Sitting of 29 May 1906

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills (See page 233).

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Cheltenham Gas Bill; Edinburgh Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Metropolitan Railway Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  South Suburban Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. Reported, with Amendments

  249
  [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
  London County Council (Money) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Mersey Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 4).
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYreported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 12th June, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Sunday Closing (Wales) Act (1881) Amendment Bill. Second Reading upon Tuesday, 26th June.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Police (Superannuation) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Marriages Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  New Mills Urban District Council Bill; North East Lincolnshire Water Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Patent Agents." [Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Registration of Patent Agents) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for granting the use of Schoolrooms for Public Meetings." [Elections (Meetings in Schoolrooms) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the West Yorkshire Tramways Company; and to empower that
  250
  Company to make and maintain tramways, tramroads, and other works; and for other purposes." [West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to widen certain railways and to construct other works; to acquire additional lands; and for other purposes. [Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the County of Durham Electric Power Supply Company; and for other purposes." [County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for taking certain lands and for the construction of certain authorised works by the Southport and Lytham Tramroad Company and the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Southport; and for other purposes." [Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend, extend, and define the borrowing powers of the Urban District Council of Newtownards in the county of Down; to improve and enlarge the gas undertaking of the said Council; and to make further provisions for the local government of their district." [Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company, and for effecting certain amendments of the Acts which regulate the Company; and for other purposes." [Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for uniting into one drainage district the two drainage districts in the parish of War-boys, in the County of Huntingdon,

  251
  known as the First and Third Drainage Districts, constituted under an Act of the fifteenth year of King George the Third, chapter fifteen; and to amend that Act; and for other purposes." [Warboys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for transferring to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Company, Limited, the undertakings authorised by the Whitley and Monkseaton Electric Lighting Order, 1901, and the Seghill, Earsdon and Tyne-mouth (Rural) Electric Lighting Order, 1902; and for other purposes." [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to John Caeser Crellin for inventions for (1) An appliance for raising, lowering, supporting, and transporting portions of machinery and the like; (2) Improvements relating to lifting-jacks; and (3) Improved apparatus for raising, lowering, supporting, and transporting portions of machinery and like uses." [Crellin's Patents Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the closing and sale of certain churches in the city of Manchester, the extinction of certain ecclesiastical parishes and the merger thereof in other parishes in the said City; and for other purposes." [Manchester Churches Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Trent Navigation Company to construct certain new works for improving the Navigation of the River Trent between Wilden Ferry and Gainsborough, to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes." [Trent Navigation Company Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for matters consequent on the purchase by the Secretary of State in Council of India of the railways and other property of the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (Purchase) Bill [Lords.]
  West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords]: Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [Lords); County of Durham Electric
  Power Supply Bill [Lords]; Cumberland Elecricity and Power Gas Bill [Lords]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords]; Warboys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [Lords]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Electric Supply) Bill [Lords]; Crellin's Patent Bill [Lords]; Manchester Churches Bill [Lords]; Trent Navigation Company Bill [Lords]; Bombay, Baroda, and Central India (Purchase) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH COURT (DUBLIN) BILL.
  Petition from Dublin, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  BUILDING LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Dunnikier, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA AND CHINA (OPIUM TRADE).
  Petitions for suppression; from Edinburgh; and Galston; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Adwell and South Weston (two); Alvechurch; Ashurst; Baglan (two); Broadway; Burstow; Chadderton; Colne (two); Felmersham; Felmersham with Radwell; Heanor; Knottingley (two); Manchester; Pen Selwood; Play ford and Culpho; Ruswarp; Stalham: Stamber-mill; Stopsley; Sutton Bridge with Wing-land; Swanton; and Swanton Morley; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Caithness; and Haddington; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; from Cheltenham; Oxford; and Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL HOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL TENANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL.
  Petition from Nelson, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition of the Strand Union, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 6, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Treaty between the United Kingdom and Spain for the Marrige of His Majesty the King of Spain with Her Royal Higness Princess Victoria Eugénie Julia Ena. Signed at London, 7th May, 1906. Ratifications exchanged at London, 23rd May, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTI MATES, 1906–7).
  Copy presented, of Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde, K.P., preserved at Kilkenny Castle, New Series, Vol. IV. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Battersea, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3605 to 3607 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Miscellaneous Series, No. 652 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WARLIKE OPERATIONS (KILLED AND WOUNDED).
  Address for "Return of the number of sailors and soldiers killed or wounded in war or warlike operations carried on by the Government of this Country and chartered companies during the years 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903, respectively (exclusive of those carried on by the Government of India), in the same form as the Return granted in Session 1895."—(Mr. Morton.)

  EDUCATION ACT, 1902 (RATES RAISED UNDER SECTION 18 (1).
  Return ordered, "by the County Council of each Administrative County in England and Wales, except London, of particulars as to the amounts received during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1906 (or, if the particulars are not available, then during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1905) from Rates

  255
  raised under Section 18 (1) (c) and (d) of The Education Act, 1902, over parts

  Name of Parish.

  Assessable Value according to the Country rate Basis.

  Amount of Rate raised under Section 18 (1).

  Rate in the£.

  —(Mr.Birrell.)

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
  Return ordered, "of Applications for Licences under The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, showing how each Application has been dealt with, and of Statistics of Messages to and from Ships at sea exchanged between the Post Office and the Marconi Company during each quarter from January, 1905, to March, 1906, inclusive."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dyeing of Navy Cloth.
  MR. BRIGHT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the rule that all cloth goods supplied to the Admiralty must be dyed with vegetable indigo is still in force; and, if so, whether the attention of the Admiralty has been called to the fact that the chemically produced indigo is identical in composition with the vegetable product, cheaper to dye, enters more intimately into the structure of the yarn or cloth, and is equally permanent.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain why the employment of synthetic indigo is still prohibited for Navy contracts, seeing that several other Departments of State, when inviting tenders for the same class of material, leave the employment of either plant or synthetic indigo optional; and in view of the expert evidence and practical experience, extending over several years, showing that synthetic indigo is equal to plant indigo as regards application and dyeing, and in view of the fact that synthetic indigo is decidedly cheaper than plant indigo of equal strength, will he consider the advisability of permitting its use in Navy contracts.
  only of the area under the Council for purposes of Elementary Education:—
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It has been decided to carry out trials of serge dyed with the synthetic indigo in order to ascertain its suitability for the requirements of the Naval Service.

  Delays in the Operation of the Land Act.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction, both to landlord and tenants, in the operation of the Land Act of 1903 on account of the delays that are taking place in the Land Commissions; whether he is aware that those having charges on their estates, having to meet interest arising, are obliged to meet the difference between the interest in lieu of rent and the amount of the interest on the different charges; whether the Estates Commissioners have money to meet the different estates whose agreements were lodged before September, 1904; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay that has taken place in the proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It is, I fear, the case that some inconvenience has been caused, both to landlords and tenants, by the delay which has occurred in making advances. The hon. Member is, I think, mistaken in assuming that this delay is preventable. When the Irish Land Bill of 1903 was introduced the sum of £5,000,000 a year was named as the highest rate at which purchase could take place for the first three years. This rate has been considerably exceeded, and it is estimated that by the end of three years from the commencement of the Act nearly £20,000,000 will have been issued in advances, exclusive of the amount of the bonus.

  Evicted Tenants on the Coolroe Estate.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-

  257
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether applications for restoration under the Land Act of 1903 have been received by the Estates Commissioners from the Coolroe evicted tenants; whether the landlord has signified his intention to sell to them; and whether any progress has been made as regards restoring them to their homes.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement on different estates from six persons in the district in question. It is presumed that the estate specially referred to is that known as the Coolroe Estate, of which the former owner was Mr. James E. Byrne. The Commissioners are negotiating with the present owner, Mr. T. D. Place, for the purchase of the property, and if they should acquire it, the applications of the evicted tenants will receive full consideration.

  Salaries of School Teachers at Handsworth.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are three schools in Handsworth, near Sheffield, and that whilst the head teacher in the Church of England school draws a salary of £160, the salary of the head teacher in St. Joseph's Catholic School has been cut down to £90, although the number of children in each of these schools is practically the same; and will he have an inquiry made into the action of the local education committee, with a view to equalising these salaries.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I find that the matter referred to came before the Board of Education a year ago, and a letter was then written on the subject. Since then nothing has been heard of it, and the Board supposed the matter had been settled. If the managers renew the subject I will see that it is carefully investigated.

  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society's Grant.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give an itemised account of the expenditure of the £19,000 paid by the Agricultural Department to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society up to February 28th last, showing the salary of each individual employed in connection with this grant, expenses of each individual so employed, and to
  258
  what extent such salaries and expenses were paid out of grant of £19,000; a detailed account of all other purposes to which this £19,000 was devoted; and whether properly audited and vouched accounts of fill moneys paid by the Department to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society are submitted to the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture are prepared to give an itemised account showing the salary and expenses paid in respect of each official of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society employed by the Department for each quarter in the period from April 1st, 1900, to February 28th, 1905, and also the amount paid for any other expenses. This Return will, however, take some time to prepare, as it will embrace a large number of items extending over nearly five years. The grant-in-aid of £2,000 for the year from 1st of March, 1905, to 28th February, 1906, was paid to the society in monthly instalments on the certificate of the representative of the Department who investigated the work done, as indicated in the weekly reports of the several organisers employed by the society, and who carefully examined the claims for remuneration and travelling and incidental expenses before giving his certificate. A similar plan has been adopted with regard to the expenditure of the £3,700 estimated for the twelve months ending 28th February, 1907. The accounts of the Department are sent monthly to the Comptroller and Auditor-General in pursuance of Section 25 of The Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, together with all vouchers, to be audited in accordance with the Treasury regulations. The account of the Department's Endowment Fund is published annually in the Appropriation Account, and is certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Statements of all expenditure out of the funds placed at the disposal of the Department, the application of which is subject to the concurrence of the Agricultural Board, are laid periodically before the Board.

  Appointments in the Sultan of Zanzibar's Government.
  ME. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any complaints or evidence that vacancies

  259
  in the Sultan of Zanzibar's Government have been farmed by His Majesty's officials serving in Zanzibar.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Answer to this Question is in the negative.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will place upon the Table a statement of the reasons which actuated His Majesty's Government to terminate the services of Mr. A. S. Rogers, lately Regent and Prime Minister to the Sultan of Zanzibar; and if such dismissal had the approval or sanction of the Sultan, under whom the Regent was serving.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey) His Majesty's late Government advised the Sultan of Zanzibar to terminate the arrangement under which Mr. Rogers was acting as First Minister, in pursuance of the policy initiated on the death of the late Sultan of strengthening their direct control over the internal administration of the country. The Sultan is bound, by the conditions he agreed to on his accession, to follow loyally and faithfully the advice given him by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in all matters relating to the government and administration of the Sultanate. There are no Papers which could usefully be laid on the subject.

  National Bank of South Africa and Government Accounts.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an agreement has been made with the National Bank of South Africa whereby the Transvaal Government account will be kept at that bank until 1909; whether any tenders had previously been asked for from other local banks; whether the National Bank of South Africa is registered under the English Companies Act; and whether the shares are fully paid up, so that creditors have no reserve fund on which to rely in times of financial difficulty.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Answer is in the affirmative. The bank, as part of the agreement, abandoned any claims which it might have against the Transvaal Government under the old concession with regard to such matters as
  260
  the issue of notes or coinage of money. Tenders were not called for. The bank is incorporated under the Transvaal Ordinance 16, of 1902, under which the shares were to be deemed to be fully paid up.

  Cambridge Cottage, Kew, as a Forestry Museum.
  CAPTAIN BALFOUR: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state whether it is intended to utilise the gift to the Nation by the Crown of Cambridge Cottage at Kew as a forestry museum; and, if so, what steps are being taken to carry this purpose into effect.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) His Majesty having been graciously pleased to devote the house and grounds of Cambridge Cottage to the service of Kew Gardens, it is proposed to utilise the additional accommodation thus made available for the purposes of a museum illustrative of forestry, pomology, and the diseases of farm and garden crops. Steps will be taken for this purpose as soon as the necessary funds are available.

  Navy Shipbuilding Programme.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with the statement of the details of vessels now under construction, which is to be issued prior to the discussion of Votes 8 and 9 of Navy Estimates, there will be included details of the four armoured ships which the House is to be asked to sanction; and whether he can now say how many of these armoured ships are to be battleships.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am not in a position to make any statement, as the subject is now under consideration.

  Promotion of Assistant Clerks.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that a number of unsuccessful competitors at the examination of second division clerkships, held in October, 1905, have been declared successful since the announcement of the result of the examination, due consideration has been given to the claims of

  261
  assistant clerks for promotion in those offices where second division vacancies exist; and whether, should a further number of second division clerks be required before the result of another, second division examination is known, he is prepared to grant the appointments to assistant clerks, under the provisions of the Order in Council of the 29th November, 1898, as amended by the Order in Council of 15th September, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Treasury can only approve such promotions on the recommendation of the head of a department. When such recommendations are made the Treasury give thorn every consideration, as may be seen from the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Fulham on the 26th March last.† The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the promotion of assistant clerks to the second division is intended to be exceptional and can only be made on the ground of special merit.

  Distribution of Vote.

  Number of staff.

  Amount allocated to each branch.

  Indoor staff:

  £

  Superintending establishment

  316

  73,350

  Port establishment

  579

  120,670

  Total Indoor

  895

  194,020

  Outdoor staff

  Port establishment

  3,099

  478,840

  Grand total

  3,994

  672,860

  General charges not specifically allocated to either indoor or outdoor staffs, namely:

  Non-Established Services, Travelling and Removal Expenses, Vessels, Instruments, Law Charges, Superannuation Allowances, &c.

  —

  334,390

  Grand total of Customs Vote as shown above

  —

  £1,007,250

  †See (4) Debates, cliv., 840.

  Customs Staff.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the total of the Customs Vote, the number of those employed on the indoor staff and the outdoor staff respectively, and the amount of the Vote devoted to each branch.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As shown on page 3 of the Estimates for the Revenue Departments for the current financial year, the total of the Customs Vote is:—

  £

  Gross total

  1,007,250

  Deduct—

  Appropriations in aid

  54,550

  Net Total

  £952,700

  The number of the established officers provided for in the Estimates and the amount of the Vote allocated to each branch of the service, are as summarised in the following table:—

  Customs Warehouse at Leith.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why Customs bonded warehouses in Leith are open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. in charge of the warehouse keeper only, the attendance of the officer depending upon the request of the warehouse keeper, notwithstanding the fact that public-houses are situated in very close proximity.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Customs bonded warehouses at Leith, as at all other ports, are under the continuous supervision of the Customs staff during the hours within which such warehouses are allowed to be open. At the more important warehouses at Leith one or more officers are constantly present. At the smaller warehouses, some of which are only occasionally open for business, officers are in constant attendance while operations are in progress; at other times these warehouses are visited at frequent and irregular intervals as business may require, and to an extent sufficient to ensure the due protection of the revenue. None of the Customs bonded warehouses in Leith are in closer proximity than the regulations permit to any premises in which duty-paid stocks of wines or spirits are kept.

  Endowment of Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the (Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the source or sources from which the Department presided over by Sir Horace Plunkett is endowed, and the amount from each source, during the year ended March 31st last.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Endowment Fund, ordinarily so-called, was created by Section 15 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899. The sums received under the various sub-sections of the section are as follows:—
  Source.
  1. Sub-section (a)
  £78,000 Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.
  2. Sub-section (b)
  £70,000 Irish Church Temporalities Fund Surplus.
  3. Sub-section (c)
  Net Receipts in 1905–6 £442 14s. 5d.
  Sea and Coast Fisheries Fund.
  4. Sub-section (d)
  £12,000 Parliamentary Vote.
  5. Sub-section (f)
  £6,000 Parliamentary Vote.
  6. Capital sums were received in the years 1900–1901, 1901–2, and 1902–3 under Sub-sections (e) and (g) amounting to £19,890 5s. and £185,015 15s. 2d. respectively. From miscellaneous sources further annual receipts were derived during the year in question to the amount of £14,000, viz.:—

  £

  7. From the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the provisions of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) (No. 2) Act, 1902

  5,000

  8. From the Ireland Development Grant

  7,000

  9. From the Congested Districts Board (contribution towards the cost of the agricultural schemes carried out by the Department in congested districts)

  2,000

  The Parliamentary Vote for the Department was in 1905–6 £191,692 (including £18,000 under headings (4) and (5) above and £25,000 for the Congested Districts Board).

  Secretary to the Treasury and Civil Service Employees.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the desirability of holding direct communication with the duly elected representatives of Civil Service organisations similar to the manner in which His Majesty's Postmaster-General receives the representatives of Post Office employees.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Any representations from such organisations on matters affecting the interests of civil servants should be addressed to the authorities of the departments in which the officers concerned are employed. In any case in which the Treasury is directly responsible I shall at all times be ready to receive representations from organisations interested in the matter.

  The Yardley Charity.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the hon. Member of the Elland Division, as a Charity Commissioner, whether he is aware that the governors of the Yardley Charity Estates have neglected and now refuse to furnish the Yardley Rural District Council, East Worcestershire, at the request of the Yardley parish meeting, with the names of the dole beneficiaries, in order that they may publish them in compliance with Section 14 (6) of The Local Government Act, 1894; and that the accounts already furnished are not in the form prescribed by the Charity Commissioners and do not give the necessary details; and whether he will give directions to the charity governors to forthwith furnish the information desired by the parish council in compliance with the statute; and also to furnish detailed accounts for the information of the Yardley parishioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) The Commissioners have applied to the Governors of the Yardley Charity Estates for an explanation of the matters mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, and will, if necessary, take steps to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements.

  Financial and Industrial Condition of Poplar.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the general inspector on his preliminary inquiry into the financial and industrial conditions of Poplar, recently held; and whether a copy of such Report will be sent to the guardians before the public inquiry opens on June 7th.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) No formal Report has been made to me by the inspector who has been making the preliminary investigation referred to. As a result of that investigation, he prepared a statistical memorandum bearing upon the pauperism in the Poplar Union, and a copy of this memorandum has been sent to the guardians.

  Value of Public Houses on the Estates of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for
  266
  East Bristol, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether he is in a position to state the approximate value to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of the 336 public houses which were on their estates in 1905; the total annual rental of the sixty-four leases or tenancies for public houses which have been renewed or extended by the Commissioners since December 31st, 1899; the annual rental of the two new public houses for which leases have been granted by the Commissioners during that period; and whether he can state the names and localities in which they are situated of the public houses whose licences will expire before Christmas, 1910, and which the Commissioners do not intend to suppress.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners feel that some of the information desired could not be made public without embarrassing them in the management of their estates, and some could not be procured without great labour and expense. I regret, I therefore, that I am unable to supply all the particulars for which the hon. Member asks; but I am able to state that,—(1) the annual rents reserved to the Commissioners on the sixty-four renewed leases of public houses (in which are included hotels as, for instance, the Westminster Palace Hotel) amount to £11,158 19s. 10d, but other properties are in a few cases comprised with the public houses in the same leases; and (2) the rents reserved in the leases of the two new public houses are ground rents only, the buildings being erected by the lessees, and amount to £34 6s. per annum.

  Constitution of the Technological Insti- tute at South Kensington.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether in view of the criticisms passed upon the proposed constitution of the new Technological-Institute at South Kensington, and of the bearing which the establishment of such an institute may have upon postgraduate training in science, he is prepared to arrange for the adequate representation of other universities besides London on the governing body.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The question presents many difficulties in

  267
  view of the large number of universities now in existence in the United Kingdom, between whose claims for representation it would be difficult justly to differentiate. But the matter is having my careful consideration.

  Stock Issued Under the Irish Land Act.
  MR. ASTBUEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the total amount of stock issued under the Irish Land Act, 1903, is stated in the London Stock Exchange daily official list as £11,000,000, whereas the correct amount at March 31st last was £13,201,444 8s. 9d.; and whether he can say how this discrepancy arises, and give a statement showing when and in what manner the

  Guaranteed 2¾ per Cent. Stock.

  Details of stock issues to May, 1906.

  Date of Issue.

  Amount of Issue.

  Net Amount of Cash raised.

  Note.

  £

  £

  March, 1904

  5,000,000

  4,337,122

  A.

  January, 1905

  6,000,000

  5,354,332

  B.

  2nd January, 1906

  1,103,448

  1,000,000

  C.

  26th February, 1906

  1,097,996

  1,000,000

  D.

  6th April, 1906

  1,000,000

  920,292

  E.

  14,201,444

  12,611,746

  A. Offered to public subscription at a fixed price of 87.

  B. Offered to public tender subject to a minimum of 88½—average price of tenders £89 8s. 8d.

  C. Issued to National Debt Commissioners at £90 12 s. 6d.—x.d.*

  D. Issued to National Debt Commissioners at £91 1s. 6d.—x.d.*

  E. Issued to National Debt Commissioners at £92 0s. 7d.—x.d.*

  * The average price of the stock on the day on which the issue was made as certified by the Bank of England.

  Indian Financial Statement— Explanatory Memorandum.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of restoring the explanatory memorandum
  various issues have been made, the amount of stock issued on each occasion, and the net amount of cash realised.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Yes. The amount given in the Stock Exchange list is the total which has been offered to public subscription. The figure I quoted in the House represented the total issued up to March 31st last, and included £2,201,444 8s. 9d. stock issued to the National Debt Commissioners. The subjoined Table, which gives particulars of all issues to date, will make the matter clear, and in future, in order to enable the publishers of works of reference to keep their information up to date, I propose whenever stock is issued otherwise than by public subscription to notify the fact in the London Gazette:—
  of the current Indian financial year as near as possible to the form of that in 1899–1900, substituting for the tables of revenue and expenditure pages 28–48, Appendix II., the Indian Finance Department's Appropriation Report, also that

  269
  the amounts of the Home charges be shown in rupees-ten as well as in sterlign, so as to show the actual cost of the charges as borne by the Indian revenue.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I propose to retain, subject to such modifications in detail as may suggest themselves, the new form which was adopted in 1903. It appears to be an improvement on the form used in 1899–1900, as showing the chief facts with greater clearness and simplicity. The latest Appropriation Report is a document of nearly 200 pages. It has already been printed in the Gazette of India, and will in due course be issued, as usual, as a separate publication. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by reprinting it specially as an Appendix to the Explanatory Memorandum. It was decided in 1900 to abandon the practice of showing in tons of rupees the charges in England which are, as a matter of fact, paid in sterling; and I see no advantage in reversing this decision.

  Irish Harbour Boards.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the names of the Irish Harbour Boards whose expenses fall, either partly or wholly, on the local rates, the actual amount borne in each case by the local rates, the valuation on which the cost falls, rate per pound paid, the total number of members on each Board, the number representing the ratepayers, and the manner in which the ratepayers' representatives are selected.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) With the exception of those cases in which the Board of Works are themselves the harbour authorities, the harbour authorities in Ireland are bodies constituted by Statute or Provisional Order prescribing the manner of their selection, and are not under the control of any public department in Ireland. I have no information as to the expenses of harbour boards which fall on the local rates beyond that which the hon. Member will find in the Local Taxation (Ireland) Returns annually laid upon the Table of the House. I am, however, informed by the Board of Works that, in the case of five harbours, loans which have been
  270
  made by the Board, are secured on local rates in addition to the security of the harbour revenue; and the loan charges either actually or potentially involve a charge on the rates. The amount borne by the local rates in each of these cases during the last year was as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tralee and Fenit; Pier and Harbour

  4,797

  10

  0

  Arklow Harbour

  1,141

  14

  2

  Wicklow Harbour

  2,773

  6

  8

  Galway Harbour

  Nil.

