Sitting of 14 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  581
  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:—Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Pontypridd Water Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords].—To be road the third time To-morrow.
  Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill.—Ordered, That, in the case of the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill, Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order).—Read a second time, and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—Land Values (Scotland) Bill; Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to:—Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Norwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Wantage, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Lambeth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Creetown; and Wesleyan Methodist Church in Great Britain; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition of the Association of Trade Protection Societies of the United Kingdom, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Gamrie and Macduff; Leswalt; Tillicoultry; Tranent; Uphall; and Whitburn; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (ARMY AND POPULATION)
  Return [presented 13th July] to be printed. [No. 208.]
  ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY, AND ALLOWANCES.)
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the Army Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances sanctioned during the year 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Copy presented, of Administrative Report on the Railways in India for the year 1907 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIONS (EXPLOSION OF GELIG NITE AT ROSLIN, EDINBURGH).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an Explosion of Gelignite which occurred at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Roslin, Edinburgh, on 26th March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Minute, of the Committee of Council on Education in

  583
  Scotland, dated 13th July, 1908, providing for Special Grants in aid of certain School Boards in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1907. Part II. Salmon Fisheries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCOT- TISH BILLS.
  Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills have leave to sit this day after Four o'clock.—(Mr. Erskine.)

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1907–8.
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of each county in England and Wales, number of the various Local Taxation Licences issued in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1908, under the heads set out in the Report of the Inland

  Rural District.

  Number provided on 31st March, 1908.

  Number authorised but not provided on 31st March.

  Number authorised since 31st March.

  Ballyvaghan

  17

  3

  —

  Corrofin

  15

  —

  41

  Ennis

  166

  1

  132

  Ennistymon

  26

  1

  85

  Killadysert

  52

  42

  —

  Kilrush

  15

  31

  120

  Limerick(No. 2)

  86

  19

  —

  Scariff

  33

  2

  75

  Tulla

  108

  90

  —

  Total

  518

  189

  453

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1907–8.

    Salaries of Irish School Teachers.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many principal and assistant teachers there
    Revenue Commissioners, 1906–7 (Table XL., Column 1, pages 52–58)."—(Mr. Walter Rea.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Labourers' Cottages in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of labourers' cottages erected in County Clare; and what is the number in course of erection, giving the names of the different unions.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As promised in my Answer to the hon. member's oral Question to-day I give the the following table, which shows the number of labourers' cottages provided and authorised in each rural district of County Clare—
  are in Ireland; what is the method of paying assistant teachers in salary and capitation; whether an assistant in a school with an average attendance of sixty gets no capitation grant whatever;

  585
  what is the initial and the maximum salary of an assistant teacher; and how many years must he work before he can reach that maximum.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of principal teachers is 8,101, and the number of assistants 4,604. Assistants are, as a rule, granted third-grade salary and increments of good service salary, together with residual capitation grant according to the scale shown in the rules. An assistant in a school which has an average attendance of sixty receives no residual grant. The initial salary of assistants is for men £56 and for women £44, and the ordinary maximum is £77 for men and £65 for women. Assistants are also entitled to residual capitation grant as well as to bonuses under the Irish Education Act. It takes nine years for an assistant to reach his or her maximum.

  Dismissal of Mr. Algernon Sidgreaves, British Consul at Cadiz.
  ME. COWAN: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state whether Mr. Algernon Sidgreaves is, or was recently, British Pro-Consul at Cadiz, and, if so, whether he has been constantly at his post during the last two months; if Mr. Algernon Sidgreaves is no longer British Pro-Consul at Cadiz; when he vacated that post, whether by resignation or otherwise; and whether the conduct and services of Mr. Algernon Sidgreaves have always been satisfactory.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) Mr. Sidgreaves was appointed British Pro-Consul at Cadiz on 27th November, 1907, and his services were dispensed with in April of this year on account of grave irregularities in his conduct.

  Opium Prices.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what has been the average price obtained month by month during the first six months of 1908 for a chest of opium at the auction sales in Calcutta, and what price was estimated in the Budget for the current year.
  586
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Answer to the first Question, is Rs. 1,411; and to the second, Rs. 1,300.

  Factory Labour in India.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received the Report of the Commission appointed by the Government of India to inquire into the hours of labour and other conditions of factory life in India; and, if so, when will it be published and will it contain the Minority Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State has received the Report. He proposes to present it as soon as ever the necessary supply of copies is received from India. The minutes of dissent will be included.

  The Suffragist Demonstration—Provision of Police Escort.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if on the 30th ultimo a superintendent and an inspector of police attended the suffragette meeting at Caxton Hall, and informed the leaders of the women that they had come to escort the deputation to the House of Commons, and made arrangements for this purpose and escorted them to the House; and, if so, can he state why it was that the deputation was not received after making all these arrangements.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It was merely in order to facilitate the deputation's passage that the superintendent of the A. Division arranged to escort them to the House and to escort them back again, when they had received a verbal reply to their verbal message.

  Removal of Mr. Brock's Studio.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now give the date by which it is likely that the studio erected for Mr. Brock, R.A., on Primrose Hill will be removed and the use of the site on which it stands be restored to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. L. Harcourt.) I cannot yet fix a date, but my hon. friend may rest assured that the studio will not

  587
  remain One day longer than is absolutely I necessary.

  Distribution of the Caldbeck Estate.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the names of the parties recommended to share in the distribution of the untenanted land on the estate of Captain Caldbeck, Ballacolla, should the Estates Commissioners purchase the property.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of the tenants in the village of Ballacolla, Queen's County, whom the Estates Commissioners propose to exclude from the sale on the Caldbeck estate, and their reasons for so doing.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Captain Caldbeck has raised objection to the erection of five labourers' cottages upon his untenanted land; and, in view of the fact that the Estates Commissioners are in treaty for the purchase of the whole estate, will he say what steps it is proposed to take to secure the erection of these cottages.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to make final arrangements for the purchase of the estate in question and for the allotment of the untenanted land until it has been decided what portion of the property is to be acquired for the purpose of the Labourers Acts. An inquiry into the scheme of the Abbeyleix Rural District Council for the provision of labourers' cottages has recently been held, but the inspector's order has not yet been made. The inspector is considering the objections which were made to the erection of cottages on the estate in question.

  Irish Lords-Lieutenant of Counties.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the practice that lords-lieutenant of counties are appointed on the understanding that they were politically in sympathy with the Government of the day, he can state how many of the lords-lieutenant
  588
  of counties in Ireland have been appointed by the present Government, and how many of them are in political sympathy with the present Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Five appointments to lieutenancies of counties in Ireland have been made since His Majesty's present Government came into office, namely, the Bight Hon. T. Lough, M.P., County Cavan, Mr. J. Cooke, County Londonderry, Colonel M. T. Everard, County Meath, the O'Conor Don, County Roscommon, and Major Villiers-Stuart, Waterford County and City. I cannot say positively that all of these gentleman are in political sympathy with the present Government, but I sincerely hope that such is and will long continue to be the case.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the rules governing the appointment of lords-lieutenant of counties in Ireland; whether there is any property qualification; with whom the appointment rests; when the appointments are made and for what term; what are the duties of the position; whether a Catholic may hold the appointment, and, if so, how many Catholics have held the position during the past five years, and how many hold it now; and what are the powers of those holding the position with regard to the appointment of justices of the peace.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Lieutenants of counties in Ireland are appointed under the provisions of the Militia Act, 1882, by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, subject to the approval of the Crown. No property qualification is prescribed. The appointment is made by Letters Patent, and is held during the pleasure of the Lord-Lieutenant. The Lieutenant is head of the magistracy of his county, and has the power of appointing deputy-lieutenants for the county with the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant. No religious disability attaches to the post and there is no record of the religious denominations to which lieutenants belong. The appointment of justices of the peace rests with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to whom the lieutenants submit names of persons for appointment.

  Purchase of Tenants' Holdings at Dunmore.
  MR.HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants of the town of Dunmore, County Galway, and its surroundings, are anxious to purchase their holdings, but have been unable to get in communication with the legal owner; and whether the Estates Commissioners can do anything to assist the tenants in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have referred this Question to the Estates Commissioners for their consideration.

  Grading of Irish School Teachers.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish national teachers, in several congresses held since the introduction of the new system in 1900, have claimed that teachers placed in grades lower than their classes should be placed in grades corresponding to their qualifications, as ascertained by examination, without having to fulfil the conditions of those who have not passed such examinations; and whether in this connection, he will consider the claims of teachers classed first-of-first, having the requisite average attendance in the allocation of the new grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Resolutions on this subject have been received. The case of the particular teachers referred to is fully dealt with in my reply to the Question put by the hon. Member for North Donegal on 13th February last. As will be seen from that Answer, the Commissioners of National Education have already given special consideration to the case of these particular teachers, and therefore I cannot promise that any exceptional treatment will be given to them in the allocation of the supplementary grant.

  Salaries of Irish School Teachers.
  MR. MOONEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that there are ten teachers in charge of schools with an average of over sixty, who completed
  590
  a two years course of training in the year 1900 and are paid a salary of £70 per annum, exclusive of capitation grant and fees for extras; whether this is the ordinary salary of third grade; whether these teachers are losing upwards of £40 each annually; whether five teachers trained during the same year, and now in charge of schools with an average under sixty, are being paid a special salary by the Commissioners of National Education; and, whether, seeing that the Government are reconsidering the distribution of the Supplementary Estimate, he will take steps to set aside a portion of this grant to meet the claims of these ten teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my Answers to his previous Questions on this subject. The Commissioners of National Education have repeatedly stated that the claims of the teachers referred to in the first part of the Question have been fully dealt with on the merits and that they are still prepared to consider any facts which may be brought to their notice in a particular case. In the circumstances, the reply to the last part of the question must be in the negative.

  Army Service Corps Officers' Quarters at the Curragh Camp.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the officers' quarters of the Army Service Corps at the Curragh Camp are unsuitable and unhealthy; whether they have been so for some years; whether they have been medically pronounced to be dangerous to health through damp in the winter months and through lack of ventilation in the summer months; and whether it is now intended to press forward with the plans for new buildings at once so as to protect the officers concerned from the danger and discomfort of another winter spent in unsanitary quarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These quarters are undoubtedly old and uncomfortable, but, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, are not unfit for habitation. Plans for new

  591
  buildings are being pressed forward with all possible despatch.

  Annual Leave to War Office Officials.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what annual leave is granted

  Higher Division

  Principals

  36 days during first 10 years, 48 days afterwards.

  Assistant principals

  Clerks

  Retired officer clerks, 48 days.

  Chief examiners and Staff clerks

  36 days.

  48 days after 10 years service as such, if promoted before 6th June, 1905.

  Woolwich Common—Area to be enclosed for Royal Army Medical Corps Buildings.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the area of ground which it is proposed to enclose for the purpose of the new buildings for the Royal Army Medical Corps at Woolwich; and what is the estimated outlay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The area is about two acres and the estimated outlay £12,500.

  Organisation of Public Departments.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury in how many cases during the last ten years have inquiries been made into the numbers and organisation of public departments under the powers given by Clause 16 of the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, and what are the names of the departments so inquired into; and, if no such inquiry has been made, is it to be understood that the clause in question is now inoperative.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Inquiries, both by means of Inter-departmental Committees and otherwise, are constantly being made into the pay and numbers of the various departments of the State; but, so far as I am aware, there have not been any during the last ten years which have been expressly, authorised under the clause referred to.
  592
  to the civil clerks at the War Office who are in receipt of salaries above £350 a year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The annual leave granted to War Office clerks in receipt of salaries exceeding £350 a year is as follows—

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Australian Commonwealth Naval Scheme.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Deakin that the Australian Government had got no reply of any sort from His Majesty's Government in reference to the proposals of Australia as to naval affairs, and that it had never been pointed out to Australia that her naval scheme was complex or required amplification; whether His Majesty's Government intended to offer Australia an alternative naval scheme; and whether, in view of the anxiety felt in the Commonwealth upon the subject, His Majesty's Government would, without loss of time, accept the proposals of Australia as to the establishment of an Australian Navy.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): Communications have passed between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor-General of the Australian Commonwealth, on the subject of the scheme put forward by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth Government, and Mr. Deakin has been given to understand that the scheme presents considerable difficulties from the point of view of naval administration. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the Admiralty would be content to allow the existing

  593
  Agreement to run its course. They are ready, however, to advise and assist the Commonwealth Government in regard to any proposals made by them, but, as already stated, these cannot be dealt with without careful deliberation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the First Lord lay on the Table Papers dealing with this subject?
  MR. MCKENNA: I should like to look further into the matter; but if it is possible I shall do so.

