in the benefits of the Act. He felt so strongly on the labourers question that he was quite prepared to surrender their share so far as it was taken from them by Clause 18, and to make that sacrifice for the good of the labourers, although it would not be a fair thing to take away from them that which already stood to the credit of the county. The finance of the Bill had been dealt with very lucidly by the hon. Member for Waterford. Irish finance had been brought to such a condition of muddle and confusion that he was not surprised that the Irish Secretary should not know what he was doing when dealing with it. The experts

995
to the Treasury were the only persons who were fully acquainted with it. He wished to direct attention to two points. He thought that on the whole they had every reason frankly to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary for the grant of £28,000 a year. They had been fair and frank, and he entirely acquitted both of them of having been privy to the various devices and tricks by which the supposed contribution from Irish funds had been swollen. He wanted to know why the £28,000 was to be passed through the Irish Development Grant under Sub-section 2 of Clause 14. The effect of that provision would be that the whole burden of the £28,000 a year would fall on the Development Grant. It would always be taken out of the grant before it was recouped by Parliament, with the result that the fund would be always £28,000 short, and the recoupment by Parliament would, so far as it remained for Irish purposes be a perfect figment. The fund would always be out of the £28,000, and, practically speaking, for Irish uses it would be taken out of the grant and not out of the Treasury. That was a point to which the Chief Secretary ought to direct his attention, and if the Government thought it was necessary to pass the money through the Development Grant it ought to be voted to the Development Grant at the commencement of the financial year. He was bound to say, although he did not like looking a gift horse in the mouth, that the observations of the hon. Member for Waterford as to the £150,000 taken from the Fines Fund applied in a minor degree to the £6,000 taken from the Exchequer contribution. The £6,000 would come in any case, and how they could maintain that by taking it out of one pocket and putting it into another they were making a free grant he could not understand. As to the question of the simplification of procedure, he though the hon. Member for North Antrim could hardly have studied the Bill enough when he made light of the simplification of procedure. He thought they had to thank the Government for a great deal. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for South Roscommon in the valuable suggestion he made. It was enormously important to have as few investigations as
996
possible, because in every investigation they must employ lawyers. He had a letter from a lawyer which showed that they sometimes had a sense of decency. It was all very fine to talk about lawyers, but even the hon. Member for South Tyrone himself, if he was engaged in an arbitration, would scurry off to the best lawyer he could get. They must have lawyers as they must have doctors, but what they must do was to mitigate the evil by minimising the number of occasions on which they required these useful but expensive people. Therefore, let them examine the Bill with the view of reducing the number of occasions on which lawyers must be brought in. He was told that one great cause of the cost was arbitration. As the Bill stood at present arbitration must take place by separate inquiry from the inquiry as to the merits of the scheme. He did not know why the two things should not be merged in one, but a rough and ready system would be quite sufficient when they are buying only an acre of land. Enormous costs were incurred in these transactions, and he appealed to the Attorney-General to make every exertion to get round that difficulty. One great advantage in this matter was that the right hon. Gentleman could act boldly, for there was practically no opposition, and he (Mr. Dillon) believed that some simple system could be devised which would have the effect of reducing these costs and doing no injustice to anyone. There were two of the clauses in the Bill to which he attached great importance. Under the Act of 1903, when the labourers clauses were with drawn, there was a special provision to meet the case of the labourers put in Clause 4 under which the Estates Commissioners were authorised in the case of the sale of untenanted land to give without expense of any kind a portion of the land into the hands of trustees for the purpose of the Labourers Acts. That provision had, however, been inoperative, because owing to some legal difficulty when the clause was put into operation the whole thing was found to be unworkable. The Attorney-General had dealt with this matter by Clause 20 in a workmanlike manner. It was open to the Estates Commissioners under that

997
clause wherever they had untenanted land—and they had 60,000 or 80,000 acres of land in their possession—to take a portion of that land and hand it over to the district council, and this would be effected without the expense and difficulties of the present system. That was a most valuable clause. There was another point to which he wished to refer. He thought it ought to be made perfectly clear that the labourers should be entitled to get advances for the purchase of small plots of land where, in the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, it was desirable so as to make them small farmers. He did not think it would be either useful or possible to turn all the labourers of Ireland into small farmers, because, in the first place, the state of a small farmer was not always compatible with that of a labourer, and in the second, the area of land in Ireland was not sufficient for that purpose. He attached, however, great importance to the fact that there should be held out to the labourers of Ireland, not only this great boon of giving them in the near future the opportunity of living like civilised human beings, but the prospect that by sobriety and industry they could improve their position and become small farmers. Such a thing as that must redound to the benefit of Ireland, because while during the last-twenty years large farmers in all parts of England and Ireland were becoming bankrupt, the small farmers never gave way. The storm passed over their head, and no matter how great the depression was they hung on to their homesteads, and despite all disadvantages raised up a family. The small farmers and labourers, therefore, were the source to which they must look to build up a vigorous nation. Clause 19 was a good clause, but he did not like the qualification attached to it of only making advances to a man who had been a tenant of the district council for five years. He thought the qualification ought to be frankly removed, because in many of the districts which he knew, where large tracts of untenanted lands were coming into the hands of the district councils, there were hundreds of men waiting for holdings on those un tenanted lands who were not tenants of the district council, but who should not for that reason be barred out. He re-
998
minded the Chief Secretary that the Estates Commissioners two years ago in their discretion, to the best of their judgment, interpreted that provision of the Act of 1903, and held that even without this section they were entitled to give land where they thought the need of the small farmers had been met—they were entitled to give advances to the labourers and even to the artisans of the towns for the purchase of farms. They were, however, checked in this by the late Government. He did not know how the law now stood, but he knew the Land Commissioners had exercised that view and that there were now small tenants who had been made farmers under the Act of 1903 because the Estates Com missioners held that they had that power. Unfortunately that practice had been stopped, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would look into that clause so that he might on the division of these great grass ranches see that the claims of the labourers were considered as well as the claims of the small farmers. The right hon. Gentleman might congratulate himself on his great success. He had introduced a very radical and sweeping measure which had met with nothing but warm approval from all the Irish Members in the House. He would not regret that they had abstained from forcing the Government to take up the larger question of Irish government if an opportunity were given them after twenty years of disappointment and fruitless endeavour to lay the foundation of a settlement of the difficulties of the labourers of Ireland. This would be one of the greatest steps ever taken in the direction of elevating the Irish labouring population from the degradation and misery into which they had sunk through the passing of unjust laws. He hoped his success would encourage the Chief Secretary to further efforts in the same direction, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit that his success was in some measure due to the new departure he had taken in consulting the Irish Members before he introduced his Bill.
*MR. BARRIEcongratulated the Chief Secretary upon the bold lines upon which he had framed this measure, which was designed to

999
benefit a large and deserving class of persons who were unable to pay the rent usually demanded for sanitary houses such as they all desired they should occupy. He regretted certain omissions from the Bill, but he hoped they might be remedied in the Committee stage. One of those omissions was the absence of any encouragement, to deserving labourers to look forward to the time when they might become the owners of the cottages they occupied, and the plot of land attached to it. He thought that decent honest labourers in rural parishes who had paid rents steadily were entitled to expect that the Government which was doing so much for them should go a little further, and enable them to purchase their cottages. He regretted that there was no reference in the Bill to a movement in that direction, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would favourably consider the question of including a provision of that kind. He was not overlooking the fact that in the Bill facilities were given to enable deserving labourers, who had paid rent regularly for five years, to become owners of plots of land adjacent to their cottages. He was glad to see that provision, and he hoped many labourers would avail themselves of it. They had in Ireland an increasing number of hardworking fishermen, who were practically labourers, and were not able to pay the market value of a sanitary house, and he thought it would not be an unreasonable broadening of this legislation if that deserving class were given the benefits of the Bill. Another class deserving of consideration was the rural labourers who live in small urban areas. They got their employment on the land adjacent to the towns, and were in all respects rural labourers, and they should be provided for in a measure of this kind in exactly the same way as labourers living in rural areas. He confessed to a feeling of discouragement when the Chief Secretary answered a Question recently on this point in a manner which, though not intended to be discourteous, was remarkable for brevity. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman might yet see his way to moderate the terms on which at present advances for providing houses for the working classes were granted to the smaller urban areas. Where an
1000
urban area decided there was a necessity for improving the housing of the working classes—which included many rural labourers—the cost of the advance, including sinking fund, was practically 5 per cent., and they found that when land had to be obtained compulsorily, no scheme could be carried out except at such a loss to the ratepayers as to prevent progress being made. As a member of an urban district council for several years, he had done his best to get the dwellings of the labouring classes improved. His council had carried scheme after scheme, but when they found the Local Government Board insisting upon the building of comparatively expensive houses, and the whole of the loan with sinking fund had to be repaid in forty years, they had very reluctantly been obliged to abandon their schemes. In all similar areas the class of houses erected for working people were deteriorating with a consequent development of conditions which favoured the spread of disease, and he urged the Chief Secretary to extend the Bill in the direction he had indicated. Another objection which he had to the Bill was that it was proposed not to be operative until the 1st of April next. The result of delay in bringing the measure into operation would be the hanging up of all schemes on which rural councils were now engaged. He knew the reason for the delay was the indisposition of the Exchequer to find the money until the next financial year. The Government were going to get immediate credit for their good intentions, but were going to delay finding the money as long as possible. The result would be that all over Ireland rural councils would decide to suspend schemes. After the touching references to which they had listened from the Chief Secretary as to the pitiable condition in which many of the labouring classes lived and the immense amount of unhealthiness which prevailed amongst them, he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he should insist upon the date named in the Bill. The principal objection which he entertained to the Bill in its present shape relate I to Clause 18. He spoke on behalf of a county which had done its duty in this matter, and which would, as regarded the richest

1001
part of it, be a gainer by the new financial arrangement which was proposed. But in some parts of the division where the population was not so prosperous the rural councils had not been able to display activity in cottage building. He found that in the county of Londonderry 232 cottages had been built, and the county had no balance standing to its credit on the Exchequer Contribution Account. Under Clause 18 Londonderry would be entitled to get consideration for the progress they had made in cottage building. But there were other counties in the north of Ireland who had not seen their way to go forward in cottage building. He found that Antrim had built up to date or had received sanction to building schemes covering 274 cottages, and it received last year £1,722 as the Exchequer contribution. Armagh built thirty-seven cottages, and had £4,418 to its credit. Donegal, which was one of their poorest counties, built 305 cottages and the whole of its grant had been exhausted. In County Down 211 cottages were built, and there was at present £3,264 standing to its credit. In Fermanagh, eighty-one cottages had been built, and the whole credit had been exhausted. Londonderry built 226 cottages, and the whole credit was exhausted there. In Tyrone the total was 232 cottages, and at present that county had no balance remaining. As he read the proposal under Clause 18, it would work out as regarded Ulster generally that the share, of which the Exchequer grant for 1904–5 was £12,410, would, if this scheme were carried, fall to £2,000. In Munster the grant in the year 1904–5 was £11,066, but in that province it would go up to £15,500. In Leinster the share was £9,419, but under this clause it would go up to £12,000. Connaught's share was £3,913, but if this clause were passed without alteration it would fall to £500. Those inequalities were sufficient to show that some re-consideration of the financial terms of the Bill were absolutely necessary, and he suggested to the Chief Secretary that as all parties representing Ireland were anxious to facilitate the passing of the measure he should take into consideration the advisability of adopting some plan by which he would put matters upon a fairer basis in this
1002
regard. He did not see why a district which had very largely met the need for labourers' cottages already should have any cause, or still less, should expect to receive additional grants for the work which it had done in the past. Connaught had not been able to move forward for the reasons which had already been given, and why should she still suffer and increasingly suffer, and her advance be made so difficult that the rural councils of the province in company with those of Ulster, who had not yet moved, would find the path of progress absolutely barred? He submitted that it would be quite impossible for Connaught to go forward under this Act.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was not quite sure how the advances in regard to the £4,500,000 out of the Irish Land Purchase Fund would affect the issue of the money for the main purposes of the Act of 1903. There had in the past been great difficulty in connection with the issue of this money, and it constituted one of the hindrances to the working of the Act of 1903. He wished to know what would be.the precise effect of this proposal, which he hoped would not interfere with the provision of money for the main purposes of the Act. They were all agreed as to the desirability of making proper provision for the labourers in regard to cottages and holdings, but it should not be forgotten that the Act of 1903 had for its object the provision of funds by which a transfer of land should take place, and nothing should be done to increase those difficulties. With regard to agricultural depression, he thought it had been more severely felt by the larger than by the smaller farmers. In England during the last fifteen or twenty years they had gone through a transition period during which the larger farms had been turned into smaller ones. But although they had been doing that in this country they had also been turning arable land into pasture because it was more profitable. He hoped that nothing would be done without grave consideration which would result in the breaking up of grass lands which were very productive, and which, once broken up, could not be brought back again to their original state for a great many