  Kinsale Harbour

  276

  11

  9

  In addition, a loan for Ardglass Harbour, of which the Board of Works are the harbour authorities, is repaid in part by the Down County Council, and £234 6s. 4d.was paid by the body last year. A reference to the several Statutes and Orders constituting harbour authorities in Ireland will be found in House of Commons' Paper, 325, of 1903.

  Unoccupied Land on the Estate of Richard Thompson, in County Fermanagh.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received in connection with the small estate of Richard Thompson, in county Fermanagh, any application for an allotment of unoccupied land on behalf of John Thompson, of Cantytrindle, Ballinamallard; and if the Estates Commissioners will accede to the application.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received the application mentioned, and have referred it to one of their inspectors for inquiry and report. They are unable to say whether they will accede to the application until they have received and considered their inspector's report.

  Fishery Laws of the Lough Erne District.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the fishing on Lough Erne is open to all His Majesty's subjects, the bed and soil of the lake being vested in the Crown; and whether, seeing that the salmon and trout fishing therein has seriously declined in recent years owing to want of preservation, illegal netting,

  271
  and destruction of spawning fish in the rivers flowing into the lake, he will consider the expediency of having the fishery laws in the Erne district enforced by the Royal Irish Constabulary, under 7 and 8 Vic, c. 108, s. 1.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The hon. Member is mistaken in assuming that the public have the right to fish in Lough Erne. The bed and soil are vested in the Crown and are under the management of His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and I am informed that the fishing of the lough is also vested in the Crown, subject to certain ancient rights of fishery conveyed by Crown grants, and is under the like management. The duty of protecting the fisheries rests primarily with boards of conservators. The constabulary enforce the fishery laws so far as the public interests are concerned and their other and paramount duties permit.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act and Irish Bating.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how the unions in Ireland, as in the county of Limerick, where the one shilling in the £ limit is reached, or nearly so, will be affected by the Labourers (Ireland) Bill; and whether, without increasing the rate limit, more cottages can be built within the unions under it.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It is expected that in rural districts in which the existing limit is nearly reached, many additional cottages can be built without exceeding that limit. It is not possible at such short notice to make accurate calculations as regards a given district, but it is estimated that the rural districts in the county Limerick would, by reason of the facilities offered in the Labourers Bill, be able to borrow further sums, amounting to from £20,000 to £25,000 without exceeding the existing limit. I may also refer the hon. Member to Clause 12 of the Bill.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Osborne Cadets' Expenses.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
  272
  whether a payment of £75 per annum has to be made in respect of each cadet at Osborne by the parent; whether, in addition, there are not charged to the parents term fees amounting to about £24 per annum; whether the parent has not in addition to face charges for examination fees on entry, travelling expenses, uniform, chest, book, sextant, and maintenance during holidays, which together bring up the cost to from £135 to £150 per annum, or from £540 to £600 for the four years' course; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will take steps to cut down the burden on the parents.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Admiralty are not prepared to reduce the fees charged at Osborne, which are £75 per annum, except in the case of a limited number of cadets admitted at the reduced fee of £40 per annum. It is not known to what additional fees the hon. Member alludes. The expenses incurred on behalf of the cadets in respect of travelling to and from the college, renewals and repairs of clothing, instruments, books, drawing materials, washing, school stationery, sports fund, etc., average at Osborne about £22 a year. The first cost of the outfit, including sea chest and clothing, is about £40. No estimate can be given of the expenses incurred by the parents for clothing and maintenance during the holidays.

  Crime in the Army.
  MAJOR SEELY: On behalf of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, E., I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of prisoners committed to military prisons at home and abroad (excluding India), as shown on page 8 of [Cd. 2699] the Report on Military Prisons, 1905; and if he will explain this increase, seeing that the number of committals has gone up from 6,655 in 1896, when the average Army strength at home and abroad (excluding India) was 139,305 to 19,461 in 1905, when the average strength was only 188,570; what action does he propose taking to stop an increase of 192 per cent. in committals to prison in the space of ten years during which the increase in the average strength has been only 35 per cent.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): If my hon. friend will kindly refer to the footnote below the figures, which he mentions, he will find the explanation of a large portion of the increase. The increase in the number of men awarded sentences of imprisonment by the commanding officers is due to these men being committed to a military prison, instead of, as formerly, to provost or barrack cells. This explanation also applied to court martial sentences not exceeding forty-two days, which prior to 1902 were carried out in provost prisons, and as these are now classed as military prisons the figures for the latter have correspondingly increased.

  Flogging of Chinese Coolies—Case of the Crœsus Mine Manager.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the case of Witthauer, the compound manager of the Crœsus mine in the Transvaal, who admitted to the superintendent of foreign labour in the presence of witnesses that he was responsible for the flogging of Chinese coolies in the mines, criminal proceedings have been yet taken to vindicate the law; and, if not, will he explain why.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Lord Selborne has assured the Secretary of State that he is most anxious for the prosecution of Witthauer and that every effort is being made to obtain sufficient evidence on which to prosecute.

  Protection against Chinese Coolies.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now inform the House what measures His Majesty's Government have decided to sanction for the protection of the inhabitants of the Transvaal from the outrages committed by the Chinese coolies imported by the gold mining companies.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not yet able to inform the House, as the question of the measures to be adopted is still under consideration.
  *MR. LUPTONasked whether one method of reducing
  274
  the outrages would not be to alter the fugitive slave law, which made it a penal offence to give food, shelter, or employment to escaped Chinese coolies.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was not aware of the existence of any such law. Of course, the coolies had no right to be employed when they were absent from their regular employment. He thought the matter was one which must be taken into consideration in connection with the measures which Lord Selborne would recommend.
  *MR. LUPTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman would see whether the original Ordinance had been altered. Under that law, he repeated, the giving of shelter, food, or employment to an escaped Chinaman was prohibited, making outrage and murder inevitable unless the Chinaman was to die.
  MR. MORTONasked whether these coolies were treated as fugitive slaves.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not quite know what the question meant. It was true that when caught fugitive coolies were sent back to the mines, but he had no knowledge whether any inhumanity was suggested.
  MR. CHURCHILL (replying to Mr. LEHMAN N,), said he would probably be able to make a statement on this matter after Whitsuntide. It had already been decided that the proposals in regard to barbed wire fences should not be carried any further, and the question of the improvement of the police at the cost of the mineowners was now engaging attention.

  British Trade in Zambesia.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that the British concession at Chinde is rapidly disappearing owing to erosion; and whether he will instruct the Commissioner to make early arrangements with the Portuguese representatives in Zambesia in order to protect British Trade.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware that the British concession annually suffers

  275
  considerable loss from erosion, but at the rate at which that erosion is going on it is computed that it will be many years before the concession ceases to be available, and the Secretary of State is of opinion that under these circumstances the arrangements which might be necessary for the protection of British Trade in the event of the complete disappearance of the concession ought to receive very careful and deliberate consideration.

  British Central Africa Protectorate.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that the produce of the British Central Africa Protectorate is only allowed to enter the Transvaal Colony free of duty in return for permission to recruit native labour in the Protectorate for the Transvaal mines, and to the fact that owing to the mortality of such natives engaged in the mines the stoppage of such recruiting in the Protectorate is anticipated, the Colonial Office can arrange that the produce of the Protectorate shall continue to enter the Transvaal Colony free of duty; and whether the Colonial Office will consider the desirability of including the British Central Africa Protectorate in the projected South African Customs Union, so as to ensure the permanent free interchange of produce and merchandise between the Protectorate, the Transvaal, and other South African Colonies in order to the development of the said Protectorate.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I hope that it will be possible to arrange that the present free importation shall continue. The necessary provision has been retained in the draft Customs Convention. By the General Act of the Conference of Berlin, and a Declaration of 2nd July, 1890, made under the General Act of the Brussels Conference, it is not permitted in the British Central Africa Protectorate to impose an import duty higher than 10 per cent, ad valorem. So long, therefore, as Great Britain remains a party to these Acts, and the South African Union Tariff exceeds 10 per cent, ad valorem, it is impossible to include the Protectorate in the South African Customs Union.

  Congo Free State—Case of Silvanus Jones.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any action has been taken or is in contemplation by His Majesty's Government in regard to the case of Silvanus Jones, a British subject of Lagos, sentenced to five years' imprisonment by the appeal court at Boma, Congo Free State, on 15th March, 1904, for alleged complicity in the murder of a woman; if His Majesty's Government are aware that the accused denied the charges against him, that he was unprovided with counsel, and was not given the opportunity of securing such; and if His Majesty's Government will take steps to remove British subjects in the Congo from the position in which they stand towards the Congo executive and judiciary.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Consul Nightingale has recently reported that Silvanus Jones died in hospital last March. He did deny the charges against him, but it does not appear that they were unfounded or false, and the result of the inquiry made by my Predecessor, referred to in the answer to the hon. Member's question of May 18th, 1904 † was to show that Jones must have been aware that criminal proceedings were to be taken against him, and that ho might have engaged counsel if he had desired to do so. He was asked at the trial on appeal whether he had applied I for the assistance of counsel, and replied in the negative. This case is not one which would justify the action suggested in the last part of the Question, for the reason given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his speech in 1904.‡

  Case of John Alfred Brown.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consular authorities in the Congo State have reported upon the case of John Alfred Brown, a coloured British subject of Freetown, sentenced, on July 19th, 1904, by the appeal court at Boma, to three years'
  † See (4) Debates, exxxv., 178.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, exxxv., 1276 et seq.

  277
  imprisonment; if he is aware that Brown was arrested and seized in his own house by the executive official of the district, who figures as his prosecutor in the records; that an inquiry was held on the spot by the prosecutor subsequent to Brown's arrest and after his removal, and that the charges brought against him at his first trial at Stanleyville were entirely different to those which were held to justify his arrest; that he was kept in prison for four months without trial; that he was unprovided with counsel at Stanleyville, unable to call witnesses for his defence, and consequently unable to defend himself against the charges made; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Consul Nightingale reported this casein 1904, when he was Acting Consul at Boma. John Brown admitted having on several occasions beaten the natives under him, and I see no reason to complain of the punishment inflicted on him. I may add that the final sentence would have been heavier if the Court of Appeal had not taken the view that compulsion is necessary in order to induce the natives to work. I have not sufficient information to enable me to answer all the hon. Member's Questions in detail, but I have come to the conclusion that, with the exception of the delay in bringing Brown to trial, he was not on the whole unfairly treated. John Brown was released on March 5th, 1905. I ought to add that, in both this and the previous case, the accused were punished for having taken part in the ill-treatment of natives, which has been the ground of such general complaint in the Congo State. They are, therefore, in a quite different category from other matters which have formed the subject of representations on the part of His Majesty's Government.

  Chinese Maritime Customs.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has yet been received from the Chinese Government to the request of His Majesty's Government for more definite assurances in regard to the Imperial edict placing the Maritime Customs under the control of a Chinese administrator.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A telegram has been received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking to the effect that he was yesterday given a definite promise by the Foreign Board that the Chinese Government would send him a note in a few days, formally recapitulating and reaffirming the specific engagement contained in Articles 7 and 6 of the 1896 and 1898 Loan Agreements that the administration of the Maritime Customs shall continue as at present constitued.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the statement made on April 28th in the Dorchester police court by Captain Gravener, the chairman of the bench, in dismissing an application for exemption under the Vaccination Acts, that he would never grant a certificate of exemption from vaccination; and if he will take into consideration the advisability of making representations with a view to the removal of Captain Gravener from the bench.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am at the present time in communication with the Lord Chancellor upon this subject.

  South African Companies.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the requirements of The Companies Acts, 1900, especially of Section 12, have been complied with by the following limited liability companies: Rhodesia, Limited (New Company), Gwanda Consolidated Development, Austro-Rhodesia Development, South Africa Gold Dredging, Town Properties Bulawayo, Criterion Development Company, Empress Mines, and Eastern Queen's; if any of these companies are registered in Rhodesia and not in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether they are exempt from the responsibilities of the Companies' Acts.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OR TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Of the companies named in the question Rhodesia, Limited (New

  279
  Company), Criterion Development Company, and Eastern Queen's are not registered in the United Kingdom. I am unable to say whether they are registered in Rhodesia. Speaking generally, companies registered outside the United Kingdom are not subject to the Companies Acts; but any company, wherever registered, is liable to be ordered by the Court to be wound up, if it possessess assets within the Court's jurisdiction. The remaining companies mentioned in the Question are registered in the United Kingdom, but of them the South African Gold Dredging Company, Limited, alone was registered after January 1st, 1901, and consequently would be the only one to which Section 12 of the Companies Act, 1900, applied. It did make a return under that section, but is now winding up.

  Lighting of the Coasts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the form of inquiry he proposes as to the lighting of the British and Irish coasts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is proposed that the inquiry should be by Royal Commission, and should extend to the constitution and administration of the three general lighthouse authorities, but not to the incidence of light dues.

  Blackburn Cottage Homes.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Blackburn Board of Guardians on the 5th instant, in the course of which the question of advertising for a foster-mother of the Catholic religion was rejected, in spite of a favourable report to this effect from the Cottage Homes Committee; and whether, in view of the fact that forty-nine of the children in the cottage homes are Catholic, whilst only thirty-eight are Protestant, and that the result of adopting this recommendation would be that the Catholic and Protestant foster-mothers would be equal in number, he will cause an inquiry to be made, so that justice shall be done in this matter to the Catholics of Blackburn.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have made inquiry on this subject, and understand that the post to be filled up is that of foster-mother in a home in which all the children are Protestants. It seems right, therefore, that she should be a Protestant also. It appears, however, that there are two homes in which both Roman Catholic and Protestant children are received. In both of these the foster-mother is a Protestant. It has been suggested that the foster-mother of one of these homes should be transferred to the post now vacant, and that she should be replaced by a Roman Catholic foster-mother. I have asked the Guardians to consider the matter further from this point of view.

  Feeding Hungry School Children.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Camberwell I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say, respecting the working of the Local Government Order of April 27th, 1905, empowering boards of guardians in certain cases to assist in the feeding of hungry children, in how many cases the Order has been put into operation; in how many cases are children now being assisted under it; what is the record of its operations in London; and whether he has received any information bearing generally upon the efficacy or otherwise of the Order in question.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The information I have received on this subject is not sufficiently complete to enable me to give the precise particulars asked for by my hon. friend, but I gather from it that, except in some of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Unions, the applications under the Order have not been numerous.

  The Unemployed.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his correspondence with the Chairman of the Central (Unemployed) Body has satisfied, him that the reply to his letter of May 11th will be received by the date suggested, namely June 1st; and whether any delay occurring in the receipt of this reply would cause a corresponding delay in the introduction of the proposed Bill

  281
  to amend the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I find that I shall not receive the Preliminary Report of the Central (Unemployed) Body by June 1st. I understand that it will be submitted to a special meeting of the body on the 8th of that month, and I have every reason to expect that I shall receive the Report within a few days of that date. If this expectation is fulfilled I do not think that the matter referred to in the last part of the Question would be materially affected.

  Handsworth School Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are three schools in Handsworth, near Sheffield, and that whilst the head teacher in the Church of England school draws a salary of £160, the salary of the head teacher in St. Joseph's Catholic School has been cut down to £90, although the number of children in each of these schools is practically the same; and will he have an inquiry made into the action of the local education committee, with a view to equalising their salaries.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIBRELL,): I find that the matter referred to came before the Board of Education a year ago and a letter was then written on the subject. Since then nothing has been heard of it, and the Board supposed the matter had been settled. If the managers renew the subject, I will see that it is carefully investigated.

  Postal Congress at Rome.
  MR. WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the British delegates to the Postal Congress at Rome have been successful in obtaining any reductions or improvements in the postal rates to foreign countries.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am glad to be able to announce that, although the British delegates failed to obtain a reduction in the initial postage rate of 2½d. to foreign countries, they were successful in persuading the congress to adopt two considerable concessions to
  282
  the public; the one as regards the initial weight allowed for foreign letters, and the other as regards the charges on; heavier letters. In reference to the first, point, when the new Postal Union Convention of Rome takes effect next year, the unit of weight will be doubled, so that the existing postage of 2½d. to foreign countries will prepay a letter weighing up to one ounce instead of up to only half an ounce as at present. This concession will embrace also letters sent under the Imperial penny post to any part of the British Empire and to Egypt, which letters at present must not exceed half an ounce in weight for a penny. Thus a letter (say) to France weighing one ounce, will in future cost for postage 2½d. instead of 5d.; and a similar letter to India and the Colonies will cost 1d. instead of 2d. As regards the second point, at present an additional 2½d. is charged for every additional half ounce after the first. In future the postage on foreign letters exceeding an ounce in. weight will be reduced to 1½d. for each additional ounce, after the initial rate of 2½d. on the first ounce has been paid. Thus a letter to France, weighing two ounces will be chargeable with a postage rate of 4d. (that is 2½d. plus 1½d.) instead of 10d. as at present. Similarly a two-ounce letter to India, the Colonies and. Egypt will cost only 2d. instead of 4d. A further useful postal reform, which; was adopted on the motion of the British, delegates, was the introduction of a reply coupon, a little postal order to bearer exchangeable in any country for a Union postage stamp. Further, the transit rates have been reduced and simplified. I think the British delegates are to be congratulated on the general success that has attended their efforts.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked if the proposals had been accepted by the United States.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think the United States specifically agreed to them. But, in any case, the arrangement is binding on all the countries in the Postal Union.
  MR. MORTONwished to know when the new regulations would come into operation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Next year, It has always been the custom of the Postal Union to give a year's notice in order that preparations and postal arrangements may be made accordingly.

  Ex-Cabinet Ministers' Pensions.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the nature of the declaration that has to be made by ex-Ministers before they can receive a political pension.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The declaration must state that the applicant's total income is inadequate to maintain his station in life as required by the Act 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 24, Section 6, re-enacted by the Civil Offices (Pensions) Act, 1869.

  Local Taxation in the Western Islands of Scotland.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has yet received the Report of Sheriff Fleming and Mr. A. B. Millar in regard to local taxation in the parishes in the western islands of Scotland; and if the Report is to be published.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Report has been received and will be laid upon the Table presently.

  Barra Parish Rates.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the ratepayers in the parish of Barra have refused to pay the parish rates amounting to 17 s. 11 d. in the pound; that the school board requisition has not been handed over, and that the clerk to the parish council has had to give his personal guarantee to the bank for certain necessary expenditure; whether he is aware that the whole parish council has resigned; and what he proposes to do to meet this deadlock and to relieve a parish where the rates are 17 s. 11 d. in the pound.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I understand the facts are as stated. Although several attempts have been made to recover the rates aud the collector has made a door to door visit, the ratepayers refuse to pay, and prosecutions have, I understand,
  284
  been ordered. The parish council, with two exceptions, have now resigned and the Local Government Board are considering the terms of an Order which they propose to issue under the powers conferred upon them by Section 18 of the Act of 1894.

  Killadysert Poor Relief Case.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Hore of Killadysert, whose husband was laid up with illness, applied to the Board of Guardians of Killadysert for outdoor relief for her husband and four children, who refused it; and whether he will inquire why outdoor relief was refused to this family, and who was responsible for their not getting it.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Local Government Board have referred this Question to the officials of the Killadysert Union, who have reported that Mrs. Hore has not at any time applied to the guardians for outdoor relief.

  Irish Agricultural Grant.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state what has been the amount unexpended each year since the formation of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland, out of the moneys voted by Parliament, excluding the sum of £18,000 per annum voted as a grant in aid, and which last year amounted to £190,406, to what fund does this unexpended balance go, under what section of the Act of 1899 is this money so diverted; and in view of the fact that the Department has repeatedly refused grants for objects which, if encouraged, would tend to the development of agriculture and kindred subjects, on the grounds that the Department had no money, he will take steps to ensure that money voted by Parliament will be expended on the specific objects for which it has been voted, and not diverted for the formation of reserve funds which were not contemplated by Parliament.
  MR. BRYCE: The unexpended balances out of the moneys voted by Parliament in respect of the Department of Agriculture

  285
  and Technical Instruction for Ireland for each year since April 1st, 1900, are as follows—

  £

  s.

  d.

  1900–1

  3,099

  8

  10

  1901–2

  2,962

  15

  2

  1902–3

  3,141

  3

  4

  1903–4

  10,051

  3

  7

  1904–5

  10,307

  14

  1

  These amounts are determined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General when the audit of the account for the year is completed. The amount in respect of 1905–6 has not yet been determined. The unexpended balances are surrendered to the Exchequer, as shown in the Annual Appropriation Accounts laid before Parliament. The hon. Member would seem to be under some misapprehension as regards the Annual Parliamentary Vote for the Department contained in the Estimates, and the moneys placed at the disposal of the Department under Section 15 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, for the purposes specified in Section 16 of that Act. The moneys annually voted by Parliament must be applied for the purposes indicated in the several subheads shown in the Estimates, under which sub-heads the Vote has to be accounted for. The only unexpended portions of those Votes that are not paid back to the Exchequer each year, are balances to credit of the grants in aid. Such balances can be carried forward and can be applied in the succeeding financial year to the purposes for which the grants in aid were voted, and for no other purpose. The details of these balances are also shown in the Appropriation Accounts.
  MR. MOONEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that in the public balance-sheet of the Department the figures for 1904–5 were not the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House, and also whether in view of the complicated way the accounts were presented he would direct that the balance-sheet should be issued yearly, so that it might be shown how the money was spent.
  MR. BRYCE: I have not the Report before me and cannot compare the figures I have just given; these figures may be assumed to be the most authentic.
  MR. MOONEYasked whether it was to be assumed that the Department issued a balance-sheet before they knew the real state of their affairs.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the system by which a reserve fund is created?
  MR. BRYCEsaid he could hardly say that without looking at the Act. That Act presented a great many things.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Could not the right hon. Gentleman see that the unexpended money went into such a fund, for instance, as that required for the financing of the Labourers Bill?
  MR. BRYCEwas understood to say he must look at the Act before he could answer that Question.
  MR. MOONEYasked whether these matters would be considered by the Committee at present investigating the constitution of the Department.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it certainly would cover part of the financial arrangements of the Department; whether it would cover all the matters referred to was another thing.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the financial management included in what is called the Horace Plunkett category?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Sub-Sheriffs.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who has control of the duties of sub-sheriffs in Ireland; and, if it is permissible for such officials to act as land agents or auctioneers while in the public service.
  MR. BRYCE: the appointment of under or sub-sheriffs in Ireland is vested in the high sheriff of each county for the time being. The under-sheriff holds office during the will of the high sheriff, and is answerable to him for the discharge of his duties. Under-sheriffs are in no way under the control of the Irish Government. I am not aware

  287
  of any statutory provision forbidding under sheriffs to act as land agents or auctioneers.