  Admiralty Contracts—Extension of Time for Labour Disputes.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have granted to their contractors on the North-East coast an extension of time for the completion of contracts.
  MR. MCKENNA: Certain shipbuilding contractors on the North-East coast have been granted an extension of time for the completion of their contracts on account of difficulties in connection with novelties of design. There are also certain contractors on the North-East coast who have given notice to the Admiralty of probable delays in their shipbuilding contracts owing to labour troubles, and an extension of time corresponding to the delay caused by such labour troubles may, if required by the circumstances of the case, be granted to them as provided in the contracts.
  MR. HUDSON: May I ask if the provision in the contracts as to extensions of time relates to lock-outs as well as strikes? In considering this matter will he remember that this is a lock-out and not a strike?
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will observe that all I have said is that extensions may be granted "if required by the circumstances of the case." I have not stated there is an intention to allow it.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
  594
  Government contracts are now being completed by an extra supply of apprentices who are doing the work which qualified journeymen did prior to the dispute? Is that in accordance with the terms of the contract?
  MR. MCKENNA: I am afraid I must have specific cases brought to my notice before I can answer the Question.
  MR. CURRAN: I will give the names of the firms.
  MR. MCKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Member will put the Question down.

  H.M.S. "Defence"—Wages of Engine Fitters.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Clark, Chapman and Company, Gates-head, are not paying the engine-fitters now engaged on H.M.S. "Defence" at Pembroke Dock in accordance with the fair wage clause; will he state what are the actual wages and lodging allowance paid to these men on this work sent from the Tyne district; and what action does he propose to take in the matter.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Admiralty is not aware of what wages or allowances are being paid to engine-fitters in the employment of Messrs. Clark, Chapman and Company, on board H.M.S. "Defence"; but the question will be referred to the firm for their observations.

  Deptford Victualling Yard—Wages of Hydraulic Crane Drivers.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of placing the hydraulic crane-drivers employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard in the same position as regards their rate of pay as the same class of men employed under the Naval Stores Department in the Royal Victoria Yard, Deptford.
  MR. MCKENNA: The classes of men referred to are not analogous, as the men employed in the Victualling Yard are

  595
  established and therefore entitled to pension, whereas those employed in the Naval Store Department are hired men only. It may be stated that the whole of the rates of pay in the Admiralty establishments in the London district are under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

  Wages for Skilled Labourers at Deptford and the West India Dock Stores.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the question of permitting the skilled labourers employed at the Deptford Victualling Yard and the West India Dock Naval Stores to participate in the increase of wages granted in April, 1907, to skilled labourers in all the Royal dockyards has yet been considered; and, if so, will he state the result of such consideration.
  MR. MCKENNA: This question is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government in connection with other matters affecting rates of pay in the London district.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I have asked this Question on three previous occasions, and have each time received the same Answer.
  MR. MCKENNA: I regret we have not yet arrived at a decision.
  MR. BOWERMAN: As the se men believed they were intended to have the increase, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite consideration of the matter?
  MR. MCKENNA: I will certainly do my best.

  Rosyth.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the works at Rosyth are yet sufficiently advanced to be of any use to the large Fleet now assembled in the Firth of Forth.
  MR. MCKENNA: Only preliminary works have yet been begun.
  MR. FELL: Are these works of no use in helping the Fleet to coal and water?
  MR. MCKENNA: The hon. Member I fails to appreciate the fact that the contract has not even been let and no dockyard exists at Rosyth at the present moment.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not expedite the works.
  MR. MCKENNA: The hon. Member seems to forget I have already informed the House that all expedition is being made.
  MR. ASHLEYasked if the right hon. Gentleman considered seven years for the preliminary works expeditious.
  MR. MCKENNA: It is the same period the late Government thought desirable.
  MR. FELL: Is there any truth in the statement in the papers that the works will not be continued this year?
  MR. MCKENNA: I have not seen that statement.
  *MR. LUPTON: Is not the Fleet getting on exceedingly well without this dockyard?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the reason of the delay in letting the contracts.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the Question did not arise out of the Answer.

  Worcestershire and the Territorial Force.
  MR. C. B. HARMS WORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what was the numerical strength of the Yeomanry, Volunteer artillery, and Volunteer infantry, respectively, in Worcestershire on 1st January, 1908; what is the number of recruits who have joined since 1st January, 1908; and what is the number of Volunteers who have transferred, to the Territorial Force.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The figures for non-commissioned officers and

  Strength 1st January, 1908.

  Recruits to 1st July.

  Transfers to Territorial Force.

  Strength 1st July, 1908.

  Yeomanry

  393

  80

  343

  357

  Artillery

  539

  119

  319

  398

  Infantry

  2,039

  327

  1,057

  1,271

  Wages at the Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if steps are now being taken to revise the prices of garments made in the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico; whether such revision will mean a substantial reduction in wages to the women; and, if so, whether he will receive a deputation of the women before such changes are actually effected.
  MR. HALDANE: Prices paid to workers at the factory are liable to revision from time to time as alterations in pattern or process take place. There have been certain alterations in prices consequent on changes in process; these changes have not been great, and I am satisfied that they will not cause any substantial reduction in wages. Under these circumstances the matter would not appear to justify a deputation.

  Fife and Forfar Yeomanry Camp— Degradation for Disobedience.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the degradation for alleged disobedience of Private James Rennie, of the A Squadron of the Fife and Forfar Imperial Yeomanry at their annual training camp at Annsmuir, Ladybank, on 27th June; whether Rennie was taken under escort to the centre of the square and informed that he had been sentenced to be drummed out of the regiment, and was thereupon deprived of his cap and had the buttons and decorations cut from his tunic, and was thereafter marched out-
  men (exclusive of permanent staff) are as follows—
  side the camp; what was the offence fo which this punishment was inflicted, and what opportunity had Rennie for defending himself; and what regulations authorise this form of punishment without trial.
  MR. HALDANE: The Report called for has not yet reached the War Office.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I will repeat the Question on Thursday.

  Territorial Brigade Majors.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether he can in any way improve the position of brigade-majors in the Army, seeing that they are to get the same pay as formerly for arranging a week in camp, and no regimental pay, but are to receive allowances of their rank in camp and an additional £50 for rent, clerical assistance, stationery, and postage, by which they are out of pocket unless their office is in their own house.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Member, who is presumably alluding to the Territorial Force, appears to have lost sight of the fact that whereas previously brigade-majors received £100 a year, with £25 for stationery, office expenses, etc., and travelling expenses, they now receive in addition to the above £25 more for stationary, office expenses, etc., acting staff pay and allowance at camp, and their horse is provided and foraged at camp and conveyed where necessary at the public expense. It is intended that their office shall be in their own house as it has been in very many

  599
  cases in the past. It is not, therefore, proposed to grant them any further additional emoluments.

  Marriages in Military Chapels.
  VISCOUNT DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the solemnisation of matrimony cannot be performed in unconsecrated military chapels without a special licence; whether there are instances in which licences to marry have been granted to unconsecrated civil chapels; and, if so, whether there is any ecclesiastical, legal, or military obstacle to granting licences to marry to all military chapels which are unconsecrated; and, if so, what are those obstacles.
  MR. HALDANE: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The rest of the Question raises problems which fortuately do not fall within the sphere of the Secretary of State for War. The military authorities do not regard with unfavourable eyes the celebration of marriage. For the difficulties to which the noble Lord refers he must reproach, first, the ecclesiastical and, secondly, the legal authorities.
  MR. ASHLEY: If the ecclesiastical authorities give their consent, will the right hon. Gentleman concur?
  MR. HALDANE: I should raise no difficulty of any sort or kind if there were no trouble with the Estimates.

  Woolwich Arsenal—Discharged Work- men's Bonuses.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the practice of giving a cash bonus to the workmen discharged after long years of service from the Arsenal at Woolwich has been found to work satisfactorily; and, if not, whether he will organise a contributory pension fund among the workmen at the Arsenal to provide a subsistence for the workmen discharged during the interval which must occur between the time of their discharge and the time when they will be entitled to old-age pensions.
  MR. HALDANE: It appears that on the whole the cash bonus system has worked fairly satisfactory, but there is no doubt that there is a strong feeling among the workmen in favour of a contributory pension fund. The schemes that have hitherto been put forward on their behalf do not provide sufficiently large contributions to prevent the fund from becoming insolvent after a few years, but I shall always be willing to consider any scheme put forward which is actuarially sound.
  MR. FELLasked could not the War Office formulate a scheme?
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would be quite ready to assist if the men wore prepared to contribute.

  Tinnevelly Sedition Trials.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the sedition case recently tried at Tinnevelly, in the South of India, in which Subramania Siva has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and Chidambaram Pillay to transportation for life; whether he can state what the specific charges were in this case and by what Court the offenders were tried, and whether any appeal will lie to a higher Court.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Government of India reported that the proceedings in question were instituted under Sections 124(a) and 153(a) of the Indian Penal Code, and that the result of the trial was as stated, except that the punishment was transportation in both cases. The charges are understood to have had reference to speeches in February and March last which preceded the serious rioting at Tuticorin and Tinnevelly. The case was tried before the Sessions Judge at Tinnevelly; an appeal lies to the High Court at Madras.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is it not the fact that in one case the charge was sedition, and in the other merely abetment?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have given all the information we have received from the Government of India, and the hon. Member will probably be able to ascertain for himself whether it corresponds with the facts.
  SIR H. COTTONasked if the Judge who tried the case was not assisted by two assessors, one European and one native, and whether, while the European found the accused guilty, the Indian assessor found them not guilty.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I believe the two assessors did differ.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not the fact that the riots had their origin in an attempt to boycott the Swadeshi Steamship Company and had nothing whatever to do with sedition or with the Government of India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think that quite arises out of the Question on the Paper.
  *MR. REESasked whether the comprehensive rights of appeal provided by the law of India were ever denied to any class or nationality, whatever the offence committed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Certainly these two persons have full right of appeal.

  Marriages in Military Chapels in India.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the solemnisation of matrimony cannot be performed in unconsecrated military chapels without a special licence; whether there are instances in which licences to marry have been granted to unconsecrated civil chapels; and, if so, whether there is any ecclesiastical, legal, or military obstacle to granting licences to marry to all military chapels in India which are unconsecrated; and, if so, what are these obstacles.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State is advised that by the law in India an Anglican clergyman may solemnise a marriage in an unconsecrated building, provided it is a place where
  602
  worship is generally held according to the forms of the Church of England. There appears, therefore, to be no necessity for a special licence in such cases.
  MR. PIRIE: Can a Presbyterian at this moment celebrate matrimony in an Anglican Church?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think so.
  MR. PIRIE: I will repeat that Question.

  Gilbert Islands, Western Pacific.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if a petition has been received from residents in the Gilbert Islands, Western Pacific, praying for an investigation into the exploitations of the natives by European companies; and, if so, what action, if any, it is proposed to take.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): No petition has been received from residents in the Gilbert Islands.

  Mr. Clark Kennedy and His Moorish Captors.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER - GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to the fate of Mr. Clark Kennedy, a British subject, in the hands of Moorish brigands.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Mr. Clark Kennedy has informed the British Vice-Consul at Tetuan that he has made terms with his captors and hopes to be free shortly.

  Egyptian Ginning Mills—Employment of Young Children.
  MR. HAWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether children from nine to fifteen years of age are at times employed in the ginning mills in Egypt as long as fifteen hours a day; whether overseers in such mills use whips to

  603
  maintain discipline; whether the wages for such children are at the rate of 6d. a day; and, if so, what steps can be taken to remedy this state of affairs.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This question has formed the subject of inquiry lately. I am informed that the factories are open for a comparatively short period in the year. During this period there are some instances where the working day of children does extend to fifteen and a half hours, though there are intervals during this day. Wages are about 10d. to 1s. a day. There is no evidence to show that whips or sticks are ever used in the factories for striking the children; but the whole question of the work of children in factories is receiving the serious consideration of the Egyptian Government with the view of deciding what regulations are in themselves desirable, and how such regulations can be made applicable to European owners of factories.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to communicate that it is a savage thing that children should work fifteen hours a day when Egypt is under our protection?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The last part of my Answer shows it is not a question of whether any remedies are to be applied, but a question of how they can be made applicable to the owners of European factories not under our control.

  Cotton Cultivation in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the continuous decline in the yield of the cotton crop in Egypt, as admitted in Sir Eldon Gorst's recent Report, and considering that agriculture is the staple industry of Egypt and that a Department of Agriculture already exists in the Soudan, as in most civilised countries, he will advise the Egyptian Government to establish such a Department in Egypt.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There is no doubt as to the great importance of agriculture to Egypt; but the question whether the establishment of a special
  604
  Department in Egypt is advisable is clearly one for the decision of the Egyptian Government, who alone can judge whether such a step would at present be justified from a financial point of view. The hon. Member will have noticed that, in Sir Eldon Gorst's Report which he cites, it is stated that the Khedivial Agricultural Society have appointed a committee of experts to examine the causes of the diminished yield of cotton.

  Postal Rates between Egypt and England.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the minimum rate of postage on letters from Egypt to England is still 1¼d., while the minimum rate from England to Egypt is 1d.; and whether, seeing that a stamp of the value of 1d. is already is use in Egypt for international postcards, and in view of the great and progressive increase in the postal revenue of Egypt, he will advise the Egyptian Government to establish reciprocity of postal rates between Egypt and England.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The principal reason against the establishment of reciprocity of postal rates between England and Egypt is a financial one. I shall have pleasure in furnishing the hon. Member with a copy of a Report drawn up in the Egyptian General Post Office in which the question is exhaustively treated.
  MR. J.M. ROBERTSON: But is it not the fact that the Egyptian postal revenue is progressively increasing?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The amount at the disposal of the Government is dealt with in the Report, but it is not so large as the hon. Member seems to think.