1003
years. The fact that they were divided by keen Party differences did not prevent him offering his congratulations to the Chief Secretary upon the reception which his measure had received; it was quite evident that from no quarter was there any desire to do anything but further its progress, and they would all endeavour to make the measure as near perfect as possible.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,)said his first and most gratifying duty was to express his cordial thanks to the Members who had spoken well of the Bill and had addressed their congratulations to him upon having succeeded in framing a measure which appeared to have given a good deal of satisfaction in Ire land. For the note which was struck in very kind terms by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and continued by the hon. Member for East Mayo, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the Members for Ulster, he offered his sincere thanks. He wished also to thank them for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was very sensitive of what had been said on this point, and he ventured to assert that it had not often happened that an Irish Secretary had found a colleague so ready to enter into his views, and to help him in carrying them out. It was a great satisfaction to the Government to find that the Bill had given so much satisfaction, in Ireland. It was a good omen for the future, and one which would encourage the Government to persevere with other remedial measures which were intended as far as possible to remove, and he hoped would remove, the economic evils from which Ireland had so long suffered. It was a very great pleasure no doubt to find that any Bill brought forward by a British Government was received with equal cordiality by Irish Members sitting in different parts of the House and holding opinions greatly opposed one to another. It made one think one was living in some happy region peopled by some Irish poet of far distant date. It was very agreeable to the Government to find Irish Members coming together with open minds and he hoped open hearts,
1004
to make the Bill one really fit to attain its objects. He hoped this would be more the case, and that the more remedial measures were brought before the House the more occasions would be found on which Irish Members of different political opinions might be able to co-operate for the good of their country. The hon. Member for Waterford had asked him to go into Committee with an open mind in regard to the Bill. He hoped he should bring an open mind with regard to it. His only cause for hesitation was that when a Minister adopted an attitude of that kind he was told on every Amendment that he ought to adopt it because he had said he had an open mind. He must guard him self against having an argument ad hominem of that kind brought to him. He would go into Committee with a desire to profit by any suggestion from whatever quarter it came. He should be glad to have it shown that some of the provisions of the Bill might be improved, or other provisions introduced better calculated to attain the desired ends. He was aware, as every Minister who had not lived in Ireland must feel, how difficult it was to understand the country for which they were legislating. As to the preparation of the Bill, he had profited by the suggestions of the Member for Waterford and some of his colleagues— suggestions which he always received gladly from any Irish Member of what ever views—and the Government would be very glad to profit by any suggestions made in Committee. He now came to the criticisms passed upon the Bill, or rather to such of them as admitted of being dealt with shortly, for some of them turned upon matters so complicated that they would take a long time to explain, and it would hardly be prudent to enter upon them at this stage, lie began with that made by the hon. Member for Water ford and the hon. Member for Londonderry with regard to the date for the commencement of the Act. The Government were anxious that the work should begin as soon as possible, but it would be much more convenient if the financial provisions were to take effect from the beginning of the financial year. It would be difficult—he did not say impossible—to begin on the 1st of January rather than the 1st of April. the beginning

1005
of the financial year. The matter was one, however, which would have his consideration. There was also another difficulty. The Act could hardly take effect immediately, because a number of regulations would have to be issued; a great deal of time would be required to frame those regulations in proper form, and lie thought this could hardly be done before the 1st of January, Moreover, there was nothing at all to prevent a Rural district council from beginning its arrangements so soon as the measure received the Royal assent. The council could begin making its schemes—could, indeed, do anything except apply for money. All the other steps under the Act could be taken, and they were steps which would occupy some time. For that reason he thought the inconvenience would be much less than the hon. Member apprehended. How ever, he was quite ready to consider the matter.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the new procedure as to inquiry by the inspector would come into effect when the Act was passed.
MR. BRYCEsaid the suggestion was one which might have consideration.
MB. BARRIE: That would get over the difficulty.
MR. BRYCE: Of course, it was a matter in which he must not be taken to commit the authorities at the Treasury, because they knew these matters better than he did, but speaking ex improviso he did not see why that could not be done. A question was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin as regarded the additional stock to be issued and the addition which this would make to the loans under the Land Purchase Act. It would be an addition, but the amount of loans issued as an addition to the loans floated for the Land Purchase Act would be comparatively small. The loan would be issued gradually, and there would be no interference with the issue of land purchase, stock. He saw no reason to apprehend that the progress of land purchase would be delayed. The suggestion of the right hon. Member as to
1006
the clerks to the rural councils should have his consideration. Now he came to the point which had received most attention, and that was the financial relations under Clause 18. The hon. Member for East Mayo had explained the meaning of that clause correctly. What was meant was that after the commencement of the Act the amount of money which would be paid out of the Exchequer contribution should be paid to each rural council in respect of the number of cottages which it had built at the time of the commencement of the Act. That would give a very considerable and substantial relief to those rural councils which had been hitherto most active in completing cottages, which had been bearing the burden for some time, and which he thought were specially entitled to relief. Of course it was impossible, as funds were limited, to give relief to A. and B., without giving less relief to C. and D. He would be very glad if it was in their power to satisfy the north as well as the south. But the members for the north must be reminded that the ratepayers had had a very easy time hitherto. They had done very little in the way of building cottages, and in future they would have at any rate this advantage, that they would be able to build cottages upon far easier terms than they could have done hitherto. He hoped, therefore, that they would not think that the Government had been at all indifferent to their claims. They had left them the money now standing to their credit, which in the case of two counties was a considerable sum. They had tried on the whole to hold the balance as fairly as possible between the different parts of the country, and their course had been taken not from the wish to deal hardly with them, but only because they had fixed their minds on the supreme and paramount object of endeavouring to get as many labourers cottages built as possible. If there was any means of easing the thing off with out retarding that main object the were quite willing when they got into Committee to give fair consideration to it. Now he came to the question of petty sessions clerks. Let him say at once that the hon. Member for Water ford's suspicions with regard to the

1007
Treasury clerks in this matter were really quite unfounded. He must acquit the Treasury clerks of having any share in the results complained of. The matter was rather too complicated to go into at full length now, but he would point out that the total loss of the local authorities in Ireland would be a very small one.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: It was £5,000 or £6,000 last year.
MR. BRYCEdid not think it would exceed £5,000, and it was only one-eleventh of a penny. It would really be imperceptible to each county, and he thought it was, under the circumstances, not too much to ask that a very small sacrifice of that kind might be endured. When he came to the question of the court of appeal, he must say once more that he would be extremely glad of any suggestions that would provide a plan satisfactory to everybody. But no part of the Bill had caused him more trouble and difficulty than this, in which he endeavoured to find a body to whom the appeal might be entrusted. He agreed that the High Court was quite out of the question. It was much too costly. He did not think that either the judge of assize or the judge of the county court would be a quite satisfactory court of appeal, and he was still inclined to the belief that the plan embodied in the Bill, which had several precedents, both Irish and English, in its favour, would be found to be the most accept able and, on the whole, would be most likely to give a cheap and prompt issue, the main thing to be aimed at. It was necessary that the procedure should be quick and cheap, and he believed that would be better secured by the Local Government Board than in any other way. The hon. Member for South Antrim had asked a question with regard to the proposal that 16 per cent, should come out of one fund and 20 per cent, out of another. All that that meant was that the amount of the whole £50,000 which was to come out of the direct Treasury grant, com pared with that which was to come out of the various Irish funds that were grouped together, would be in the pro-
1008
portion of 20 per cent, to 16 per cent. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, among other criticisms, had observed that one of the great causes of expense in working the Labourers Acts hitherto had been the charges paid to lawyers and architects. He quite agreed with him, and the more they could diminish the costs paid to lawyers and architects the better. But it must be remembered that they could not take away a man's bread without considering what his rights were. And this was a difficulty which was constantly recurring whenever operations in land and houses had been carried on on a small scale. They had tried in the Bill to reduce that expenditure to the lowest possible point. If anyone could show him a way of reducing it further he would be happy to do so, but at the same time they must have some security that the rural councils were getting the title. It was no use giving them land for some body else to come in afterwards and dispute the title. On the other hand, if a mistake was made and a man's property was taken without notice to him, and if he came afterwards to show that he had a good claim and that land was taken from him without any compensation, he thought he must be allowed to establish his case. There must be some means given to him by which he could recover what he wanted. He believed that that would be an exceedingly rare case, and therefore he was not afraid of any serious trouble, but still they must provide for some sort of inquiry and for some sort of remedy for a man whose land had been improperly taken. If they could, however, further cut down in any way the lawyers' cost he would be very glad to do it. The hon. Member for East Mayo had commented upon the clauses which were intended to enable labourers to become tenants. He would be very glad to consider the suggestion which the hon. Member had thrown out for enlarging the operation of that clause. He agreed that it was a very important object, and it was one which unfortunately had not been attained under the clauses of the Land Purchase Act which were meant to secure it.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I should like to know whether money

1009
will be advanced for the purpose of stocking farms, as in the case of Denmark?
MR. BRYCEsaid he was afraid that he could not go into that now. It was a point which really did not belong to the Bill. Whatever powers were given would be given to the Estates Commissioners and without knowing what their view was he thought it would hardly be prudent for him at present to express an opinion on that matter. Another point of importance was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He referred to the case in which the object was not to build a new cottage but to enlarge an existing one. If the hon. Member looked at Clause 2, he would see that it was not necessary to make a new scheme. A new scheme was a matter of time and cost, and it was provided in Clause 2 that where a rural district council had acquired a cottage it might enlarge that cottage without the necessity of making a new scheme. He believed that in man cases that would be found to be the cheaper method. Reference had been made to Clause 18 with respect to the application of the residue of the Exchequer contribution. The truth was that the labourers housing problem in many parts, and particularly in the Co. Mayo and the congested districts of Galway, was very much less acute than in the south and centre of Ireland, and he was glad to hear the hon. Member for East Mayo say that in the interest of Ireland generally he would not take objection to the Bill if Connaught received rather less. The same thing was no doubt true in regard to Co. Sligo. The charge on the rates for the building of cottages would not be heavy, because there were few cottages required there. The remedies needed in these counties were of a different nature. A question was also raised as to applying this Bill to the case of labourers in towns. He did not deny the importance of the question, but it was a new and large question and entirely different from the one dealt with in the Bill. He believed himself that the question of housing labourers in towns did not need to be dealt with on the particular lines laid down in this Bill. He believed it could
1010
be dealt with on different lines, more like those which had been applied to the housing problem in the towns of England. He thought that in most of the Irish towns it might be dealt with without involving any loss to the ratepayers. He was told that there were companies in some of the Irish cities, and he knew there were companies in London and he dared say in other cities of England, which had succeeded in making a respectable profit. There were companies which provided housing for the very poorest, and paid 5 per cent., and he saw no reason why that should not be done in Ireland. Therefore the problem in regard to the urban labourer was different from that of the rural labourer. He was not saying that the case might not be met by a Bill dealing with the housing of the urban labourers, but he did not think that it belonged to this Bill. He was not prepared to deal with it on the lines laid down here. He thought he had now covered the criticism which had been offered in regard to the Bill.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the hon. Member for Londonderry had raised the question whether fishermen were included in the Bill. His own impression was that they were, and he was amazed at the construction placed on the proposal by the hon. Member. His idea was that fisher men were included in the definition of "agricultural labourers" in the Bill.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the outstanding loans would be granted the same terms as the new loans under this Bill.
MR. BRYCEsaid that the district councils would get considerable relief under the terms of the Bill, because they would get relief out of the Exchequer contribution in proportion to the number of cottages they built. As to outstanding loans, he was afraid that he could not give the hon. Member any answer. He did not think, at any rate, that he ought to hold out any hope. He did not wish to say that he would not consider the question, but the hon. Member must not take it from him that he was holding out any hope that what was suggested would be done.
MR. MEAGHERasked whether the question of providing artisans' dwellings in the rural districts would be dealt with in this Bill.
MR. BRYCEsaid he did not think the definition of "labourer" could be extended beyond the definition given in the Land Purchase Acts. The whole question of that definition would have to be considered. As to fishermen, his impression was that the definition given in the Land Purchase Acts included fishermen, and if that was so it would be the definition adopted. There was one more point. He was very glad that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had confirmed an impression which was very strong in his mind, that these cottages could be built at an average cost of £130. He himself thought it was prudent to take an out side estimate, and therefore took £170 as the sum, though he believed that with care and prudence, which he hoped the rural and district councils would exercise, and with the model schemes which the Local Government Board was prepared to give, they would be able to build for a good deal less. If that were so it was probable that they would be able to build a good many more than 25,000 cottages, and he should not be surprised if, with economy, they succeeded in getting 30,000. At all events, he hoped the rural district councils would do their utmost to work economically, and so enable the money to go as far as possible. He might add that he thought it would have been difficult to have induced Parliament to make so large a grant if it had not been for the extreme importance of the object in view, and he desired to associate himself with what had been said as to the immense importance to Ireland of improving the position of the labourers. He did not believe there was anything at the present moment which the country needed more. This Bill, if properly worked, ought to secure three things. In the first place, so far as housing was concerned, it ought to secure health, without which there could be no progress and very little moral or intellectual development, because ill-health was one of the things which drove men to despair and recklessness, and the solace commonly resorted to under such circumstances. In the second place, it ought to give
1012
them independence. There was nothing that affected a man more than to feel that he was living in a cottage to which he had a right, with the possession of a small holding of an acre of land which he might cultivate in his leisure hours; and that he might attain to that higher measure of manhood which they all desired to see in the citizens of a free country. In the third place, it would give hope—the hope of bettering his condition, of being able to save, to improve his position by the exercise of industry and intelligence, and to take the position of a tenant farmer and then acquire a holding under the Land Purchase Act. He trusted also that this Bill would give a more hopeful prospect not only to the individual labourers but to the country as a whole; because it would enable a very deserving and important class to turn their minds to the idea of living in their own country and improving it, instead of leaving it derelict. He never could forget the impression made upon him when passing through a railway station many years ago in the county of Roscommon. There he heard the melancholy cries of wives and mothers, of brothers and sisters in taking leave of their dear ones, who were departing as emigrants for America. He felt then that nothing better could be done for Ireland than to retain the people on the land and make Ireland a country which its native inhabitants wanted to live in and not to leave. If this Bill contributed in a small degree to the attainment of that object the grant would be justified.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that every Member from Ireland must have appreciated the spirit and tone of the speech of the right hon. the Chief Secretary. That speech demonstrated that in introducing this Bill the right hon. Gentleman was doing something which was absolutely necessary for the welfare of Ireland. It was sad to think that a measure of this kind had not been introduced twenty or twenty-five years ago. The right hon. the Chief Secretary had referred to the said scenes which he had witnessed in Roscommon years ago on the departure of emigrants to America. By a strange coincidence when he came into the House that afternoon the latest returns of emigration from Ireland were placed in his hand.