  Irish Poor Law Commission.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the presentation of the Report of the Poor Law Commission; whether the Report has been ready for publication for some time; and if he can state that it will not be held back until after the close of the Parliamentary session.
  MR. BRYCE: The Chairman of the Poor Law Reforms Commission informs me that the delay in the presentation of the Report is due in part to unforeseen difficulties in the preparation of statistics, and in part to the fact that he has had to give a good deal of attention recently to another inquiry in which he is concerned by the direction of the Government. The Report of the Poor Law Reform Commission will, he states, be published long before the close of the Parliamentary session. It is at present almost ready for presentation except for some statistics which have yet to be completed, and these may cause some modification in the recommendations of the Commissioners.
  MR. BARRIE: Is not the Report already in the hands of the printers?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, but corrections are to be made in the proofs.
  MR. BARRIE: Who is responsible for the delay? This is a pressing matter.
  MR. BRYCE: All possible despatch is being made.

  Knockanes Police Hut.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on whom the charges for the additional police hut and policemen at Knockanes, near Headfort, county Kerry, will fall; whether he considers it necessary to retain a force of nine policemen in a small and peaceable district under present conditions; and, if so, what are the grounds on which they are to be continued.
  MR. BRYCE: The cost of the four policemen at Knockanes hut is defrayed out of public funds. The force at the permanent station at Headfort also consists of four policemen. The district to be policed by this force is not small, but consists of an area of 180 square miles. The force is considered absolutely necessary for the policing of this large district.

  Sir Henry Burke's Property.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday the 13th instant a notice appeared outside the church of Ballinakill, county Galway, signed by the Rev. Martin Larkin, P.P., asking the tenants on a portion of the property of Sir Henry Burke, of Marble Hill, to meet him on the following Tuesday in reference to the purchase of their holdings; whether he induced some of those present to offer twenty-one years purchase, and had the estate bailiff, named Campbell, present to take down the names of those induced to consent to that offer; and whether, seeing that a portion of the tenants are in arrear, he will see that if they are unduly pressed for recovery of same, and thereby coerced to agree to that price, the estate shall be inspected before any public money is advanced.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the particular portion of the estate of Sir Henry Burke which is referred to in the Question have yet come before them, and they have no information as to the matters of fact alleged in the Question. If proceedings for sale should come before the Commissioners, they will take any steps which they may consider necessary and proper in the circumstances, having regard to the powers vested in them.

  Promotion in the Dublin Police.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state what was the system of promotion in the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force while Mr. Jones was Chief Commissioner; has it since been departed from, and, if so,

  289
  for what reason; whether members of the force qualified for promotion have been passed over, and others having less claims to advancement have been promoted in their places; and whether he will take steps to insure that, in future, promotions in the force shall be based on more equitable principles.
  MR. BRYCE: The Chief Commissioner informs me that in the time of his predecessor three-fourths of the promotions were made according to seniority from the list of qualified men, and one-fourth of the promotions were made by competitive examination among qualified men, independent of seniority. The latter method of promotion was somewhat of an innovation, and was deemed to have been not entirely satisfactory in practice, seeing that it opened the way for the promotion, in respect of a competitive examination largely in literary subjects, of men whose capacity for police work was not shown to be superior to that of their comrades. The system in question has been departed from by the present Chief Commissioner, who has adopted the general rule of promoting the senior man who is found eligible, reserving a power to give promotion for special merits outside seniority on the result of a competitive examination. The Chief Commissioner informs me that no members of the force who are qualified for promotion have been passed over, and none having less claims to advancement have been promoted in their places. The Chief Commissioner claims that the present system is entirely equitable.

  Irish Equivalent Education Grant.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he will be able to make a statement as to the equivalent grant of money to be devoted to Irish purposes, in relation to the £1,000,000 to be paid to England and Wales under Clause 12 to the Education Bill.
  MR. BRYCE: I stated on Thursday last that the time has not yet arrived for making a statement on this subject. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently informed the hon. Member for North Londonderry that as the financial arrangements under the Education Bill will not come into force
  290
  during the present financial year it would be premature to come to a decision in the matter.

  Irish Prison Service.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the practice of appointing ex-Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners to the Irish Prison Service; and whether he will consider the advisability of not employing, as a prison warder, a constable who may have been in conflict with political offenders and with the criminal classes.
  MR. BRYCE: Pensioners from the Royal Irish Constabulary are eligible for appointment as prison warders, but as a matter of fact very few have been appointed, the reason being that the majority of pensioners are physically unfit for the work. The Chairman of the Prisons Board informs me that out of a total of 380 warders, at no time have there been more than ten or twelve who have served in the Constabulary. Pensioners, however, who have been appointed have proved satisfactory officers, and so far as experience goes it would not appear that the consideration mentioned in the Question has shown any ground why the practice of occasionally appointing eligible pensioners should not be continued.

  King's County Uneconomic Holdings.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial has been received by the Estates Commissioners from a number of tenants occupying uneconomic holdings in Ard, near Killeigh, in the King's County, praying the Commissioners to purchase (for the purpose of the redistribution and enlargement of their holdings) 500 acres of untenanted land on the estate of Mrs. Guise, at Aughanvilla, Geashill; and whether he can say what steps the Commissioners propose to take in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received the memorial in question, and made inquiries from the owner with the object of considering the question of purchase. The Commissioners were informed, in reply, that the owner had already sold the

  291
  lands in question to a private purchaser. This sale did not take place through the Commissioners.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEasked if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to advise the Estates Commissioners to make a special list of applications for the sale of untenanted land where no legal question arose, and where there were no disputed rights, so as to grant the necessary relief under the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he believed the Commissioners were doing that.

  West of Ireland Grazing Farms.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the passing of the Land Act of 1903, many large grazing farms in the West of Ireland have been purchased by non-residential graziers; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take in order to put an end to this practice, which means the sale to individuals of lands which should be utilised for the relief of congestion in Connaught.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in any case in which a grazier holds on the eleven months system, they make no advance to enable him to purchase the holding, as he is not a tenant within the meaning of the Act. In any case in which a grazier is a tenant within the meaning of the Act, the Commissioners will exercise the discretion given to them by the Act, as to whether such a tenancy should be included in the estate for the purposes of purchase, and, if included, whether the advance prescribed by the Land Purchase Amendment Act of 1888, namely £3,000, should be exceeded. In cases in which new tenancies are created by letting lands to graziers or others in a Congested Districts county, the Estates Commissioners, under Section 53 of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, can only advance a maximum of £500 in each case. If a landlord creates new tenancies on untenanted land, whether in congested or non-congested districts, by putting the untenanted land up for auction in parcels and then selling to the buyers under the Land Purchase Acts, thus depriving the Commissioners of the opportunity of
  292
  disposing of such parcels to the classes of persons contemplated by the Act, the Commissioners refuse to allow such parcels to be included in an estate for the purposes of the Act.

  Darcy Irvine Estate, Evicted Tenant.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has been received from James Somerville, an evicted tenant on the Darcy Irvine estate, county Fermanagh, for re-instatement in his former holding; and whether, in case, as appears to be the fact, his former holding is now relet to another person, the Commissioners will allot him another holding on the untenanted lands of this or some other estate in the county.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from James Somerville, whose former holding is stated to be in the occupation of a judicial tenant. In the event of the Estates Commissioners acquiring untenanted land in the district, his application and the applications of all local evicted tenants will be considered and dealt with.

  Steam Trawling off County Antrim.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the representations from fishermen of Portrush, Portstewart, and Magilligan districts as to the losses sustained by them owing to the operations of steam trawlers, an inquiry was held by one of the Fishery Board's officials in Portrush in September last, and that as a result of this inquiry the Fishery Board recommended to the Lord-lieutenant that steam trawling be prohibited within a line drawn between Donagree, county Donegal, and Bengore Head, county Antrim; and will he explain why this recommendation has not so far been given effect to, as at present steam trawlers are still inflicting loss upon the local fishermen.
  MR. BRYCE: A by-law embodying the prohibition in question was approved by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council on the 24th instant, and was published in the Dublin Gazette of the following day.

  Irish Equivalent Grant.
  MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what amounts were paid out of the Irish Equivalent Grant during the year 1905, and to what purposes they were applied: also what amount of the same grant was applied during the same period towards primary education in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: The particulars for the year ending March 31st, 1906, will be found in the Report of proceedings under the Ireland Development Grant which has been laid on the Table of the House (Cd. 2937, of the present year).

  Gledstane Estate, Donegal.
  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 matter of Moses Glenn, of Ruskey, Convoy, East Donegal, who was evicted from his farm on the Gledstane estate, for which he paid an annual rent of £30; whether he is aware that the farm has since been let to a planter for £15 per annum; and whether, now that the estate is in the hands of the Commissioners, he will direct them to inquire into Glenn's case, with a view to reinstating him in his farm or to see that the planter will not be allowed to purchase under the Land Act 1903, unless Glenn is compensated for the loss of his holding.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from Moses Glenn, whoso former holding is stated to be in the occupation of a judicial tenant at a rent of £16 per annum. The Commissioners will have enquiry made into the case, but until their inspector's report has been received, they have no knowledge of the facts of the case, and are unable to say what action they may take.

  Dublin Corporation and Re-valuation.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the revaluation of Dublin was directed by an Act promoted by the Corporation of Dublin itself; if that Corporation has sinee endeavoured to retard the revaluation, or made any representations to him with
  294
  that view, either directly or through any of the Dublin Members of Parliament; and whether attempts to delay the revaluation have taken place after it was found that the Commissioner of Valuation in revaluing Belfast had put valuations on public-house licences hitherto not taken into account in the valuation of property in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. As to the third, the Commissioner of Valuation informs me that he is not aware of any attempt to delay the work of revaluation beyond the fact that, as reported to the public Press, a Motion to ask the Commissioner to proceed at once with the re-valuation was on two occasions defeated at meetings of the corporation. The matter does not rest with the Irish Government, the Commissioner of Valuation being an officer of the Treasury.

  Dublin Police and Licensed Traders.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the instructions issued to some inspectors of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to make cases against licensed traders, whether he has seen those instructions, and whether he has sanctioned them, if he does not, whether he has caused or will cause his opinion to be conveyed to the Dublin police authorities; and whether he will givn to the House the terms of the instructions in question.
  MR. BRYCE: I have neither sanctioned nor seen the document referred to. What the Question described as instructions was contained in a confidential memorandum sent more than a year ago by a superintendent in the Dublin Metropolitan Police to three inspectors under him. The Chief Commissioner informs me that he is satisfied that the issue of this memorandum was an honest attempt on the part of the superintendent to rouse his men to a faithful discharge of their duties under the licensing laws, and in no way intended to suggest to them to take any unfair action. It would be contrary to practice to lay on the Table a confidential memorandum issued by a police superintendent.
  MR. CLANCYexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would get a copy of the memorandum and read it himself; he would then be able to answer the Question.

  Guinness's Brewery, Dublin.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can inform the House what is the valuation upon which the brewery of Arthur Guinness, Son, and Company, Dublin, is assessed, and how that valuation compares with the brewery of Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton at Burton; whether he is aware that public-houses in Dublin are valued under the present valuation without reference to the value of their licences; and if he will represent to the Commissioner of Valuation the need for proceeding with the revaluation of Dublin.
  MR. McKENNA: I regret that I have been unable to obtain the information necessary to answer this Question.

  Merchants' Quay (Kilrush) Fatality.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that P. Tyrrel, of Arklow, aged twenty-two years, was drowned at Merchants' Quay, Kilrush, on March 16th, 1890, and that the coroner's jury added a rider to its finding expressing their deepest censure on whoever is responsible for the lighting and better protection of Merchants' Quay, Kilrush, and drawing attention to the number of deaths that have occurred in the past few years from the negligence referred to; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the quay being kept in such a neglected condition, without light or protection for those who have to do business on it at night.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I have seen a copy of the finding of the coroner's jury and of the rider in the case referred to, and I have, as I promised in my reply to the hon. Member on March 27th,† obtained a further report on the place. As the result of representations made by His Majesty's Inspector the dangerous parts of the quay have been fenced, and steps are
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 1083–4.
  296
  being taken to provide life-buoys, to erect lamps to light the quay and the road leading to it and to put a chain along the dock-wall. I am informed, however, that only two drowning fatalities have occurred at this place since 1846.

  South of Ireland Railway Grant.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the apparent inability of hon. Members representing the localities concerned to agree on the proper allocation of the sum of £93,000 which the Treasury had promised to grant towards railway development in the South of Ireland, he will consider the advisability of diverting this money to help in the drainage of Lough Neagh and the river Bann, and thus relieve the people in that district from the suffering and distress under which they are at present labouring.
  MR. McKENNA: I fear that I can hold out no prospect of meeting the hon. Member's wishes in this respect.

  Revaluation of Dublin.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the necessary financial arrangements will be made to enable the revaluation of the city of Dublin to be commenced; whether he is aware that for now almost six years this revaluation is overdue, and rates are being levied on an obsolete basis; whether he is aware that under the existing valuation no account is taken of business goodwill or the existence of publicans' licences; and whether action will be taken to enable this system of taxation to be set right by revaluation.
  MR. McKENNA: I am not able to state when it will be possible to commence revaluation. It is true that application for it was made some six years ago, but although it has not yet been carried out the valuation lists are kept up to date by annual revision. The Answer to the third part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Belfast Revaluation.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the revaluation of Belfast was commenced and when concluded; whether

  297
  the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland was supplied with a suitable staff to enable him to make the revaluation; whether the revaluation of Dublin was already overdue before the completion of the Belfast revaluation; will he say why the Commissioner did not at once begin the revaluation of Dublin when he finished that of Belfast; and would the staff which enabled him to revalue Belfast have been adequate for revaluation of Dublin.
  MR. McKENNA: The revaluation of Belfast was commenced in December, 1899, and the final lists were issued on June 1st, 1905, but the revision intended to bring these up to date was not issued till March last, and the 975 appeals which arose out of it have not yet been settled. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, but I am informed that very few of the staff were available for the revaluation of Dublin. I may add that there is no time limit under which the valuation is to be made.

  Colonial Conference.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the representation of India at the Conference in 1907 will extend to the different provinces of the Empire, in view of their widely differing character as regards population, wealth, trade, revenue, and other circumstances.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): As I have already stated, invitations to the Conference of 1907 have been issued only to the Premiers of the various self-governing Colonies. The practice adopted at the previous Conferences provides for the presence of representatives of different Departments of the Government, and under this arrangement the representation of India will be secured. It is not intended that the Indian Provinces should be separately represented before the Conference, any more than the Australian and Canadian Provinces.

  Conventual Laundries.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in consideration of the increase in the number of religious houses in this country, recently augmented by the
  298
  immigration of conventual communities from France, and of the fact that factories, workshops, and laundries are conducted in connection with these establishments, whether he will order a Statistical Return of all Monastic and Conventual Residences in Great Britain and Ireland, and arrange for the periodical and efficient inspection of all such institutions, enabling all the members of these communities to share the rights and liberties of British citizens under the protection of the Law, and regulating all business undertakings, whether of paid or unpaid labour, in accordance with the rules enforced in other centres of industry.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that any such Return is wanted at present, nor do I think that any system of general conventual inspection is required or desirable. I understand that my right hon. friend the Home Secretary contemplates legislation next session, if possible, dealing with convent laundries; and I hope that this will make good any existing deficiencies in the way of public supervision.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember this Question is put by a follower of a Government which negatived any such legislation.
  MR. SLOAN: Will the Bill be similar to one intended to be introduced by the late Government?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had no knowledge what the provisions of the Bill would be; nor was it certain that a Bill would be introduced.
  MR. SLOAN: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by will be introtroduced next session "if possible"?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If it is found to be within the competence and necessities of the Government to introduce it.

  Election Petition Judges.
  MR. T. R. BETHELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered or will consider the propriety of introducing legislation to enable Election Judges to be nominated

  299
  each year by the Speaker of the House of Commons, instead of as at present left to a rota; and whether he will consider the propriety of amending the law so as to insure more clearly than the laws as at present laid down appear to do the purity of elections.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When the Election Petitions of this year have been finished His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider whether an amendment of the law is needed. The nomination of the Election Judges by the Speaker would be to impose on him a somewhat anomalous duty, and this course does not seem practicable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. PAULasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could not put down the salary of the Secretary of State for War as the first order on Thursday in Whitsun week, or on some not much later date. He asked this because he desired to call attention to a subject of great importance involving the whole administration of military law. Of course he could not expect any consideration, as he did not belong to the Party opposite, and the majority must suffer, but as this question affected the welfare of every soldier in the Army—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is only entitled to ask a Question.
MR. PAUL: Then I ask if the opportunity I desire will be given on the first Thursday after Whitsuntide, or soon after.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he would endeavour to meet the desire of his hon. friend to raise the question of his right hon. friend's salary. There was, however, a little difficulty in meeting the wishes of his hon. friend, which were certainly not extravagant; but he hoped that if his hon. friend would communicate with him a place in the menu of the day which would suit his purpose would be found.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask if I rightly understand that the Chancellor of
300
the Exchequer does not intend to proceed with the proposed drawback on tobacco?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I do intend to proceed with it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR, referring to to-morrow's business, said he understood that the Prime Minister on a previous occasion had indicated that he proposed to take some Bills as well as the Motion for adjournment over the holidays. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman intended to take the Motion for adjournment first, as it was one of the few occasions on which the House could discuss all subjects with the greatest freedom.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the Bills he proposed to take were not of a contentious character, and he thought it would be better to take them first. If any of them appeared to give a bona fide opportunity for the expenditure of time it would not be proceeded with. The Bills he proposed to take were:—The Metropolitan Police Commission Bill, the Post Office Sites Bill, the Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Bill, the Fatal Accidents (Scotland) Bill, the Isle of Man Bill, the Dean Forest Bill, and the Indian Railways Acts Amendment Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURmost earnestly protested against the one opportunity on which any question dealing with matters of administration could be raised being interfered with. The House ought not rashly to fritter away any of its privileges. When once they started on the Second Reading of a Bill there was no knowing how long the debate would last.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had himself on one occasion of the kind introduced the Aliens Bill first.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under the ten minutes rule.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that meant twenty minutes, and be did not think that these two or three Bills would occupy more than ten minutes; but he did not wish to infringe on the

301
rights of the House, and if any of the Bills he had mentioned appeared likely to lead to substantial discussion they would not be proceeded with.

REVENUE BILL.
"To amend the Law relative to Customs and Inland Revenue, and for other purposes connected with Finance," presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. M'Kenna; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, June 12th, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
*MR. COURTHOPE*MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye) moved to reduce the duty on tea to 4d. He said it was an outrageous thing that tea should be taxed to the extent it was. The duty was economically undefensible. In 1905 the consumption of tea in these islands was roughly 260,000,000 lbs.—or 6 lbs. per head of population, and he did not think he in any way exaggerated the facts when he described tea as an article of universal necessity. In 1901 the consumption was as high as 6.16 lbs. per head of population, but owing to the heavy tax it had since fallen. The wholesale price of the tea which the poor drank ranged from 2½d. per lb. upwards, so that on this tea there was actually an ad valorem duty of 350 per cent. No other article of food—no other commodity in use in this country—was taxed to that extent. We raised a revenue of some £7,000,000 by thus oppressing our poorer brethren, and it was quite time another protest was made against this tax. All other English-speaking countries admitted tea duty free, while as to the continent of Europe, Germany only charged 1½d., Sweden 3d. and Denmark 4d. We had the highest tea duty in the world, and it was time that tea drinkers received more consideration at the hands of the Government. He might be reminded that the duty was increased by the Conservative party. No doubt
302
it was, but the justification for that was to be found in the extraordinarily narrow limits of taxation which had hitherto been looked upon as open. But that did not alter the fact that the duty was an indefensible one. We got seven-eighths of our tea from India and Ceylon. A very large proportion of our tea was grown by British subjects, and therefore it mattered not, for the sake of his argument, who paid the tax, whether the producer or the consumer, as it fell on British subjects. Therefore, to his mind, it was indefensible. Another argument that would be used was that a penny had been given, and that half a loaf was better than no bread. Yes, when they got that half loaf themselves, but not when somebody else ate it. Although this penny reduction might benefit a certain number, particularly those who bought their tea in comparatively large quantities, it would not benefit a great many of those who bought their tea in extremely small quantities. A reduction of a penny in the lb. could not possibly benefit those who bought their tea in two-ounce packets, for which they now paid l¼d., and they would continue to pay that amount. If, however, there had been 2d. reduction a farthing would have been knocked off, and that would make a considerable difference to the poor women who did their marketing in very small quantities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading had argued that although they would not gain in quantity they would gain in quality. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had so poor an opinion of the intelligence of this House as to use an argument of that kind. There were vast quantities of tea in bond. They could not change the quality of the poorer nature of tea. Poor tea must be grown and would be grown, and it was absolutely certain that if it were grown it would be put on the market, and the people who bought it would get no advantage in quality, quantity, or price from this reduction of the tax. Then it would be said that the right hon. Gentleman could not afford to reduce the tax by 2d. He contended that they ought to be able to afford it by widening and enlarging the basis of taxation and by trying to make the foreigner pay a part of our taxation, as he made us pay a part of his. The other alternative he would suggest was that the 2d. should be taken off tea and the coal duty left as it

303
was. Whatever might be the merits of the coal duty, whatever the incidence of its burden, it was quite certain that the coal duty had been taken off in favour of a comparatively small class, while the tea duty affected everyone in these islands. He thought it was the hon. Member for North Paddington who calculated that 38,000,000 of the inhabitants of these islands might be classed as poor, and these 38,000,000 were more deserving of consideration—they had more claim to a 2d. reduction— than the class of coalowners and coalminers had for the abolition of the duty on coal. Then he dared say another argument would be used that tea was bad for one. He was not going to argue whether it was bad or good. He knew quite well that if it was allowed to stew it must be bad, but that was not the point. Whether it was bad or good it would be drunk regularly by almost every inhabitant of these islands, and one had to take that into consideration, and not to argue whether they had better drink something else. On all these grounds he thought tea drinkers had a good claim for the reduction by 2d. of the existing duty, and he hoped a great section of the Committee would support this Amendment. He intended to push it to a division, and he would like, though he did it with some reluctance, to remind a great many hon. Members that they had heard a great deal during this session of mandates and so on. He would like to remind them of what they had said—of the pledges they had given in regard to tea, of the tea posters which were all over many of the constitutencies, and of the opinions that they had expressed as to the value of those posters to them. He had here an expression of opinion that the posters of the Anti-Tea Duty League rendered very great service to the President of the Local Government Board. That was only one of many. Now they had an opportunity of showing their gratitude for the assistance given them at the elections by those societies which advocated the prompt abolition of the 2d. war tax on tea. In conclusion he would quote a sentence used two years ago by the President of the Board of Trade. Had the right hon. Gentleman been present he would have invited him to give effect to his words. He said—
"The House of Commons has got to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the throat in a
304
Parliamentary sense and tell him that they cannot continue these burdens year by year."
He was exceedingly sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not present to put the pressure on now which he advocated so strongly two years ago, but he hoped he would do so when the time came for a division.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word 'five,' and insert the word 'four.'"—(Mr. Courthope.)
"Question put," That the word 'five' stand part of the clause."
MR. REESsaid the only really relevant part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was that which came at the end. This was not the occasion for discussing the whole question of the tea duty. The question before the Committee was whether it should be 5d. or 4d. Nor was this the time for making a speech upon the fiscal question. It was the case that during the last general election many Members urged that the tax on tea was much too high and should be reduced. Many Members, including himself, expressed their intention of using their utmost efforts to get the duty reduced. What had happened? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given half of his surplus to the reduction of the tea duty. Was it not the part of the practical man to accept that half for the present, instead of refusing the penny if they could not have the twopence? It was very easy to propose an impracticable Motion like this from the other side, and to invite Members on the Government side to vote for it. But few would walk into such a very open trap. They had to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, why should they not knock off a shilling from the income-tax, reduce the Army by 10,000 or 20,000 men, and the Navy by a dozen battleships, and claim to be the greatest financial reformers of modern times? The hon. Gentleman knew that his proposal was not practical, but he also knew that it would give him and his friends some opportunity of posing as greater friends of the poor than those who had in reality done more towards the reduction of the tea duty than the hon. Member and his friends. The hon. Gentleman had