  Alleged Turkish Outrages near Van.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to fresh massacres and outrages committed by Turkish troops in the neighbourhood of Van, at the village

  605
  of Khatchen, under the pretext of searching for arms from the Armenian inhabitants, and to the fact that these outrages continued for ten days; that two women and seven men died as a result of bastinadoing, and that more than fifty women are now suffering from tortures inflicted by the troops; and that the Armenian population is seeking to emigrate en masse to escape further expected atrocities; and, if so, whether steps can be taken by His Majesty's Government to lodge a protest with the Porte to prevent any further outrages.
  MR. TREVELYAN: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the tortures and cruelty and extortion recently inflicted by Turkish troops upon the Armenian inhabitants of the village of Khatchen, near Van, and the outrages upon the women of the village; whether this recrudescence of outrage coming after the massacres at Van in April last will induce the Government to prevent a general massacre of Armenians, such as occurred in 1895, by causing an immediate inquiry to be made by British consuls of the district into the action of the Turkish troops, or by taking such other steps as may influence the Porte to put a stop to the present atrocities?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Minister at Constantinople reports that he has heard of no atrocities at Khatchen, but that he is making inquiries of His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Van on the subject. There have been rumours that in the search for arms in the Garchicam district excessive severity has been used, and the attention of the Sublime Porte has been drawn to the matter, with the result that an inquiry is being made with a view to the punishment of the guilty parties should the rumours prove to be well founded.
  MR. LYNCHasked if Papers connected with this part of Asia could not be laid, in view of the fact that it was long since the House had any.
  SIR EDWARD GREYwas understood to ask for notice.
  AN HON. MEMBERinquired if it were not the fact that the perpetrators of these outrages were known and would energetic steps be taken to bring them to justice?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have said that inquiries are being made with a view to their discovery.
  *MR. REES: What powers are there compelling the Porte to take action?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There are certain Treaty obligations.

  Sacking of Persian Parliament Building.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the military operations which resulted in the sacking of the Persian Parliament house and the suppression of the Parliament were directed by Colonel Liakhoff; whether the orders received by this officer were sanctioned by a responsible Minister as provided by Article 45 of the Persian Constitution, to which the Shah of Persia has sworn to remain faithful; and, if not, whether the action of Colonel Liakhoff has the approval of the two Powers signatory of the Anglo-Russian Convention.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not know what part Colonel Liakhoff took in these events, nor have I seen the text of the Article of the Persian Constitution referred to; Colonel Liakhoff was in the employment of the Shah, and His Majesty's Government are not called upon to express any opinion upon the proceedings of the Persian Government which do not affect British interests.
  MR. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask our Chargé d'Affaires at Teheran for a Report?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: In any case we cannot be held responsible for the working of the constitution.
  MR. LYNCH: But is it not necessary that an order issued by the Shah of

  607
  Persia should be countersigned by one of the Ministers?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Article 45 does not deal with that part of the question. In any case the Persians must settle the matter on their own account.

  Police and Native Languages.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state whether it is obligatory for the police serving in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales to talk the native language of those countries.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The conditions of service in each of the Welsh police forces are laid down by the local police authorities, with whose discretion in this matter I have no authority to interfere. I have no reason to doubt that the responsible authorities are fully alive to the necessity of ensuring that police officers should be able to speak the language current in the district where they are stationed. With regard to Scottish and Irish forces, the hon. Member should address his inquiry to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman get rid of policemen who cannot speak these languages?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can add nothing to my Answer.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the case of the women now undergoing imprisonment for having taken part in the recent disturbances in Parliament Square, whether he can now see his way to consult with the magistrate who sentenced them with a view to the mitigation of their punishment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the
  608
  Question I put to him yesterday? Do not these punishments go far beyond anything that has the sanction of public opinion?
  MR. GLADSTONE. I hardly think that is a Question which should be put to me.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this course of punishment is abhorrent to the feelings of this House, whose servant he is?
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse in these cases to make a representation to the magistrates when he made such a representation in almost similar cases before?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already answered that Question several times. It may be that originally I was rash in making the representation; but I made it under special circumstances, having regard to the fact that it was the first occasion on which the disturbances had, arisen, and that in my judgment the omission of the magistrate to state the condition was accidental. But it is no part of my duty to interfere with the discretion of the magistrates.
  MR. ALDEN: Are not these quasi-political offences, and is there any precedent for the punishment meted out?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Does my hon. friend suggest that political murder should not be punished?
  MR. ALDEN: I was alluding to precedents and I say I do not think there are any.
  MR. LUPTONrose to put a further Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of any further Question.

  The Eight-Hour Working Day.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state to what other trades and occupations the Government proposes to extend the operation of the principle of the Coal Mines

  609
  (Eight Hours) Bill; and if it is proposed to introduce during the present session any legislation with this object, as foreshadowed in the recent speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I do not remember having foreshadowed in a recent speech any addition to the legislative programme of the present session, which indeed at this reason of the year is usually the subject of abridgment rather than of extension. In view of this fact, any reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question would be obviously premature.
  ME. FELL: Is it not a fact that just before the division took place on the Miners' Eight-Hours Bill the right hon. Gentleman held out promises of extending the eight hours movement to other trades and industries?
  MB. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman interrogated me on a matter of fact which can be decided by reference to the pages of Hansard.

  Reduction of Postmen's Pay.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he, is aware that at various post offices where the postmen's scales of pay are under consideration the pay given to outsiders who act as holiday and sick substitutes has been reduced by as much as 4s. a week, viz., from £1 to 16s.; and whether these substitutes, who are generally more than twenty-two years of age, ought to be paid at the rate laid down for entrants of that age by the Hobhouse Committee.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTOX,): If the hon. Member will furnish the names of the offices to which he refers I will have inquiry made.

  London and the Necessitous Children Act.
  MR. S. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the administration of the Necessitous Children Act has not proved
  610
  to have been the success that was anticipated, owing to some of the authorities not availing themselves of the opportunity of adopting the Act, he will consider the advisability of amending the said Act as it applies to London, and make it compulsory instead of optional.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my predecessor on 3rd March, to the effect that the extent of the Government programme this session precludes the possibility of considering the suggestion.

  East Hardwick School.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board decided on 18th May, 1907, that it was necessary that a new school should be provided by the local education authority at East Hardwick; whether that decision has been, or is about to be, rescinded; and, if so, upon what grounds.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The decision of 18th May was that the council school which the local education authority proposed to provide was, in the circumstances, a necessary school. That decision has not yet been rescinded.

  Board of Agriculture—Scheme for En couragement of Horse Breeding.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is yet able to make any statement with regard to the steadily diminishing supply of horses throughout the country.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The Board's proposals are that a limited number of selected stallions and mares shall be registered. Their stock will subsequently be separately registered. In addition to service fee paid by owner of mare, the owners of stallions are to receive an additional fee for every registered mare in foal to a registered stallion. It is intended that help shall be given in special cases to owners of mares by payment or part

  611
  payment of ordinary covering fee. Remount Department will arrange to inspect foals of registered sires and mares at three years old, and to purchase their annual supplies from amongst them. They will report all suitable foals not purchased by them to the Board for registration. Those purchased will be left with owners till wanted and payments will be made towards their keep till taken over. A Consultative Committee will be appointed to assist the Departments in carrying out the scheme.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will provision be made in the Estimates next year for carrying this excellent scheme into effect?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: These are proposals and not a scheme. As regards provision being made in the Estimates, I must have notice of that Question.
  MR. ASHLEY: Who is to decide whether these proposals are to be given effect to or not? Is it the Board of Agriculture?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: These proposals will, of course, have to come before the Treasury for sanction.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not the fact that these remedial measures will benefit foreign Powers quite as much as our own people, and [therefore for Army purposes the scheme is of no use?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I do not think so.
  MR. SOARES: Will the exportation of these horses be prohibited?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I think that is problematical.

  Horse Poisoning at Wellington, Shropshire.
  *MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any information
  612
  as to the death of horses at Bennett's Bank, Wellington, Shropshire, when six horses died and others were taken ill during the week of 29th June; and whether the Board made inquiries as to the cause of death of the horses.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: From inquiry made it would appear that the cause of death in the cases to which the hon. Member refers was accidental poisoning.
  *MR. STANIER: Are the Board making further inquiries, as I understand traces of arsenic have been found in one of the animals?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, the matter is still being inquired into. The inquiries are not yet completed.

  Ex-Soldiers and Sailors and Superannuation.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why His Majesty's Government refuse to consider the cases of ex-sailors and ex-soldiers affected by the decision of the Government under the Superannuation Act, 1859.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my predecessor to my hon. friend the Member for Mile End on 3rd February last.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision with a view to ascertaining if the number of men is large or small?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have nothing to add to the Answer.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Then does the hon. Gentleman propose to do nothing?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have given a reply to the Question.

  Tobacco Growing in Scotland.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government intend to make any grant to Scotland equivalent to the

  613
  £6,000 to be granted to aid tobacco-growing in Ireland.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have consulted my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who wishes me to say that when a case can be made out in Scotland, as in Ireland, for encouragement to experiments in tobacco-growing the Government will be prepared to give it the same favourable consideration.
  MR. COCHRANE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that experiments have shown that tobacco can be successfully grown in Scotland?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I can add nothing to the Answer.

  Scottish Judges and Bank Directorships.
  *MR. WATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say, from Income-Tax Returns or otherwise, what payment, if any, is received by Judges of the Court of Session and by Sheriffs in Scotland for acting as extraordinary directors of the Scottish banks; and, if no payment is so received, will he say why His Majesty's Judges should occupy such positions in trading concern which often litigate under their jurisdiction.
  ME. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer my hon. friend to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to a similar Question put down by him on the 6th instant. I have nothing to add to that reply, except that the Income-Tax Acts expressly prohibit information being divulged with regard to any particular assessment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did the Prime Minister say anything as to the pay received by Scottish Judges as directors of these companies?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I think he pointed out that they received no salary or payment of any kind.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are Scottish Judges precluded from taking part in any case in references to banks of which they act as directors?
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked for notice of that Question.
  *MR. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman see his way to so increase the salary of Scottish Judges as to make it unnecessary for them to go into the paths of trade to earn a living wage.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Administration of the Old-Age Pension Scheme.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appoint paid solicitors, under the old-age pensions scheme, who will assist those in search of a pension to discover where they were born and how old they may be.
  MR. HOBHOUSE (for Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE): No, Sir.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Would a remonstrance behind the scenes, to use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, have any effect.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.

  Carnane Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say in what way is the Carnane estate, near Fedamore, County Limerick; has the Judge of the Land Court anything to do now in the management of it; and why has it not been divided before now, or when is it likely to be divided, or who is at present the agent or receiver.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners have furnished the owner with a preliminary estimate of the price they are prepared to give for the estate of Bertha Dillon which includes the lands of Carnane. If the offer should be accepted, formal proceedings for the sale will be instituted. The estate is not now under the control of the Land Judge's Court, nor, so far as I can ascertain, of any of the High Courts. The receiver over the estate is Mr. Peter Fitzgerald.

  Prices of Consols.
  ME. B. S. STRAUS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the reason that the average price of the cost of purchase of Consols for Sinking Fund purposes during the year from the end of March, 1907, to the end of March, 1908, was £85 10s. per cent., and that the average price of Consols for that period was £1 2s. 6d. less, i.e., £84 7s. 6d.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The bulk of the Sinking Fund money is issued to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt in the last quarter of the financial year. A comparison of the price paid during the quarter to 31st March, last, when Consols were considerably higher than in the previous nine months, with the average market price for the whole year is therefore misleading.
  MR. B. S. STRAUSasked if the Government could not so arrange matters as to buy when the market was cheap.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Cooper Estate (Limerick) Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether John M'Grath and the representatives of Thomas Barry have as yet been reinstated in their evicted farms on the Cooper property, near Knocklong, County Limerick; has the agent, Mr. Sanders, declined the offer and terms of the Estates Commissioners; and will the Estates Commissioners use the compulsory powers in the Evicted Tenants Act to put M'Grath and Barry back into their evicted lands.
  MR. BIRRELL: The evicted farms in these cases are in the occupation of a tenant, and, in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners, the Evicted Tenants Act is not applicable. The Commissioners have noted the applications for consideration in connection with the allotment of any untenanted
  616
  land which they may acquire in the district.