1013
These showed figures which were simply deplorable, and this year there had been a great increase. In April and May this year the emigrants from Ireland numbered 5,600 and 8,500 compared with 4,800 and 6,000 in the same months last year. He was sure that every Irish Member must feel, in considering these returns, that if a Bill of the kind now before the House had been introduced in the same free and friendly spirit twenty-five years ago, it would undoubtedly have had the effect of staying that vast emigration from Ireland and keeping tens of thousands of people in their native land. He was glad that the Bill had been received with the unanimous approval of all sections of the House, and it was gratifying to find that the right hon. Gentleman felt the absolute necessity for it. Representing, as he did, with his hon. friend the Member for West Mayo, large counties in which there were thousands of agricultural labourers who were miserably housed and most unfortunately situated, he could say that this Bill would be accepted as a very great blessing and boon, and that it would be put in operation by the local authorities as soon as it became law. He regretted, however, that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way if not to do so in this Bill, at least to promise the introduction of some legislation for the benefit of the artisan population in the small towns of Ireland. No one representing a constituency in which there were considerable urban areas could be blind to the fact that there was a large class of the working population who were most deplorably and miserably housed; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would soon see his way to introduce legislation which would enable urban authorities to put up decent houses for the artisan population in the towns of Ireland. It was true that a commencement had been made in this direction by some local authorities, but the difficulties in the way of obtaining money and in working the machinery of the existing Acts prevented much being done; and it was a perfect disgrace to go through the back slums of the small towns of Ireland and see the conditions under which the artisans there were obliged to live and bring up their families. He believed that the Bill now before the House would pass rapidly and work satisfactorily; that everybody in Ire-
1014
land would acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary had met the demands of the Irish Members fairly; and those right hon. Gentlemen would find their reward in the fact that they had secured the amelioration of the condition of the vast majority of the people of Ireland. It was almost impossible for an Irish Member who had been in the House for any length of time not to express regret that the present condition of things in regard to the attitude of the Government had not existed long ago; if it had it would have been better not only for Ireland but for Great Britain. Twenty years ago the agricultural labourers of Ireland had a grievance in the same way that they had one to-day, but bit by bit and year after year the Irish Members had pressed their claims upon the House. Sometimes attempts were made to deal with the position, but at other times they were told that the House of Commons had no opportunity of dealing with this large class in Ireland. To-day, however, there seemed to be a general recognition all round that there were grievances in Ireland, that large classes in that country were in a miserable condition, that it was the duty of the House to listen to the reasonable demands of the Irish people and to give them what they would have had long ago if they had had an opportunity of dealing with these matters themselves. He hoped the Bill would pass through Committee as rapidly as it would pass through the House, and he was sure that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be repaid for what they had done in this matter.
*MR. TOMKINSONsaid the statistics in regard to Irish emigration and former depopulation were appalling to anyone who read the history of Ireland, and still the depopulation—he had almost said the extermination—of the people went on. As his hon. friend had said, fresh statistics had appeared within the last month, showing a continued increase over the corresponding period of last year. It was almost a case of a country being "bled white," and if anything could be done to keep the people of Ireland in their own country and to give them an opportunity of remaining there it must be welcomed by this House. The population in the

1015
last forty years had been diminished by nearly 50 per cent., and if a people so patriotic and so intensely fond of their own country as the Irish were found to be leaving it in hundreds and in thousands, it argued that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark. This face stood out for observation to anyone who had gone across Ireland. The traveller went over large and fertile tracts of grass country in which there were no men, women or children, and then he arrived, say, at the begs and rocks of Connemara to find human beings herded together under conditions of great discomfort. This simply showed that men, women and children had been swept away in order that cattle might be put in their place. The cattle were kept on these lands because it was thought they might pay a little better or cause less trouble than men, women, and children. An hon. friend who had now left the House had expressed the opinion that it would be a great pity to break up these grass lands into acres, but if every labourer had an acre of land it would not absorb one-tenth of the land available, and he should like to see a larger quantity of land devoted to this purpose than even one-tenth. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time unanimously and go through Committee rapidly.
*MR. PATRICK WHITEsaid that in the few words he had to address to the House he would confine his remarks to the clauses which affected his constituency. In Meath the land was all in pasture, there was no employment, and a labourer could not support his family on an acre of land. The labourers demanded that the grazing ranches should be cut up into economic holdings and divided amongst them. He thought Clause 19 was not fair inasmuch as it provided that a labourer must, to reap the benefit of the Bill, remain in possession of his cottage for five years. The necessity for providing cottages in the county of Meath was one of extreme urgency. This House owed reparation to the people of the country for the foul crimes of the past, when human beings were swept off the land to make room for sheep and oxen. The depopulation of Meath for the past fifty years had no parallel in the worst governed European country. The following statis-
1016
tics told a sad tale. The county contained 579,320 statute acres and its population in 1841 was 183,828, while in 1901 it was 67,497, which meant a reduction of 116,331 in sixty years. That was the great clearance. In 1851 the population was 140,748, a reduction in a decade of 43,080. In 1841 the number of inhabited houses was 30,785, while in 1851 it was only 24,044, a decrease of 6,741. Clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill would not meet the emergency. No doubt Clause 19 contained a provision for the creation of a new tenancy, but it would be slow in operation, and it was necessary to take active steps to alleviate the difficulties which now existed, and to solve the problem. He thought arrangements should be made so that when land came into the market the district councils could act in conjunction with the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of buying and distributing the land. Everyone would admit that there was plenty of land to go round, and at all events men should be placed upon economic holdings. If the land were equally divided among the families in Co. Meath, the total number of which was 15,163, 34 per cent, of which occupied one room, or were in receipt of outdoor relief, there would be forty acres for each household. The people were huddled together in small spaces, while the land was given over to cattle and sheep. This was in his opinion a disgrace to civilisation, especially when it was considered that if the land were cut up into small holdings it would produce three times as much as it did by feeding cattle and sheep. It was deplorable that strong men should lack employment and children pine for food in a land teeming with plenty. Unless Clauses 19 and 20 were amended so as to give extended powers to districts councils the Bill was foredoomed to failure. If the local bodies were willing to pledge the security of the rates for the planting of the people on the soil the Government should assent, and not stand between them and the performance of that beneficent work.
*CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he wished to draw the attention of the House from one part of Ireland to another. He thought that to discuss the question of emigration, and that of the housing of the working classes in

1017
large towns was to go away from the subject matter of the Bill, but he did hope that the Chief Secretary might possibly be able to do something in the way of extending the statutory term of "labourer." It was quite impossible for the Government to go far afield and touch upon economic questions quite outside this Bill in regard to the overcrowding of large towns, but there were classes which approximated so closely to the statutory term of "labourer," that he knew the Ulster Unionist Members and other Irish Members would gladly see them included in the Bill. The difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to the date upon which the Bill should take effect when passed into law might, he thought, be met in the manner foreshadowed in the right hon. Gentleman's statement a short time previously. He had stated that they had large amounts of money lying idle in the precincts of Dublin Castle in connection with land sales, owing to the slackness of solicitors who did not attend to their work, and send in the estates which were in their hands to be dealt with. That money was to be used for practically the same purpose, or for an analagous purpose, and he suggested that some of it might be temporarily appropriated on loan and thus allow them to get the benefit of this Act at the earliest possible me merit. He did not agree that large numbers of Irishmen left the country entirely owing to the condition of the dwelling-houses there. The evil which resulted in this emigration was far more deeply rooted than the housing of the labouring classes. Everyone admitted that the grievance of the labourors was a real one, but one difficulty up to now had been to get the farmers and labourers to act together for their common good. The farmers employed the labourers, and the labourers looked to the farmers in this matter of better housing when it came to requiring support in the district councils. The farmers in some parts of Ireland up to quite recently unfortunately seemed inclined to leave the matter where it was, and not to take advantage of the Labourers Acts. Hon. Members were struck with the disparity of progress in two counties like Down and Armagh under the old Labourers Acts. As a golden rule he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that the sins of the local district councils should not
1018
be visited on the labourers. The vital note of the Bill was to assist the labouring classes. It would be a great misfortune if the Bill, which undoubtedly bristled with good points, should be overshadowed by the fact that the local district councils raised insuperable difficulties, owing per haps to the troublesome Acts they had had to deal with in the past, and that anything should occur to prevent the labouring classes getting the full advantage of this particular Bill. It would be a real benefit to a large section if the term "labourer" could be extended under this Bill. There was a large class who, although they did not actually labour with their hands in the agricultural farms, were labouring in scutch mills and in lime works and so forth. They were, to all intents and purposes, labourers, and therefore they should be included. He and his colleagues from Ulster heartily welcomed this measure, and he rose not for the purpose of criticising it adversely, but to throw out a few suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman which would facilitate the passage of the Bill when it came to the Committee stage. There was one point in Clauses 3 and 20, which might possibly claim the right hon. Gentleman's attention. A great amount of expense was incurred in proving title to an acre or half acre, and that had always been the fatal error in former Acts. They gladly welcomed the cheapening of procedure and he thought it would still more be cheapened if the Estates Commissioners could acquire the farms as they fell vacant instead of the district councils. This would be of great benefit to the labourers and would prevent unnecessary expense. He thought also there was a slight hard ship involved in Clause 11 where no additional allowance would be made if a particular plot of ground was acquired from a farmer by compulsion, and they were not to take into consideration the question of compulsion in arriving at the price. It would be a hardship if a farmer who had lived all his life on a farm and had worked it into a prosperous condition, was compelled to hand over perhaps the best portion of the farm to the district council for building labourers cottages. He thought that clause could be softened in Committee. Another point to which he wished to direct the Chief Secretary's