305
said that tea drinkers would not profit by the reduction at all. He would join issue with the hon. Member on that ground. The penny had already led to a reduction in many instances. He did not see why such an Amendment as this should be moved at all, because it meant absolutely nothing, and no benefit could accrue from it. There was nothing to recommend it to the Committee, and he hoped it would be rejected. The hon. mover was like a Parliamentary cuckoo, who laid an egg in the Liberal nest, and invited every one to come and see how much larger it was than the eggs of the lawful proprietor.
MR. FLETCHERsaid that when an alteration was suggested some other alternative should be put forward. In this case he thought the money could be best obtained by leaving the coal duty as it was. They all hoped for great things from having a strong man as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was very much surprised at his giving way to the pressure put upon him by wealthy coal owners and tea planters in the way he had done, because there were such strong arguments against adopting that course. He might have said that the consumer did not pay the duty, because the exports of coal since the tax had increased, and there was no doubt that the foreigner paid the tax.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the coal tax on this Amendment.
MR. FLETCHERsaid there was the Anti-Tea Tax Association, which was supported by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, who was probably a subscriber. The strong probability was that the members of that association would profit by this reduction on the tea duty, because it would go into the pockets of the wholesale tea dealers and the planters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have told the tea trade that they had their turn last year; they might very well have waited another year, and had 2d. taken off later on. He thought that course would have been much more agreeable to the trade.
*MR. ASHLEYsaid that as one who in his election
306
address favoured the principle, as far as possible, of a free breakfast table, he could consistently support this Amendment. When hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches were in opposition they spent a great many hours abusing the Government of the day because they did not reduce what they called this iniquitous tea tax, but now they were not at all enthusiastic to carry out the pledges they gave before and during the election. This tax fell heavily upon the poorer classes, who had in consequence either to reduce their consumption of tea or buy tea of an inferior quality. But why should they tax tea, which was a product of our own colonies? Why should they not tax something which was produced outside this Empire? All taxes on the necessaries of life should be avoided as much as possible. There were occasions when for specific purposes it was necessary to put a tax on the necessaries of life, but the taxation of necessaries was wrong in principle. The tea tax produced about £5,500,000 every year. Having suggested that the few duty should be abolished altogether by was only right to suggest how the money raised by it should be replaced. He would suggest that a tax should be placed upon imported goods. He understood that chiefly the blenders would benefit by this reduction.
MR. FLAVINsaid there was as keen competition between the blenders as growers, and he must well to the retailer at a penny per pound us.
*MR. ASHLEYsaid his information did not agree with that view. He understood that the blenders would benefit to the extent of one halfpenny, the grocer to the extent of one farthing, and the consumer to the extent of a farthing, but he contended the people who could afford to buy only small packets would get no benefit at all. He thought it would have been better to have left the duty as it was until the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able, as he said he hoped to be, to take off another penny next year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I never said so.
*MR. ASHLEYsaid he thought it would have been better to have waited till the autumn and then to have taken off twopence in order to obviate the disorganisation to trade by two changes in one year. In view of the pledges given by the Ministerialists at the election he looked to them to support the reduction in the division lobby.
MR. ASQUITHsaid it was remarkable to see on the other side of the Committee a wonderful unanimity in favour of a reduction of the tea duty to which they had not been accustomed in past years. To the general considerations advanced, the objections to the duty in itself, and the desirability of reducing it as much and as soon as possible he entirely assented. Tea was a necessary of life, and a tax upon it was injurious to producer and consumer. Of the supply, 95 per cent. was produced by our fellow-subjects, and there were good reasons why a Chancellor of the Exchequer should desire to avoid the tax. His predecessor in office—whom he was glad to see back in his place in auspicious circumstances upon which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would receive universal congratulation—last year used unanswerable arguments on the same lines as those which had been addressed to the Committee. The only question of dispute was as to the reduction of the duty by a penny. Personally he would have been glad to reduce the duty by 2d., but the Committee must look at the financial arrangements of the year as a whole; and he had to look at the amount of money at his disposal. His choice, therefore, lay between a reduction of 1d. or of 2d. He found that, after making adequate provision for a further reduction of the Debt, and if he had to get rid of the coal duty, he had not enough money left, and the hon. Member could not now suggest a supply to enable him to make a reduction of the tea duty by more than 1d. Hon. Members must say, therefore, that he had either given too much to the Debt or that he ought not to have dealt with the coal tax. If hon. Members said that, they were in a logical position. The question which he asked his advisers at the Treasury, and which he anxiously considered before making this proposal, was whether a reduction of a penny, which was without precedent, would really
308
reach the consumer. No Chancellor of the Exchequer would wish to put money into the pockets of the trade; what he desired was to secure that the benefit of the remission should go to the person by whom the article was consumed. He made inquiries whether or not the effect of a remission of a penny would reach the consumer, and he was assured by all the information he could gather that in an article like tea, where a duty of sixpence represented something like 100 per cent. on the actual value of the imported raw material, a reduction of a penny, or 15 per cent., where there were no intermediate processes of manipulation, in the course of which the reduction might be either delayed, intercepted, or neutralised, must speedily reach the consumer. What had happened? The hon. Member had quoted from information that had been given to him that the reduction had gone into the pockets of the blenders. He would like to read a few words from The Times Commercial Supplement, which all must agree was a most admirable and very impartial summary of what went on in the commercial world. On 21st May, under the heading of "Tea," The Times Commercial Supplement said—
"When Mr. Asquith announced the reduction of 1d. in the tea duty (from 6d. per lb. to 5d.) it was asserted in trade circles that this would make no difference in the price charged to the consumer, as the reduction was too small to allow of its being split up into fractional parts. It is, however, already apparent that competition among retailers may have the effect of reducing the prices—as regards the cheapest qualities especially—even to a greater extent than 1d. a lb., notwithstanding a decision of a number of large distributors to keep up quotations and 'improve the quality,' a euphemism for retaining most of the reduction in duty for themselves. It happens that the market value of the cheapest tea is 1d. per lb. less than it was a year ago, and there is an immense quantity of it at present in the bonded warehouses worth from 3½d. to 4d. per lb. With the 5d. duty this tea can be retailed at 10d. per lb., as compared with the hitherto lowest quotation of 1s. per lb. The reduction of 2d. is made up by the 1d. duty and the fall in market value of 1d. Until this large stock is so retailed at a price to stimulate consumption by the poorest classes it will remain in bond. Our market reports show how difficult it is to dispose of this cheap tea, except at such a reduction in price. Retail vendors have in many places already shown their appreciation of the possibility of attracting trade by a cut in prices."
According to this authority, which was not prejudiced in favour of the

309
Government, the effect of the reduction had already been felt, and the consumer was receiving it in a reduced price of 2d., or he was paying 10d. now for what he formerly paid 1s. The advice that he had acted upon, therefore, was well-founded, for this reduction of the tea duty was going into the pockets of the consumers. To his hon. friends who might have given pledges to reduce the tea duty, he said that the Government were doing their best to carry this reduction out. They must look in a matter of this kind, however, not to see what was ideally desirable, but what was practically attainable; and, having regard to the whole of the financial arrangements, he asked the Committee without hesitation to believe that the reduction proposed was a reduction which would benefit the consumer.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the kindly references he had made during his absence from the House at the time of the Budget statement, and now the right hon. Gentleman had added to his obligations by the congratulations so kindly offered that afternoon. He regretted that he was not able to be present at the most interesting occasion of the Budget statement, and he had lost by his absence the opportunity of making a complete survey of the right hon. Gentleman's finance proposals. But this clause was, in a certain sense, the key to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme of finance for the year, and he thought that it illustrated the basis on which he had proceeded and the defects of the arrangements he had proposed. The debate had a strange familiarity to those who had been in the habit of sitting through Budget discussions in recent years. On this occasion, however, he missed some familiar voices that had never been absent from earlier debates on the tea duty, and without them a tea duty debate seemed scarcely to be complete. He wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had such experts on the tea duty among his colleagues, had called them into his counsel, and had caused them to appear on the front bench opposite to give their candid opinion of the present proposal, as they undoubtedly would have done had the proposal come from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their
310
appearance in the discussion how would have added to the merriment of the Committee. Were the premisses on which the right hon. Gentleman had based his argument for the penny reduction correct? He was inclined to doubt it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in the circumstances of to-day he had only a limited amount of money to distribute, and, unless the Committee were prepared to say that he ought not to have contributed a sum to the Debt or repealed the coal duty, hon. Members could not in logic condemn him for not having reduced the tea duty by more than a penny. But he doubted very much whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, if he had chosen to make use of them, greater resources at his command than he had disclosed to the Committee. He had studied the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, and he was well aware from his own experience at the Treasury how rash it was for anyone outside that Department, and without access to the sources of information possessed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to prophesy as to what the future had in store for the country, or to hesitate as to the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's prophesies. Yet with that preface and excuse he could not help saying that the right hon. Gentleman had apparently taken an unduly moderate view of what he might reasonably and fairly expect to obtain from taxation during the present year. There had been a moderate, but marked, improvement in the closing months of the last calendar year. That improvement had continued, and was emphasised, in the first months of the present calendar year; and it was to that improvement the right hon. Gentleman owed the surplus with which the last financial year ended. With these signs of revival before him the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to anticipate a larger income from existing taxes than that upon which he counted from the financial clearances. He thought that when the financial year closed it would be found that if the right hon. Gentleman had been a little bolder he would not have found his hopes falsified, but would have had money enough to do something more than he had done in other directions. But was the reduction of the Debt and the repeal of the coal tax the best use to make of the money available? He was not one who would criticise the

311
right hon. Gentleman for having increased the provision for the reduction of debt. On the contrary, his criticism would be that the provision made was "the least that could be described as plausible," and something less than a hopeful expectation. A Finance Minister who during his electoral campaign talked with such gravity of the state of the Debt and the national finances, and then, having a realised surplus of £3,000,000 and a prospective surplus of £3,000,000 more, could, provide nothing more out of taxation than a beggarly half-million was not giving even plausible fulfilment of the hopes and expectations which he had held out.
MR. ASQUITH: We are reducing the Debt by a larger figure than in any previous year.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that that had nothing to do with the amount of provision made out of taxation for debt reduction. The right hon. Gentleman had not treated him ungenerously, and he hoped he would not be accused of egotism if he said that, if the right hon. Gentleman was reducing the Debt by a large amount, it was because his predecessor in times of greater difficulty increased the provision not by a half but by a whole million; because the right hon. Gentleman was left with a surplus of £3,000,000, and because he got a windfall in the repayment by China of a debt which had been allocated by every pledge of two successive Chancellors of the Exchequer to the extinction of debt.
MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that he got a windfall of £1,250,000 from South Africa.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not complain of that reference to South Africa. After elaborate negotiations £1,250,000 was obtained from South Africa, and it was applied to the reduction of debt. In fact it was practically a repayment. But he did not see how that affected the provision which he or the right hon. Gentleman had made out of taxation for the reduction of debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked on this subject as if we were on the verge of financial disaster. he had painted the picture in colours which were far darker than could be justified, and yet he had
312
made this paltry contribution to an end which he set so high. He ought to have given, not half a million, but one million, or nearer two millions. If the right hon. Gentleman had asked the country to bear its present burdens for a year longer and had devoted the whole of the money to the reduction of debt, he would have taken a bold and strong course, and he would have supported the right hon. Gentleman in it.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he was anxious to allow every latitude to the right hon. Gentleman under the present circumstances, but he thought he was now going beyond what was allowable on the Amendment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he claimed no latitude in discussing this matter, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had challenged him on a point of logic. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for having dealt with the Debt; but the coal tax stood on an exceptional footing, being unlike any other tax in our financial system. It needed close watching, and in his opinion it could not permanently remain a part of our financial system. But that was not to say that when there was a limited sum of money available the coal tax, which affected the smallest number of British subjects, should have first consideration, and that a tax which affected every British subject should be placed second to it. As to the tea duty, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he found a special reason for saying that if the tea duty were to be touched at all it ought to have been reduced by 2d. The hon. Member for Montgomery seemed to think that the reduction of the tea duty had always been the work of Liberal Governments. But it was Lord Goschen who brought the tax down to 4d., a point to which no Liberal Government had ever brought it down. Everyone wished to see the tea duty reduced, but wished above all that the advantage should go to the consumer. It was particularly easy to achieve that result in the case of tea, while in the case of most other taxable articles it was difficult to know how much of the reduction would reach the consumer and how long it would be in reaching him. Subject to one condition, the relief to the consumer of tea was immediate and complete; and

313
that condition was that the reduction should be such as was capable of being expressed in terms of the price of those small packets in which tea was sold to the very poor. The right hon. Gentleman did not pretend that the poor consumer of tea in two ozs. packets would get any advantage in price, but that he would get an improvement in quality. If the poor consumer would take his tea to the distinguished Government analyst at Somerset House, he might find a chemical appreciation in the quality of his tea, but that would be the limit of his benefit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that there was an enormous quantity of very cheap tea of the poorest quality in stock—so poor in quality that it could not be sold at all, except at some reduction of the present lowest prices. As long as that stock of poor tea remained unexhausted, said the right hon. Gentleman, there was hope for the consumer. He had only to buy tea which certain of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who had expert knowledge of the subject had often described as poison, and he would get some advantage out of the reduction of duty which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He was of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had frittered away the money at his disposal. He might have done a big thing with the Debt; he might have done something for the income-tax payer, who, patient and long-suffering as he was, had become a little tired of his burden; or he might have done something substantial for the great mass of the consumers by giving a sensible reduction in the tea duty. For one reason or another—of his own choice, or to conciliate different sections of opinion—the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to do a little of many things, and he had not succeeded in doing any of them well. In these circumstances he had no hesitation in voting for the Amendment.
MR. RICHARDSONsaid two statements regarding the tea duty had been made over and over again in the Committee, both of which he would attempt to disprove. The first was that the penny reduction in the tea duty was retained by the blender, and the second was that the very poor would not get the benefit of the reduction. In reply to the first of these statements he would read certain details from the advertisements
314
that appeared in The Grocer, the principal organ of the tea trade, on May 12th, a week after the penny duty came off tea. He would take the advertisements of the four principal houses in the trade, each of which sold £500,000 sterling worth of tea a year. The first one showed that the price of the dearest tea on May 5th was 2s. 2d., and on May 12th 2s. 1d. The intermediate prices between that and the lowest were each reduced a penny, and the lowest priced tea which was on the earlier date 10½d. was on May 12th 9½d. So that the penny did not go into that blender's pocket. In regard to the second dealer, the highest priced tea on May 5th was 2s. 4d. and on May 12th 2s. 3d., the intermediate prices were reduced a penny, and the lowest grades were 10¼d. on May 5th and 9¼d. on May 12th. So that the penny did not go into that blender's pocket. In the case of the third dealer, the highest price on May 5th was 2s., on May 12th 1s. 11d.; lowest price on May 5th 10½d., on May 12th 9½d. So that the penny did not go into that blender's pocket. The fourth dealer's highest price was on May 5th 1s. 5½d., on May 12th 1s. 4½d.; lowest price on May 5th, 11d. on May 12th 10d. So that the penny did not go into that blender's pocket. Thus the whole of the penny in the cases of the four principal tea houses did not go into the blender's pocket. Now he would deal with another class of trade and one which would be admitted to indicate the working class consumption of tea. The best packet tea of the Manchester Wholesale Co-operative Society was sold on May 5th at 2s. 8d. and on May 12th at 2s. 7d.; the lowest price packet tea at 1s. 3½d. on May 5th and 1s. 2½d. on May 12th. That Society's bulk or loose teas were 2s. 6d. and 1s. respectively on May 5th and 2s. 5d. and 11d. respectively on May 12th. So that as far as the Manchester Co-operative Society, which distributed tea among working people, was concerned the penny did not go into the pockets of that society. Then where did the penny go to? The output of the Wholesale Cooperative Society of Manchester last year amounted to 18,401,593 pounds avoirdupois or 8,214 tons, and the amount paid in duty was £460,039 16s. 6d. And so by the reduction of the penny which he had shown did not go into the pockets of the blender, the working men them selves connected with that Society saved

315
by the induction of the tax £76,673 6s. 1d. Coming to the point as to whether the poorer classes got the benefit of the reduction, he thought the best proof of this would be found by an examination of the consumption of lowest-priced teas since the penny duty came off three weeks ago. He had made very careful inquiry among the great tea blenders, and he found that during the three months previous to the reduction the shilling tea sold amounted to 1 per cent of the whole of the tea sold. During the last three weeks the amount of shilling tea sold as compared with all kinds of tea sold had gone up from 1 per cent, to 5 per cent. In other words since the penny duty had been taken off tea the increase in the sale of shilling tea had gone up 450 per cent. By giving these figures he hoped he had at least proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that the penny had not gone into the pockets of the tea blenders and that the poorer classes were receiving the full benefit.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received valuable assistance of which he stood much in need in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He did not want to go into the branch of the subject to which the hon. Member had referred, but merely wished to say that on this occasion he intended to pursue the patriotic course of supporting His Majesty's Government. They could not expect a great reduction of this tax from a Liberal Government, because it was one of the facts that stared out from history that no Liberal Government up to the present had had the tea tax below sixpence, and that the beginning and the end of Liberal finance was what was intended to be done by the late Mr. Gladstone. What were the facts about that? The late Mr. Gladstone had a most magnificent opportunity for abolishing the tea tax and he deliberately abstained from doing it, and proposed to give relief to the income-tax and the income-taxpayer alone. They were all pledged to reduce one tax or another, but he felt a difficulty in supporting this reduction of the tea tax, because he was perfectly willing to adopt the logical position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the coal tax, he had a predilection in favour of cheapening anything which cheapened raw material to the home producers
316
of manufactured goods. For the same reason he was also impelled to point out the differences between tea on the one hand and sugar on the other. He thought that the reduction of the tax on sugar ought to come before the reduction of the tax upon tea, because sugar was an article which formed the raw material of British manufactures. As mere food, sugar was much better for the human frame than tea. A reduction in the tea duty now would be an obstacle to a reduction of the sugar duty hereafter.
MR. H. H. MARKSsaid they were all pleased to hear the information communicated by the hon. Member for South Nottingham, and if his information was correct, to the effect that there had been a reduction in the price of tea by 1d. on the pound all round since the reduction of the tax, they would be delighted. But it was a significant and remarkable fact that the process which the hon. Member described appeared to have been going on for some time before the reduction of the tax. This would seem to indicate that the operation had been going on for weeks, whereas the reduced duty had not been in operation for more than a fortnight. These facts would seem to indicate either that there had been a self-denying ordinance on the part of those who might have benefited by the tea duty, or that there had been the fall in prices to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded. There was no doubt that the tea duty was a harsh, extraordinary, not to say a paradoxical, duty, and there was a general consensus of opinion that it was very much too high, and ought to be reduced, and so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to reduce it they accorded him their gratitude. The question was between a reduction of 1d. or 2d., and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said they had reduced it as much as they could. The question was, did this proposal have the effect of reducing the duty as much as possible? Would it not have been possible to have reduced the duty not by a penny but by 2d., so as to give the consumer an undoubted benefit and an unmistakable measure of relief? There could be no doubt it would have been quite possible to have done that by applying the available balance in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the

317
reduction of tea, instead of dividing it and applying one part to the reduction of tea and the other to the abolition of the coal duty. The effect of dealing with it in that way had been to make in appearance a reduction in the duty of tea avowedly and ostensibly for the benefit of the consumer of tea, and also a reduction in coal for the benefit of the consumer of coal. But in practice neither thing had happened. Tea was no cheaper on the one hand and coal was no cheaper on the other. He knew that there were certain figures published in the trade papers, and that certain statements were made by experts as to the effect of this reduction of the duty on tea. But in London during the last few days a very representative meeting of the great tea firms of the country had been held, and that meeting passed a unanimous resolution declaring that the reduction of the tea duty would not enable them to make any reduction in the price of tea. It had been suggested that there would be an improvement in the quality of the cheapest kinds of tea. He had no general knowledge of the question, and he had not heard of any demand for improved quality in the tea, but he had a general knowledge of a general demand for a reduction in the price. A reduction in the price had been asked for, but that had not been achieved. The ideal thing of course would be the abolition of the tea duty, and that apparently could not be realised. But if they could not realise the ideal, could they not endeavour to idealise the real? He thought they could, and that they should have gone a great way in that direction if, instead of splitting what might have been a real gift to the tea consumers and giving them a reduction of a penny, the right hon. Gentleman had given a reduction of 2d. It was for that reason he hoped this Amendment would be pressed to a division. If it were he should have great pleasure in supporting it.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that as representing a large working-class constituency who felt very keenly the high tax on tea, he desired cordially to support the Amendment. There were always plenty of arguments to be found against the revision of taxation. It was part of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defend himself from any arguments in favour of the reduction
318
of taxation, and there never was a more eloquent or ingenious Chancellor of the Exchequer than the present occupant of that office. But they wanted to get him and the Liberal Party to go back to their high ideals of the past. One of those ideals which they used to put most commonly before the country was the free breakfast table. Where was the free breakfast table now? This Budget, owing to the careful and cautious Estimates of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who framed them in no electioneering spirit, gave the Liberal Party an opportunity of once more unfurling the old banner of a free breakfast table; but unfortunately the Chancellor of the Exchequer, notwithstanding the large surplus at his disposal, had failed to realise this old ideal and tradition of the Liberal Party. He had introduced what he called a humdrum Budget, but so far as the tea duty was concerned he (Mr. Corbett) ventured to think it was a very foolish Budget. They were told by experts when the Budget was introduced that this reduction of a penny would do no good to the consumer. Experts were sometimes mistaken; but in this case they were not, for the price of tea had not been reduced, and the consumer had not benefited at all, the only gainers from the reduction of the tax being the tea merchants. They had to regard this matter from the point of view of the poorest consumers, and so far as their case was concerned they were no better off after this reduction than they were before. If hon. Members once realised that the poorer classes used tea three times a day, it would be seen that even a duty of a penny on the pound would press very hardly upon them. He should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he did not desire to detain the Committee long, but he thought some of the statements that had been made were worth traversing. The statements of the hon. Member for Nottingham, if entirely correct, were very serious indeed, and destroyed any argument that might be advanced concerning the tax on tea. But he ventured to question the accuracy of the figures. Another hon. Member had suggested that the reduction in the price of tea took place before the reduced tax came into operation. The Chancellor of