  Colonel Gascoigne's Kilfinane Town Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say or ascertain from the Estates Commissioners what progress their inspector, Mr. Howard, made when in Kilfinane some weeks ago, in endeavouring to effect a sale between Colonel Gascoigne and his town tenants, inasmuch as arrangements are practically made for the sale to the farmers of their various tenancies; is he aware that there is on the estate, convenient to the town, some untenanted land worked by the estate bailiff; and will he see that the Estates Commissioners will endeavour in the interests of the town tenants to acquire this untenanted land and parcel it out between the poorest of the tenants, so as to give stability to the sale, as in the case of the poor tenants in the town of Cahir-conlish.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector has completed his inquiries and furnished his report in this case. Practically all the agricultural tenants have signed agreements to purchase, but there is no likelihood that any arrangements can be made for the sale and purchase of the town tenants' holdings by means of advances under the Land Purchase Acts. The estate bailiff referred to is tenant of but fifteen acres of land, and even if this were divided among the town tenants, the security afforded by their holdings would be quite inadequate for the necessary advances under the Laud Acts.

  Cost of Extra Police in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number, and what is the cost, of extra police in the County Clare at the present time.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of extra police at present serving in County Clare is seventy, and the charge upon the county is at the rate of a little over £200 a month.

  Land Purchase in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total number to date of land purchase transactions in County Clare, showing the number of tenants involved and the total amount of money advanced or for which agreements have been signed.
  *MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that, as regards direct sales under the Act of 1903 in County Clare, purchase agreements have been lodged in respect of 3,601 holdings, comprised in 154 estates, the advances applied for amounting to £957,226. Of this amount, the sum of £170,562 has been advanced for the purchase of 667 holdings comprised in forty-three estates. Proceedings have also been instituted for the sale to the Commissioners of twenty-six estates, and they have so far entered into formal agreements for the purchase, for £79,471, of thirteen of these estates which are occupied by 195 tenants. In the case of eight of these estates the purchase money, amounting to £49,083 has been advanced, and the lands vested in the Commissioners.

  Evicted Tenants in County Clare.
  MB. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total number of evicted tenants in the County Clare at present and the number who have been provided with holdings or are about to be provided with holdings.
  MR. BIRRELL: Up to 31st May last, the Estates Commissioners had received 413 applications from evicted tenants or their representatives for reinstatement in County Clare. In eighty-nine of these cases the applicants have been reinstated; 173 applications have been rejected; and seventy-nine cases are in process of being dealt with or are under the Commissioners' consideration. The remaining seventy-two applications were received subsequent to 1st May, 1907, and consequently they cannot be dealt with under the Evicted Tenants Act of that year, but will be inquired into by the Commissioners if and when the estates
  618
  upon which the evicted holdings are I situate come before them to be dealt with.

  Labourers' Cottages in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of labourers' cottages erected in County Clare; and what is the number in course of erection, giving the names of the different unions.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 31st March last, 518 labourers' cottages had been provided in County Clare, and 189 had been authorised but not yet provided. Since that date 453 additional cottages have been authorised. The Local Government Board are not furnished with particulars as to the number of cottages in course of erection, but it will probably be sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose to know that in all 1,160 cottages have been ordered, of which, as stated, 518 had been provided on 31st March. I will circulate with to-night's Votes a tabular statement showing the details for each union.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information. Has he received complaints as to delays in publishing the result of these inquiries under the Labourers Act?
  MR. BIRRELL: None have reached me.

  Ballahaline Pier, County Clare.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in the erection of the pier for the fishermen at Ballahaline, County Clare; whether the money has been long ago provided for this pier; and, if so, whether he will see that the work is at once gone on with in view of the necessity for providing proper accommodation for the fishermen to enable them to carry on their work.
  MR. BIRRELL: This matter cannot be proceeded with until legislation has been passed extending the power of the county council to contribute to works of the nature in question. A Bill on the

  619
  subject was introduced this session, but it was found impracticable to proceed with it, and the question of introducing an amended measure is now under consideration. It cannot be said that the money has been provided, so long as the county council have no legal power to make the necessary contribution.
  MR. HALPIN: May I ask whether it is a fact that in the 130 miles of the Clare coast there are twenty-two fishing hamlets with 226 canoes in which 675 men go to sea to make a living, and whether it is a fact that the Government have not up to this erected even one pier for the protection of those hardworking toilers of the sea?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot carry the precise Answer to that Question in my mind.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hem. Gentleman say what is the cause of the delay in the introduction of the second Bill, the first having been withdrawn? Is it not yet drafted?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes; and the cause of the delay is the same as in the, case of the first Bill.
  MR, JOHN REDMOND: And was not the cause of the withdrawal a quarrel between two Irish Departments; and is that quarrel to be allowed to defeat a second Bill?
  MR. BIRRELL: The cause of the defeat of the last Bill was a difference of opinion between two Departments. The battle is still raging, and I hope it will soon be over.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman head of the Board of Works?
  MR. BIRRELL: No; I have absolutely no control.
  MR. KILBRIDE: And are not the officials between whom war is raging Englishmen and Scotsmen?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some years ago it was admitted that this pier could be built for the small sum of £1,100; that all the money has been provided with the exception of the portion to be given by the county council, which cannot be given until this Bill has been passed; might not the work be commenced with the money in hand and the county council contribution be given afterwards? It is very hard to keep these poor fishermen out of the pier.
  MR. BIRRELL: I think it would be rather dangerous to begin the work before the money is provided.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The greater part of it is already available.

  Cavan and Leitrim Railway.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in June 1903, the Leitrim County Council adopted a resolution declaring that an extension of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway to the Arigna mines, a distance of three miles, would, by largely increasing the output of coal and iron ore, develop the richest mineral district in Ireland and provide remunerative employment for hundreds of people in one. of the poorest parts of the county; that a second short extension of the line from Dromod to Rooskey would provide an outlet for the coal and minerals to the districts bordering on the Shannon and would develop the cattle and tourist traffic; that these two extensions would provide immediate relief to the ratepayers in the guaranteeing areas of Leitrim and Cavan; and requesting the Government to make a free grant of £15,000 to effect these objects; whether he is aware that in May, 1905, the county council adopted a further resolution supporting the application of the directors of the railway for a larger subsidy, amounting to £24,000, towards the extensions of the line, and pointing out that they would materially relieve the ratepayers in the guaranteeing areas; if he is aware that in August, 1905, the late Government acceded to the application of the directors and the county council by making provision for a free

  621
  grant of £24,000 for the purposes indicated, that the latter body in November, 1905, passed a resolution thanking the Government for the promised grant and expressing approval of the extensions, and that the project was also commended by the local Press of all shades of opinion, while in February, 1906, the county council adopted another resolution declaring its opposition to the scheme, in furtherance of which Parliamentary powers were then being sought, and which scheme in consequence of such opposition had to be abandoned by the directors; if he will state what were the reasons assigned by the county council for rejecting the scheme which it had previously so strongly advocated on the grounds set forth in the resolutions of June, 1903, and May, 1905; whether the Government has since taken any steps to remove the obstacle to the promotion of the Bill authorising the extensions; and whether the free grant for their construction is at present available.
  ME, BIRRELL: The facts are generally as set forth in the Question. The arrangement made in 1905 was that the proposed grant of £24,000 should be made out of the Ireland Development Giant. The Estimates for 1905–6, 1906–7, and 1907–8, contained a provision on account, but owing to local opposition, and particularly to the opposition of the Leitrim County Council, the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company did not proceed with the necessary Bill. The resolution of the county council in February, 1906, as reported in the Press, declared that the council would oppose the Bill because they had no guarantee to protect the ratepayers. Beyond this 1 have no knowledge of the council's reasons for rejecting the scheme. The Government did not take any steps to remove the local opposition to the scheme, nor were they called upon to do so, the matter being entirely one for the promoters of the Bill. In December last, when the Ireland Development Estimate for the current year was being settled, the promoters were informed that, as they had failed to obtain the necessary legislation, the offer of the Government must be considered as cancelled, and accordingly the proposed grant is no longer available.
  MR. O'DOWD: Arising out of the reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that in this session of Parliament a Bill has been passed authorising the construction of a line of railway from Arigna to the port of Sligo; whether a company has been formed for the promotion of this scheme, and whether, if this company guarantees the construction of a line leading to the mines, the question of giving a grant-in-aid will be considered by the Government?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Limerick Postal Staff and Writing Duties
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will say why competent junior members of the rank and file at Limerick Post Office are not given a share of the temporary writing duties in the surveyor's and telegraph engineer's offices, seeing that officers from Cork, Belfast, and Dublin are frequently selected for such work.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If any officer at Limerick makes application through the usual channels for such employment, his application will be considered with those of others. At present none has done so.

  Ballymena Postal Arrangements.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Ballymena Urban Council condemning the postal accommodation at Ballymena as totally inadequate for the proper and efficient transaction, of business; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing Ballymena with a post office building and staff suitable to a town of its size and importance.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received a copy of the resolution and am inquiring into the matter.

  Headford (Galway) Postal Facilities.
  MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Post master-General whether his attention has been called

  623
  to the backward condition of the postal facilities at Headford, Comity Galway, which allows of only one mail daily; how long this arrangement has prevailed without any improvement, despite representations made some years ago for a mid-day service from Tuam; whether he would cause inquiries to be instituted respecting the desirability of establishing such a service; and would he consider if equal facilities might be accorded with advantage to Headford that obtain in a neighbouring service between Ballinrobe and Clonbern, which is exactly similarly situated.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will make inquiry on the subject and send the hon. Member a reply.

  Sale of State Secrets.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state whether people living in Great Britain are, by going abroad to sell State secrets or plans to a foreign Power, exempted from prosecution except in the case of those wearing His Majesty's uniform.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I regret that I do not understand the meaning of this Question. The law on the subject is fully and clearly set out in the Official Secrets Act.
  *CAPTAIN FABERasked was it not clear that people could not be prosecuted for the offence if they went out of the country to sell State secrets?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it was not at all clear. A British subject could certainly be prosecuted.

  Welsh Church Commission.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the final Report of the Welsh Church Commission will be available to Members before the Welsh Disestablishment Bill promised for next session is introduced.
  MR. ASQUITH: I regret that I have no information as to the date at which this Report may be expected to be available.

  Purchases for the National Gallery.
  MR. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that in 1886 the Treasury grant of £10,000 per annum for the purchase of paintings by the trustees of the National Gallery was suspended so that the cost of the Madonna degli Ansidei, by Raphael, and the equestrian portrait of Charles I., by Vandyck, at a total cost of £87,500, might be made good and that the grant since has been £5,000 per annum; and whether, in view of the increased competition and the consequent enhanced value of pictures worthy of the national collection, he will consider the advisability of granting in future years at least as much as that formerly given.
  MR. ASQUITH: I will confer with my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I do not think that he will find himself in a position at the present time to increase, the grant for the purchase of pictures. The grant for the present year, as my hon. friend has no doubt observed, is £12,500.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether, in the event of the £5,000 not being expended in any one year, it could be carried over to the next year.
  MR. ASQUITH: Speaking from recollection, I rather think that is so.

  EAST INDIA REVENCE ACCOUNTS.
  Ordered, "That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament relating to the Revenues of India be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole House.''—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Resolved, "That this House will, upon Wednesday, 22nd July resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr.
  Buchanan.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following

  625
  Members from Standing Committee B. (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. David Alfred Thomas, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Wyndham, Mr. Soares, and Mr. John Robertson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bethell, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Remnant, and Mr. Dickinson.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill): Major McMicking and Mr. Alden; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. David Alfred Thomas and Mr. Menzies.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 227.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 227.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 320.]