1019
attention was the medium of investing the funds mentioned in Clause 13. It would be within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to do a great service to two departments, and confer a great benefit in Ireland, if permission was granted to invest the funds not only in trustee stocks, but in land stock. If the funds were invested in land stock it would increase the dealings in it and create a greater demand for it. He thought this matter would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and he asked him to give it his earnest consideration. He thought it would be entering into a questionable realm to provide facilities for taking over cottages built under other Acts, or by private enterprise. Some of the cottages in existence were not so sanitary as they should be. He hoped the cottages to be built under this Bill would be better and more substantial than many of those which he had examined. Very often in these matters there was an exercise of false economy, and it was particularly necessary that cottages built in Ireland should be sound in the foundations and weather-proof. It would be a great mistake to strain after building an enormous number of very cheap cottages, which lasted but a few years; and he hoped the Chief Secretary would do his best to ensure that the buildings erected under this valuable Bill would be a lasting tribute to his energy.
*THE ATTOENEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said reference had been made to the extension of the definition of agricultural labourer, and he would explain how the law stood in that matter. In the Land Act of 1903, an agricultural labourer was defined as any person other than a domestic or menial servant working for hire in a rural district whose average wages did not exceed 2s. 6d. a day. That definition included artisans of all kinds and fishermen; in fact, any person who worked for hire, whatever the nature of his work might be. The question was before the Government when the Bill was being framed, and they came to the conclusion that it was really impossible to extend that definition without bringing in classes to whom it was not desired to extend the benefits of the Act. That definition would apply to the existing Bill when it became law. One of the main objects of the Bill was
1020
to cheapen the procedure by reducing the costs. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had referred to one point which he thought would have the effect of increasing the costs. Under the existing law if the amount of compensation was under £20, the money might be paid to a person not absolutely entitled to it, that was to say, a tenant for life or limited owner; but it was necessary for any person who received money, no matter how small the amount might be, to show title to it. It was only in cases of lands under settlement that this provision with reference to amounts under £20 was in operation. The hon. Member for East Mayo had referred to a case where the total amount of compensation was only £9, and yet four sets of solicitors were engaged, and the costs must have amounted to four or five times the amount of the compensation. They hoped by Clause 11 to put an end to that state of affairs, by providing that a prima facie title such as would be accepted by the Estates Commissioners under the Act of 1903 might be accepted by a rural district council, and when that title was shown, then, though there should be some error, the receipt for the money would operate as an absolute conveyance of the land. The land could never be taken away from the objects for which it had been vested in the council. If the wrong man were paid the rightful owner might afterwards recover the money from the district council, they having their remedy against the person to whom they first paid the money.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid this measure was a great act of historical justice. Three-fourths of the labourers concerned were the descendants of men who were the old 40s. freeholders of Ire land, who gave their votes in the time of open ballot for Catholic emancipation, but were immediately after deprived of their votes and exiled. For two generations they and their descendants had been in destitute circumstances on account of that action, and anything to restore them to their own land should be regarded as a great act of restitution.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he desired to join in the congratulations to the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland, who was associated

1021
with the Chief Secretary in the preparation of this Bill, upon the very hearty reception that it had met with from all parts of the House. His only regret about the Bill was that it was not introduced in the late Parliament by the Unionist Government. This was a question of social reform that appealed to all sections, silenced the discord of Party warfare, and united them to work on behalf of a large and deserving class. There was no more deserving, long-suffering, and patient class than the labourers of Ireland. Something had already been done on their behalf under the present Acts. He was glad to say that in his own constituency, under a very able Chairman, whose whole heart was in the work, and a sympathetic council, a very large number of cottages had been built, and it was a delightful thing, as he had experienced, to visit these cottages and to see how proud the new tenants were of them, and how clean and well-kept the cottages were. As the Chief Secretary in his very sympathetic and eloquent speeches had said, what fresh hope and interest sprang into the lives of these hard working men and women ! But although much had been done under the present Acts, he hoped and believed that a great deal more could be done under this Bill. At present the most earnest and enthusiastic council was hampered by all kinds of unnecessary conditions, especially by the enormous legal charges. This Bill, he believed, would very largely remedy those defects. There were possibly a few Members of the House who might feel that this legislation was rather too socialistic. They might say,.Why not leave the provision of these labourers' cottages to-private enterprise 1 the fact was that private enterprise had absolutely failed in this matter. Men and women were living in hovels which were a disgrace to our civilisation. Private enterprise was still more certain under the conditions in Ireland to meet with failure in the future. In England and Scotland, whatever their views on the land question might be, there were happily a large number of landlords who were proud of, and took an interest in their estate and the model cottages which, they built. But in Ireland there would soon be no landlords. The land would belong to the tenants who tilled the soil. He was not complaining of that for a moment. He was one of those who for
1022
many years past had worked hard to get this reform. Every reform had its danger, and it was very clear that the tenant farmers, even in the most prosperous times, were not men of much wealth. They had a hard struggle to make both ends meet, and they had not the means, the training, or even in some cases the inclination to deal in a large and generous spirit with the needs of the labourers. They might deplore these things, but, after all, they were facts. So far as Ireland was concerned these circumstances seemed to him to make this Bill a necessity. The large towns, with all the attractions and excitement of town life, tended more and more to draw young men and young women from the country. The best chock to that was to make country life more attractive, and he thought that this Bill went to the very root of the matter by making real homes for the labouring people instead of the wretched hovels they now used. The Chief Secretary had had a long, distinguished, and honourable career, but he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman had over put his hand to a piece of work which gave him more satisfaction than the introduction of this measure, which he would pass into law with the unanimous support of every Irish Member of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

FINANCE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
*MR. CHANNIGsaid he had no wish whatever to enter into any discussion at this stage of the Finance Bill. It would be extremely inappropriate to do so, as nearly all the issues had been fully and amply discussed on the Budget resolutions of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he wished to take this last opportunity of making in appeal in the strongest terms he was capable of for the consideration in the coming financial

1023
year of the claims of sugar to relief from taxation. If hon. Members would go into the actual incidence of the sugar tax, and the proportion that that tax bore to the incomes of the workers of this country, they would find that it was a very serious burden upon the working classes. He would not attempt to labour this point, because anyone who would take the trouble to examine the tables of the quantities and cost of articles of food in the expenditure of the working classes given in the Blue-books could satisfy themselves in the course of that examination that the incidence of this tax on the very poor was a far more serious and heavy burden upon the poor than upon the rich, and on a far higher proportion than was generally understood. This was a matter which deserved the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coming year. He ventured again also to appeal in the briefest manner on behalf of the important and growing industries which depended on the free access of sugar as a raw material. Those industries had urgent claims on the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to recognise fully and freely in the coming financial year. He had on previous occasions drawn attention to the serious losses that had been incurred by the sugar industries during the past few years. Owing to the changes in the markets, there had been a certain relief from some of the pressure upon those industries arising from the incidence of the sugar duty, aggravated as it had been by the Sugar Convention. At the same time he had been assured by the representatives of the trade recently that the position of many of the most important firms engaged in these industries was such that they deserved and should receive the fullest possible consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time. Having had an opportunity of consulting the leading representatives of those trades during the last few months, and having had their views very carefully laid before him, he wished to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one point. Supposing the right hon. Gentle man was able to offer relief in the coming financial year, the feeling of the trade was that they should have complete relief from the duty, or that, if that
1024
were impossible, then that they should be relieved of half the duty. That relief given in any other form such as the relief given to tea in the present year would be unsatisfactory and would diminish the advantage which they should receive from any reduction of taxation. One other point he would press upon his right hon. friend on behalf and at the special request of these industries, namely, that any remission of duty on sugar should be given if possible at the beginning of the financial year. Though that might impose a certain loss at the moment there would be less disturbance in contracts and in the business arrangements generally if it was given then, than there would be if it was given under other conditions as, for instance, was being done in the case of coal in the present year. The Budget had his heartiest and warmest approval, and while pleading the cause of sugar and regretting that it had not met with some relief in the present year, he recognised to the full the difficulty in which his right hon. friend found himself in the financial position which had been bequeathed to him by the Party opposite. He recognised that his right hon. friend had done splendid work in trying to place our finances on a sound and honest and straight forward basis by the policy which he had adopted in regard to the redemption of debt. He only wished to place on record his regret that sugar had received no relief this year, and to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give it his earnest consideration in the coming financial year.
*MR. SMEATONsaid he had to express regret that his hon. friend the Member for Preston had sent him a telegram stating that he was ill and asking him to move the Motion which stood upon the Paper in his name†. He moved the Motion with diffidence, as he had no knowledge of the grounds or the arguments which would have been adduced by his hon. friend in favour of it. He was certain, how ever, that his hon. friend only desired
† The proposed Amendment was as follows: —"To leave out all words after 'that,' and to insert 'it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure imposing heavy burdens on His Majesty's subjects resident In the United Kingdom until steps have been taken to secure from His Majesty's subjects resident in the Colonies an adequate contribution to the cost of defending the Empire.'"

1025
that the Colonies should be invited to consider the partnership between the mother country and themselves in regard to the cost of the defence of the Empire. His hon. friend, he understood, also thought that the alliance so successfully cemented during the late war would be a good ground for inviting the Colonies to consider this matter. Pressure of any sort was, in his mind, entirely out of the question. All he urged was that some arrangement of this kind was one to be considered between friends. He did not know whether the Colonies would set much store on the old stock argument which was used against suggestions of this kind, namely, that as they had no representation the Colonies should not be approached on such a question. But in any case he understood that there was an Imperial Council in contemplation, and if it over came about he could not see that there would be any impropriety in suggesting to the Colonies that this question might be considered in the light of recent events. Surely the Imperial Government might take the Colonies into their confidence, particularly with regard to any measure they proposed to take for the defence of the outposts of the Empire. Let them contrast what was contributed by India for defence with the insignificant share borne by the self-governing Colonies of Australia and Canada. At the present time India, the poorest possession of the Empire, paid one-fourth of the total cost of the defence of the Empire. Her army had always been ready at hand, equipped for the defence of any part of the British Empire. It had actually taken part in the defence of the Empire in three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe; in China, in Abyssinia, in Egypt, in Arabia, in Afghanistan and in Thibet. In 1878 the presence of an Indian brigade at Malta went a long way to counteract Russian strategy in the near East. Under these circumstances it could hardly be said that our great dependency of India did not pay a great deal more than the portion due from it for the defence of the Empire of which it forms such an important part. There was one point with regard to the share taken by India of which we had cause to take notice. Great Britain had paid millions of money to acquire its possessions all over the world. It had acquired India without paying a farthing for it. India paid for its own acquisition.
1026
After 1834 when the East India Company was dissolved as a trading concern the dividends were paid out of the taxation levied on the people of India. In 1858, when the Crown took over the government of the country, the Indian stock of the company was incorporated as part of the National Debt of India, and interest on the stock was charged on the revenues of India—that was on the people. He begged the House to note that the acquisition of India had yielded a large profit to the Colonies as well as to the United Kingdom. It had not only paid for its own acquisition, but it was now paying in the shape of taxation the interest on the capital of the extinct company. India had not only accomplished this extraordinary financial feat, but was actually now paying a quarter of the total cost of the defensive forces of the Empire He adduced this argument as one which might fairly be laid before the Colonies at the coming Conference. If the Colonies were approached in a friendly spirit they might be induced to attempt in some measure to redress the disproportionate burden borne by India in connection with the defence of the Empire. He begged to move.
The proposed Amendment was not seconded.
MR WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it seemed to him that the Budget was a most con temptible one. He applied that adjective to it for several well-considered reasons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself with a realised surplus of about £3,000,000, and he had devoted that surplus to the payment of debt.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The law compelled me to devote that surplus to the payment of debt.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that might be so, but it was really trifling with the actual position, because the realised surplus of last year was practically equivalent to the estimated surplus of the year to come under fairly similar circumstances. It really therefore amounted to the same thing. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer found him self in a position to make a remission of