319
the Exchequer was probably aware that the generally accepted figure for low-priced teas during the last ten years had been 4¾d. or 5d. a lb. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the price of this large stock of low-priced tea was reckoned at 3¾d. to 4d. If there had been that reduction in the price of tea since the duty was taken off, then his hon. friend behind him was quite right in saying the reduction in the price of these teas was due not to the reduction of the tax, but to the fact that there was a very large stock of low-priced teas on the market. He did not think in the history of the tea trade there had ever been so large a stock of low-priced teas, and he thought when the right hon. Gentleman came to examine the question he would find that the reduction of price was due to that, and not to the penny he had taken off the duty. These phenomena occurred in every trade, and it was quite possible that in regard to the tea trade it had synchronised with the penny being taken off the duty. It had been pointed out, and with truth, that this tax fell much more heavily upon the poor than on the rich man. The most careful calculations showed that the consumer of the high-priced tea paid only 20 per cent. duty on the value of the tea, but the consumer who bought the cheap tea sold at 1s. per lb. paid a duty equal to 160 per cent. of its value. This was the largest tea-consuming country in the world, and the tea was largely consumed by the poor classes. Every penny put on the tea duty struck the poor man in his tea basket. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive plenty of assurances from people in the City and the poor buyers throughout the country that the price of tea had not been reduced at the little village store. The Manchester Co-operative Store had probably done a good stroke of business, but they were premature in putting forward their advertisements, and they got their reward, because tea was placed at a lower price by virtue of the fact that there was an immense amount of cheap tea on the market. This had made tea 1d. per lb. cheaper, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to say that the price of tea had gone down. He thought some other way ought to be found of raising the revenue than that of putting a tax upon the one necessary of the poor man's breakfast table. [An HON. MEMBER: Who put the tax on?]
320
He agreed that both Parties were responsible for the tea tax, but he had always been opposed to high taxes upon the necessaries of life. He would much prefer an income tax from top to bottom, applied to the man who earned £30 a year and the man who had £14,000 a year. Such a tax would be much fairer than a tax upon the necessaries of life. The view he was putting forward on this question he had always held, and he had expressed it before in the House. When they made appeals to hon. Members to support an Amendment of this kind it was not because they wanted the support of the Labour Party. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reduce the tea duty by 2d. next year there was not a single Member sitting on the Opposition Benches who would not support him, although he could not promise their support to the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman might make for transferring the burden of taxation.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend, because it proceeded entirely upon an assumption which he shared, namely, that a tax of this kind fell almost entirely upon the consumer. If this were not the case the hon. Member's impassioned appeal to get rid of the tax would be beside the point. His hon. friend had appealed to him as if he was putting something on instead of reducing the burden of the tea duty. He regretted very much that he was not able to reduce it more. It might be perfectly true that there happened to be an unusually large supply of cheap tea on the market, but the opinion of the expert which he had read, and other evidence, showed that the concurrent causes of the reduction were the abundance of the supply and the penny reduction. His object in intervening was to ask the Committee to allow them now to proceed to a decision upon this point.
*CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that the present reduction of a penny would never be felt by the poorer labouring classes. In the large centres, such as London, Liverpool, and Manchester, where competition was keen, he had no doubt that with the present reduction a difference would be felt, but he did not think the question, as it affected the more distant parts of the country,

321
had been taken fully into consideration. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced the tax by 2d. instead of 1d. he would have earned the gratitude of those least able to voice their views in that Committee. The Committee was perfectly well aware that there were an enormous number of commodities necessary for life brought into the various large cities from abroad, and he contended that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at a loss for a corresponding tax to take the place of that upon tea, and one which would be spread more evenly over all breakfast-tables, he had an immense choice among these foreign imported commodities. He would call attention to the fact that the breakfast-tables of Britain involved an expenditure of something like £146,000,000 upon foreign imported meat, frozen beef, mutton, etc., upon which no tax was paid, whereas if but a tax of only 1 per cent. was levied upon these articles it would not only have the effect of allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the tea tax another penny, but would also afford protection to those agricultural classes which he represented in the distant parts of the country. He was perfectly convinced that if the tax upon tea were reduced by 2d. all classes would benefit. He would be delighted if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assure them that the pledges of hon. Members on the Ministerial side were going at last to be considered by the Government. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would try and give them a free breakfast-table. It had been said that the price of tea to the consumer had actually been reduced to the extent of the penny which had been taken off. He would remind the Committee, however, that they had been face to face with similar reductions before, and it was only natural that those chiefly interested should compete with each other in trying to get the largest number of sales. A very trifling alteration in the quality would make up the whole difference of this penny reduction in taxation. Even if they took the figures which had been given as applying to the large towns as correct, he still contended that the benefit of the reduction of 1d. failed to reach those consumers of tea in the distant parts of the country, more especially in Ireland. In order to voice the sentiments of those of the
322
agricultural class who lived away in the remote counties of Ireland, he had called attention to the question to show that they would not benefit by the reduction, although he was perfectly convinced that 2d. was a real reduction that would be felt by the poor people, who would benefit by it as much as those who lived in the large towns. He hoped a sufficient number of hon. Members would support the Amendment in the lobby to enable them to take this small step in the direction of a free breakfast-table.
MR. DUNNsaid he did not go back one stop from the pledges he had given; he was absolutely opposed to all taxes upon the food of the people, and he would do his utmost to bring about an abolition of the tea duty. The question, however, to be considered was the best way in which this abolition might be brought about. He contended that the Amendment, coming as it did from the opposite side of the Committee, must arouse suspicion in view of the past experience they had had of the way in which the Unionist Government had dealt with the question. He was asked to support an Amendment to reduce the tax from 5d. to 4d., but he felt that if he did he should be false to the pledges he had given. They laughed, but it was so. He was asked to vote against the Government and so defeat the present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were asked to destroy the present Budget, and that meant practically that they would place in power Gentlemen who had already dealt with the tea duty in a somewhat remarkable manner. It was because he believed that they would eventually reach the goal at which they were aiming by keeping in power a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was pledged to reduction that he should certainly vote against the Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he could not understand why the Government, being pledged to abolish the tea duty, came down to the Committee and gave the absurd reason put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for breaking their pledges. He was going to vote for this Amendment because he believed the duty upon tea was a tax upon food. It

323
was not only a tax upon food, but a tax upon one of the poorest sections of the people. It was a tax which from its very nature fell with very great hardship upon the poorest section of the people. He believed from the figures which had been given that it would not be impossible to take the 2d. off tea at once. The hon. Member for South Nottingham had stated that in the last three months there had been an increase in the quantity of shilling tea sold—that instead of being 1 per cent. of the total, as it was three months ago, it had risen to 5 per cent. There was a perfectly reasonable explanation of these figures. It was well known that during the two months before the introduction of the Budget very little was done in the way of taking cheap tea out of bond. Tea merchants knew that the duty could not be increased, and that it might be reduced. After the Budget they filled up their stocks, and the consequence was that there was a very much increased demand. That accounted for the whole difference in the figures given by the hon. Member. In the higher qualities of tea the amount of the duty made little or no difference. He believed the arguments deduced from the figures given by the hon. Member to be entirely fallacious. The Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced his business with a very handsome legacy secured for him by his predecessor, and he had proceeded to make a mess of it by producing a Budget which did the country no good. It gave relief to practically no portion of the taxpayers. In dealing with the tea duty the important thing to keep in mind was the unit of payment in the coins of the realm. Therefore, in order to get the benefit of a reduction in the tea duty the buyer had to take at least half a pound. Poor people did not deal in half-pounds of tea, and it was impossible for them to get any advantage from this supposed relief of taxation. He was not going to suggest to-day—it would not be in order on this Amendment—that the whole of the revenue from tea should be got from a tax on automobiles, but he thought that would be a better way of raising the money. Supposing it were decided to take £1,000,000 off tea, the proper way to do it would be to divide the commodity into two qualities—the better class half, and the lower class half—and to leave the
324
duty alone on the higher class half which paid a comparatively small portion of the tax in relation to its value, while taking 2d. off the cheap tea of the poor people if the tax could not be taken off altogether. The tea tax was one of the most unjust taxes, for while the poor man paid 150 per cent., the rich man only paid 20 per cent, on the value of the article. The tax in the case of the cheaper qualities of tea was altogether out of proportion to its value.
MR. CARLILEsaid he hoped the time would come when the tea duty, if they were still to have it, would be treated in a totally different way from that which obtained at present. He did not see why there should not be an ad valorem duty on tea instead of the present rule of thumb specific duty with all its want of logic, and all its burden on the working people of the country. A large quantity of the tea consumed by the working classes was tea dust, the value of which was 1½d. per pound. The tax on that tea was 5d. per pound, and the tax was just the same on the tea worth 3s. per pound, which was consumed by the well-to-do classes. It was an abominable outrage committed on the poor people of this country. He did not think it ought to pass the wit of man to devise a more equitable method of taxation. There was no difficulty in finding other articles on which to place taxes. Why should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer tax diamonds? They came in free at present, and surely they could bear a tax. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman tax some of the multitude of foreign manufactured goods which came into the country, competing with our own products and destroying the employment of our people? He hoped the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had given pledges to their constituents in favour of reducing this heavy burden on the food of the people would march into the lobby in support of the Amendment.
MR. HUNTsaid the tax on tea fell much more heavily on the poor than on the rich, from the fact that the duty was the same on all qualities of tea, irrespective of the price. There were plenty of

325
luxuries used by the rich which could very well be taxed. The taxes would be paid by the rich, and the foreigner would pay some of the revenue so raised.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 150. (Division List, No. 104.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crossley, William J.

Laidlaw, Robert

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, D. (Montgomery Co.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Adkins, W. Ryland

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Agnew, George William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Lamont, Norman

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dickinson, W.H. (S. Pancras, N

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Alden, Percy

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dodd, W. H.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accringt'n

Armitage, R.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, R. C.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Astbury, John Meir

Elibank, Master of

Levy, Maurice

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Erskine, David C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Essex, R. W.

Lough, Thomas

Barker, John

Evans, Samuel T.

Lupton, Arnold

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lynch, H. B.

Barnard, E. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Findlay, Alexander

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Beale, W. P

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Arthur, William

Beauchamp, E.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Callum, John M.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, George

Beck, A. Cecil

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Kenna, Reginald

Bellairs, Carylon

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Micking, Major G.

Benn, J. Williams (Dovonp'rt)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Maddison, Frederick

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mallet, Charles E.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gooch, George Peabody

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)

Grant, Corrie

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marnham, F. J.

Billson, Alfred

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gulland, John W.

Massie, J.

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Menzies, Walter

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

Hall, Frederick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mond, A.

Bright, J. A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montgomery, H. H.

Brodie, H. C.

Harwood, George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brooke, Stopford

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morrell, Phillip

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Hedges, A. Paget

Morse, L. L.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Helme, Norval Watson

Murray, James

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Napier, T. B.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Hon., S.

Newnes, F. (Notts Bassetlaw)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, Sir George Swansea)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Cairns, Thomas

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Norton, Capt. Cecil william

Cawley, Frederick

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nuttall, Harry

Chance, Frederick William

Hooper, A. G.

Paul, Herbert

Channing, Francis Allston

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N

Perks, Robert William.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pollard, Dr.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Radford, G. H.

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cory, Clifford John

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Walter Russell, (Scarboro '

Craig, Herbert S. (Tynemouth)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rees, J. D.

Cremer, William Randal

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Renton, Major Leslie

Crosfield, A. H.

Kitson, Sir James

Richardson, A.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stanger, H. Y.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Watt, H. Anderson

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Weir, James Galloway

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Whitbread, Howard

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)

White, George (Norfolk)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Whitehead, Rowland

Rose, Charles Day

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rowlands, J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Runciman, Walter

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Russell, T. W.

Tillett, Louis John

Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Tomkinson, James

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

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchest'r)

Torrance, A. M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Sears, J. E.

Toulmin, George

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Seaverns, J. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Yoxall, James Henry

Seely, Major J. B.

Verney, F. W.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Vivian, Henry

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

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wallace, Robert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walters, John Tudor

Spicer, Albert

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ffrench, Peter

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex F.

Fletcher, J. S.

Mooney, J. J.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Murphy, John

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Gill, A. H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Balcarres, Lord

Ginnell, L.

Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield

Balfour, Rt. Hn A J.(City Lond.)

Glover, Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

O'Grady, J.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Hare, Patrick

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hazleton, Richard

O'Malley, William

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Boland, John

Helmsley, Viscount

Parket, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Brace, William

Hervey, F. W. P.(Bury S. Edm'ds

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Percy, Earl

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hodge, John

Reddy, M.

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W

Hudson, Walter

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Jackson, R. K.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Jenkins, J.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A(Worc.

Jowett, F. W.

Royner, Colonel Sir Robert

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Clough, W.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Clynes, J. R.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm

Scott, AH (Ashton under Lyne)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Liddell, Henry

Shackleton, David James

Cooper, G. J.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Cowan, W. H.

Lundon, W.

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Lutterell, Hugh Fownes

Snowden, P.

Delany, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Starkey, John R.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Steadman, W. C.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Sullivan, Donal

Dolan, Charles Joseph

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Summerbell, T.

Doughtly, Sir George

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Du Cros, Harvey

M'Killop, W.

Thomas, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Magnus, Sir Philip

Thorne, William

Fell, Arthur

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Valentia, Viscount

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

328

329

Walsh, Stephen

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Wardle, George J.

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

Young, Samuel

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wlison, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Courthope and Mr. Ashley.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Clause 1 agreed to.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
*MR. COURTHOPEsaid that the clause dealt with the tobacco duties, and he proposed to move to omit it. There was no doubt that the differentiation of duty between tobacco leaf and stripped tobacco had done no harm to the consumer, and had provided a good deal of employment for the British workman. They had it in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that since this duty on stripped tobacco was imposed that tobacco had come in more and more in a raw condition and less and less in the condition of stripped tobacco. The figures for the last three years were rather extraordinary. During the year ended March 31st, 1904, we imported 53,000,000 lbs. of stripped tobacco, and 33,000,000 lbs. of leaf. During the following year, that was after the differentiation, we imported 21,500,000 lbs. of stripped, and 82,000,000 lbs. of the raw leaf, and in the year that had just concluded we only imported 12,000,000 lbs. of stripped and 76,000,000 of the raw leaf. The computation made by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham was not disputed that on an average a man stripped 5,000 lbs. a year. Calculating on this basis, we find that the leaf imported last year found continuous employment for 15,000 people in England. The employment of people during the two years that the differentiation existed had more than doubled. The increase was 110 per cont. in the amount of employment given to British workpeople who were engaged in stripping tobacco. One was led to inquire under these circumstances why was this duty being taken off? One looked naturally to the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the Finance Bill, and they found that one of his reasons was that the stripping industry in this country was carried on under very bad conditions. Why not improve the conditions instead of killing the industry? The remedy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was like cutting off a man's legs in
330
order to prevent his feet getting wet.. Another reason was that this duty violates the sacred shibboleth of our policy of free imports, but what had happened in this case was a standing proof of the fallacy of that policy. The only effect of the change would be, not to benefit the revenue or the consumer, but to throw thousands of British workmen out of work and to give the work they were now doing to the foreigner. Those who bought tobacco were bound to pay something for the price of stripping, and surely it was more satisfactory that the tobacco purchaser in this country should pay the wages for stripping tobacco into British pockets rather than into foreign pockets. He hoped the Committee would vote against Clause 2.
MR. FELLjoined in the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Rye. The policy of transferring the stripping trade which, had now been secured by the British manufacturer to the foreigner was one to which he gave the most determined opposition. Tobacco leaf, like cabbage leaf, had a stalk, and the question was whether tobacco leaf should be sent over here unstripped or whether it should be stripped in America or elsewhere and sent over here in a state fit to be used in manufacture. The duty upon stripped tobacco had almost entirely transferred this work of stripping the leaves to England, instead of leaving it to be done in the United States and other countries whence the tobacco came. The duty upon stripped tobacco had had a most remarkable result, and this result had taken place much more quickly than those who advocated a change in our fiscal policy would have anticipated. Three years ago 5,000 people were employed in stripping tobacco in England, but in consequence of the slight change in duty there were now 15,000 people engaged in that industry. These 15,000 people were earning a livelihood; it might be a poor one, but still it was a livelihood. It was said that this was not a high class process of manufacture, and that therefore

331
it ought not to be encouraged, but he did not think the Committee should look only after the high-class manufacturers and the highly paid artisans of this country, and not think of the poor manufacturer and the more poorly paid artisan. It was true that they might be engaged in a sweated industry, but if they took away from those people this work, they took away the only work which they were engaged in doing, and the only industry which they had the chance of performing. It was true that it was a badly-paid industry, and that the work was performed under bad conditions, but it seemed to him that the Government ought rather to see that those conditions were improved, and the wages increased, than to take away the work from English people and place it in the hands of foreigners. It was obvious that if the differentiation was abolished the foreigners would get this work which now employed an additional 10,000 people, although the same profits, if not larger profits, would be made by the tobacco magnates of this country. The tobacco kings of Bristol were making out of tobacco the most enormous profits. The profits which they earned, indeed, were startling, and amounted to hundreds of thousands of pounds. It might even be that the change now proposed might slightly increase those profits, but it was the interest of the Committee to look after the men engaged in the industry, and to see that the work they were engaged upon was not sent abroad. If the duty was taken off stripped tobacco, the Americans would get the work, and although there might be a slight benefit gained by the tobacco monopoly, there would be no benefit gained by the consumer, and these ten or fifteen thousand people would lose their work. On these grounds he would certainly vote that this change should not be made, because, as he had said, it would rob these people of their work and their pay.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINinvited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain his reasons for making the proposed change, as to which he avowed himself entirely in the dark. The history of the duty, which he himself put on when in office, was very simple. When, two years ago, he had to frame his first Budget, with a deficit of four
332
millions to meet, he did not think it worth while to consider any additional taxation which would not bring in at least a million a year. When he had met the deficit he found he had not the working margin necessary for safety, and he then said to his advisors that now they had come to the day of small things; if they had a change to propose which would bring in half a million a year that would be exactly what he wanted. They advised him that he would find such a change in the tobacco duties, and they expressed the opinion on grounds of justice and equity that that change should have long ago been made. He agreed with the proposal, with the result that he was able to obtain substantially the money he expected. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to upset that arrangement. Why did the right hon. Gentleman make the change at all? Granting that it had, as was alleged, some protective effect, was that a sufficient reason for throwing the trade into confusion again, and reopening the whole question? Did hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the other duties on manufactured tobacco should also be taken off? The present scale of tobacco duties was so protective that it had practically eliminated all foreign competition in manufactured tobacco in the home market, and when the great American trust attempted to invade that market, the home manufacturers formed a trust of their own, and beat their rivals out of the field. His first question, then, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, why did he strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, why did he trouble about this small matter between strips and leaf while he re-enacted the substantial and widespread protection which existed in the whole scale of the tobacco duties? His second question was, why, having decided on altering the rate of differentiation between strips and leaf, had the right hon. Gentleman fixed upon a halfpenny as the exact measure of differentiation which justice and equity demanded? When his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham asked the right hon. Gentleman to state in a Return his reasons for the change, the right hon. Gentleman gave the most extraordinary answer that a Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever offered to the House, namely, that he could not do it, because all his calculations were in his own head.
MR. ASQUITH: If the right hon. Gentleman read my next sentence he would find that I said the whole of the material was contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee which the right hon. Gentleman himself appointed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was aware of that. When he imposed that differentiation his first consideration, and he frankly admitted it, was to obtain the sum of money his financial necessities demanded. But he was advised by members of that Committee and by his own financial advisers I that the differentiation was not unfair, and it surprised him and awakened a legitimate curiosity on his part to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that in the Report of that same Committee ho (Mr. A. Chamberlain) would find all the materials which would prove to him that this differentiation should have been3½d. Hestudied the Report very carefully two years ago, and had some recollection still of what was in it, and the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that there was a great deal of information there relating to tobacco, and that several varieties of tobacco were dealt with in the Report. But there were many other varieties known to the market which were not dealt with in the Report, and for the right hon. Gentleman to refer the Committee to the labours of that Committee for information was like setting them to search for a needle in a haystack, and he did not think that the needle was there after all. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to unlock the recesses of his mind and lay bare to the Committee the process of logical digestion by which he had converted the details of that Report into an argument for his differentiation of ½d. He rejoiced that after all that had been said during the last two years, and after all the stress of the contests in these debates, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however much he desired to upset the decision of his predecessors upon this point, had himself been forced to the conclusion that a differentiation was needed and that nothing less than a differentiation would be satisfactory. When he had heard the observations which the right hon. Gentleman would, he hoped, make upon this matter, he might have himself some further obser-
334
vations to address to the Committee, but as he was at this time merely a searcher after truth he would detain the Committee no longer.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not mind his replying on this occasion as it was a question which had been a matter of controversy between them before. If the right hon. Gentleman asked why the differentiation between leaf and strips was put at ½d., the answer was contained in the obvervation just made by him that his first consideration in 1904 in imposing a differentiation in duty of 3d. was to obtain money. The first consideration of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making this differentiation of ½d. instead of 3d. was that he wished to have a duty productive of revenue instead of a duty which, while it had been very disagreeable to the trade, did not bring in any revenue. In 1904 the right hon. Gentleman opposite, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was warned that the duty of 3d. would not bring in revenue when the existing stock of strips was exhausted. There were then in stock 142,000,000 lbs. of strip?. And it was quite true that while that stock was in existence the right hon. Gentleman could get this extra duty of 3d.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, but at what a price. It involved a loss of 3d. a lb. to the owners of those stocks. They had to enter into competition with owners of new imported leaf upon which there was no differential duty of 3d., and the result was that this duty of 3d. was charged on the stock of strips. In the course of the debate when the right hon. Gentleman reduced the differential duty of 3d. to 1½d. he was again warned that such a duty would be destructive of the importation of strips. The reply to that was that it was rather a beneficial thing to put an end to the importation of strips, because it would enable the stripping to be done in this country. They had now to consider the question of revenue. The reason why this differential