NEW BILLS.
  LAW OF MURDER AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To classify Murders and to amend the law with regard to Suicide and Infanticide," presented by Mr. George Greenwood; supported by Sir W alter Foster, Dr. Shipman, Sir Maurice Levy, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Bright, Sir Henry Cotton, Mr. Byles, Mr. Manfield, and Mr. Bertram; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 316.]
  PROPERTY OF DECEASED PERSONS (DISCLOSURE) BILL.
  "To compel bankers, solicitors, and others, having in their possession property of deceased persons and having notice of their death, to hand over same to the executors or other legal representatives or such persons," presented by Mr. Bottomley; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 317.]
  NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
  "To extend the Military Lands Acts to Naval Volunteers," presented by Mr. McKenna; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]
  IRISH EDUCATION ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend in certain particulars the Irish Education Act, 1892," presented by Mr. Hazleton; supported by Mr. Kettle, Mr. John Murphy, and Mr. Hugh Law; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 319.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  MR. KETTLEsaid that he moved to omit the words "or Ireland" because he wished for an opportunity of obtaining relief of a special and preferential character in Ireland. He was sorry that in order to justify his Amendment he would have to draw attention to the existence of the Act of Union, or the Act commonly called by that name. It was a document very little read, and less respected, and whilst they on those benches abused it in argument, its supporters had abused it in practice, and he was prepared to stake his eye that not more than a couple of his Unionist friends representing North East Ulster and other backwood districts of Ireland had ever read a single line of the Act of Union. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was, if he might say so, a fundamentally honest

  627
  man, in small matters, whether, when he accepted the responsibility for the Finance Bill, he consulted the Act of Union. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for Great Britain but also for Ireland, that his appointment was gazetted not only in the London Gazette, but in the Dublin Gazette, and that in the latter he was called the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, and, therefore, he should hold an equal hand between the two parties to this bargain. The portion of the Act of Union to which he wished to refer was the bargain which stood on the Statute-book at the end of Section 8, article 7, viz:—
  "And if it shall appear to the Parliament of the United Kingdom that the respective circumstances of the two countries will thenceforward admit of their contributing indiscriminately, by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in cash, to the future expenditure of the United Kingdom, it shall be competent to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to declare that all future expense thenceforth to be incurred, together with the interest and charges on all joint debts contracted previous to such declaration, shall be so defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each country, and thenceforth from time to time, as circumstances may require, to impose and apply such taxes accordingly, subject only to such exemptions or abatements in Ireland, and in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as circumstances may appear from time to time to demand."
  A portion of that Article had been put into practice and a more important part of it had never been put into practice; and if they bad either a Constitution or a Court of Constitutional Law which stood above this House he was certain that there was not a single Finance Bill which had been passed by the House since the Act of Union that would not have been declared to be null and void in its Irish clauses, and very likely some Irish Chancellors of the Exchequer would have been hanged. But that Article dealt with certain exemptions and abatements which were to be made in the case of Ireland. They always had a certain number of exemptions. For instance, in Ireland they did not pay the stamp duty on patent medicines, and he supposed the theory of that exemption was that Ireland would be so depressed by the present system of government that she would need some patent tonics for the
  628
  revival of her constitution. Further, they did not pay the Inhabited House Duty, and they did not pay the English Land Tax. Those exemptions conceded the principle for which he was contending. Of course, it was true that the total amount of those exemptions, calculated on the basis of English and Scottish figures, was between £80,000 and £100,000 a year. What he asked for in his Amendment was that in addition to those exemptions there should be abatements, and that the tea duty, which was to be fixed at 5d. in the £ in Great Britain, should be fixed at 2d. in Ireland, and he put them forward on two grounds. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Act of Union, he was certain he would accept the Amendments. They would reduce the total volume of taxation paid to the Imperial Exchequer by Ireland, and if they took Ireland in relation to herself they would diminish the proportion of indirect to direct taxation in that country. He would like to refer the Committee to the Report of the Financial Relations Commission, which was appointed by the last Liberal Government in 1894. Motions founded on the unanimous Report of that Commission had been moved in that House and supported in the division lobbies by the majority of the Members of the present Cabinet, including, if he was not mistaken, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The not effect of the Report of that Commission was that they said substantially that the financial theory of the Act of Union was that after the Union, Ireland and Great Britain should contribute to the Imperial Exchequer each in proportion to its capacity, and that they should receive each in proportion to its needs. The Commission further found that at that time the total value of taxation paid by Ireland was one-eleventh of the whole taxation of the United Kingdom, whereas at the very highest estimate, that which was the most unfavourable to Ireland, it should have been one-twentieth. What was the record of the Liberal Government in the matter of Irish taxation since the election of 1905, which they were told at the time was the greatest election of modern times, and returned the greatest Government by the greatest majority, founded upon the most approved moral and democratic principles? Their record for the first

  629
  year was this. For 1906–7 the total revenue raised in Ireland was £43,000 more than it had been in the last year of reactionary Toryism; in 1906–7 it was £9,490,000, against £9,447,000 in 1905–6, and he was sorry to say he found I himself speculating now as to why he shared in the general rejoicing at the defeat of Toryism at that election. He would apply the findings of the Financial Relations Commission in arguing for a reduction of the total taxation of Ireland. If she had contributed one-twentieth she would have contributed only £7,500,000, as against her actual contribution of £9,500,000; in other words, for 1906–7 she was overtaxed by nearly £2,000,000. If she had contributed on the basis of one-twenty-fifth, which was the estimated ratio of her wealth to that of Great Britain according to a majority of the Commission, she would have contributed only £6,000,000, so chat on that basis she was overtaxed by £3,500,000. If the Finance Bill passed through in its present form, and if they applied to it the unanimous findings of the Financial Relations Commission, Ireland for 1908–9 would, on one of these alternative bases, pay £1,600,000 more than she ought, and on the other £3,100,000 more. He expected the reply to that would be the familiar reply of the hon. Member for Preston, that they must take the taxation per unit of population, and that they would then find that no person in Ireland paid more, but that the tax 1ation per head of the population was rather less than in Great Britain. That was undoubtedly so, and if the hon. Member for Preston, who had already committed himself to that opinion in the previous session in connection with certain questions, took that view, it would not be the first time that he had been brilliantly wrong about financial subjects. Views of that character might be good enough for primitive Radicals, but he did not think they ought to be accepted by the Committee. If they accepted for the moment the unit of population test, and if they complemented it by another test, the test of the taxable capacity of the unit of population in Ireland, they would find? these figures. The average total income per head of the population of Great Britain was about £45 per annum, and in Ireland about £19. If they corrected that by deducting from it the £15 a year which ought to be set down for cost of sub-
  630
  sistence, they were left with a free taxable income in Great Britain of about £30, and in Ireland of only £4. He submitted that on the basis both of the Act of Union and of common justice, they were left, under the Act of Union, with the theory that they ought to tax according to the capacity of the two parties to the bargain, and according to these figures they were left with an income of only £4 in one case and £30 in the other case. From whom was the tea tax going to be drawn in Ireland? It was a part of that enormous burden of indirect taxation in Ireland which made the financial system of that country absolutely and radically unsound. If there was one principle accepted and acted upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, it was to preserve a substantial equality between direct and indirect taxation. At the present time the proportions in Great Britain were practically half and half, but in Ireland the proportions were 72 per cent, indirect and only 27 per cent, direct taxation. Those figures worked out at an average tea tax of about 3d. a week for every family of five persons in Ireland The tax was going to fall on the poor people. They were constantly told that it was because they happened to be poor in Ireland that they suffered from this special burden of taxation; they were told that if they took class for class in Great Britain and Ireland, the burden was no heavier in Ireland. Let them take the most prominent and typical class in Ireland, the class of agricultural labourers. Mr. Wilson Fox, a Board of Trade expert, conducted an inquiry into the relative positions of the agricultural labourers of Great Britain and Ireland three years ago. He found that the average weekly earnings of an agricultural labourer were in Scotland 19s. 3d., in England 18s. 3d., in Wales 17s. 3d., and in Ireland 10s. 11d. He found that in county Mayo, in the centre of the congested district, the average weekly wage of an agricultural labourer was 8s. 9d.; and it was from the Mayo labourer, with 8s. 9d. a week upon which to face the world and rear a family, that the right hon. Gentleman was going to take 3d. a week in the shape of a tea tax. In January this year another Board of Trade inquiry into the relative condition of the industrial classes in the great towns of Great Britain and Ireland was conducted, and the net result of the report was that in every one

  631
  of the few great cities in Ireland the condition of the labourer was worse, the average wage of trades lower, the housing conditions poorer, and the general outlook blacker, than for the corresponding classes in the great towns of Great Britain. It was these two classes, the poor people in the congested districts and the Irish towns, who were going to pay the tea tax in Ireland. He did not want to labour the point. Anybody who had been in the typical parts of the west and middle-west of Ireland knew what that meant in actual work, but he would venture to read to the Committee a few words expressing the opinion of a Commissioner of the Local Government Board for Ireland, a man whose experience and authority on this subject carried very great weight in Ireland. Mr. Micks, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, used these expressions—
  "There are two classes in the congested districts mainly—namely, the poor and the destitute; there are no wealthy people, except traders. Nearly all inhabitants are on one dead level of poverty. Their dietary is almost altogether vegetable. They have at one meal a day a little salt fish or a very small piece of some coarse American bacon as a sort of relish with their food—that is, those who can afford it, but the majority of the people have nothing but vegetable diet such as Indian meal or oaten porridge, potatoes and bread leaked by themselves or sometimes by the baker, from flour. They also drink tea to a very large extent.''
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever attitude he assumed on this question, ought to realise that these were the people who were going to be hit by this special clause of the Financial Bill. It was urged before the Financial Relations Commission that there would be enormous adminstrative difficulties resulting from the setting up of a different tea duty between Ireland and Great Britain, but frankly he could not see where the administrative difficulties would come in. There were Customs officials at the three great ports of importation—Belfast, Dublin, and Cork. The total contribution of Ireland to the tea tax in 1906–7 was £552,000, of which no less than £306,000 was actually collected in Ireland as well as contributed there, and the effect of the Amendment would simply be that the whole amount contributed would also be collected in Ireland. He could not for the life of him see the smallest
  632
  shadow of difficulty in Customs administration. At present if tea imported into Ireland was re-exported to England it would naturally pass through the Customs at the English port of entry without questions asked. The duty would have been paid in Ireland. If they made a distinction between Ireland and Great Britain the effect would simply be that bills of lading would not be a guarantee that the duty had been paid. They could collect the duty on tea re-exported from Ireland as they now collected it on goods re-exported from any other country. Another argument against a reduction of the duty in Ireland was that it would lead to more extended drinking of tea, which would result in the physical deterioration of the population. A great many medical authorities who wrote upon the subject of the growth of tuberculosis and insanity in Ireland ascribed it in some measure to the extending use of tea. If they found an increasing consumption of tea going on side by side with an increase in the statistics of tuberculosis and insanity, it would suggest that perhaps there was-some connection between the two sets of figures. But the amount of tea consumed in Ireland, as shown by the Revenue figures, was not increasing but declining. The Chancellor of the Exchequer got £552,000 from Ireland on a 5d. tea duty in 1906–7. In 1899–1900 he got £12,000 more upon a -id. tea duty. Therefore, the amount of tea consumed in Ireland in 1906 showed a very marked diminution indeed as compared with the amount consumed in the year before the war, when the tea tax was a penny lower than now. If one developed the argument that a reduction of the duty would lead to increased consumption of tea, and that that was not from a physical point of view a desirable thing, he would respectfully put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the fact that a man differed from him on a rather vague and disputable subject was not a sufficient reason for arranging taxation so as to rob. In the matter of tea drinking he preferred to take his stand with Alexander Pope and Dr. Johnson. He remembered that Dr. Johnson was accustomed to consume something like seventeen cups of tea at a sitting, and his intellect was so enlightened by this diet that when he was consulted by a prominent Irishman

  633
  of the day on the project of a union with Great Britain he said —
  "Let Ireland never unite with Great Britain, for if she does we shall rob her."
  If the argument of the physical effect of drinking tea was put forward, he hoped it would not be by a Member who had just come from the Terrace, for he would have been ruining his own constitution, which was deplorable, and corrupting his brains, an occupation in which no Member of the House ought to be engaged. The effect of the proposed reduction of tea duty upon the total revenue of Ireland would be very slight and scarcely perceptible. It would leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer his £1,250,000 out of Irish tobacco, and let him say on that point that the small grant and abatement he had made on Irish tobacco appeared infinitesimal in comparison with the general figures of Irish taxation. The reduction of the tea duty, and the abolition of the sugar tax, which he proposed to move later, and which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would accept, had always been accepted by Liberals when in opposition. The effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to reduce the yield of the duty by about £300,000 a year. They would not touch the £1,250,000 drawn from Irish tobacco, or the £3,600,000 from alcohol. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not only continue to draw it, but would increase the tax on that dangerous commodity. The total effect of accepting this and the other Amendments he proposed to move, and of the right hon. Gentleman's signalising his entrance into office by passing the first Finance Bill founded on the Act of Union, would simply be that in 1908–9, Ireland, instead of paying £3,000,000 more in taxes than she ought, would only pay about £1,900,000 more. The Government had not diminished, but had increased the taxation of Ireland, and he asked them to say whether they accepted or repudiated the findings of the Financial Relations Commission. If they repudiated them, the Committee would be glad to know upon what grounds, and if they accepted them, the Committee would be equally glad to know what they proposed to do about it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words 'or Ireland."'—(Mr. Kettle.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said the hon. Member in his witty speech had reminded him that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland as well as Great Britain, and referred him to the Dublin, Gazette for confirmation of the statement. He did not think any Chancellor of the Exchequer need take the trouble to peruse the Dublin Gazette in order to realise that he had financial relations with Ireland. Hardly a day passed without a reminder. For every demand that came from Great Britain he thought he could safely say three came from Ireland. He did not think that that was an opportunity for discussing the question of financial relations, and he was certain it was not the best opportunity for redressing it. But he could not quite realise the grievance of the hon. Member. He complained, first of all, that although the tea duty was reduced by one penny a pound, still Ireland was so much more prosperous under a Liberal Government that she returned £43,000 more for revenue. That was not attributable to any increase of taxation. In spite of the decrease of one penny in the pound duty Ireland contributed £43,000 a year more.
  MR. KETTLEsaid it was an increase of one penny and Ireland paid £12,000 less in tea duty than she paid before the war. She was paying now fivepence, and then she was paying fourpence.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think any Chancellor of the Exchequer was in danger of forgetting his responsibilities in connection with Ireland. For every demand that came to him from Great Britain it was safe to say three came from Ireland. He did not regard that as a proper occasion for discussing the great issue raised by the Report of the Financial Relations Commission. The hon. Member had complained that, although the tea duty had been reduced by 1d. per lb., Ireland was so much more prosperous under a Liberal Government that £43,000 more revenue was obtained. He would not have thought that a real grievance against the Liberal Government. Ireland had certainly benefited to the extent of