1027
taxation to the extent of £3,000,000, how did he deal with that sum? The surplus was not secured by the right hon. Gentleman and the Party with which he was associated. It was the direct result of the economy, care, and ability of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and he had deliberately set himself to getting rid of it without doing any good to anybody. Having come to that conclusion, it required considerable ingenuity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of it without giving the taxpayers of the country any benefit. He might have applied the £3,000,000 boldly to the reduction of the National Debt, but that would have given a direct benefit to the people. He might have done something to cover the loss on the savings bank deposits. That was a difficult subject, and it was time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tackled it, but anything of that kind would have been too simple. The penny which had been taken off the tea duty could not possibly be of any benefit to the poor people who bought an ounce or two ounces at a time. That was a successful way of dropping £1,000,000 of the surplus. Who got the benefit of it? The middlemen and the merchants, possibly to some extent the shopkeepers, and the co-operative societies to which an hon. Member opposite had referred. It was not many months since the general election, when some hon. Members on the Opposition side were taunted in regard to their attitude on the subject of free food. He was in favour of taking the duty off tea entirely. It was a most unjust and in equitable tax, the poorer classes of the community, who used the cheaper kinds of tea, having to pay 150 per cent, on the article, while the rich, who used the higher priced tea, only paid 20 per cent. The second million, in round numbers, was spent in taking off the export duty on coal. Here again it looked as if the Liberal Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had deliberately looked round for some form of taxation, the remission of which could by any chance benefit the foreign taxpayer, but give no relief to the British taxpayer. By this ingenious means the Chancellor of the Exchequer had frittered away another million of money, without giving any benefit to the taxpayers of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman had treated a British ship as part of Great
1028
Britain, as indeed it was, and had given, such a ship coaling, say, at Marseilles the benefit of the drawback, that would have been a sensible advantage to the British shipowners; but no, a simple expedient of that kind would have boon of too much benefit to the common people of this country. An idea of that sort would not satisfy the Liberal Government or the-present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must give this money away to the foreign taxpayer. If there was anything, that was more disappointing than another in connection with this Finance Bill it was the fact that sugar was not mentioned in it. Sugar was not only a food of the people, but the raw material of many industries. If the right hon. Gentleman had been living up to the professions he made on the hustings at the general election, he would have done something for the sugar industries of the country. There was another point in the Finance Bill that was very disappointing; nothing had been done in regard to the income-tax which pressed so onerously on those who laboured, whether by hand or brain. He did not think the income-tax was too much for those who drew their incomes from dividends. He was not one to support the idea of a graduated income-tax, but there was an intrinsic difference between incomes that came from investments and incomes derived from the sweat of the brow or the brain. He believed that the latter class should have had some remission. Incomes derived from rents or dividends which came in whether the owner was well or ill, or in this country or abroad, ought to pay more taxation than incomes derived from personal exertion. Let them take the case of a country doctor earning £1,000 a year; if he were laid aside for a month or two by illness his income stopped, and possibly he could never recover it. Such an income was on an entirely different footing from the income which came from investments. He believed that the late Mr. Gladstone said that it would pass the wit of man to draw a distinction between the two classes of income; but it had been done in other countries, and something might have been done in that direction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would have been more satisfactory and advantageous to the people of this country than the way in which the second million had been dealt with. The third million was

1029
to be applied in the endowment of "Birreligion."
MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member is totally wrong. Not one halfpenny of the million will be devoted to that purpose.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, who was received with loud Ministerial cries of "Withdraw," said he was not likely to withdraw what he believed was an absolute fact.
MR. ASQUITH: It is not a fact. The hon. Member has made a mistake, a mistake which is almost inexcusable. The million to which he refers is the million provided in the Education Bill, not one halfpenny of which can possible come as a charge in the present year. That million is expended for purposes totally different. [Renewed MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."]
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he did not for a moment call in question the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was convinced, and at all events the basis on which he made these observations was, that if it had not been for taking the £1,000,000 off tea and the, £1,000,000 off coal, and for the necessity for providing in the near future a £1,000,000 for education, it would have been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making up his estimates to have given £3,000,000 in remission of taxation. [Renewed MINISTERIAL Cries of "Withdraw."] He would not withdraw; his position was perfectly logical, and he should maintain it. He called this a mean and contemptible Budget, a Budget that had frittered away £3,000,000 sterling upon absolutely unnecessary and stupid items, and in such a way that the common people of this country had received no benefit from it. It was an exhibition, not only of incapacity, but of callous disregard for the poor and for the common taxpayers.
MR. FELLsaid that the Budget was disappointing to many people. A great deal had been expected from it, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had inherited a more handsome surplus than had been enjoyed for many years. When
1030
they considered the unparalleled increase in the exports and imports, that the taxes were at a high rate, although the war was over, and that expenses were being cut down, there was justification for the high hopes that there would be a reduction of taxation, especially upon food. A great deal was said upon that point by Liberal candidates at the general election. In New Zealand they had taken off the whole duty on tea, and yet they were able to find money enough for old-age pensions. They could not have expected that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to bring in such a bold scheme as that for old ago pensions and for taking the taxes off food, and yet that had been done in the country he had mentioned, whore they had taken the whole of the taxes off tea and found the money for old age pensions as well. He mentioned this fact, however, as showing that it was not only possible to take a penny but sixpence off the tax. There was another tax which was referred to very largely at the election. It was a small tax and produced very little. It was placed upon a number of articles which, if they did not form the staff of life, constituted the luxuries of the poor. He alluded to the tax on currants, raisins, figs, French plums, etc. Those were the articles which formed practically the pudding delicacies of the labouring classes of this country. It would re quire less than £500,000 to sweep away the whole of them. This tax pressed to a greater extent upon the working classes than upon anybody else, and nine-tenths of the yield came from the working classes. There was nobody in this country who did not consume some of these articles, and if the tax had been removed the action would have been very much appreciated, and, as he had said, it would have cost only £500,000. The remission of this taxation would in fact have boon more appreciated than the penny reduction upon tea. Under the arrangements of the Budget this year the coal tax would produce £1,000,000 instead of £2,000,000, and in his judgment that tax might just as well have boon allowed to have produced this year the larger figure, which would have enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off these obnoxious small taxes upon the luxuries of the poor. He was quite certain that these taxes

1031
would not exist much longer and that the first bold Chancellor of the Exchequer would sweep them away. He regretted that it was too late now to do anything more than make the suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he hoped that the proposal would be borne in mind next year. In place of the taxes which he had suggested should be abolished, he could point to one tax which might take their place, and which would have been popular with ninety-nine out of every 100 people in this country. That was a tax of 25 per cent on imported motor-cars. He had discussed this subject with dozens of working men who all asked why these motor cars which came into this country from abroad should not pay a reasonable tax. Motor cars were no doubt a luxury and they could be produced in this country. If the tax were imposed the output of cars in this country would increase, and that would afford a large amount of the best paid class of work to the people of this country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the boldness to impose this tax of 25 per cont. on motor cars, there was no doubt that the bulk of them used here would be produced here, and in addition to providing work for Englishmen, it would have afforded an outlet for the investment of capital. The tax would have produced a considerable revenue, and in spite of it, a good many foreign cars would come into the country, because many people would still buy their favourite foreign car which they considered superior to the English car. These foreign motor cars came in to the extent of £2,000,000 worth a year from France alone. He remembered the late President Loubet explaining how extremely profitable this industry was to France, congratulating the French people upon the fact that they had the English market open to them and that they practically had a monopoly in that market. The French motor cars could not go into any other country free of duty, with the result that the French manufacturers had to start branches in order to produce their cars. That of course benefited the industrial classes in those countries. When this question of taxing foreign motor cars was mooted two years ago, he knew as a fact that one of these French manufacturing companies went
1032
so far as to purchase land in England, with a view to the erection of a factory so that their cars manufactured here might escape the duty. They owned that land now, and it was only owing to the unfortunate want of boldness on the part of our Chancellors of the Exchequer that the development of this industry, to the benefit of English workmen of all classes, had been prevented.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid a large number of Members regretted that there had not been a great reduction in the duty on such commodities as tea and sugar and other necessaries of life. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made reductions in regard to tea and coal, and they must all recognise the position he was in. Reference had been made to New Zealand's being able to give old age pensions, but New Zealand derived a large revenue in the shape of a land tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should devote his attention to taxing the land of this country, and to reducing the taxes on the food of the people. He agreed that it would be better to put a tax on motor cars, both British and foreign. He desired to state most emphatically that he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not pay any heed to talk about not taxing the incomes of unfortunate individuals with only £1,000 a year, but devote his attention to the land of the country in order that it might pay larger taxes than at present, so that the time might not be far distant when taxes on the food of the people would be entirely abolished and taxes on large incomes on land and on motor cars be substituted.
*CAPTAIN CRAIGin moving as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading:—" That it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure imposing heavy burdens upon His Majesty's subjects resident in the United Kingdom until steps have been taken to secure from foreign nations a substantial contribution to our revenue by the taxation of imported foreign-manufactured articles which can be equally well supplied by home and colonial industries," said that in taking this course he felt strengthened by the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member below the gangway, because he himself felt, that hitherto the food of the people had been taxed unduly when other

1033
sources of revenue were in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The taxation of this country was confined to too narrow a basis, and the taxes which were imposed in the long run weighed most heavily upon the poorer and working classes. He brought forward his Amendment for the purpose of remedying the evils which had been alluded to by the last speaker. There were many Members like himself who had been returned to Parliament with a free and open mind. They might be laughed at by hon. Members opposite for their opinions on this subject, but they were prepared to wait until the people, as they assuredly would, came round to their way of thinking. It was their duty, meantime, to take every available occasion of laying before the country the remedies for the evils which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland. He had suggested the taxation of motor cars. He (Captain Craig) had advanced that proposal for some time. He would tax foreign-made motor cars at the port of debarkation here. There would be no need to tax motor cars made by British workmen if they taxed foreign-made cars, and by this means raised sufficient revenue to rid themselves of the taxation on tea and other articles of food. Year after year the Finance Bill had run on the old-fashioned lines of Cobdenism. He knew he differed from many hon. Members on both sides of the House in regard to this matter, but he was convinced that they had here an opportunity of placing taxation where it ought to fall—upon the manufacturer of foreign articles which came to this country and competed unfairly with the home and colonial producer. It was easier for France, Germany, or America, than for Great Britain, to supply cheap goods, because they had all the markets of Great Britain open to them, and we were excluded from the markets of these countries. In the north of Ireland foreigners had striven very hard to destroy industries by placing upon the markets goods which undersold those of Irish manufacture. That was attempted not long ago, and it was only by the pluck and determination of those who were at the head of the various concerns—by underbidding the foreigners—that they were able to keep the workpeople engaged, although it meant a trade loss to themselves. In the north of Ireland many a proprietor of a large concern sooner than
1034
turn out thousands of working men and women, continued to employ them, even at a trading loss. Here we had to hand a most valuable source of revenue, and before the House proceeded with the taxation laid down in the Finance Bill it was the duty of everyone who had the welfare of the trade of Great Britain at heart to study carefully how, without injuring any trade in this country, but, on the contrary, benefitting many of our industries!, we might place taxation on imported foreign manufactured articles which could be equally well supplied by our home and colonial industries. He coupled the colonies and this country together because he thought it was only fair to do so in order to compensate the colonies, in the event of the Resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston being carried, for the extra burden they would have to bear. The issue was so clearly defined that he hoped the Labour Party would go into the lobby in support of his Motion, in which he had the support of a large number of Members of the Opposition. Those Members were not now present, but in a division they would be able to convince the country that there was a large section of the House earnest in their endeavours and continuous in their efforts to show that the constant harking back to the old lines of taxation had reached its limit, and that the problem before them was to substitute taxation capable of meeting the large deficit which would occur if they took this 4d. off tea and the duty off which at present burdened many other commodities of the breakfast-table of the working man. On this particular occasion he had been careful to suggest foreign manufactured articles, because he was sure that if we imposed taxation on foreign imports at all it would be more to the general satisfaction that they should be imposed upon articles upon which labour had already been employed. If they could get those particular articles which were necessary in order to keep our large industries going, then we need have no hesitation whatever in importing them, as far as possible, free of all taxation, as at present, thereby securing to the British workmen the maximum of employment in their particular trades. In manufactured articles on which we might raise a large amount of revenue