335
duty had been reduced to ½d. was that they wanted revenue, and it had been fixed at ½d. because it was believed that such a duty would be productive of revenue. The next point put by the right hon. Gentleman was why the sum of ½d. was fixed by, not 1d. or 1½d. Well, they had had experience since 1904, they had seen that the duty of 3d. had been absolutely non - productive of revenue, and they had seen the operation of the differential duty of 1½d. which was subsequently placed upon the stocks in bond. They had seen as the effect of that, that the amount of strips taken out of bond had steadily declined, and that the amount of leaf taken out of bond had steadily increased. They had to remember that the strips taken out of bond were strips which were held in this country in bond at the time of the Finance Act of 1904. There was no market in the world for strips except the British market, and, there being no market for these strips which were in bond in 1904, unless they had been taken out of bond and sold they would have rotted in the bonded warehouses. Consequently the owners had to sell them, but in spite of the urgent compulsion upon the owners to sell these strips they had not been able to do so in competition with other owners of strips with a differential duty of 1½d., and the result was that in the experience of the revenue authorities the drawback on that stock was seriously increased. The right hon. Gentleman when supporting his differentiation of duty in 1904 gave to the Committee an example. He took four specimens of leaf and strips which had been tested for sand and moisture for the purpose of estimating the duty upon strips and leaf respectively. He showed by those samples that there was more sand and moisture in the leaf than in the strips, and he concluded that the duty cost on a given quantity of loaf was 3d. per lb. higher than on the same quantity of strips. The right hon. Gentleman chose samples of a particular kind of tobacco, that of "Bright Virginia;" but if he had taken another kind of tobacco, that known as "Western Leaf," which was a stouter plant, and the sand in which was of a muddier kind than that in "Bright Virginia," he would have shown, not that the duty cost on leaf was higher than on strips, but that it was practically equal. They
336
had to look at tobacco as a whole, and, on the whole range of tobacco, the Drawback Committee found that stalks were generally 1 or 2 per cent, moister than the rest of the leaf. They took, not four samples as did the right hon. Gentleman, but a very large number of analyses of sand in different kinds of tobacco, and, working from those figures and from the statements of the Drawback Committee, they found that some differentiation was justified. It was almost impossible to settle a figure of equality; but looking at the result of these calculations and taking them as a guide, they came to the conclusion that, on balance, some slight, but very slight, differentiation might be made in favour of strips as against leaf. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made such a difference—namely, ½d.—as would ensure that the existing holders of leaf would be able to find a market, for their goods without suffering loss.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the ½d. should be removed as soon as they had disposed, of their stocks, and what was the revenue that it was estimated would be received, from the differential duty.
MR. McKENNAsaid it was not intended to remove the ½d. It was hoped this would be a final settlement of the tobacco question. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the disturbance and; dislocation of trade; but the testimony of the trade, so far as it had reached the Treasury, had not been indicative of disturbance, but of complete satisfaction. As to the second Question of the right hon. Gentleman, the total amount of raw tobacco taken out of bond before consumption was, roughly speaking, about 88,000,000 lb. in the course of the year, and it was estimated that somewhere between 40,000,000 lb. and 50,000,000 lb. would be taken out in the form of strips this year. These were rough estimates. It was impossible to give any exact estimates because it was not known what amount of strips would be in the market. No more strips would come into the market until the new crop at the end of the year, and it was not known how much would be available to be taken out at the end of the year.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid they were accustomed on the Opposition side to look to the Party opposite for light and leading on all questions relating to taxation, for they held themselves up to be—and the country at the general election rather accepted them as—the great authorities on the principles of Customs duties. But what was the case now as regarded tobacco? The duty on raw tobacco was 3s., and that on manufactured tobacco 3s. 10d. The Customs Returns of last year showed as clearly as possible that the extra duty on manufactured tobacco had absolutely stopped the importation of manufactured tobacco, and the whole of the tobacco at present came in under the head of raw tobacco. It was said that the reason of the reduction to ½d. was that it might be productive of revenue, but if they looked At the result since Mr. Gladstone brought the tax into existence, they would find it had been practically to destroy the revenue which used to be derived from the importation of manufactured tobacco. Instead, the raw tobacco came into this country in larger quantities at the lower rate of 3s., and a great industry had been created in Bristol, Liverpool, and other cities of this country which would not have sprung up had there been an equal duty upon raw and manufactured tobacco coming into the country. Yet it was curious to note that the directors of the Imperial Tobacco Company, who benefited by this protective duty, sat on the Ministerial side of the House in support of free trade, and he could not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could reconcile his strict notions about free trade with the maintenance of this protective duty. While the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were consistent when it came to suggestions as to changes, they would not make changes that would bring their practice into agreement with their principles. There was exactly the same thing in chocolate. All manufactured chocolate coming from abroad paid a differential duty of ½d. Surely if it were wrong to put a duty on manufactured articles there should be no duty on manufactured tobacco or on manufactured chocolate. Yet they allowed these duties to continue and at the same time accused others of being false to their principles in desiring
338
that there should be some duty on manufactured articles to preserve the industries of this country.
MR. ASQUTHsaid his hon. friend had dealt with the main question with such admirable lucidity and cogency that he should not take up time by attempting to add, even if he could, anything to his exposition of the subject. Experiments had shown that there was a difference between strips and leaf, and ½d. appeared to them to be approximately the measure of that difference. The effect of the duty of 3d. had been to exclude strips altogether from this market, and from the point of view of obtaining revenue it was useless. Under a duty of ½d. strips would come in, and an appreciable revenue would be derived from them. He did not deny that there was a protective element, though not to a large extent, in the scale of tobacco duties. Mr. Gladstone found a scale of highly protective duties, and he reduced that scale as much as he thought the trade could bear. He said what every Minister of finance had said, that when a trade had grown up under the shadow of protection a vast number of vested interests were engendered, and however strong their desire might be for free trade, the y could not at once, without enormous injustice, get rid of that system. That was why he retained to an extent, which had been very much exaggerated, a protective element in duties which had been highly protective before. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite introduced in 1904 for the first time a new protective element which no one had dreamt of before. They had, at any rate, got rid of that. No one in the trade wanted to retain it, and it was unproductive to the revenue. And yet they were accused of being inconsistent because they had not reduced the whole scale of tobacco duties which had been in existence for years. They were told that an artificial and fostered industry, which had no natural roots in the soil of the country, had come into existence during the two years that this duty had existed. Could there be a stronger argument in favour of dealing with this matter without delay? The effect of this reduction would not be felt for two years, and there was, therefore, ample time for the trade to adjust itself to the

339
new conditions, and he hoped and believed it would be to the benefit of the revenue itself. That was a perfectly logical and consistent position to take up.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was very much obliged for the very fair answer that had been given to his questions. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman asked him to admit that the action of the Government was logical or consistent, he was making a greater demand upon him than he felt prepared to grant. They might take it from the admission of the Secretary of the Treasury that up to the time of the differentiation of the duty there was protection, not for a home industry, but for the foreign stripping of leaf. The hon. Gentleman hoped that a halfpenny would put strips and the whole leaf on an equality. His recollection of the tables in the report, he was sorry to say, was two years old, and he should not under the circumstances be disposed to enter upon so technical an argument as would be necessary in order to attempt to confound the hon. Gentleman's reasoning upon the point. He would only record his opinion that differentiation of a halfpenny would restore to the foreign stripping industry some portion of the protection which it had before he differentiated between the two sorts of tobacco.
MR. McKENNA: The drawback remains.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he took that into account, and without attempting to argue it he would merely express his opinion that the halfpenny which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of the Treasury after, he thought, tossing up, had come to the
conclusion was about a fair sum, was really not adequate to the purpose which they admitted justice and equity required. He came to the more interesting side of the question. Was it worth while to make this small change in the tobacco duty unless they were prepared to remove from the whole of the tobacco-duties all taint of protection? Was it not absurd to tinker at this little question of strips while leaving the big question untouched? The right hon. Gentleman had said that Mr. Gladstone found the-tobacco duties highly protective and that he reduced them as much as he thought the trade could bear. That was rather a singular principle to go upon. What meaning did the right hon. Gentleman attach to the words "as much as the trade could bear." At the time of the greatest triumph of free trade the great Ministry of free trade hesitated to take off all the protective duties, but stopped short at the stripped tobacco. Was it worth while to sacrifice the stripping industry which had grown up in this country and the subsidary trades which it had stimulated?' Why did the people accept it? It was because they could not find better work to do, and without a thought the Government swept away their employment for a mere economic pedantry. It was not worth while to make this change. It would deprive our people of some employment they might fairly have had, and it was hypercritical and ridiculous to make this fuss about one small point while leaving the greater block of duties untouched and unaltered.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 266; Noes 44. (Division List No. 105.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Billson, Alfred

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Adkins, W. Ryland

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Agnew, George William

Barnard, E. B.

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barnes, G. N.

Boland, John

Alden, Percy

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Beale, W. P.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Armitage, R.

Beauchamp, E.

Brace, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Beck, A. Cecil

Brodie, H. C.

Astbury, John Meir

Bellairs, Carylon

Brooke, Stopford

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.)

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

Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n

Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Malley, William

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

O'Mara, James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Paul, Herbert

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Hodge, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Byles, William Pollard

Horden, E. Hopkinson

Pollard, Dr.

Cairns, Thomas

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hooper, A. G.

Radford, G. H.

Cawley, Frederick

Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't, N

Rainy, A. Rolland

Channing, Francis Allston

Hudson, Walter

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jackson, R. S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jenkins, J.

Rendall, Athelstan

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Clough, W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Richardson, A.

Corbett.CH (Sussex. E. Grinst'd

Jowett, F. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cowan, W. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Cox, Harold

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cremer, William Randal

Lambert, George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crooks, William

Lamont, Norman

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Crossley, William J.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Rowlands, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Runciman, Walter

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Leese, Sir Joseph (F.(Accringt'n

Russell, T. W.

Delany, William

Lehmann, R. C.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Sears, J. E.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

Seaverns, J. H.

Dodd, W. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Seely, Major J. B.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lupton, Arnold

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Dunn, A. Edwards (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk Bghs

Simon, John Allsebrook

Elibank, Master of

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S

Snowden, P.

Essex, R. W.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Spicer, Albert

Evans, Samuel T.

M'Callum, John M.

Stanger, H. Y.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

M'Crae, George

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Reginald

Steadman, W. C.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Killop, W.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ferens, T. R.

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ffrench, Pete

M'Micking, Major G.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Sullivan, Donal

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launcest'n

Summerbell, T.

Fullerton, Hugh

Marnham, F. J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gill, A. H.

Massie, J.

Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

Ginnell, L.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert Jn.

Mond, A.

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

Glover, Thomas

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Tillett, Louis John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Torrance, A. M.

Gooch, George Peabody

Morrell, Philip

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Morse, L. L.

Verney, F. W.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Murphy, John

Vivian, Henry

Gulland, John W.

Slyer, Horatio

Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)

Hall, Frederick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Walsh, Stephen

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Napier, T. B.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wardle, George J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nicholls, George

Waterlow, D. S.

Harwood, George

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, H. Anderson

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nuttall, Harry

White, George (Norfolk)

Hazleton, Richard

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Whitehead, Rowland

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Grady, J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.

O'Hare, Patrick

Wilkie, Alexander

342

343

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull, W.)

Young, Samuel

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

Yoxall, James Henry

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Balcarres, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.

Fell, Arthur

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, J. S.

Percy, Earl

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.A.(Worc

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

Mr. Courthope and Mr. Bridgeman.

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
MR. HARWOODsaid that he rose to oppose this clause, as he had done for several years past. He had the responsibility for some time of suggesting this tax, and now that it had been practically thrown over by both Parties in the House he wished to justify the responsible position he had taken up. He would like to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he did not think he had ever answered the arguments in favour of this coal tax. There was no single tax, he contended, which could raise £2,000,000 a year with as little drawback to the prosperity of the country as this one. Ho would not say who paid the tax; but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself rather believed that the foreigner paid it, especially in regard to steam coal. [Cries of "No."] He insisted that that was the case in regard to Welsh smokeless coal, because all the navies of the world must have it. He knew something about the coal trade and of the Westphalian trade, which was the only competitor with the Welsh coal trade, and he could assert that at least one-half of the coal tax fell upon the foreigner. We had much more of a monopoly in our coal than any other country and we ought to take advantage of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had seemed to suggest that we were afraid that the coal of this
344
country would run out, and he had referred to the opinion of the late Professor Stanley Jevons as an argument in his favour. Personally he had never argued that the coal ought to be kept in this country because our supplies would run out very soon. The Royal Commission had established that it would not, although that might be taken with a grain of salt. But let those supplies be as large as anyone liked to imagine, he put it that to abandon this duty was to abandon the fundamental principle of democratic policy. Coal was a gift from Providence and did not come within the same rules as manufactured products. He was a land-nationaliser and on that ground alone he insisted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, by remitting this tax, deserted the fundamental principles of that Party. The coal and all the mineral wealth of the country belonged to the nation, and when any part of that property was parted with there should be a quid pro quo. What happened in regard to export coal? The landlord got his royalty, the miner his wages, the shipowner his freights, but where did the nation come in? He insisted that this coal export duty was the assertion of the nation's property in the coal, and was a means of getting some return from it. The real value of coal lay in its use, and if, say, forty tons were raised for consumption in this country it would give employment to so many people; but if exported it would afford no benefit to any one in this country. He had listened to all the debates on this

345
question and had beard weeping millionaires objecting to the tax, and claiming sympathy for the industrial classes. But now that the Labour movement had come to the front, the Committee must remember that Toryism was class legislation. It was just as much Toryism if the legislation was for the landlord classes as for the working classes. Liberalism was legislation for the nation as a whole. He objected to part with this tax which was part of the national property and belonged to himself and every citizen of the nation. The proposal to abolish it was bad economics, unjust to the citizen and a contradiction of the fundamental conditions of Radicalism.
*MR. BRACEsaid he had listened with great attention to the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member—a speech which clearly showed how little the speaker knew of the subject he was dealing with. He had said that Welsh coal had a monopoly, but that was not true. It was true that they had a monopoly of Welsh smokeless coal, but the total output of that coal was very little taken in comparison with the total output of Wales. As a matter of fact when the hon. Member stated that the navies of the world were bound to buy Welsh coal he stated that which was absolutely alien to the truth. The French Navy used none in time of peace, and the Welsh collier must live in time of peace as well as in time of war. It was true that they might make a good deal of money in time of war, but war was, speaking broadly, a disadvantage to us as a nation, and if it came about it brought corresponding disadvantages to the Welsh collier in return for the advantages he reaped. The hon. Member did not seem to appreciate that this export tax upon coal had had a very serious effect upon the Welsh coal-producing counties. This was so much the case that in West Wales thousands of men had been thrown out of employment and many collieries had been closed or partially closed down. It was a fact which the Committee should remember that the people in other countries who bought our coal even for preference encouraged the importation of coal from competing countries; so that by having a choice of coals to select from, leaving outside altogether the question of quality, or what coal best suited them,
346
they secured, by the competition created between British and other countries' coals, a lever to keep prices down to a lower point than they could expect, had they only one source of supply to draw upon. The result was that a coal tax was a tax upon our competing power. He believed he was the only member of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies present, which Commission, after a long and careful inquiry, unanimously reported against the continuation of the coal tax. The hon. Member said ho had been in Holland, but when he was there did he make any inquiries about the coal tax? If he had he would have found that in consequence of that tax Welsh coal had been driven altogether out of the Dutch market and that the Germans had captured the trade. Not only that, we had been deprived of our monopoly in the Mediterranean. No country liked to be dependent upon another for its supply of a particular article, and therefore they started with this handicap, that if they wished to sell coal to France, France would encourage other countries to come in and compete. This surely was a sufficiently heavy handicap without having an export tax added to it. There were Members who thought that there ought to be five times the amount of the tax placed upon exported coal; but it was because of the evidence given that the conviction was borne in upon the minds of the Commissioners that an export tax was not only unfair in its incidence but unfair and ruinous to the export industry of the country. He was speaking not for millionaire coal owners, but for the working man whose wages were reduced by the coal tax. When the coal tax came into operation coal owners sold their coal, say, at ten shillings plus one shilling tax; the selling rate of coal was an effective factor in determining the rate of wages, and that one shilling tax had the effect of reducing the wages of coal workers in the South Wales and other coal fields by eight and three quarters per cent. If this matter only concerned the interests of the coal owners he should not say a word against the tax, but it was because he was convinced that it affected the wages of the collier that he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking the duty off. The Royal Commission on Coal Supplies unanimously resolved that this tax was disadvantageous

347
to the interests of the country, although several of the Commissioners started with a strong feeling in its favour. If when this country was in competition with Germany, America, France, and Belgium, and we were endeavouring to hold our own in the markets of the world, a tax of this kind was imposed, it really was a tax upon industry, and the only persons who gained any advantage were the foreigners, because they got cheaper coal elsewhere. He thought the unanimous decision of the Commission should have attention paid to it, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in adopting the course which he had done. He was extremely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for taking off this tax, and in the interests of the workman he thought they were justified in asking the Committee to affirm his decision.
*MR. HICKS BEACHconsidered that the Committee ought to have had a little further explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the reasons for repealing this tax. He had told them that the Liberal Party were bound by their pledges to their constituents, and he supposed that j that meant that this policy was adopted in consequence of another mandate to the Liberal Party. No doubt one of the reasons for taking off this tax was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might otherwise have received a mandate from East Fife not to go back there again. The general opinion of the country was strongly opposed to the abolition of the tax, which brought in an increasing revenue, and which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's admission, was paid by the foreigner.
MR. ASQUITH: I did not say so.
*MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had refrained from abolishing the tax before November, because he said there were clauses in all contracts to the effect that, if the tax were taken off, the foreigner was to have the benefit. It had been predicted that the tax would ruin the coal trade and the mine-owners. But the total export of coal had increased from 58,405,000 tons in 1900, to 67,100,000 tons in 1905. Moreover,
348
while the percentage of exports to the total output in 1900 was 25·93 per cent, in 1905 the percentage was 28·4 percent. Then it was urged that the export of the more valuable coal had decreased and that of the small coal had increased. But while the quantity of coal, the value of which did not exceed 5s. a ton, exported during 1902 was 785,369 tons, and had increased by about 1,000,000 tons in 1905; and while the quantity exceeding 8s. a ton, which in 1902 amounted to 36,762,554 tons, had decreased by about 3,000,000 tons in 1905; yet the exports of coal which exceeded in value 7s. per ton but not 8s., the coal which bore most of the tax, had very much increased. For in 1902 the total exports of this class of coal were 2,304,000 tons, and in 1905 they had increased to 8,132,000 tons. That was to say, the exports in that class of coal had increased far more in proportion than in the coal which did not bear the tax at all. The reason which chiefly accounted for the decrease of the export of coal which exceeded 8s. a ton in value was that since the imposition of this tax the price of coal had very greatly decreased. The hon. Member for South Glamorganshire had said that as a result of this tax a great many collieries in. South Wales had been shut down, and that the production of this class of coal had decreased. Was it really true that any colliery was shut down as a. result of this export duty? If they had been closed it was owing to the general fall in the prices of coal and not owing to the effects of this duty. He did not think that any hon. Member had adduced any argument to shew that the imposition of this tax had done any harm to the home consumer. But if, as a result of its abolition, the export of coal greatly increased, what would be the effect upon the consumers in this country? He already knew of an instance of a railway company in the Metropolis which consumed a large amount of Welsh smokeless coal, and which had placed large orders for this class of coal in South Wales where the contractor tendering for further orders wrote to the company, saying that owing to the expected great increase in the export of this class of coal as the result of the abolition of the tax, he would have to increase the price to the company by 1s. a ton after August 1st, which showed that if by the abolition of this tax the price of

349
coal was to be raised to the home consumers considerable damage was going to be done to them, and it was obvious that it would have a very prejudical effect upon the large industries of this country, they being the greatest consumers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that a great improvement would result in the export trade from the abolition of the tax, but it was obvious what the result would be to the home consumer. He objected to the abolition because he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to judge of the position by the coal trade at this moment. It might be said that it was an immoral tax, but it produced a large revenue and did not hurt any people in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that it was impossible to justify an income-tax of 1s. in the £, declaring that it was a burden on the industry of the country, which affected not only profits but wages. By taking off the coal tax the right hon. Gentleman had deprived himself not only of an opportunity of reducing the income-tax by 1d. in the £ this year, but also of doing anything of the kind next year.
*MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that if the arguments of his hon. friend the Member for Bolton had been sound they would have convinced every Member of the Committee, but the facts adduced and the arguments founded upon them derived their fallacies from the rhetoric his hon. friend had employed. There was a wide difference between rhetoric and reason. He himself was a pronounced land nationaliser, and if his hon. friend would say that not only the coal but the surface should belong to the people he would be in entire agreement with him. But if his hon. friend desired to make the coal a monopoly and place a prohibitive tax upon it in order to keep it within the confines of this country, then the effect would be to starve the workmen. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury would retain the coal tax for the purpose of taking 1d. off the income-tax. It would be observed that there was nothing selfish in the hon. Member. The workmen's wages since 1900 had been reduced far and away beyond the burden from which the income-tax payer suffered. He was stating words of truth and soberness, and spoke of facts which had
350
come within the purview of his experience, and he said that the workmen of the county of Durham had had thirty percent, taken off their wages since 1900 when this tax was imposed.
*MR. HICKS BEACH: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not infer that that thirty per cent, reduction was due to this 1s. tax.
*MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he did not know that it could be mathematically demonstrated that that was so, but he brought it forward as a very strong and, strange coincidence, and if the hon. Member denied it the burden of proof lay upon him. This question had been argued many times on the floor of the House, and he thought that by their continued wearying of the late Government they last year forced the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit that this was an unfair tax. Much had been made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury of the fact that the volume of the trade had increased in spite of the tax, but surely it was likely to increase through the general progress of trade. Was a country prosperous whose trade stagnated? Did he not know that there were three stages of a country's history—the progressive, the stationary, and the retrogressive? John Stuart Mill had said that as soon as a nation touched the point where its trade stagnated, it retrograded. There were 800,000 men and boys working in the mines of this country every day, and about 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of people were dependent on their earnings. The coal tax had been the means of developing the coal fields of Westphalia and Germany, and it had created competition by foreigners which but for the tax this country would never have had. In Northumberland 90 per cent, of the coal was exported, and in the two northern counties they regulated their wages as near as they could by the selling price of coal. If they put a shilling tax upon the coalfields of this country, and remembered that nine out of every ten tons had to be exported to keep the Northumberland coal mines going, they would see immediately what effect it would have upon their wages. There was another point of view, namely, that it induced.