  635
  the reduction of 1d. made by the Liberal Government when they came into office. They also reduced sugar by 1d., and the circumstances of Ireland were such that whenever relief was given to indirect taxation Ireland benefited to a much larger degree than any other part of the United o Kingdom. Then they were making provisions for old age pensions, and there again Ireland would receive a much larger benefit than any other part of the United Kingdom, for reasons which he need not go into. Therefore, this Government had done something to readjust the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland in the direction of benefiting Ireland. He was not going to remind the hon. Member of the many demands made upon the Exchequer which they had seen their way to concede, neither would he enter into the whole question of the financial relations between the two countries. It was perfectly clear that if the Government made up their mind to deal with this question of the financial relations the Amendment was not the way to do it. They could not deal with it by having one tea duty in Ireland and a higher one in Great Britain. The inconvenience was obvious, and such a differentiation would lend itself to all possible frauds on the revenue in Great Britain. They would have to set up a costly system of defence against the coasting trade with Ireland. Ireland, he reminded Irish Members, enjoyed certain special benefits in the way of taxation; there were no assessed taxes, no house duty, no land tax; there were three or four separate heads of taxation which did not apply to Ireland at all. In addition to all that, the reductions in taxation which this Government had effected during the last two years had given substantial benefit to Ireland. Of course he admitted that Ireland was a poor country, and, whenever they got a poor district, whether in Ireland or the west coast of Scotland, or in other parts of Great Britain, they would find the poor paving a higher proportion of the cost of government than any other class of the community. It was not so much a problem of two countries as a problem of two classes. As a matter of fact, Ireland had gained more by this Budget, which was the object of attack by Irish Members, not only in taxation, but in beneficial expenditure, than any Budget he could remember. He invited hon. Members
  636
  from Ireland to challenge that statement. He could not possibly accept this Amendment because he could not afford it. This particular Amendment would cost £220,000, and taken in conjunction with another Amendment which the hon. Member had on the Paper a very considerable sum was involved. This could not be done, and if it could be done this was not the way to do it.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the same old story, for he had told them that this was not the time or opportunity for such a proposal, and this was hardly the place to make it. This question was one which went to the very root of the prosperity of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have ignored the fundamental distinction upon this question between Ireland and the different parts of Great Britain. In Great Britain there was no Act of Union which differentiated them from other parts of the Kingdom, and consequently there was no binding contract upon them as was the case in Ireland. The figures which his hon. friend had given were very striking indeed. He had alluded to the decreasing contribution of this country to general taxation, and on that point his hon. friend gave some very convincing figures. If they went back for ten years they would find that Ireland had been paying an increased contribution year after year, and by the system of set-offs in regard to expenditure the more money drawn from Ireland the more she had to contribute towards the general taxation or revenue. They might go on debiting Ireland in this way simply by doubling the cost of the police or the salaries of the Judges, to which the majority of the peeple of Ireland were opposed. The tea tax was one of the few ways in which it was possible for an Irish representative not. only to bring the whole question of financial relations before the Committee, but also to show how the tea tax pressed I so much more heavily on Ireland i than on this country. The average wage all the year round of the agricultural labourer in Ireland was nearer 8s. than 10s. a week, and, therefore, if they considered the amount of tea and sugar he consumed he paid taxation enormously out of his proper proportion. The lower they went down

  637
  the scale the more disproportionate and the more unfair was the system of taxation. He was quite familiar with the arguments put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were really a re-echo of the words of the late Sir William Harcourt.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer still considered himself a good Radical. He was old enough to remember that one of the great aims of the Radical Party was "a free breakfast table." He was not sure that Mr. Gladstone did not inscribe it on his banner at one time. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was Chamberlain."] If that were adopted, Ireland would benefit. The Irish were economists, and if the people of this country were not willing to practise economy by the restriction of expenditure, that was their own affair. The reason why the Government could not reduce the taxes on tea and sugar, the breakfast table commodities, was because they were spending so much more than was spent in former times. They did not want such a swollen Budget in Ireland. The people of that country had contributed to the indirect taxation far beyond their means and far beyond what they ought to pay; and the money was drawn from the very poorest of the population. The working classes in this country were very much better off than in Ireland, and they had at their command more of the comforts and luxuries of life. They could use commodities like meat and beer which the poorer classes in Ireland were debarred from using. Those were commodities which the Irish could not afford, especially in the West of Ireland. In the case of a poor Irish family of five the tea duty at the present rate represented an annual charge of 13s. 3d. or 13s. 4d. That was a very large amount to pay in taxation for what had become practically a necessity of life. To the working population of Ireland tea was a necessity and not a luxury, and they had to pay a disproportionate share of the taxation on that commodity. What he meant was that the tax was out of all proportion to the means of those who paid it. The poor of Ireland who were large consumers of tea were the poorest in the three kingdoms making up the so called Union. Provision was made in the Act of Union for special abatements and that fact had
  638
  been airily treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the difficulty of the Customs House. He and his friends could not see where that difficulty arose at all. Tea was moved about in bulk in large quantities, and it would not be suggested that the revenue would suffer by the illicit importation of tea in the same way as it would suffer if ladies were permitted to bring in duty free from the Continent lace and other dutiable commodities. It would not be practicable to injure the revenue in that way. Custom House regulations were now in operation in regard to whisky and other articles, and it would be a simple matter to lay down such regulations as would utterly prevent the smuggling which the Chancellor of the Exchequer apprehended. He thought a strong case had been made out for reducing the tea duty in Ireland and he trusted that a majority of the Committee would recognise that a fair and legitimate claim had been put forward.
  *Mr. GWYNNassociated himself with the appeal made by his hon. friends for a reduction of the tea duty. He recognised that this was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, a very good Budget for Ireland, but only because Ireland was poor. If poverty was a qualification the people of Ireland were always well qualified. In Ireland there was only one article that ranked lower in the scale of necessaries than tea, and that was bread. People in Ireland had tea who did not get milk. Meat was a luxury in Ireland. If meat were taxed, there might be a nearer approximation to equality of taxation between the countries. The people of Ireland, so far as the poor were concerned, were not a moat-using people at all. That was why the tea tax was so enormously far reaching in its effect. It reached to the last sixpence of the poor. He did not think the drain on this country was proportionately felt. Ireland being a poor country, the mass of the people never paid anything in taxation except what they paid by indirect taxation. For them taxation at present stood at a war level. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the case was identical in both countries. The poor people in this country were badly

  639
  hit by the tea tax, but not so much as the poor people in Ireland. The poor people in this country did gain something by the expenditure made by the Government in dockyards and in other ways, but he would like to know how the expenditure of the money raised by the tea tax was going to profit Connemara. What did Connemara stand to gain by it? Connemara was only affected by the Imperial expenditure of America. If the people of that district sought work they flew from the British flag. The Union Jack was of no value to them. This enormous tax was raised to maintain the Union Jack, which was worthless to Ireland. These were the grounds on which they claimed differentiation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had never heard of the differentiation clauses in the Act of Union. When that Act could be construed to the advantage of Ireland, its clauses were dead letters. They had passed out of English memory altogether. The Act of Union was, nevertheless, a historical document, and it showed what was in the minds of the people who had framed the Union. After all, they were statesmen who recognised that the conditions of Ireland were fundamentally different from those of this country.
  MR. HAZLETONsaid he had listened with very great disappointment to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was certain that the speech would be received with the same disappointment in Ireland as it had been by his colleagues of the Nationalist Party. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the demands on the Exchequer from Ireland were three times as numerous as from the rest of Great Britain. He did not think that carried the Chancellor of the Exchequer very far, for two reasons. In the first place the money which they had claimed was their own, and in the second place most of the demands they had made had been refused. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not the way in which to redress the financial grievances under which Ireland was suffering at present, but he had not told them how he proposed to redress the grievances which he and his Government acknowledged to exist. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that this was the best Budget that had been introduced for Ireland during the time he had been in the House,
  640
  but still the fact remained that the finding of the Royal Commission had not been seriously disputed either by the Government or by their supporters. It was their duty, if they accepted the Report of that Commission, to take some action with respect to it. What he and his friends wanted to know was when the Government were going to put into practice the principles they professed to hold. This was essentially a question which a Liberal Government could deal with, and ought to deal with, without delay, because the House of Lords could make no alteration in a Finance Bill; and as long as the Government allowed this grievance to exist they could not ignore their responsibility. His hon. friend the Member for Galway had said that this was an academic Amendment. He was not quite so sure of that fact. It proposed, to do away with the tea duty in Ireland, but his friend had pointed out that the machinery for doing that practically existed in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that no great difficulty would be encountered in acting on his proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Amendment would deprive him of more than £200,000, which he could not afford. But he would point out that the Finance Bill had not yet passed through Committee, and there was ample opportunity at a later stage of finding another way to raise the £200,000. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to the benefit which Ireland was going to receive under the old-age pensions scheme. That was not the time to discuss that measure, but he would point out that if they in Ireland had a Parliament of their own in College Green, Dublin, he did not believe they would spend from £700,000 to £1,000,000 on old-age pensions when there were so many other grave and pressing problems confronting the Irish people. Considering the unsatisfactory reply that they had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division, and that it would receive the support of all those Members of the Committee who recognised that Ireland had been unfairly treated in this matter.
  MR. KETTLEsaid that before going to a division he would like to say a brief word in reply to the case made by the

  641
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to repudiate the official figures which he had quoted, and the effect of which the right hon. Gentleman did not in any way counter. His hon. friend the Member for Galway had said that this was an academic Amendment. No doubt it was, in the sense that the Government would put up their Whips and defeat it with their usual academic majority. But the Amendment was not introduced for the mere purpose of raising a discussion on the financial position of the Government. That was one of the very few occasions when the House had to put the Second Article of the Act of Union into operation to make an exemption in favour of Ire-land. He wondered if the Chancellor of the Exchequer bore in mind the paragraph in the Report written by the Chairman: of the Financial Commission and adopted by five members—
  "It was never intended that the ratio of contribution or the extent of the exemptions and abatements (as the case might be) should be affected by consideration of the relative cost of administration in each of the three kingdoms."
  That was precisely the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that afternoon. It had been said that this was the best Finance Bill which had been brought before the House for many years, and they were told that Ireland would gain by the reduction of the sugar tax the sum of £340,000 or almost precisely according to the proportion of the population of Ireland to Great Britain. But Ireland would gain nothing from the reduction of the sugar tax which the consumer in Great Britain would not also gain; and therefore the relief to the consumer in Great Britain and in Ireland would be absolutely the same. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that if he continued to reduce Irish taxation and increased expenditure in Ireland he would soon come to the point in which more money would be spent in Ireland than was received from Ireland. That was the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. All he could say was that the Act of Union was intended to give advantages to a poor country like Ireland for bringing it into association with a rich country like England, and that that was the first occasion on which the representatives from Ireland asked for exemption from the
  642
  tax on tea, which was an article of general consumption in Ireland. The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in rejecting the Amendment resulted from the fact that he could not administer the Act of Union in a way that was justifiable.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to support the protest which had been made by the hon. Member for Tyrone against this duty on tea in Ireland. Almost every year without exception for the past quarter of a century the Irish Members had had debates of this kind, but they had invariably got the same reply and they had never been able to carry their views to a successful issue in the division lobbies. Nevertheless, they were bound to continue making their protest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last man to object to their doing so at the present time. But in any case, whether the right hon. Gentleman objected or not, their protest would continue to be made as long as the Irish Members came to the House. Sometimes they were told very untruly and, he thought, very wickedly, that the consumption of alcohol in Ireland was a great deal more than it should be; but, as a matter of fact, statistics proved that it was considerably less than in England or Scotland. Many hon. Members who came from Ireland thought that the less alcohol that was consumed the better it would be for the people; but what encouragement was it to the Irish people to refrain from using alcoholic beverages when they found that the only substitute of any use whatever for alcohol was so taxed by the British Government that it became one of the dearest articles which they could consume? Even from the point of view of temperance, it was a crying shame to make tea as dear as it was under this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a somewhat half-hearted manner, had spoken of the great advantage which Ireland enjoyed because of her connection with Great Britain. They were told that they ought to be extremely grateful because under the, protection of this country, under the British flag, the Union had brought them any amount of benefits. The Union had brought,