1035
he would include the tinned and preserved meats which came from foreign countries. It would be far better for the working classes that they should get their meat fresh and good as they might do from Ireland. Something like3,872,881 lbs. of tinned and preserved meats were brought into this country, much of it coming from America, and it would be better to curtail that importation by means of a tariff, giving a small preference to the Colonies. By that means the importation of live cattle would be promoted, and a fillip would be given both to the cattle industry in Ireland and also to the fattening industry in Norfolk and parts of Scotland. He was against taxing the necessaries of life while luxuries such as lace and diamonds were admitted free of duty, a tax on which would not injure the working classes. The working men were the backbone of the country, and although some of them wore hesitating on this question he believed that ultimately they would reject the short-sighted fiscal policy which was crippling British industry and fall back upon the course which he proposed. Small as the Tariff Reform Party might be at present, he was perfectly sure that their arguments would in time penetrate the Cobdenism of the benches opposite. The Budget presented to the House by the present Government was meagre and uninteresting, and while it might prove of some benefit to the people living in the large industrial centres it would confer no advantage whatever on the people who resided in the out-of-the way parts of Ireland, where the poor were compelled to buy at the price demanded the goods brought to their doors. The, Government proposals were not satisfactory to a large number of his constituents and he would continue to voice the sentiments of tariff reform. He begged to move.
MR. CARLILEseconded. The wish had been expressed that in order to cheapen the cost of the food of the people additional taxes might be placed upon the land ; but it seemed to him an extraordinary thing to suggest that they were going to cheapen the food of the people by taxing more than at present the land which produced the food. At the present moment the land could not be made to pay, because of the very low price at
1036
which the produce had to be sold, and. if they further taxed the land, the tax upon which already was intolerable, the cost of production would be enhanced, and the people would be unable to obtain good fresh supplies of suitable food except at an increased price. He trusted that whatever proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make for new taxation he would, at any rate, not propose to destroy the agricultural industry, which was the greatest and the oldest industry of this country. A source of disappointment in this Budget was the tea tax proposal. He very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way further to reduce the duty on tea, or, at any rate, to alter the method of charging the duty. The right hon. Gentleman might have so arranged it that it should have rested very lightly upon the working classes. The present duty might be well adapted for certain kinds of tea, but it was eminently unsuitable for every description. Therefore it was a disappointing Budget in that the incidence of the taxation was unreasonable. Surely in these days a method could be found of dealing with it in some way so that it" should not, as it was at present, be a grievous hardship upon the poor. He-was reminded that if an ad valorem duty was substituted for this rule of thumb we should have to have a service of experts who would have to decide, in a rough-and-ready way, the respective values of the different qualities of tea. Well, that ought not to be beyond the capacity and the industry of the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Exchequer. He could not agree with his hon. friend the Member for the West Derby Division1 of Liverpool, who desired for the purposes of taxation to differentiate-between incomes derived from professions and employments and incomes derived from investments. That was, he submitted, a very difficult thing to touch, because it might happen that men might concentrate their minds on something—a patent, for instance—which for years might not be successful, but which eventually brought in a considerable income. When that income was brought in it had to be invested, and he asked whether it was reasonable that that man's income should be taxed at a higher rate than that of a man who earned his-income from day to day. He did not

1037
agree with the idea of a graduated income-tax. He believed it would be very detrimental to the revenue of this country. He had referred to this subject earlier in the session, and had then pointed out two or three perfectly honest modes that could be adopted, and possibly would be adopted, by those who desired to evade the income-tax. He noticed that neither the newspapers nor the gentlemen responsible for the official reports of the debates of this House took down that particular sentence. He noticed it because it was that particular sentence that was dropped out of an otherwise excellent report. On consideration he thought they were wise to leave it out. But he could assure the House that there wore several methods which he believed to be perfectly honest, which could be made use of to evade the payment of a graduated income-tax, and no doubt other methods equally simple and equally honest might be discovered for the same purpose. He thought it was a matter of great regret that they had thrown away, by abolishing the coal tax, a source of considerable revenue. If part of the income derived from that source had been used to equalise the cost of putting coal on the Russian market, whore we were severely handicapped notwithstanding the most-favoured-nation clause, it would have been a far more reasonable thing than to have abolished this tax. In Russia one duty was charged on sea-borne coal and another, a much lower duty, on that borne by rail, and if a portion of the income derived from the coal duty had been utilised to equalise that disadvantage that might have justified the Government in fore-going the other portion of it. But seeing that the exports of coal were going steadily up, notwithstanding the imposition of this duty, it seemed to him an egregious thing on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw away this fine opportunity of retaining some such source of taxation. If instead of abolishing this duty he had used the revenue derived from it to reduce the cost of the food of the people, then he should have considered it a reasonable thing. Although this was a fairly sound Budget in most respects, he thought his hon. friend the Member for Yarmouth was fully justified in criticising it, as it was in many senses an extremely disappointing one.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure imposing heavy burdens on His Majesty's subjects resident in the United Kingdom until steps have been taken to secure from foreign nations a substantial contribution to our revenue by the taxation of imported foreign manufactured articles which can be equally well supplied by home and Colonial industry'—(Captain Craig)—instead thereof"
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. ASQUITH: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Amendment which you have just put from the Chair asks the House to reverse the decision given by the country at the last general election ; and if I had framed my Budget on the lines suggested in that Amendment, I should have been flying in the face of a Resolution of this House passed by a vast majority at the beginning of the present session. That is all I have to say.
*MR. NIELDsaid one was lost in amazement at the number of decisions the country was said by members of the Government and their supporters to have arrived at at the last general election. They had been told of half a dozen issues each of which in turn and as it suited right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were said to have constituted the voice of the country and overshadowed all others. He could not help recalling the scene in that House as recently as Friday last when a section of the Government supporters reinforced by the Labour Party were taunting the Government with the electoral advantage they received over Chinese slavery which they alleged was so largely responsible for the Government majority and the neglect they had shown of their election pledges ; but if it suited the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this issue of free imports overshadowed all others he had no objection to his saying so. Assuming that this was the great issue before the country at that time, he ventured to think that that would not preclude the House from reconsidering the prudence of forming a Budget on the lines adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on this particular occasion. The merits of the Government having been preached far

1039
and wide from the pulpits of political Nonconformity as well as from the hedgerows, great expectations had been formed as to the amelioration of those taxes which bore more hardly on the poor than upon other classes of the community. He differed from some who sat upon that side of the House in that he believed in and supported a graduated income - tax and in graduated duties upon such articles as tea. From a Government of such promise they should have had the fulfilment of an election pledge made to the Anti-Tea Duty League. There would be a good ground for differentiating the duty on tea, but as that was not feasible at the present moment he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have boldly remitted 2d. of the duty even at the expense of the Sinking Fund. The consumers had a right, certainly, to expect a remission of 2d. It was only right that the tea duty should be brought back to 4d. as soon as possible. Certainly the tea duty had oppressed the poor very much, and it ought to have been the first duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give relief to those by whoso help his Party profited so largely at the general election. Another matter which had been disappointing was the remission of the coal tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been well advised if he had endeavoured to differentiate between qualities of coal. Whatever might be said as to the prudence of relieving the cheaper kinds of north country coal the tax should have been retained on coal exported from Wales, for we had a monopoly of that class of coal, and it was a commodity which foreign navies could not well afford to be without. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech had stated that in the opinion of experts the coal area of Wales was practically exhaustless, or, at all events, that it would last this generation, and probably the next, but the right hon. Gentleman knew from his experience outside this House and in a sphere where he had distinguished himself that of all persons expert witnesses were liable to err, and he would bear in mind the classification of the late Lord Bramwell with regard to that type of witness. The coal tax contributed materially to the revenue, and according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing, was paid by foreign buyers, since he refrained
1040
from giving relief until November, because, as he stated, he had ascertained that forward contracts provided that the foreign purchaser should get the advantage of any remission of duty. Another branch of the subject touched very nearly an industry in which his own constituency was interested—motor-car manufacture. The condition of things abroad was such as to prohibit the export of these manufactures, and in the United States there was a duty of 45 per cent., with a result that one of the firms was about to establish or had established works in Boston.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he must not go beyond the questions raised in the Bill or by the Amendment.
*MR. NIELDsaid he only wished to commend to the attention of the House this fact and the action of Messrs. Thorny croft, of Chiswick. It was a disappointing Budget, as opportunity was not availed of to raise taxes from available sources, and taxation had been taken off which with advantage might have been retained. The poorer classes had not been relieved as they might have been, and as they were led by the Government and its supporters to believe they would be.
LORD CASTLEREAGHsaid he felt it incumbent upon him to say a few words in praise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He ventured to differ from his colleagues on that side of the House, and to put forward the reasons why he could not consider the Budget a disappointing measure in every respect. Up to a certain point it had not reached the expectations they entertained, and especially the expectations caused by the lavish promises of the General Election; but it had one redeeming, feature, namely, the removal of the coal tax. He was very glad to see with what pleasure that sentiment was received in the House, and he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer very sincerely that he had seen fit to remove the whole of the tax upon exported coal. An export tax was upon an entirely wrong basis; besides, in this case the tax only struck at one portion of the coal trade. The tax imposed by the late Government was put on before the

1041
Commission reported that the supply of coal in this country was adequate to last for two hundred years. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to tax the coal trade the coalowners, who were most loyal and patriotic subjects, would not be in any way backward in meeting the stress of a national emergency. But there were other ways of taxing the coal trade without inflicting a penalty upon only one portion of it. He was very glad to have this opportunity of congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in this otherwise disappointing Budget he had at any rate taken one step which had given great and general satisfaction,
LORD R. CECILsaid he could not help feeling some disappointment at the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought right to treat this Amendment. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman despised criticism from the Opposition side of the House, and that he thought a single sentence disposed of their arguments. It would have been more courteous if he had concealed his contempt, seeing that the questions raised by the Finance Bill had not been discussed at undue length. There were unquestionably some questions of considerable importance raised by this Amendment.
MR. ASQUITHsaid they were merely discussing the Amendment to substitute taxation on foreign manufactured goods, and as it appeared to him the House had already pronounced a decision upon this, he did not think it respectful to the House to occupy time with the subject.
LORD R. CECILsaid he personally could not support the Amendment, for the reason that a portion of it seemed to indicate a desire, which was clearly conveyed in the speech of the mover, for protection. But another portion of the Amendment suggested that a larger proportion of revenue should be raised by indirect taxation, and manufactured goods were selected as the subject. This was an important question, not having necessarily anything to do with free trade and protection.
MR. ASQUITH: Foreign manufactured goods.
LORD R. CECILsaid this had not necessarily anything to do with free trade and protection. It was evident that confusion of thought existed in some minds on the subject, and perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words upon direct and indirect taxation. It had nothing to do with protection, to which he was thoroughly opposed, a fact that was fairly well known. Direct taxation was unpopular undoubtedly. It seemed to him that there was a good deal to be said for what was called indirect taxation if it was levied on the proper subjects. Direct taxation had many advantages. They were certain of what they were doing; but it had the still greater advantage of economy. Every penny raised by direct taxation went straight to the Exchequer; no portion of it went into the hands of manufacturers or their friends. It had a further curious advantage which ought to have been put forward by the great masters of finance, that was its unpopularity. It would encourage economy, and discourage extravagance. He could not himself think that these advantages were unmixed. In the first place, he could conceive of a case where if we were tied solely to direct taxation there might be considerable difficulty in a Government pursuing a definite policy, because of its unpopularity. But a much more serious effect was that if we had only direct taxation to fall back upon, it would encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to rely on loans, and not on taxation. That was a matter which must be seriously considered. In the old day's when the whole source of power in this country lay on the middle and monied classes, that was a very serious consideration, because it was the electors who paid the taxation. That was no longer the case now; the taxation did not fall wholly on the electors of the country. The income-tax, for example, did not fall directly on the working man. The taxation which did fall directly on him was such as the tea-duty, and the duties on those articles compendiously referred to as the breakfast table. The real truth was that direct taxation in the shape of income-tax fell on the rich and the few, whereas, indirect taxation at present fell on the poor and the many.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the noble Lord's remarks were directed to an abstract discussion of the principles of direct and indirect taxation and did not seem to be sufficiently directed either to the Bill or to the Amendment, which were the only questions now before the House.
LORD R. CECILsaid he thought that his remarks were directed to the Amendment, which appeared to him to advocate indirect taxation. He apprehended that he should be in order in making two observations about the income-tax. It was commonly said that the income-tax was direct taxation, but when looked at properly he did not think that the income-tax was a direct tax at all. In his view all taxes ultimately fell upon those who were the least able to bear them. Wherever a tax was imposed, the person who had to pay it tried to recover it from someone else; he shifted the burden on, and it was shifted on again, until at last it fell upon someone who could not shift it further; that was, that it fell upon the poor man, who was the person least able to bear it. It did not really matter to the poor man where the tax was imposed, for in the result he had to pay it. It was the poor who paid indirectly all taxation He had no doubt that every Member of this House desired to impose taxation so that the rich man should pay, not only his arithmetical proportion, but something more. Some approach might be made to increase the taxation of the rich—he discussed this question quite independently of party politics—and that was by taxing luxuries. That could be done at any rate in theory. It was undoubtedly the case that if it was desired to tax the luxuries of the rich, there was a great deal to be said for taxing them by means of import duties. He did not deny that there were objections to that, but he thought it was a very just and convenient form of taxation, and except for one circumstance it would be a very favourable method of raising money. The real objection to it was that it was tainted with all the opprobrium which attached to the idea of protection. That objection would inevitably be made by certain Members on the Ministerial benches, who had got the subject on their brains, and who did not look at the matter fairly. He quite admitted that an import duty of any kind, how-
1044
ever carefully guarded, was a very dangerous instrument, because it might very easily lead to protection and to the evils associated with protection. What he meant was that import duties on the luxuries of the rich, if imposed by those who were protectionists at heart, would produce all the evils of protection, including political evils which were associated with protection. He urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government generally to consider very carefully the question of raising revenue from import duties quite apart from the bogey of protection. That course was not open to the party to which he belonged. If they were to propose anything in the nature of a revenue duty on imports, many people would consider that it was a veiled form of protection, and that it would be a very great evil. But that danger did not attach to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—at least he hoped not—and he ventured, therefore, to urge him carefully to consider, before he presented another Budget to the House, whether it was quite certain that direct taxation was necessarily the best form of raising revenue, and whether a really genuine broadening of the basis of taxation by imposing it upon subjects and upon people who did to some extent escape their fair share of taxation was not desirable. He said strongly that in the observations he had been making he was not in any way, either directly or indirectly, proposing to return to protection, to which he was as strongly opposed as anyone in this House.
MR. PIKE PEASEsaid he thought that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a very short answer to the Amendment, and he believed the House would be much interested if the right hon. Gentleman were to say something more in that direction. Of course he knew that a Resolution had been passed this session in regard to the question of free trade and protection, and that therefore they were barred to some extent from dealing with it. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman had given hon. Members a homily on expenditure when they discussed old-age pensions, the Taff Vale dispute, and Chinese labour, with its great moral issues. With reference to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, it was very difficult to say what protection