351
competition, in this country between one coal field and another. It had been said that mines had been stopped. Of that he was confident. It had been said that batches of workmen had been discharged. That he well knew. Villages tad been made desolate by the tax. He spoke for the whole of the mining community when he declared that they were prepared to pay every national tax. They did not want class legislation. This tax was imposed as a war tax. It was put on to meet an emergency of the hour. He added his word of thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, bringing in a Budget which was only one-fourth his, had faced the situation and removed the coal tax. He was confident the light hon. Gentleman would receive the gratitude of the whole of the mining population of the country.
*CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he supported the Amendment most heartily. It seemed to be rather an anomaly that at one period of the discussion they should have to plead with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he possibly could to stretch a point in the interests of some of the poorer classes in Ireland and take another penny off tea, and that a little later in the evening they should have to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to do away with a tax which brought in such a substantial amount of revenue per annum. He disagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down: The continuity of taxation, especially when it broadened the basis of taxation, appeared to him to be invaluable. They seemed to be constantly going back to the taxation of tea, sugar, and other table necessities for the working classes, and he could not be convinced that greater benefits would not accrue to the great mass of people if the tea duty were reduced, and the coal duty kept on. He trusted before the debate had proceeded much further they would have some remarks from the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley, because they wanted all the information possible from those who were in closest touch with the trade. This debate had elicited the important point that the export from the mines had increased 7,000,000 tons in 1905 as compared with
352
1902. The hon. Member for Mid Durham had said that wages in his particular locality had fallen 30 percent. If the extra exportation of this commodity meant that wages fell, then ho would certainly be prepared to withdraw all opposition to the Government's proposal; but he could not conceive the idea of a 30 per cent, fall in wages being attributed to the extra output of 7,000,000 tons. For these reasons he felt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not only relegating £2,000,000 to oblivion, but he was also narrowing the basis of taxation, which a large number of them felt ought to be extended. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the old cut and dried methods of imposing taxation upon breakfast commodities. The hon. Member for Bolton had put his case very clearly and concisely in favour of this tax being kept on, but he (Captain Craig) supported it on other grounds. Had hon. Members opposite considered where the coal exported from this country found a market? It went to foreign markets, to foreign navies, and it fed furnaces which were competing with the manufacturers in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have applied the two millions to the reduction of the tea duty which was borne directly by the working classes. He appealed to the Committee to support the Amendment.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he wished to point out in a few words the grounds on which the Government proposed that this tax should no longer form part of our fiscal system. It was not in the interest of this or that class of employers or of employed, but in the interest of the community as a whole that it was removed. The tax had almost every vice. In the first place it was the solitary export duty in the whole of our fiscal system. Although it purported to be a tax on coal, it was only a tax on that part of the coal which was exported, and, therefore, fell with unjust and uneven incidence on the coal industry. Whatever theorists might say, he could entertain no doubt that in the long run and in the main it had been paid, not by the foreign consumer, but by the producer, for this reason—that the British coal which

353
was sent to foreign markets was in active competition there with coal produced in other countries, with the result that a person in those markets could dispense with the British supply; or, in other words, that the price ruling in those markets was not regulated by, but was independent of, the export duty with which we charged our industry. He did not believe it was possible to get a better practical illustration in the whole range of fiscal experience of how, by an ill-devised duty such as this, a burden might be thrown on our own industry in markets where that industry was most exposed to the competition of foreigners. If any further arguments were needed they would be found in the fact that this tax had been unanimously condemned by a Royal Commission composed of persons of the most diverse opinions, and that, as they had been informed, it was intended to be abandoned by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. With this consensus of argument, of experience, and of authority, it appeared to him that the Government would not be justified in maintaining the tax a moment longer.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that notwithstanding the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he could not help regretting the determination to repeal this tax; many of them felt that more information was wanted to warrant the Committee taking this course. An hon. Member who had spoken with great spirit and eloquence early in the debate in support of the retention of the tax had called the mineowners weeping millionaires.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I have no term like that in my vocabulary.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid it was not the hon. Member he referred to. He was speaking of an eloquent and stirring speech delivered earlier in the debate. He contended that if this tax had any effect at all it tended to preserve our supplies of coal, which were of such great importance to the Empire, and also to cheapen coal to the home consumers. Hon. Members opposite had said that the foreigner did not pay the duty and that the tax crippled and limited our own trade. What, then,
354
became of the free trade argument that the tax fell upon the receiving and not the producing nation? That had always been the argument against the imposition of a duty upon wheat. If it was argued that the duty fell upon the people of this country, then it was clear the producer paid it and not the consumer. He felt that the decision to remit this tax was unwise, and he should support the independent Members on the Government side who pressed for its retention. He did not hope to convince hon. Members opposite, but he thought the analogy he had just used was a sound and logical one, and he should like to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to it. He deeply regretted that the Government had decided to repeal the coal tax. He felt that it was an unwise thing for the country, and he would gladly join the independent Members who had spoken against the decision.
MR. FELLsaid the taxpayers of the country welcomed the export tax: on coal when it was imposed, because it contributed a large amount of money to the Exchequer without their feeling the tax. He was confident that no ordinary consumer of coal in the country knew when the tax was put on, or would know when it was taken off. It would not make a penny of difference to nine-teen-twentieths of the people of the country. The effect of the tax had surprised two or three Chancellors of the Exchequer. [An HON. MEMBER: The coal exporters felt it.] The interruption did not come from a Member who could speak on behalf of the people to whom he was referring, namely, those who paid £5, £10, or £20 a year for coal. When they were considering a tax they did not go to the people interested in the trade to learn what should be done about it. Anybody on whom a tax pressed naturally wished that it should be done away with. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer point out in any way in which £1,000,000 could be obtained more easily than by this tax? The Germans had shown their desire to secure a supply of steam coal from Wales by purchasing coal fields there. That matter had already been discussed in

355
this House. The company, though registered as an English company, was, he believed, controlled by German capital. It was practically a German concern. Anthracite coal was greatly sought after by other nations, and no matter whether we put a duty on it or not, they must have it. More coal had been exported since the shilling duty was put on than before, and therefore the only complaint the colliery or the workers could have was that on account of the tax the exports were not so large as they otherwise would have been. He regretted that the tax had been repealed.
MR. HUNTsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that the consumer paid the tea tax, and yet he had stated also that he took off the coal tax because of foreign competition. It had been said that the effect of the coal tax was to lower wages. It appeared to him, therefore, that all taxes levied by foreign countries on British goods which competed with an untaxed supply must have the effect of lowering British wages. He thought that the best Welsh coal, with which there was no competition, could very well bear a tax, because it would be paid by the foreigner. The other kinds, which came into competition with French and German coal, could have been exported free from the export tax.
Clause 4:—
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Mr. WHITELEY and Mr. JOSEPH PEASEwere appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:—
MR. KEIR HARDIEhad an Amendment on the Paper—
"In page 3, line 8, after 'charged' to insert the words 'upon male persons only.'"
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,)said that the Amendment was outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore out of order.
*MR. HAROLD COXsaid he proposed to move the reduction of the income-tax from 1s. to 11d. in the £, not, however, because he believed that, in the present state of the national finance, such a reduction was possible or desirable, but to comply with the forms of the House, and to enable himself and others to advocate such reforms as would make the tax universal and not partial in its application. His main object in advocating these reforms was that they would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer at some future date to get rid of the taxes on tea and sugar which pressed most hardly on the poorest portion of the population. He had got figures to show what was the common consumption of tea and sugar by poor people. A labourer's family consumed weekly six pounds of sugar, and half a pound of tea, with perhaps two or three pounds of jam. What was the taxation on that?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member on the Paper was to move the reduction of the income-tax from 1s. to 11d.; and the hon. Member must confine himself to that.
*MR. HAROLD COXasked whether he would not be in order, in moving that Amendment, to explain why he wished the proposed reduction.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No.
*MR. HAROLD COXsaid that under the present system of taxation poor people were—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was quite entitled to argue that the income-tax should be reduced from 1s. to 11d., but he was not entitled to enter into a discussion of questions altogether outside of that.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked on a point of order whether the hon. Member for Preston

357
would be in order in raising the point to which he desired to direct attention on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that that Question would give a wider scope to the discussion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
*MR. HAROLD COXsaid that what he wanted to argue was that an income-tax should be universal, and in order to support that argument he wished to explain that under the present system of taxation the poorest people who did not pay income - tax really paid more by reason of the duties on tea and sugar in proportion to income than many who did pay income-tax. For instance, a labourer with only 15s. a week income paid through the duties on tea and sugar an income-tax at the rate of 8d. per £, whereas a man with an income of £320 a year really paid income-tax only at the rate of 7d. per £. Again, a first class artisan who earned £3 a week paid through the tea and sugar duties an income-tax of only 2d. in the £, or a fourth of the income-tax paid by the agricultural labourer. He maintained that that was an injustice which affected millions of people in the country, and a grievance which ought to be redressed.
MR. WALSH, on a point of order, asked whether the hon. Member for Preston was entitled to go into the general incidence of taxation.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANruled that the reference was allowable.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid he would confine himself to arguing why he was justified in saying that the income-tax should be universal. It would be unfair to exempt any incomes, however small. For example, a working man might be earning only a very small income because he preferred to work for only three days in the week. He hoped it might be possible to combine universal payment of income-tax with registration
358
of voters for Parliamentary elections. The objection to making the income-tax universal was the cost of collection.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the resolution before the Committee enabled the income-tax to be levied on certain specified classes, and the hon. Member was going outside that resolution in speaking of a tax upon people to whom the resolution did not apply. The hon. Member was therefore obviously out of order.
*MR. HAROLD COXsaid that surely he might argue that the income-tax should be universal.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that a reference might be made to that point, but the hon. Member was not entitled to found an argument upon it at length.
*MR. HAROLD COXsaid he would conclude by saying that until the tax was universal the inequalities of taxation could not be redressed, and the responsibilities of citizenship could not be brought home to the electors.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he understood that no Amendment had been moved.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that upon the question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill no one could move an Amendment. No one came forward before he put that Question, and that being so an Amendment could not now be moved.
MR. KEIR HARDIE MR. KEIR HARDIE moved to leave out Clause 6. He said the point which the hon. Member had raised was a very important one. He objected to this method of levying the income-tax upon certain persons only. He thought there would be greater economy in our spending departments if all taxes were levied directly instead of partly directly and partly indirectly as they were at the present time. He objected also to the present system of levying income-tax, on the ground that it violated that which in his opinion should be a canon

359
of taxation, that it should be levied in proportion to the benefit obtained. A person receiving £50,000 a year should pay on a higher scale than a person receiving £1,000 a year. The tax, moreover, applied equally to men and women, and to this he also objected, as taxation and representation should go together, and women were not allowed to vote. He begged to move the omission of Clause 6.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that that did not require an Amendment, as it was purely a negative to the clause.
MR. FELLsaid the income-tax was really a war tax, and he objected to its being maintained at 1s. in the £ in a time of profound peace. In the war time it had gone up as high as 1s. 4d. and although it had gone down to 1s. 2d. and then to 1s. it still remained at the latter figure. He believed that the income-tax had always been regarded as the means by which this country could raise money in the event of war or other emergency. It had provided the money for the Soudan and the Abyssinian Wars, but to keep it as high as 1s. in the £ in time of peace deprived it of its elasticity. He believed it had been decided that the utmost limit of the tax was 1s. 6d. in the £, and to keep it at its present limit in time of peace was, he thought, dangerous. Mr. Gladstone gradually got the tax down to 3d. in the £, and at the Greenwich election promised if he were returned to abolish it altogether. He was not, however, returned, and so the opportunity was lost. That great financier held that in time of profound peace it was unnecessary to continue the tax, but in the present state of things we were a very long way from acting up to his maxims. It was frequently stated in the newspapers that there were only 2,600,000 income-tax payers, but that was an extraordinarily inaccurate statement, as it left out of sight the hundreds of income-tax payers whose tax was deducted before they received their dividends. He protested against the income-tax being maintained at 1s. in the £ in a time of profound peace, because it destroyed the elasticity of the tax in times of emergency.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had listened with attention to the hon. Member, I but he was bound to admit that even now he had not the faintest notion whether the hon. Member was going to vote for or against this. Clause. If the clause were rejected he would be deprived of not less than £30,200,000 of his expected revenue in the ensuing year, or, in other words,, the finances of the country would be-stranded. The questions of a universal income-tax, and the excepting of women from the income-tax because they were not directly represented in the House, were subjects upon which, at the proper time, a great deal might be said; and if he did not deal with them it was not because he had not his opinions about them, but because he did not think them relevant to the question whether Clause 6 should stand part of the Bill. He looked upon the present form, manner, and imposition of the income-tax with, considerable dissatisfaction. He was glad to know that the Committee appointed to consider the differentiation and graduation of the tax were collecting a volume of most interesting evidence which had not hitherto been available, and he should look forward to the conclusions of the Committee with the expectation of guidance for the future. He asked the Committee to accept the tax as it stood, but that would not preclude them from dealing with it with riper judgment in the fture.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHcomplained that owing to the startling rapidity with which this Motion was put from the Chair by Mr. Deputy Chairman it had been impossible for hon. Members to discuss the many questions in relation to the income-tax in which they were very much interested. He did not wish to cast any reflection whatever upon the Deputy Chairman, but he did say that when the Opposition were raising a point of order and before a decision had been given upon it they suddenly heard this Motion put to the Committee.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is reflecting a little on the Deputy Chairman now.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he had no desire to do that. He only desired to point out that there were some questions that they were anxious to raise on this clause which they were precluded from raising by the startling rapidity with which events had moved within the last half hour. In considering the Budget as a whole, he did not think sufficient attention, had been paid to the claims of the income-tax payers, and the question which the Opposition desired to raise was whether in the surplus which the right hon. Gentleman had at his command, further consideration should not have been given by the Government to the income-tax payers. There was no doubt that the income-tax should be reduced. Of course it was absurd to suppose that they could vote against the Clause; that was dimply impossible. Everyone knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have the money, that it was necessary that a large portion of the money should be raised by means of the income-tax; but the point they were anxious to deal with was the distribution of the surplus in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, their view being that he ought to have given further consideration to the claims of the income-tax payers.
MR. RAWLINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give consideration to the case of the professional classes, such as doctors and solicitors in a small way of business, and country clergymen, whose salaries ranged from £300 to £900, and on whom the income-tax bore very harshly. He urged that the joint income of a married couple, where it ringed between £300 and £800, should be treated for the purposes of exemption as the income of two people and not as the income of one person, as at present, and that incomes derived from the Colonies should not be taxed here as well as in the Colonies. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious, when the opportunity occurred, to lighten the incidence of the income-tax upon business people, and he would, therefore, not press the point beyond saying that
362
at present it militated against business enterprise at every turn.
*MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid it had not been his intention to intervene in this debate, but there were one or two remarks which had been made to which he felt it incumbent upon him to reply. It had been said that a 1s. income-tax in a time of profound peace was too large, and he submitted that this proposition did not bear examination. What were the facts of the case? The income-tax payers of this country were not a large number, and fully three-fourths of them did not pay anything like 1s. in the £ income-tax. Up to £700 per annum income-tax ranged from 1d. in the £ up to 1s. Yet they were told that this burden was an intolerable one. And what became of the principle; of graduation if graduation had to be effected within such small limits? In Prussia the income-tax began at incomes of £45 per annum, which might be compared with incomes of £00 in this country and was graduated up to incomes of £5,000 a year. In Prussia an income amounting to some thousands a year would pay a direct income-tax of 4 percent., a supplementary income-tax of 1¼ per cent., in addition to which dividends on investments were taxed at their source, which in some cases amounted practically to double taxation. In Saxony dividends were taxed twice, first at the source and then directly. If they laid down the proposition that a 1s. income-tax was an intolerable thing in time of peace, they might as well shut up their Committee upstairs and give up all idea of graduation. He believed that they could well graduate the income-tax from 2d. up to 2s. in time of peace, and in time of war they could then impose a higher or patriotic tax, although, for himself, he would rather apply the term "patriotic" to peace than to war taxes. In conclusion he submitted that the income-tax should be graduated with due regard to the distribution of the wealth of the nation.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 added to the Bill
MR. BRIDGEMAN MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry) moved to add the following new-clause—
"The excess duty of 15s. for every hackney carriage, as defined in Clause 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1888, shall be and is hereby repealed."
Members of the Committee were not, perhaps, aware of the very heavy charges upon the owners, and consequently upon the drivers, of hackney carriages. For the plate bearing the number of the cab the owner had to pay £2 to the Home Office. The cabdriver bore on his breast a medal for which he had to pay 5s. to the Home, Office, and the Department a short time ago tried to raise the amount to 7s. 6d. In addition, the driver had to pay a licence of 15s. a year to the Inland Revenue. Few people had so heavy a charge placed upon their industry, and there were hardly any other people engaged in trade who were so completely under public control and so completely tied and bound with restrictions. He was aware that a large portion of the money raised by these licences came from companies, but those who deserved their consideration most were the small owners with one or two cabs, who were being rapidly driven out of existence by the taxes and other difficulties with which they had to cope. In this matter there was something to be learnt from Ireland, as was the case in many other matters. In Ireland the owner of a car had to pay no licence at all, and he did not know whether they could attribute the proverbial hilarity and light-heartedness of the Irish cab-driver to the fact that he was not bound down, as was the English cab-driver, by oppressive taxation. It was a sign that a tax ought to be taken off when the revenue from it was beginning to decline. The last year for which the Inland Revenue return gave figures showed a falling off of 2,000 licences from the previous year and the year before. The amount received from these licences was £98,600, but he should think a considerable part of that sum must be spent in the collection of the duty. Therefore, in view of that, and of the fact that the number of licences was diminishing, it was a very good time to consider the desirability of abolishing the tax altogether. It was true that the produce
364
of the tax went to the Local Taxation Account, and objection might be taken to his proposal on the ground that ratepayers would be deprived of some advantages. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had something like £400,000 for contingencies, and out of that he might recoup the local ratepayers for what they would lose by the withdrawal of the hackney carriage licences. There was no taint of protection in his proposal. No question could be raised as to whether the producer or the consumer paid the licence. The cab-driver, compared with other trades, seemed to be very hardly treated. Tradesmen's carts and vans were not liable to the tax, nor were the drivers required to learn how to drive as were cab-drivers. If to tax a grocer's cart was wrong because it would interfere with his trade, it was still more wrong to tax a cab-driver, because his cab was the whole of his trade. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relieve this class of this unjust burden, and perhaps he could see his way to make good the loss to localities by a grant out of the fund reserved by the Treasury for contingencies.
New clause—
"The excise duty of 15s. for every hackney carriage, as defined in Clause 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1888, shall be and is hereby repealed."
Question proposed, "That this clause be read now a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had considerable sympathy with the proposal. The tax upon coaches and carriages of pleasure was a very old tax, and was un-undoubtedly intended as a very legitimate form of sumptuary tax. But it did not originally apply to hackney carriages; it was extended to them in a bad time, under Lord North's Administration, in order to help to meet the expenses of the American War. The carriages to which the hon. Member referred were really instruments by which a business was carried on, and, being a tax on locomotion, in his opinion, erred against sound fiscal principles. He must ask the hon. Gentleman to be content with that expression of sympathy,

365
however, as the tax was one of those which under our present system of finance was handed over to the local authorities, the Imperial revenue deriving no benefit of any sort or kind from it. The only effect of adopting the clause would he to deprive the local authorities of a source of revenue for the next twelve months, an arrangement of which they would no doubt complain very much. He suggested that the matter should be deferred, and he would give it his careful consideration when they took up the question of the general relation between local and Imperial taxation under the present system. He assured the hon. Gentleman that when they got all the taxes where they ought to be he should be most ready to accede to his wishes and remit this tax on hackney carriages.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that after the sympathetic speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not feel that he ought to press his Motion to a division. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had postponed their hopes on this question to rather a distant and uncertain period. He would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to he read the third time upon Monday, June 11th.

INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that it was a measure practically of one clause, and was absolutely un-controversial in character. Its object was to render needless the inclusion of the Act of 1894 in the Expiring Laws Bill. That Act gave power under certain conditions to pay interest out of capital during construction. It had worked well for twelve years. The Bill he was now moving would facilitate the development of railways in India, a matter which
366
had a very close connection with the economic welfare of our fellow-subjects there. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading now.
Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That this Bill be now read a second time."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked whether the Bill had the approval of the India Council and of the Government of India.
MR. JOHN ELLISreplied in the affirmative.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (COMMISSION) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
>Clause 1:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill.''
LORD BALCARRESsaid that among the powers to be exercised by the Commissioners was that of issuing a warrant of committal to prison "signed by one or more of the Commissioners" for a period not exceeding three months. He did not think that it was right, say, for Mr. Alfred Lyttelton or Mr. Whitmore acting individually to be given the power to commit any person for contempt of Court, and he would like an explanation from the Home Secretary as to the working of the clause. He thought the power should be committed to three Commissioners acting together. He wished to know whether the clause was drafted in a technical form customary in measures of this character.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)pointed out that the clause strictly followed precedent, as, for example, in the procedure

367
of the South African War Stores Commission.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid it was unusual to find the Member of the Government responsible for such a Bill absent when it came up for discussion. He understood the Home Secretary to say that the Commission would have ordinary powers, except the power to give an indemnity to witnesses. He did not see this stated in the Bill, and he wanted to know the reason of the deviation from the usual practice.
SIR W. ROBSONexplained that the Home Secretary was absent unexpectedly, because the earlier business had been disposed of sooner than had been anticipated. There were reasons why a witness should not be entitled as a right to a certificate of indemnity. The charges made in this case were of a serious character, involving not only the persons whose names had been lately before the public, but officers of justice and other individuals against whom subsequent proceedings might be taken if necessary.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINthought that the reply given was an extraordinary one. An indemnity was given to a person whom otherwise it might be desirable to prosecute, but it had been thought more desirable to allow a guilty person to escape than that the truth should not be known. In order, therefore, to secure the disclosure of the truth the House had agreed in many similar cases to give an indemnity to a guilty person in order that he should make a clean breast of the facts known to him. The present instance seemed to him to be a case where they wanted to get at the real truth, and where they should pursue the ordinary methods precedent had marked out. In the absence of the Home Secretary he did not see how it was possible for the Committee to proceed with the Bill, and therefore he moved to report progress. He submitted that argument with confidence, because the Bill concerned the honour not only of private persons, but of the force which it was the duty of this House to protect. He trusted that the House would not allow the
368
aspersions which had been cast upon various persons to remain without due inquiry, and therefore that the motion would be accepted.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that when the Bill come up for Second Reading he withdrew the objection he had to it on the understanding that the Minister in charge of the measure, which was in one respect non-contentious, would give full explanation of its clauses. That Minister was now absent, and he held that progress should be reported.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had done all that possibly could be expected of him in his improvised defence of the Bill. But he did not think it was in consonance with the practice of the House that they should pass an important stage of a Bill exciting so much interest without the Minister in charge of the Bill being present. He was anxious that the Bill should pass. He believed that the police desired it, and that the result would be to clear them from the aspersions cast upon them in regard to the discharge of their duties. But, after all, the point raised by his right hon. friend was one of substance, viz., that they should not have discussions of a Bill without the Minister in charge of it being present. The acceptance of the Motion would make very little difference to the prospects of the Bill, as it could not pass before Whitsuntide; and he should certainly resist to the utmost of his power the passage of this or any other Bill before the Motion for the adjournment. There was not single Cabinet Minister on the Treasury bench. [MINISTERIAL ironical cheers, during which the Postmaster-General came in.] He had not seen the right hon. Gentleman before and he apologised. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would feel with the Opposition that they required some guidance in this House. That had never been the way of conducting the

369
business of this House. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."] He was sorry he could not identify the hon. gentleman who said "Oh," but he asked was he in the last Parliament, or in any other Parliament before?
MR. AINSWORTHsaid that he was a Member of the last Parliament, and he would recall the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the occasion when he moved a Resolution on the Fiscal question, and the whole of the then occupants of the Treasury Bench left the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that was a most happy illustration of the hon. Member's knowledge of Parliamentary business. The complaint now was that the Minister in charge of a Bill was not here to conduct it through Committee. The complaint of the hon. Member was that when a Motion was brought forward by a private Member the debate upon it was not listened to by those who he thought ought to listen to it. The question that the Minister in charge of a Bill should be present during its discussion in Committee was one of very substantial importance, and the only thing in his opinion was to adjourn this discussion.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that his name was on the back of the Bill, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, should have thought fit to throw unnecessary delays in the way of passing a Bill of this character. If delay was not the object of this Motion for reporting progress he did not know what was the object. A number of reflections had been made upon members of the public service and the sooner they were cleared up the better. It was essential that the Bill should pass with the least possible delay. The Home Secretary was absent partly because it was not expected the Bill would be reached, and partly because the Bill had never been regarded as controversial. A wholly artificial point had now been raised
370
on a question with regard to indemnity to witnesses, to which the Solicitor-General had given a complete and satisfactory reply. If the Home Secretary had been there he would have given the explanation in exactly the same words. It was, he held, undesirable to report progress at this stage.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that even if they went on with the Committee stage that evening it would be impossible to pass the Bill before the Whitsuntide holidays, and therefore if progress was reported there would be no unnecessary delay. There were two questions of great importance which required the attendance of the Minister in charge of the Bill, viz., the conferring of the powers of the High Court upon the Commissioners and the question of the very important and drastic powers which were conferred upon them. He thought it essential that the Minister in charge of the Bill should be present to deal with the questions raised.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the ex-Prime Minister had achieved their object. They had been delaying a Bill to the passing of which they pretended to be favourable. This was the Committee stage of the Bill, and if there was any point the right hon. Gentlemen thought of importance, notice of an Amendment could have been put on the Notice Paper. If there had been notice of any such Amendment the Home Secretary would have been in his place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the ex-Prime Minister had taken this method by a mere hollow pretence.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: Mr. Emmott, is there not a rule of the House which prohibits the imputation of motives?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's words were a little strong.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he would withdraw the word "hollow" and say

371
it was a "mere pretence." There was nothing on the Paper to show that this matter would be brought forward, and therefore the Home Secretary was not present.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was not for him to say whether the modification of the imputation of motive by the hon. and learned Gentleman was or was not in the spirit of the Chairman's ruling. It was not for him to judge, and he did not pretend to judge. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that the conduct of his right hon. friend and himself and the pretence, not the hollow pretence, of which they had been guilty in dealing with this particular crisis was based upon some desire to prevent the Bill passing into law. That was absolutely false.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means "inaccurate."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he desired that the Bill should pass into law, but he thought that there were points which were worth discussing on the Committee stage, and that the point raised by his right hon. friend was one of them. He had learned for the first time that a Minister in charge of a Bill need not be in attendance unless there was an Amendment on the Paper directing his attention to his own Bill. On the Committee stage of a Bill that was, he believed, new, and he did not know that it was the principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman advocated when in opposition. He had yet to learn that what every Member of this House supposed to be the practice was wrong. He had yet to learn that it was not competent and proper to raise points which had not been put formally on the Paper as Amendments and discuss them. The hon. and learned Gentleman was one of those who poured in Amendments without notice during some of the long-contested
372
nights in which the hon. and learned Gentleman and himself on opposite sides of the House to their equal dissatisfaction took part in the late Parliament.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Not on my part.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that an Amendment moved without notice was not an unfamiliar method, and it was certainly a most proper method of proceeding in this House. For the hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been guilty of delaying this matter by means of a pretence showed that he was either totally ignorant or had utterly forgotten the traditional methods by which business was conducted in this House. He was convinced that there was not a man on the Treasury Bench who would get up and defend the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was unnecessary, unless an Amendment was put down upon the Paper, for a Minister to be in his place to support his own Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,): Although there was no distinct agreement with the front bench on that side of the House—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Was there any agreement?
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: May I be allowed to finish my sentence? Although there was no distinct agreement with Members on that side of the House that this Bill should be regarded as a non-contentious measure, there was a general understanding throughout the whole House that it should be regarded as non-contentious, and be passed as soon as possible, in order to set this Commission to work. The action of

373
the right hon. Gentleman is, in my judgment, a breach of that understanding.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe I have had a longer experience than any man now listening to me of the manner in which the business of this House is conducted. Never have I heard a responsible Minister get up and claim that what he calls a general understanding, never made with any responsible individual, is a thing with regard to which a breach of pledge can be made. No man in this House has more difficult duties to discharge than the hon. Gentle man who has just made the charge—
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must stop this. The Motion is to report
progress. Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman must confine themselves to that matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of order, Sir, may I ask you whether, having been charged with a breach of faith, I am not permitted to reply to that charge?
THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman was charged with a breach of an understanding. I understood him to have repudiated any agreement, and therefore I considered that the matter was at an end.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 244. (Division List No. 106.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm

Meysey-Thompson, E. C

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E

Paulton, James Mellor

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Loud.)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Raphael, Herbert H.