  643
  at any rate, dear tea. Since Great Britain thought fit to go to war with the Boers the poor people of the county of Clare had had to pay a great deal more for their cup of tea. He thought it would be wise to recognise—what every reasonable and common-sense man had recognised—that it was a monstrously unjust proposition to say that anything which the people of this country said ought to be done should also be forced on the people of Ireland. The people there were called upon to pay this tea tax of 5d. per lb. which was more than they paid before the war in South Africa. With that war the Irish people had absolutely nothing to do. Nobody knew better than the present Chief Secretary that the Irish people disapproved of that war at every stage in the House of Commons. He would remember that they sang "Good Old Kruger" with as much gusto as hon. Gentlemen above the gangway sang "God save the King." In those days many hon. Members opposite joined the Irish Members in their protest against the war. The war took place, and they in Ireland found that the necessaries of life were at once rendered a great deal dearer. Now that the war was over they had a relic of it staring them in the face every day, and the poor people of Ireland were called upon to pay more for their tea. Was it unreasonable for the Irish Members to expect that, the war being over and the expenditure upon it at an end, their constituents should pay for such a necessary article as tea the same price as they paid before the war? He knew of no instance which illustrated more completely the disadvantages which Ireland was under, because of the present condition of her connection with this country, than this matter of the tea duty. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division and that he would receive the support of every Irish Member and of a great many of those in the House who thought that if wars were to be paid for they ought not to be paid for by taxing a necessary article of food. Some people talked as if tea was a luxury. He insisted that tea in Ireland was the most necessary article of diet the people had. They did not drink beer as they did in
  644
  this country. They could not afford it; and they did not take meat. In Ireland they practically lived on bread and tea. To him it was a most pathetic thing to see, day after day and month after month, on the tables of the small farmers and poor people in the country at every meal little else but dry bread, potatoes and tea. Yet tea was the article that was taxed. A penny per pound might seem very little to rich people, but the hardest thing about the duty was that it fell hardest upon the poor people, who bought their tea by the two pennyworth and three pennyworth at a time. Those people were charged appreciably more directly the duty on tea was increased. He was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way to meet his hon. friend's demand, because he knew what the right hon. Gentleman must feel and know the justness of the claim that was made. The right hon. Gentleman must understand how very hardly this matter fell upon the poorest people, yet the circumstances by which he was surrounded prevented him from meeting the claim, as he otherwise, would wish to do. Irish Members were bound to make their protest, and did so most strongly, on behalf of the Irish people, against their being called upon at this time to pay for a war in which they had no part.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORcongratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having so soon acquired the method of the calm and official answer, in which he now equalled his predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. One would have thought from the right hon. Gentleman's speech—which, after all, was a very halfhearted speech—that Ireland ought to be this year at least a happy country indeed. One penny had been taken off a war tax on tea, and in consequence Ireland ought to be the happiest of happy countries. He might inform the Committee that the indirect taxation in Ireland, so lightly treated by the right hon. Gentleman, was a very heavy burden on the country, a country which suffered most from indirect taxation. Since ten years ago indirect taxation in Ireland had increased by £1, 622, 225. It would take a very large reduction on tea and other articles

  645
  of consumption to bring back the indirect taxation of Ireland to what it was then. There was nearly £2,000,000 of increased indirect taxation placed on the people. Of the whole taxation on the people of Ireland, nearly 75 per cent, was obtained by indirect means. Was it any wonder that his hon. friends should raise the question of over-taxation on tea? Tea! The article which above all others supplied the greatest revenue from taxation. In 1893 the revenue from indirect taxation in Ireland amounted to £5,267,676, and the total taxation was £9,000,000 or a little over. Ten years afterwards indirect taxation had risen to £7,000,000. That was to say, seven-ninths of the taxation of Ireland was got by indirect taxation. When that was considered it could not be said that the demand of his hon. friend was too great. His hon. friend had based his demand upon two grounds. He based it first on the Act of Union, the seventh article of which laid it down that when the Exchequers were united, and there was only one Exchequer, in the future there should be not only abatements but exemptions. That had been recognised by the Committee, and he submitted that when his hon. friend based his demand on the Act of Union he was on firm ground. His other ground was that Ireland had been treated as a separate entity. The late Viscount Goschen used the word in 1890 in this House when making some provision for relief of agricultural rates. Viscount Goschen was asked to extend the provision to Wales, and in reply said he was not prepared to regard Wales as a separate entity. He agreed that Scotland and Ireland were separate entities, and from that day to this Ireland had remained a separate entity. The hon. Member for North Tyrone had mentioned one or two articles with regard to which Ireland had been exempted from taxation. One was the carriage tax, a safe exemption, because the people of Ireland could not afford carriages. Neither was there a tax on armorial bearings in Ireland, and there was a slight distinction in the amount of the tax upon dogs as compared with the tax in this country. In this and other matters Ireland had been recognised as a separate entity. In 1895, when the Agricultural Rates
  646
  Act was introduced, he recollected what was done. A Commission or Committee had considered the subject, and it was j pointed out that prices of agricultural produce in this country had gone down considerably, and the profits of that industry had been diminished by agricultural depression. That was the reason for giving a grant-in-aid. It was just after the late Sir William Harcourt had brought in his new death duties, and a new Government had come into power. Had Sir William Harcourt and his Party remained in power they would no doubt have reduced the tea duty, but a new Party came in and devoted the increase of revenue to the relief of the agricultural rates, and indirectly relieved their own friends the landlords; no less than £1,600,000 was devoted to the relief of rates of this country, and Ireland was exempted from that because it was pointed out by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that Ireland was a separate entity and outside the exigencies of the, finance. Ireland was a separate entity, but no notice was taken of that when money was to be dragged out of her. His hon. friend was on firm ground when he based his demand on the Act of Union, and also when he; 'said Ireland should be treated as a separate entity. She had different land laws, different ecclesiastical laws, and different legal procedure. In all those respects she was treated in a different manner. Why, therefore, should she not have different treatment where taxation was concerned? There was nothing wonderful in the demand that they were now making for a reduction of the tea duty. Why did his hon. and learned friend select it? Because the taxation upon tea struck at the people who could least bear taxation in Ireland. It was a mistake to suppose that the Irish people drank largely either of whiskey or porter or ale. They were the greatest tea drinkers in the world. It was a very curious and strange fact that the poor people in Ireland had the very greatest difficulty in getting milk for the purposes of their food. There was no place where milk was so scarce as in the rural parts of Ireland. If there was an abundance of milk it would be quite possible to do without tea. In large tracts of Ireland there were no milch

  647
  cows, but there were ranches where store cattle were kept, which cattle were removed to other parts of the country, brought over here to be fattened. It was not, therefore, a false proposition on the part of his hon. and learned friend when lie said that tea was the only beverage the poor in Ireland had. Hence, they asked for a reduction of the tax on tea, because a tax on that commodity struck at the poorest people in Ireland, who were least able to bear the burden. His hon. and learned friend had brought before the House, not for the first time, the Act of Union. Since 1800 and again in 1817 things had changed, and changed for the worse so far as Ireland was concerned. In the readjustment of taxation between this country and Ireland taxes were placed upon articles of industry and on the importation of raw materials. Taxes were placed upon hundreds of commodities that were now free. In the course of time by their provincial policy they relieved all those articles and all those commodities of taxation, and he submitted this as an economic? proposition that as they relieved industry, and as they took the taxes off those articles one by one, they placed an additional burden upon those who derived no benefit from manufactures at all. As the people in this country were relieved of taxation, the people in Ireland had to bear a greater proportion and they derived no benefit from the relief of taxation on commodities. Not only did they derive no benefit, because they manufactured nothing themselves, but in proportion as one industry or many industries were relieved, a burden was placed upon those who had no industrial occupation at all. He thought that was a sound economic proposition. He submitted that on all grounds his hon. and learned friend had made a good case, that the arguments in support of it were perfectly sound, and that the condition of Ireland demanded a reduction of this particular tax.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted a remark he had made, and he would like to take up the challenge. The proposition he would like to put to him and to the whole Committee was
  648
  that there was absolutely no reason why the man with 10s. a week should pay a higher rate of taxation if he lived in this country than he would pay if he lived in Ireland.
  MR. KETTLEsaid there were fewer people with 10s. a week in Ireland than in any part of Great Britain.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid that that might be the case, but a poor man living in a rich neighbourhood was no better able to pay taxes than an equally poor man living in a poor neighbourhood. On the contrary, the argument was the other way. There were so many poor people in Ireland that the general standard of prices was lower, and therefore the 10s. went further than in England. Consequently a poor man in Ireland could afford to pay a higher tax than an equally poor man in England. Yet it was proposed by Members opposite that when a poor Irishman left Ireland and came to England he should pay a higher tax than he had been paying before, even if he earned no more. That was a proposition which hon. Members opposite had never attempted to justify. Instead they fell back on the Report of the Financial Relations Commission. He did not know whether any of them had taken the trouble to read the Report. He had done so when it came out, and very carefully, and he said without the slightest fear of contradiction that there was no authority whatever in that Report for the whole case which Irishmen built up upon it. It was an amalgam of a number of reports by various people. The collective report put forward certain quite anodyne propositions which no one attempted to dispute. It was perfectly true that the taxable capacity of Ireland, treated as an entity, was very much lower than the taxable capacity of other portions of the United Kingdom.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid they had mad the Report, which they knew was concluded with the proposition which the hon. Member had just stated, but it was a false proposition as applied to Ireland.
  *Mr. HAROLD COXsaid that that summary of the Report gave five points on which the Commissioners were agreed. He would not read them all. The important one was as follows—
  "That while the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth."
  But Ireland, treated as an entity, did not pay one-twentieth or anything like it. If hon. Members examined the Reports issued every year they would find that the contribution of Ireland was less than 2 per cent.
  MR. KETTLE: Of what?
  *MR. HAROLD COX: Of the Imperial expenditure.
  MR. KETTLE: What is the Imperial expenditure?
  *ME. HAROLD COX: The expenditure upon common purposes as distinguished from the expenditure upon purely Irish, or purely English, or purely Scotch purposes.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will you be good enough to cite the proposition about identity of taxation?
  *MR. HAROLD COX: I will read it—
  "That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burthen."
  That is one of the propositions.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Why did you not read it.
  *MR. HAROLD COX: Because it is purely platitudinous, and therefore not worth reading. The whole point was this: Ireland's taxable capacity was admittedly only one-twentieth of the capacity of Great Britain; but Ireland did not pay according to her taxable capacity; she did not pay even half as much as her taxable capacity; she paid less than 2 per cent., whereas, according to her taxable capacity, she ought to pay 5 per cent. If they treated Ireland as a separate entity she underpaid; if they treated her as she ought to be treated, namely, as consisting of a multitude of
  650
  separate individuals, then none of them were taxed at a higher rate than they would be in Great Britain. There was no purely Irish grievance. It was a poor man's grievance, because taxes upon the necessaries of life pressed on the poor man more than upon the rich man. The grievance which Ireland had was that of the whole of the United Kingdom, and he thought it was to be regretted that Irishmen should dissociate themselves from those who on the Ministerial side of the House wished to defend poor men in all parts of the Kingdom from an unfair burden of taxation.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid they all recognised that tea was a food, because to the poorest people in Ireland and England tea was a food even to a larger extent than it might be deemed to be the food of workpeople. Another important reason should not be lost sight of, namely, that the duty was per pound and not per value. The poor person's tea, costing 8d. a pound before it paid duty, was taxed exactly the same amount as the tea of the wealthy person, costing 2s. 6d. a pound, perhaps, before it paid duty. The tax was altogether out of proportion in respect of the poorest class of the community, because that class consumed much more tea and, therefore, the tax being per pound instead of ad valorem it was very much heavier in their case. While sympathising with the appeal made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he must not be deemed as sympathising with it on either of the grounds that had been given by hon. Members below the gangway. To enumerate all these matters had nothing to do with the merits of the question whether in Ireland there should be a diminution of the tax. The Party opposite had for years taken up a distinctive position, and had claimed that they were going to refuse to put new taxes on foods and to remove those that existed. Now that they were in power why did they not proceed with the greatest possible celerity to justify their promises? Those who were not in the happy position of being Members of that Party had consistently taken up the position for many years past that

  651
  taxes should be taken off food altogether if possible and put upon manufactured articles. It was because he held those views that he supported this appeal to reduce taxation on food in Ireland, and if there was any shortage in taxation let the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it upon those things that could best bear it—foreign manufactures.
  MR. KETTLEsaid he had hoped the hon. Member for Preston, who had reproduced all the fallacies of the primitive Radical, might have intervened earlier in the debate so that there would be an opportunity of replying to him. He had prophesied that if the hon. Member took part in the discussion he would show himself, not for the first time, brilliantly wrong. He took back the word "brilliantly." He did not dissociate himself from the hon. Member for Blackburn, but proposed to vote with him, and so he should think would all his colleagues. They never heard a word from the hon. Member about the Act of Union or about the rights secured to Ireland by the eighth article.
  *MR. HAROLD COX: The bargain made in the Act of Union was undoubtedly a very unfair bargain for Ireland, but it was never enforced, and was revised in 1817 solely in the interests of Ireland. What they were now going upon was the Act of 1817.
  MR. KETTLEsaid he would be glad to know what was the historical ground for the statement that the revision took place solely in the interests of Ireland.
  *MR. HAROLD COX: The Report of the Royal Commission.
  MR. KETTLEsaid the hon. Gentleman drew strange conclusions from the Report of, the Financial Relations Commission. They took their stand upon the Act of Union, according to which all expenditure was to be treated as common, and, so to speak, Imperial expenditure. The hon. Member had said that Ireland contributed only 2 per cent. of Imperial expenditure. The theory of the Act of Union was that every single penny spent in Ireland on any service was to be treated as the cost
  652
  of the United Kingdom and the Empire as a whole. While it was true that Ireland paid only 1·92 per cent, to the Army and Navy, her sea-borne commerce was less than 1½per cent, of the sea-borne commerce of Great Britain, so that she gave more to the Empire in that particular department than she got out of it. Let him read the precise text of the unanimous uncontroverted finding of the Financial Relations Commission. It found that—
  "Great Britain and Ireland must, for the purpose of this inquiry, be considered as separate entities, and that the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear"—
  and which, he might point out, was heavily increased in 1853 and had not been diminished since. What really happened in 1817 was that the money spent in bribes to secure the overthrow of the Irish Parliament was charged as a separate debt to the finances of Ireland, and was then carried over so as to make the total debt of Ireland in the proportion of 2 to 17 of the total debt of the United Kingdom, and then the Parliament of the United Kingdom said: "Because your debt has increased both absolutely and proportionately since the Act of Union, therefore, you are able to bear a heavier tax than before the Act of Union." The third finding of the Commission was—
  "That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances."
  Fourthly, and this disposed of the entire case of the hon. Member, although he said it was platitude—it was better to found Government on platitudes than on paradoxes—
  "That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden."
  The hon. Gentleman said the poor districts of England and Scotland suffered heavily in relation to their richer neighbours—a proposition with which he entirely agreed—but forgot that these poorer districts were not treated as separate entitles in a very solemn statute under which the House was supposed to act, and had not a separate national history running, back to a time when the ancestors of certain Members of that