1045
was or whether this Amendment meant protection. He was not at all a bigoted protectionist, but if a man put up a factory in Germany at the present time he had a market for his goods in that country of 60,000,000 people, while he could send his goods to this country free. But if he erected his works in this country, then he had to pay a toll on these goods if they were sent to Germany. It had been suggested that it would be wise to take off the taxation from the poorest of the poor, and he quite agreed, but it was, in his judgment, quite impossible to prevent the poor man having to pay a tax upon such an article as a glass of beer. What he wanted to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that next year he should find some means of widening the basis of taxation by putting a tax upon manufactured goods.
*MR. BARRIEsaid that several Members on the Opposition side of the House had disclaimed the title of protectionist, but for himself he was pleased to be so described. He was a declared tariff reformer, and he was not ashamed of it. They had had an interesting discussion, and not the least interesting part of it had been the light and airy way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the Government had a special mandate in regard to protection. In his comparative inexperience as a new Member of the House, nothing had been more entertaining to him personally than the way in which different members of the front Government Bench had told them of the various mandates received during the general election. He had no doubt that the election showed that the country was not yet ripe for fiscal reform, so eloquently advocated by the leaders on the Opposition side of the House. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Which?"] He was happy to think that hon. Members on that side had two leaders of outstanding eminence and brilliancy. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Name."] Those who described themselves as tariff reformers were not ashamed to say that they had boon cheered and encouraged by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had advocated tariff reform ; and if the leader of the Party, of whom they were so proud, had had a free hand to deal with the question prior to the election, he did not at all doubt that there
1046
would not have boon the slightest misunderstanding as to the position of the two right hon. Gentlemen. Speaking for himself, he had the utmost pleasure in serving under either of them.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid these domestic questions did not seem to be in order.
MR. BARRIEapologised. Speaking on the question before the House, he desired to say that he thought that if Members of the House would, as occasion offered, take a walk round the large, important sea-ports, and see the vast quantity of manufactured goods which were being brought into the country without the slightest taxation, if they would also carefully consider the number of our manufactures that had been crushed out of existence by these imports, there would be no trouble whatever in their rapidly coming to the conclusion that the lines of the Amendment were correct, and that if they were not accepted now they must be accepted in the near future. He submitted that a moderate import duty on the vast quantity of imported goods which came into this country would tend greatly to increase employment in this country, and that the burden of the increased duty would fall on the classes which were well able to bear it. The working classes would receive a benefit which at present they did not seem to desire to possess. He was sure that the more the question was discussed the more quickly the time would come when this country would find it desirable to impose a duty upon manufactured goods.
*MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wished to challenge the statement made by the noble Lord that it was possible to put on an import duty without its being protective. This matter affected their Lancashire trade very seriously and the noble Lords statement ought not to pass unchallenged. It was a serious matter for the Lancashire cotton trade, because they had 99·2 per cent, of the whole of the Indian import trade, and there was on their goods now an import duty of 5 per cent., but, as all Governments ever since that question was first raised had agreed, if they placed a 5 per cent, duty on cotton without a countervailing duty it would be a protective duty.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not challenge the hon. Member's statement as applied to cotton. Undoubtedly an import duty must have a protective effect. What he wanted to indicate was that by carefully selecting these imports they could put on a duty which would not amount to protection as ordinarily understood.
*MR. SHACKLETONagreed. With regard to what the hon. Member for North Londonderry had said he hoped to go to a division on the Amendment, to prove that trade unionists had not altered the opinion they had expressed on this subject earlier in the session. Trade unionists had not changed their opinions as to the effect this policy would have on the workers. All sections of labour were going to vote against the Amendment, and it would require better arguments than they had heard that night to induce them to alter their opinion on this subject.
*MR. COURTHOPEsaid he was not afraid to be called a protectionist by anyone in the House. He did not advocate a return to the "Hungry forties," but he was a tariff reformer and was quite ready to face the word protectionist. It seemed to him that everyone of them, whatever they might be, wished to protect their own particular interests, and that being so why should they lie selfish and refuse a measure of protection to the interests of others. It was for that reason he advocated what was wrongly called by hon. Members opposite protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his very short remarks to-night, had again referred to the mandate the Government had received. They had heard enough about the mandates of this election. The word "mandate" had been applied to everything that the Government had done, and he thought the hon. Member for Dulwich had summed up the matter pretty accurately when he said a few evenings ago that the only reason for the result of the election was the fact that the country was tired of the Tory Party and wanted a change. As to the tax on tea, it was quite true that the Tory Party increased it. The reason for that was that they were bound to an absurdly narrow basis of taxation. When money was required they had to put on un-
1048
warrantable taxes within that basis, and hence the increase in the tea duty. The Resolution now before the House proposed to extend that basis of taxation, and for that reason it had his most hearty support. The means they proposed was that there should be an import duty imposed en foreign manufactured goods coming to this country. No one could deny that the result of our present system had been that manufactures which used to flourish in this country had now gone abroad; that they employed foreign labour where they used to employ British labour, that they went abroad in order to obtain two markets instead of one, because, as was well known, the larger the production, the cheaper the cost of production. As an example of foreign manufactures, let them take the case of the motor industry. French motor cars came to this country in very large quantities, yet it was a well-known fact that cars of the same build could be produced in this country at the same price as in France, the costs of production being so close as to differ to the extent of only a few shillings. Whilst all these French ears were allowed to come into this country we could not send British cars into France without paying a duty. He wanted to show hon. Gentlemen opposite how an import duty on foreign motor cars must necessarily fall not upon the English purchaser, but upon the foreign producer. Let them take, for example, two exactly similar motor-cars, one made in England and one in France, the cost of production of each being £500. If 10 per cent, duty were put upon the French motor car coming into this country what would happen? The French manufacturer would say to himself, "Can I charge that duty on the English market?" Of course he could not. If he charged £550 for the car in the English market nobody would be foolish enough to buy it. The similar car made in England and offered at £500 would be bought. The French manufacturer, therefore, had to do one of two things ; he would either have to pay the duty himself and continue to sell his car in London at the old price of £500, in which case the British revenue would benefit to the extent of £50, or else he would conclude that it was not worth his while to send the car to England. In the latter case the result would be that an extra car would be made by

1049
British labour. In either case the British purchaser would not have to pay a single penny more than he did at present. What was true of the motor ear was true of hundreds of other articles. There was an industry which once thrived in the Southern counties and was now dead, but which would revive again in this country if a small duty were imposed on the foreign manufactured article. He referred to the industry of coopers' hoops. They might not appeal to hon. Gentlemen, but they appealed very much in Kent and Sussex, where employment used to be found in the industry during winter months for thousands of labourers who had other employment in summer. He would like to point out to supporters of the Government who talked a great deal about sending the labourer back to the laud that it was no use sending him back there unless by some such means as this they found employment for him in the winter. He should be strongly opposed to an import duty on anything coming under the head of raw material. The duties which he hoped to see imposed—and some day they would be imposed—should be confined strictly to manufactured articles and produce, which could be made or produced at home. At present this country levied duties upon man imported necessaries of life which we could not produce ourselves, and it was an admitted fact that in such cases the British consumer necessarily paid the bulk of the duty. Whatever was the incidence of taxation on foreign manufactured articles which might be produced in this country, and whosever shoulders it fell upon, it could not be worse than at the present time. Surely it was worth a trial. By taxing luxuries which came from abroad, the incidence of indirect taxation might be diverted so as to fall on the shoulders of the very rich, But what he hoped still more to see was the foreigner taxed. The foreigner made us contribute a good deal to his revenue, and he should like to make him pay a certain amount to ours. They were justified in urging the House to try this change. It could not make matters worse. Let them tax the rich if they liked, and the foreigner if they could, but for Heaven's sake let them adopt some system by which they might leave oft' taxing the poor.
Question put.
The sense of the House having been taken by Mr. SPEAKER in the usual way by the responses "Aye" and "No," a division was challenged. When Members were proceeding to the division lobbies,
Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask a question on a point of order. My point of order is this. Is it competent for a number of the Members of this House to force a division by calling "No" when they intend to vote "Aye"? When the proposer and the seconder of an Amendment, and those who have supported them, have no desire to take a division and: have not called "No," is it competent to create an artificial division by other parties calling "No" and then voting "Aye"? [Cries of "Name."]
*MR. SPEAKER: When an hon. Member says "No" I presume he mean, to vote "No"; and if I had any power to compel him to vote "No" I should do so. But I have no power to compel an hon. Member to vote in the way for which he lifts his voice.
MR. R. DUNCAN: May I ask whether Members who do not desire to vote are privileged to sit still?
*Mr. SPEAKER: No hon. Member is compelled to vote if he does not want to.
The division was then taken, but before the figures were announced,
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I find on page 343 of Erskine May's "Law and Usage of Parliament" that when Members who call "No" vote in the "Aye" division lobby, the proper course is to have their names struck out of the list of "Ayes" and recorded the other way. Those who called "No" include practically the whole of the hon. Members below the gangway, and in this division they voted "Aye." I very respectfully submit that the point I took when this unparliamentary and exceedingly inconvenient course was taken is perfectly in order, and that the remedy now lies with you, Sir, to have these votes recorded the other way.
*MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will name any Member of this House who

1051
said "No" and yet went into the "Aye" lobby his name shall be struck out of the division list.
Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I can name two, Sir.
The Tellers reported the numbers, Ayes, 258; Noes, 2.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: The way in which this position ought to be dealt with—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
*MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will name any hon. Member of this House : who said "No" and yet went into the "Aye" lobby his name shall be struck out of the division List.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I am only able to name two, the hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division and the hon. Member for Halifax.
*MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Clitheroe accept the statement of the hon. Member?
*MR. SHACKLETON: Yes. Have I the right to give an explanation?
*MR. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly.
*MR. SHACKLETON: It is not the first time this has occurred in this House. In my opinion, of the two hours we have spent on this Motion, an hour and a half has been deliberately wasted. I and my friends sitting beside me are anxious to get certain important measures

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

Caldwell, James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bennett, E. N.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bertram, Julius

Cheetham, John Frederick

Armitage, R.