Banner. John S. Harmood-

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick P-

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Forster, Henry William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxfd Univ.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Carlile, K. Hildred

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

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Cavendish. Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Magnus, Sir Philip

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Benn, John Williams (Devonprt

Channing, Francis Allston

Acland, Francis Dyke

Benn, W.(Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo

Cheetham, John Frederick

Adkins, W. Ryland

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

Agnew, George William

Billson, Alfred

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)

Clough, W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Armitage, R.

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

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brace, William

Cooper, G. J.

Astbury, John Meir

Bramsdon, T. A.

Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bright, J. A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Brooke, Stopford

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

Cowan, W. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Barnard, E. B.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Delany, William

Barnes, G. N.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dodd, W. H.

Beale, W. P.

Byles, William Pollard

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Beauchamp, E.

Cairns, Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Beck, A. Cecil

Cawley, Frederick

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Elibank, Master of

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowlands, J.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lynch, H. B.

Runciman, Walter

Essex, R. W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Evans, Samuel T.

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Seaverns, J. H.

Ffrench, Peter

M'Callum, John M.

Shackleton, David James

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Crae, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Fullerton, Hugh

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ginnell, L.

M'Micking, Major G.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Spicer, Albert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Gooch, George Peabody

Marnham, F. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Massie, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Micklem, Nathaniel

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gulland, John W.

Mond, A.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Hall, Frederick

Morrell, Philip

Summerbell, T.

Hardie J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morse, L. L.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Murphy, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholls, George

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncastr

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nolan, Joseph

Tomkinson, James

Hazleton, Richard

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Toulmin, George

Hedges, A. Paget

Nuttall, Harry

Verney, F. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Vivian, Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walsh, Stephen

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

O'Grady, J.

Walters, John Tudor

Higham, John Sharp

O'Hare, Patrick

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Malley, William

Wardle, George J.

Hodge, John

O'Mara, James

Waterlow, D. S.

Hooper, A. G.

Parker, James (Hailfax)

Watt, H. Anderson

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N

Paul, Herbert

White, George (Norfolk)

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

White J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Whitehead, Rowland

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jenkins, J.

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Radford, G. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wilkie, Alexander

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Williamson, A.(Elgin and Nairn

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wills, Arthur Walters

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richardson, A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Winfrey, R.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roberts John H. (Denbighs.)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersfd

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Young, Samuel

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Yoxall, James Henry

Levy, Maurice

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

Original Question again proposed.
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left
376
the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Ajdourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Post Office (Money Orders),

2. Seed Potatoes Supply (Ireland).

3. County of Aberdeen (Monymusk Bridge and Road) Order Conciliation.

4. Cathcart District Railway (Superfluous Lands) Order Confirmation.

5. North Berwick Corporation Order Confirmation.

6. Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

7. Crystal Palace Company.

8. Dover Harbour Board.

9. Kidderminster Gas.

10. H. R. Baines and Company.

11. Vauclain's Patent.

12. Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation).

13. Millwall Dock.

14. Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway.

15. Sheffield Assay Office.

16. Carlisle Corporation.

17. Manchester and Milford Railway.

18. North Metropolitan Tramways,

19. Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society.

20. Milford Docks.

21. Mirfield Gas.

22. Thornton Urban District Gas.

23. Accrington District Gas and Water Board.

24. Great Eastern Railway.

25. Knott End Railway (Extension of Time).

26. Wallis' Divorce.

Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parlia-
234
ments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway; North and South Shields Electric Railway; Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply; London Brighton, and South Coast Railway; London United Tramways; Manchester Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the further Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.
Portsmouth Water Bill [H.L.], reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Truro Gas Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.]; reported, with Amendments.
Alexandra (Nowport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]; reported, with a further Amendment.
Southampton Gas Bill; reported, with an Amendment.
Holyhead Water Bill [H.L.]; Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [H.L.]; read 2aand committed.
Waterford Corporation and Bridge Bill; read 2a, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Ritz Hotel Bill [H.L.]; read 2a(according to order).
Trent Navigation Company Bill [H.L.]; read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (Purchase) Bill [H.L.]; read 3a;

235
an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill; Huddersfield Corporation Bill; Bacup Corporation Bill; Cardiff Gas Bill; Uxbridge Gas Bill; Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill; Midland Railway Bill; London and South Western Railway Bill; Waterford Corporation and Bridge Bill; Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords he proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz., E. Lauderdale (chairman), E. Bathurst, V. Falmouth, L. Kilmaine, L. Kensington; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 26th of June next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Derby Gas Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill; Rochester, Chatham, and Strood Gas Bill; Cheltenham Gas Bill; Edinburgh Corporation Bill; Metropolitan Railway Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 112.)
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, &c.) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order), Bill reported without Amendment, Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3aon Thursday the 14th of June next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Marriages Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a(according to order), and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.];
236
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a(according to order).
Local Government(Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Read 2a(according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 14th of June next.
London Government Schemes (London and Penge, &c.) Bill. Read 2a(according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:—
LORD MONKSWELL, who had given notice to move, as an Amendment, the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 4, viz.:—
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the council may take such part of the lands, houses, and premises shown on Plan No. 6, and distinguished thereon by the Nos. 1 to 21, and of the land, house, and premises shown on Plan No. 8, and distinguished thereon by the No. 2, and described in the schedule to this Act, as they may require, without being required or compellable to purchase the whole or any greater part of any such lands, houses, and premises. The provisions of this section shall be stated in every notice given thereunder by the council to sell and convey any premises,"
said ho explained the other day the object of his Amendment, and he did not think it necessary to repeat what he had then said or to add anything to it. He was perfectly willing, however, to accept the substituted Amendment which had been put down by the Karl of Camperdown, and he would not, therefore, move his Amendment.
THE EARL OP CAMPERDOWNexpressed his satisfaction that the noble Lord had seen his way to accept his Amendment. Their Lordships would remember that on the last occasion when the Bill was in Committee the Committee stage was postponed in order that they

237
might look into his noble friend's Amendment and see what it meant. He (Lord Camperdown) had the opportunity afterwards of consulting the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees and his Department, and he ascertained that when it was a question of taking parts of a property only there was a model clause—Clause No. 29 in the Railway Lands Orders—dealing with such cases. That was the clause which he now moved should be inserted, and he was very glad that Lord Monkswell had accepted it. The new Clause standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Monkswell, but which the noble Lord had signified his intention of not moving, proposed merely to take parts of the land, and there was no reference in it to the compensation that was to be paid or to the question as to whether it was possible to take part of the land without materially injuring the rest. The model clause of their Lordship's House which ho (Lord Camperdown), proposed to insert provided that the owners might, if certain portions of the land, etc., could, in the opinion of the jury or the arbitrators, be severed from the remainder without material detriment, be required to sell these portions only, the council paying for the portions required by them and making compensation for any damage sustained by the owners thereof by severances or otherwise. The model clause, therefore, provided that the county council were to pay, not merely for the part they took, but also for any damage which might be occasioned by the severance. That seemed to him the obviously fair and proper way of dealing with the matter, and he understood that that was also the view of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 4, to insert the following new Clause—'And. whereas in the exercise of the powers of this Act it may happen that portions only of the lands, buildings, or manufactories shown on the deposited plans may be sufficient for the purposes of the same, and that such portions may be severed from the remainder of the said properties without material detriment thereto; therefore notwithstanding Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the owners of and other persons interested in the lands, buildings, or manufactories shown on Plan No. 6, and distinguished thereon by the Nos. 1 to 21, and on Plan No. 8, and distinguished thereon by the No. 2, and described in the schedule to this Act, and whereof parts only are required for the purposes of this Act, may, if such portions can in the opinion of the
238
jury, arbitrators, or other authority to whom the question of disputed compensation shall be submitted, be severed from the remainder of such properties without material detriment thereto, be required to sell and convey to the council the portions only of the premises so required without the council being obliged or compellable to purchase the whole or any greater portion thereof, the council paying for the portions required by them, and making compensation for any damage sustained by the owners thereof and other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD MONKSWELLsaid this might be a model clause, but the sooner it was remodelled the better. What he objected to was the last sentence, because it raised some doubt as to the meaning of leaving out Clause 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. By omitting that clause, as proposed in his (Lord Monks-well's) Amendment, they deprived the owner of one particular means of getting compensation only. The rights of the landlord with regard to damage in consequence of severance remained exactly as before; therefore it was unnecessary to insert the proposed provision, but as this was a model clause he did not wish to fight it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to, and Bill reported with Amendment to the House.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools, of teachers in schools at Salesbury; Bolton; Water-head Oldham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of maintenance of existing religious education in Church of England Schools, of parents and guardians of children attending schools in Bolton (2); Salesbury; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1906–1907).
    Explanatory memorandum by the Secretary of State for India.
    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Statistical Tables for the year 1905.

    HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Calendar of the manuscripts of the Marquis of Ormonde, K.P., preserved at Kilkenny Castle. New Series, Vol. IV.
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
    Orders made by the councils of the following metropolitan boroughs, and confirmed by the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the respective boroughs—Lambeth; Battersea.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
    Report from, that the general index to ten volumes of the Journals, viz., from the one hundred and twenty-six to the one hundred and thirty-fifth, both inclusive (57th and 58th Vict.—3rd Edw. VII.) is ready for delivery: The same to be delivered in the usual manner.
    TRADE REPORTS: (ANNUAL SERIES).
    No. 3601. Spain (Canary Islands); No. 3602. Germany (Pomerania); No. 3603. Netherlands (Curacoa); No. 3604. Peru (Iquitos).
    MISCELLANEOUS.
    No. 651. French Mercantile Marine Laws.
    TREATY SERIES No. 6, 1906.
    Treaty between the United Kingdom and Spain for the marriage of His Majesty the King of Spain with Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria Eugenie Julia Ena; signed at London, May 7th, 1906. (Ratifications exchanged at London, May 23rd, 1906.)
  CONVEYANCING BILL [H.L.]
    SETTLED LAND BILL [H.L.]
      MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
      The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee, and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 113.)
      WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
      Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment: The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the whole House to be received on Thursday, June 14th next.
      COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL [H.L.]
      Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment: The Report thereof to be received on Friday, June 15th next; and Bill to be printed us amended. (No. 114.)
      PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
      Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92, and 93, be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing Documents relating to any Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.

    RESERVE FORCES BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to amend the law relating to the Reserve Forces. Lender the Reserve Forces Act of 1882, the Army Reserve is a force authorised to be kept up in the United Kingdom only. Many Reservists are anxious to reside in India and the Colonies, and it is extremely undesirable that they should be prevented from

    241
    doing so. At present the services of Reservists so residing are practically lost, as there are no means of enforcing their liability to come up for annual training or when called out on active service. Clause 1 of this Bill allows Reservists to reside in India and the Colonies, and it also provides the necessary machinery for enforcing the liability for service of Reservists allowed to reside abroad.
    This matter is one of some practical importance, as is shown by the fact that the number of Reservists residing at present in India is 322, and in the Colonies 3,619, and the number living abroad constantly tends to increase. Clause 1 also authorises the enlistment into the Army Reserve of men residing in India and the Colonies. The Colonial Office objected to the application of this provision to the self-governing Colonies on the ground that it would tend to diminish the incentive in those Colonies to provide an adequate force for Colonial defence. The self-governing Colonies have, therefore, been exempted from the provisions of the Bill so far as they relate to enlistment. As regards Clause 2, Section 14 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, prohibits the appointment and transfer of a Reservist to a corps which is not in the arm or branch in which he previously served, but gives him no right to insist on joining his former regiment. It is found that this limitation hampers the authorities in their mobilisation arrangements by the inelasticity which it imposes on the system, whilst, on the other hand, it does not secure to a Reservist any right of serving with his former comrades.
    As an instance of the disadvantages of the present system I might cite the case of the Remount Department. This Department on a peace footing requires comparatively few men, but in time of war has to be enormously increased. The Department forms part of the Army Service Corps, but the Reservists belonging to the Army Service Corps are all required for transport service. On the other hand, there may be a considerable number of Cavalry Reservists who are not wanted for Cavalry service. Under the existing law these Reservists could not be required to serve in the Remount Department. The pay warrant can make the necessary provision to
    242
    prevent the Reservist suffering in the matter of pay by reason of his being transferred to a branch of the service in which the pay is lower than that in which he served. This Bill is very much wanted, and I hope your Lordships will consent to give it a Second Reading.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
    THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, this Bill is, I think, word for word a duplicate of the Bill which I was privileged to submit to your Lordships last year. I entirely agree that it is a Bill which is very much wanted, and I support the appeal of my noble friend that your Lordships should allow it to pass.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and Committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday the 14th June next.

    SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, this is another Bill which is very much wanted, and I do not think it is in any way contentious. The object of Clause 1 is to provide a summary punishment for persons who make fraudulent use of good conduct certificates of discharge granted to seamen, soldiers, and marines. As the law stands at present it appears to be a misdemeanour at common law to forge a character or to utter a forged character, and presumably a person who personated the holder of a discharge certificate in order to obtain any advantage for himself would be guilty of cheating at common law; but these offences are punishable on indictment and not summarily. A precedent for a summary penalty is furnished by the Servants' Characters Act, but that Act clearly does not apply to soldiers' characters. As there are at present a large number of discharged soldiers, it is important to protect them and also the public against impostors. The power to proceed summarily will not interfere with the power

    243
    to proceed by indictment in an aggravated case.
    As showing the necessity for the legislation proposed by this clause I have had a great many typical cases furnished to me. I will only trouble your Lordships with two or three. In February, 1897, a man attempted to obtain employment at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, by means of a discharge certificate which he subsequently admitted was forged by himself. The Treasury Solicitor advised that no action could be taken. In August of the same year another man presented a certificate, subsequently proved to be a forgery, at the Employment Registry of the London Recruiting District. In this case the Treasury Solicitor advised that process should be applied for against him under the Servants Characters Act. This was done, but the magistrate at Bow Street refused the application on the ground that the Act applied only to domestic servants. In January, 1903, a man presented a certificate in which the original character had been erased and "excellent" had been inserted. The case was brought to notice by Lloyd's Patriotic Fund, but no action appears to have been taken.
    The object of Clause 2 of this Bill is to prevent false characters being given by men offering themselves for enlistment. This provision has become all the more necessary now that a character is required from all persons who enlist. The clause also makes it an offence to give a false character if the person giving it allows or intends it to be used for the purposes of enrolment or enlistment in the Navy or Army. The clause is intentionally drawn so as to be wide enough to include false characters given by persons other than employers, such, for instance, as a friend or an acquaintance, or a schoolmaster. I have a number of curious cases showing the necessity of this clause. In February, 1904, a man came up at one of the out-stations and gave a reference which provided him with a good character for seven years. He was duly enlisted. He said he had never been convicted, but shortly after he had joined something cropped up which caused a letter to be written to the police about him. From the answer received it appeared that there was a long list of civil convictions against him,
    244
    and that he had spent the whole of the seven years in prison and was known to the police as the worst man in the county. The man who had furnished him with this seven years' good character turned out to be his own brother in-law, who said he gave it to him as he wanted to get rid of him.
    There was another case of a man who was discharged from the Army with ignominy. He re-enlisted, and was again discharged with ignominy. He enlisted a third time at Cardiff, and a character was obtained from a man to the effect that he had employed this individual for five years up to within the previous ten days, and that he had never served in the Army. The object of the Clause is to put a stop to proceedings of this kind. Clause 3 has been inserted for reversing the decision which was given in a recent case, to the effect that Section 16 of the Naval Enlistment Act, 1853, which imposes penalties on persons who make or give false statements upon entering or offering themselves for naval service, does not apply to a man entering the Naval Reserve Force. The ground of the decision seems to have been that as no Naval Reserve had been constituted at the time of the passing of the Act of 1853, and the nature of service in the Reserve Force is of an entirely different character from that of service in the Navy, the Act of 1853 would not apply to service in the Reserve without an express enactment to that effect. This is a Bill of considerable importance and of some urgency, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
    THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I hope the language of the Bill is not that used by the noble Earl. I presume that the intention of the clause is not to reverse the decision, but to alter the law in accordance with the decision, which was rightly given in the case to which he referred, and to prevent that difficulty occurring again.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 14th of June, next.

    POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
    On Question, Bill read 3a.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, on behalf of the Home Office, to amend Clause 3 "Reckoning of approved service in different forces," by making the period of approved service which a constable, who had retired without a pension and subsequently joined some other police force, was entitled to reckon at the end of his service in the first mentioned force, not less than "three" completed years.
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is with considerable regret that I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I will remind your Lordships of the circumstances. When the Bill was in Committee of the whole House an Amendment was moved by Lord Newton to the effect that there should be no limitation at all put upon the police constable changing from one service to another. On behalf of the Home Office I objected to the Amendment of my noble friend, and we came to a compromise by which the word "two" was introduced into the clause in the Standing Committee.
    Since then, however, I regret to say it has been discovered by those concerned that the alteration trenches upon that somewhat debateable ground, the privileges of the other House. The pension of the constable is made up partly of deductions from his pay and partly from contributions out of the rates. Your Lordships will see that if it is made possible for a constable to get that pension when he has been two years in the first service instead of throe it follows that a larger sum will have to be found out of the rates. A charge on the rates is thus involved, and that brings the clause as amended within that region of privilege into which this House does not generally go. It is rather a piece of constitutional purism; it is not a matter of very great importance, and I venture to say it is not worth discord. The police-constables of the country are, I believe, entirely satisfied with the original proposal of the Bill, and I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment, which will reinstate that proposal.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 2, line 17, to leave out sub-section (1); and in line 28, to leave out the word 'two' and to insert the word 'three'" —(Earl Beauchamp.)
    LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the statement of my noble friend is perfectly accurate as regards myself, but I am inclined to take some exception to one expression which he made use of. The noble Earl said in the course of his statement that it had been discovered by those concerned, that this Amendment constituted a breach of privilege. Who are those concerned who have made this discovery? Surely the persons concerned are the House of Commons; but what I gather from the noble Lord's statement is that some well-meaning but officious personage, presumably a clerk, has pointed out that, in his opinion, this Amendment is a breach of privilege. Thereupon my noble friend, terrified by his action, has run away as fast as he could from his own Amendment. I suppose that I ought to sympathise with the noble Lord, because in his desire to placate me he has, apparently, almost involved this House in one of those grave constitutional struggles with another place which are foreshadowed in the prophetic imagination of persons who take a despondent view of the political future. I suppose I must congratulate him upon a fortunate escape.
    I do not want to make a fuss about what is essentially a small matter, but I am bound to say that it appears to me to be a somewhat curious proceeding to invoke this tremendous weapon of privilege in order to defeat a trumpery Amendment of this description. If we are to be bound in the future by rulings of this kind it seems to me that our sphere of activity will be considerably circumscribed. With a little ingenuity it may be possible to show that almost any Amendment which is made in this House involves the further expenditure of money, and then your Lordships will have little power to alter or amend anything. My noble friend distinctly gave me an undertaking on behalf of the Government that this Amendment should be introduced into the Bill, and I hope the noble Lord will fulfil his promise and undertake to use his influence in another place to get the substance of the Amendment reinserted in the Bill.
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not think my noble friend who represents the Home Office is in any way to blame in regard to this matter. No doubt there has been a mistake. I do not complain of the noble Lord opposite in the least degree. If anybody is to blame in the matter I think it is myself. I did not attend to the discussion when the Bill was going through as I ought to have done, or it would have suggested itself to me, with my long experience, that the alteration was inconsistent with what is understood to be the privilege of the other House. I have no doubt myself that it was inconsistent. The opinions which the Government have obtained are such as are entitled to weight, and I hope the House will consent to my noble friend's Amendment.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Marquess and the noble Lord who represents the Home Office have explained the situation with great frankness. I think we are bound to accept the explanation. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who represents the Home Office has satisfied himself on the highest available authority that the matter is regarded as one of privilege. My noble friend behind me taunted the noble Lord with having allowed himself to be influenced by persons whom he described as well-meaning but officious personages, but it occurs to me that those personages may be the same to whom the other House of Parliament would appeal for guidance in a difficult case of the kind, and therefore the probability is that the view expressed by the noble Lord is that which would prevail.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

    PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (REGISTRATION OF PATENT AGENTS) BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday, the 14th of June next, a quarter past Four o'clock.