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Clancy, John Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Billson, Alfred

Clarke, C. Goddard

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Clough, W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brace, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Brigg, John

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Barker, John

Brodie, H. C.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Cooper, G. J.

Barnard, E. B.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Barnes, G. N.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Cremer, William Randal

Bell, Richard

Byles, William Pollard

Cross, Alexander

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cairns, Thomas

Dalziel, James Henry

affecting labour, and every minute wasted means less chance for us.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Then why waste time on a division?
*MR. SHACKETON: I have clone this as a protest against Motions being moved, speeches made and time wasted, and then Members refusing to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon Motions.
*MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Halifax accept the statement of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division?
MR. PARKER: No. I was so much amused and was laughing so much at the time when Members were shouting that I never shouted at all.
*MR. SPEAKER: The name of the hon. Member for Clitheroe will be struck out of the division list and his name will be added to the "Noes."
MR. PARKER: I think I have a right to claim that the hon. Member for the West Derby Division should withdraw the statement he made with reference to me.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will I am sure at once accept the statement of the hon. Member for Halifax.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: At once, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER directed Mr. SHACKLETON's Vote to be recorded with the Noes:— Ayes, 257 ; Noes, 3. (Division List No. 121.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

Caldwell, James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bennett, E. N.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bertram, Julius

Cheetham, John Frederick

Armitage, R.

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Clancy, John Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Billson, Alfred

Clarke, C. Goddard

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Clough, W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brace, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Brigg, John

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Barker, John

Brodie, H. C.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Cooper, G. J.

Barnard, E. B.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Barnes, G. N.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Cremer, William Randal

Bell, Richard

Byles, William Pollard

Cross, Alexander

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cairns, Thomas

Dalziel, James Henry

Davies, Ellis William (Eifton)

Lambert, George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, W. Howell, (Bristol S.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rees, J. D.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

Rendall, Athelstan

Dillon, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Renton, Major Leslie

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lloyd, George, Rt. Hon. David

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n.

Duckworth, James

Lough, Thomas

Richardson, A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lupton, Arnold

Ridsdale, E. A.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lynch, H. B.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk Bg'hs

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Erskine, David C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Callum, John M.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Crae, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Runciman, Walter

Ferens, T. R.

M'Killop, W.

Russell, T. W.

Ferguson, B. C. Munro

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Micking, Major W.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Flynn, James Christopher

Maddison, Frederick

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mallet, Charles E.

Seaverns, J. H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Seddon, J.

Fullerton, Hugh

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Gill, A. H.

Marnham, F. J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Ginnell, L.

Massie, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G,

Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Meagher, Michael

Simon, John Allsebrook

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Micklem, Nathaniel

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Grant, Corrie

Mond, A.

Soares, Ernest J.

Gulland, John W.

Montagu, E. S.

Steadman, W. C.

Gurdon, Sir W. (Brampton)

Montgomery, H. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hall, Frederick

Mooney, J. J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hammond, John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morrell, Philip

Summerbell, T.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sutherland, J. E.

Hayden, John Patrick

Murphy, John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hazleton, Richard

Myer, Horatio

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Helme, Norval Watson

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholls, George

Torrance, A. M.

Herbert. Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Toulmin, George

Higham, John Sharp

Norman, Henry

Ure, Alexander

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Hogan, Michael

Nuttall, Harry

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hooper, A. G.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Waterlow, D. S.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Watt, H. Anderson

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hudson, Walter

O'Doherty, Philip

Weir, James Galloway

Hyde, Clarendon

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Dowd, John

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Hare, Patrick

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Mara, James

Whitehead, Rowland

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wiles, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Paul, Herbert

Wills, Arthur Walters

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Kelley, George D.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Winfrey, R.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pirie, Duncan V.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Laidlaw, Robert

Radford, G. H.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rainy, A. Rolland

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Raphael, Herbert. H

NOES.

Courthope, G. Loyd

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hills. J. W.

Captain Craig and Mr. Carlile.

Shackleton, David James

Original Question again proposed.
SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he wanted to call the attention of the House to what he considered a serious subject in connection with the Bill, and to make an appeal on behalf of the unfortunate taxpayers. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone had said the income-tax only affected a few. He denied that; it affected a very large class. The smaller class of income-tax-payers were hardly hit in the present circumstances. They had not only to pay income-tax, but indirect taxation on such articles as tea and sugar. He therefore hoped to draw from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some expression of sympathy for that class. He thought that the exemption should be increased from £160 to £240. He complained that the officials of the Income-Tax Department, although sometimes sympathetic, were in other cases too inquisitorial. There ought to be further reductions in regard to particular trades. He had had a large correspondence on that subject, and he found that in many cases the income-tax authorities did not make proper allowances. In all the West-end drapery establishments the ladies who served had to wear black silk dresses. That was a very serious matter. They wore out two of these dresses in- the course of the year, and they cost from £12 to £15, and were of no use for any other purpose. He contended that that was one of the examples where the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to make some allowance.
MR. ASQUITHconfessed that for himself he could not listen to the speech of the hon. Gentleman without considerable emotion. The hon. Member had invited him to enter on a voyage of adventure, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that the incidence and collection of income-tax were points to which he was giving earnest consideration. He was by no means satisfied that the present system was an ideal one. It was his sincere desire to put the tax on a more equitable foundation, and to make its collection more simple and easy to the tax-payers as well as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be content with that assurance and that the House would now agree to the Third Reading.
MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid it was with great regret that he criticised the Budget, and on the last occasion when he rose to do so, although he endeavoured to be polite to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman immediately moved the closure. When, however, he did have an opportunity of speaking he had stated that in his opinion the Budget was a very bad one and was objectionable in every way. He stated that he admired the excellent speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman certainly did make an excellent beginning although he fell off towards the end. At one time he thought the Budget was better than he had considered it to be at first, but, having heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he was now of opinion that it was a worse Budget than he originally thought. When the Government came in they claimed that they were going to be a very efficient Government and save a large amount of expenditure. They made very excellent proposals, all of which were very difficult to carry out. What was the result? They had abandoned several sources of revenue ; they had taken away burdens from the foreigner and put further burdens upon the people of this country. There was the question of tobacco. The Financial Secretary recently made a most eloquent and able speech on the subject, in which he absolutely proved that the Opposition were in the right and made out an excellent case against himself. The serious question in regard to the tobacco duty was that under the tax as it originally existed there was a growing industry in the treatment of the leaf in this country. Not only had that growing industry been lost, but the right hon. Gentleman had decreased our revenue. In this way he had thrown upon the country a large number of people who would have to be supported out of the rates. The alteration of the duty on tobacco did not, as far as he could see, benefit the consumer in the least. If it benefitted anybody it was the wholesale tobacco manufacturer. The alteration in the duty on tea also did not benefit the consumer, but only the wholesale tea dealer, while the abolition of the coal duty would result in the loss of a large source of revenue and

1057
would benefit not the consumers but the coal proprietors. He thought that he had established his claim that this was a thoroughly bad Budget.
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that he also very much disliked this Budget and he did not wish to see the Third Reading of the Bill which embodied it passed without some protest from himself as a business man. He found nothing in the Budget of which he could approve, except the proposal to apply £500,000 to the reduction of debt. But even in that case the sum was insignificant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a large surplus, and in his judgment, speaking as a man of business, the right hon. Gentleman had thrown that surplus away. Lot them take, for instance, the penny reduction on tea. Everybody knew that this reduction would never benefit the consumer although it might benefit the wholesale dealer. In regard to the coal duty the right hon. Gentleman had thrown away a valuable source of revenue in response to political clamour. He would say, however, that he should have been sorry to see the coal duty maintained in the form in which it stood, though he was still more sorry to see it swept away entirely. He was speaking of a subject of which he knew something, because he spoke not only as a shipowner but as the representative of a great railway company. If it were true that the coal duty was injuring the trade of South Wales the fact would in some way have come home to himself and other directors of the great railway company with which he was connected. It had not come home in any way to him as a railway director, nor had it come home to those with whom he was associated. It had not come home to him at all except in its political aspect. The South Wales coal industry was a monopoly, and nobody bought the class of coal which came from South Wales unless they were obliged to. Therefore, in the case of the South Wales coal the duty was paid by the foreigner and not by the people of this country. The coal duty was put on by one free trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and maintained and argued in favour of by another free trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Mr. Ritchie. In his judgment the duty should have been confined to South Wales coal, which was a speciality of this
1058
country. A tax upon South Wales coal did not matter, but he had always objected to the duty being imposed upon Scottish and other coal of a cheaper quality, where it did matter. His objection to the tax was that it was applied in entire disregard of the quality of the coal. Therefore, in regard to the coal in the sale of which we came into competition with the foreigner, the coal producer of this country suffered. The result was also that the shipowners suffered. Moreover the British shipowner if he bought coal abroad had to pay this shilling a ton, and he thought that in his case the duty should have been returned to him. In stead of putting the coal duty upon reasonable lines the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yielded to the clamour to which he had alluded and had swept it away altogether, thus robbing the country of a valuable source of revenue. Coming to the question of the income-tax, it was not in the power of a private Member to move an increase of that tax. Had it been he should have moved a proposal of that sort. It was open to him, however, to argue that there should be an increase in the tax upon income derived from foreign investments in industries which competed with the industries of this country. The sum collected upon income from foreign investments had doubled in the last ten years. The investments had increased from £32,000,000 to £60,000,000. What did that point to? He looked across the House and he recalled to mind three conspicuous ornaments of the Liberal Party. There was one hon. Member in particular, who was a great advocate of the graduation of the income-tax. He himself was in favour of the graduation of the income-tax, if it could be done, but there were forms of graduation and the best form had to be considered. The hon. Gentleman he was alluding to was a worthy and excellent man in every way. He liked him and had not the smallest objection to him in any way except in regard to his politics and his views on certain subjects relating to taxation. That hon. Gentleman had one manufactory in this country, but he was interested in nine manufactories abroad which were engaged in competing with the industries of this country. Therefore it appeared that the hon. Gentleman was a strong free trader in this country but a strong protectionist in other countries. Why? Because

1059
under a system of protection his competitors in trade could not send their soap into other countries. Therefore protection suited him down to the ground abroad, and he supposed free trade suited him here. Another hon. Member to whom he alluded was the hon. Member for Northwich, who was very much in the same position. Everybody liked him, and he was a worthy and excellent man. He also was a great free trader in this country, but a great protectionist abroad. Another hon. Member whom he had in his mind was the hon. Member for Paisley, whose name was a household word. Everybody who knew anything about the hon. Member liked him. There was nothing to be said against him. He also enjoyed protection in other countries while he was a strong free trader here. [MINISTERIAL cries of "question."] He was talking to the question, although he was aware that Ministerialists did not like what he said. It was true, however. He did not wish to do these hon. Gentlemen any injustice, but he should like to see the income-tax so graduated that they would have to pay an increased sum upon the profits which they made on their investments abroad. He thought those who made profits abroad ought to pay a larger share of the income-tax than those who made profits at home. There were a great many large manufacturers of furniture and other articles abroad, whoso products came into competition with the products of our manufacturers and who made large profits. These firms paid income-tax probably only in respect to the salary of an agent in London, while the British manufacturer had to pay income-tax upon every profit that he made. In this way the foreigner escaped income-tax which his English rival had to pay. It had come to his knowledge that there was a good deal of money invested by foreigners in English railways. Every English investor in any industrial concern which was fortunate enough to make a profit had his income-tax collected at the source unless he could show that it was an overcharge, when he could get it back, but if he was a gentleman residing in Paris, the income-tax authorities did not take into account the fact as to whether he was a rich or a poor man. No matter how rich that man might be, he got his
1060
income free of income-tax. That put the British subject in a very unfair position as against the foreigner. This was only one of the matters which showed the unfair incidence of the income-tax. The income-tax was not only a burden upon the taxpayer, but it was a burden upon all industries in this country which were fortunate enough to pay. It was a tax which did mischief all round. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on1 the Budget which he had brought in, and would only say, in conclusion, that in each of the five Parliaments in which he had sat he had always urged the view that an income-tax should be differently charged in respect of the income of a man who earned his daily bread from his own labour and the man whoso income was-derived from investments. It was a cruel thing that the doctor, the barrister, or the schoolmaster should have a tax put upon his means of livelihood, and that when he died and left money behind him his family should be robbed for the payment of income-tax.
Question put and agreed to. Bill read, the third time, and passed.

MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
Adjourned at twenty - seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.