  653
  House were wandering about their native wilds. The fifth finding was—
  "That whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland Was about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth."
  Last session he had asked the Secretary to the Treasury what would have been the proportion paid by Ireland in 1905–6 if her tax revenue had been one-twentieth of the tax revenue of Great Britain, and he was told that it would have been £1,800,000
  less than was actually paid. On that unanimous finding of the Commission, under this Finance Bill, which he regarded it as a duty of conscience to resist, Ireland was going to pay next year £1,800,000 more than she ought to pay either under the Act of Union or upon the principles of common justice and fair-play.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 187.)

  AYES.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Clark, George Smith

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Clough, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

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

  Armitage, R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert. Henry

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Gulland, John W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W Brampton

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hall, Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cox, Harold

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose

  Barker, John

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Cross, Alexander

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Crossley, William J.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Beale, W. P.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Harwood, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bertram, Julius

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duckworth, James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Branch, James

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Bright, J. A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Erskine, David C.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Essex, R. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Fell, Arthur

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Cave, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gardner, Ernest

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lamont, Norman

  Price, Sir Robert J (Norfolk, E.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Radford, G. H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lever A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Rees, J. D.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.

  Tomkinson, James

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Robertson, Sir GScott (Bradf''rd

  Toulmin, George

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Robinson, S.

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Vivian, Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rowlands, J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Massie, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Menzies, Walter

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Middlebrook, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Whitbread Howard

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  White Sir George (Norfolk)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Mond, A.

  Schwann. Sir C E. (Manchester)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sears, J. E.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morse, L. L.

  Seely, Colonel

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Napier, T. B.

  Shackleton, David James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nicho'son, Charles N. (Doncast'r

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

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

  Nicho'son, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S)

  Oddy, John James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Soares, Ernest, J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Stanier, Beville

  Younger, George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Steadman, W. C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Boland, John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Kean, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  M-Killop, W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hodge, John

  Mooney, J. J.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nannetti, Joseph J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Duncan; C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  656

  657

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Malley, William

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Snowden, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Starkey, John R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  *MR. SNOWDEN*MR. SNOWDEN (Blackburn) moved to reduce the tea duty from 5d. to 3d. He said he would explain why he proposed such a very moderate reduction in the tea duty. The hon. Member for Preston was quite right in surmising that he should support this Amendment on the ground that this particular tax, as well as all forms of indirect taxation, pressed very heavily on the very poor part of the population. He was proposing the Amendment as a step towards the abolition of all forms of indirect taxation. He was opposed to indirect taxation for a great many reasons which were well known. In the first place indirect taxation was opposed to every recognised canon of sound taxation. It was very uncertain in its incidence and it did not tax a man according to his ability to pay, but according to his necessities. The actual reason for taxing articles of any kind was because they were largely consumed by a considerable number of people. If the consumption changed from one article to another, then, of course, the taxes would be transferred to the articles which had newly come into consumption or use. They would find on investigation that all these theoretic injustices which he had mentioned were borne out by actual facts. The amount of indirect taxation imposed during the present financial year through Excise and Customs was £68,000,000, and of this total more than £10,000,000 was raised by taxation upon food. In answer to a question put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer three weeks ago, he was told that in the last financial year the amount of revenue raised by food taxes upon articles such as tea, sugar and cocoa amounted to £13,500,000. Worked out per head of the population that would be equal to an income-tax of 7d. in the £ for at least 2,000,000 of the wage-earning classes of this country. There were in this country more than 2,000,000 families whose incomes were less than £1 a week.
  658
  Indirect taxation worked out at £6 17s. 6d. per family of five persons, so that with 2,000,000 heads of families, representing a population between 8,000,000 and 10,000,000, indirect taxation laid upon them an annual burden of £6 17s. 6d., and this was levied upon an income of £1 per week, and was equivalent to an income-tax of 2s. 8d. in the £. Confining the calculation to a taxation of articles of food only it worked out in regard to incomes not exceeding £1 a week at 7d. in the £. If they took the higher burden of 2s. 8d. in the £, including all forms of indirect taxation, or if they took the taxation upon absolute necessaries, that was a burden he submitted which was far too oppressive to be borne by the working classes in this country. As a matter of fact a poor man spent as much on taxable articles as a rich man. If they translated into term of income-tax the amount of indirect taxation paid by a well-to-do person in receipt of £2,000 a year, and compared it with the case of a man earning £1 a week, it worked out for the latter at 2s. 8d. in the £, whilst for a man with £2,000 a year unearned income including income-tax it worked out only at 9¾d. in the £. He wished to point out that there was an income which ought not to be taxed at all. He did not think the State had a right to exact taxation from a man when such taxation encroached upon the necessaries of life. They had heard recently a good deal about physical degeneration. Some appalling statistics had been reported to the House in regard to rejections in the Army last year, and physical degeneration was part of a great problem with which they would have to deal. Therefore, it was not a wise policy, it was not social economy, for the State to tax any part of the population if the effect was to prevent them from obtaining what was necessary to maintain themselves in a position of reasonable comfort. So much in regard to the general argument for the relief of the taxation borne by

  659
  the working classes. As to the particular aspect of the proposed reduction of the tea duty by 2d. in the pound, it would be in the recollection of all the Members of the Committee that two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the tea duty by a 1d. in the pound. At that time he and his friends maintained that the 1d. would not reach the consumer. Twelve months later the Chancellor of the Exchequer altered his mind. He thought that in some respects the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was the most fortunate person who ever occupied that position; the stars in their courses seemed to be working in his favour. Two years ago when he wanted to reduce the tea duty by a 1d. he saw no difficulty in doing it, but twelve months later when he had to meet an appeal for a further reduction he said it was quite impossible to make the concession with the hope that the consumer would benefit. Exactly the same thing happened in connection with the sugar duty. Twelve months ago it was impossible to half the sugar tax, and this year what was impossible twelve months ago was quite possible. There was no doubt that a reduction of 2d. a pound in the tea duty, considering the quantity be light by the working people, would find its way into the pockets of the consumer. There were other reasons which he might mention in support of his proposal, some of which would appeal to all the Members of the Committee, others to special sections of the House. The tax upon tea was the heaviest of all the taxes which were imposed by way of Customs duty. Whereas formerly the tea duty was 25 per cent. of the price of the article, to-day, owing to the fall in price, the tax represented, at all events on the cheaper qualities, something like 120 per cent. on the price of tea. [An HON. MEMBER: More.] His hon. friend said it was more. That showed that he was within the mark. He could not imagine any other article where the same objection to indirect taxation would apply. The duty on tea was 5d., but the article passed through a considerable number of hands between the foreign producer and the consumer, and in each transaction the trader's profit was put, not on the price of the tea only, but on what had been
  660
  paid in the way of duty, and therefore he did not think he exaggerated when he said that by the time the article reached the consumer the tax had grown until it amounted to 7d. in the pound. We were almost alone of all the nations of the earth in putting such a tax on a prime necessary of life. That reminded him again of how the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could accommodate his opinions to the necessity of the time being. When he proposed a reduction of the tea duty two years ago he described tea as a prime necessary of life. Twelve months ago, in opposing an Amendment for its further reduction, he said that tea was not a necessary of life, but something in the nature of a luxury. No other English-speaking nation taxed tea at all. He believed that the highest tea tax was in Germany, where it was only 4d. in the pound. He was certain that if any argument would appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Tory benches it was that in relation to the Imperial aspect of this question. About 90 per cent, of the tea imported came from our Indian Empire, and he claimed the support of Unionist Members for his proposal on the ground that it would benefit those who lived under the same flag as ourselves. Turning to hon. Members opposite, he reminded them that they were returned pledged to oppose the taxation of the people's food, but he could not draw any distinction, as far as the consumer was concerned, between a tax upon corn and a tax upon tea. He believed tariff reform was making headway in the country. He was a free trader, although he did not defend free trade by the same arguments as hon. Members opposite. It would be very difficult for them in the country to oppose a tax upon manufactured articles when it was proved by their records that they maintained taxes upon tea, sugar, and other articles of consumption. If they wanted one of the strongest arguments in favour of free trade, let them prove by their action that they were not merely free traders in theory but were determined while they had the opportunity at least to recognise what, as long as he could remember, had been the ideal of the Radical Party, in the matter of taxation,

  661
  namely, a free breakfast table. He had endeavoured on this occasion to be as mild, moderate, and conciliatory in his language as he possibly could, and he had studiously abstained from saying anything that might wound the delicate feelings and refined susceptibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had been as gentle as a sucking dove, and he was us sweet as the songs of the right hon. Gentleman's native land. Therefore he ventured to hope that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would pass over his manner and give some attention to his matter. It was very much easier to make remarks on a person's manner than to answer facts and arguments. He would await with interest to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman might repeat the answer which he had already given, that the Budget had been framed and that it was impossible to make alterations. If that was so, what was the use of Members of Parliament coming there at all? They might as well leave the whole thing to the Executive, and have, instead of human beings, automatic machines or gramophones. He supposed he would not be in order if he suggested sources from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might recoup himself for what this proposed reduction would involve. He did not think it was necessary to do that. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as well aware as he himself of the existence of the golden eggs in the hen roosts which he might rob. He was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions which he had already made in the way of remissions of taxation, but it was not enough to satisfy him and his friends. It was going to be a long time indeed before they reached the abolition of all indirect taxation if they moved at the rate at which they had been moving for the last two or three years. He wanted something more than that, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do the best he possibly could under the circumstances to use his ingenuity to find some means of raising the necessary revenue of the country by placing taxation on the classes who by their means were very much better
  662
  able to bear the burden than those on whom the burden was laid at the present moment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words 'five pence,' and insert the words 'three pence.'"—(Mr. Snowden.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the clause."
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)said he did not know whether the hon. Member was to be more congratulated on the manner or on the matter of his speech. At all events, he would say that he had been more moved by the manner than the matter, for this reason. The hon. Member, in his opening sentence, had said that his Amendment proposed a moderate reduction of the tea duty. He really thought that the hon. Member could not have had in his mind what the effect of such a reduction would be. The Committee would remember that the surplus revenue of the year, as calculated in the Budget speech of the Prime Minister, was £245,000. At one fell swoop the hon. Gentleman would reduce the whole of that credit balance and turn it into a deficit of over £2,000,000. The hon. Member did not say—and this was of importance—that his proposal was a step towards the complete abolition of all indirect taxation. Surely in regard to this particular matter the speech of the hon. Gentleman was not so clear as it might have been. The balance as between direct and indirect taxation was growing steadily in favour of indirect taxation. If his memory served him right, we were at a period where direct taxation amounted to something like 52 per cent, of the total, and indirect taxation to 48 per cent. This year there had been a very considerable reduction in the amount of indirect taxation by the reduction of the sugar duty. The hon. Member went on to point out that out of a sum of £68,000,000 of Customs and Excise duties, something like £10,000,000 were raised by taxation on food. He had not verified those figures, but for the moment he accepted them as

  663
  correct. But what about the taxation placed on what were usually called the accumulations of wealth? The income derivable from the death duties and the income-tax totalled in the year from £52,000,000 to £53,000,000—a very heavy and, he thought, not an unreasonable and, perhaps, not a final charge which might be laid upon wealth as distinguished from articles of necessity, such as food. At all events, these figures showed that we laid as much as it was now possible to lay upon the accumulations of wealth, and as little as was relatively possible upon the necessaries of life of the people. He shared with the hon. Gentleman his feelings when he said that £10,000,000 of taxation on food was an oppressive burden, and particularly on the poorer classes of the community; and he ventured to say that there was no one, inside or outside the House, who would not welcome, if financially possible, a realisation of that political programme which was once known as the "free breakfast table." There had been from time to time reductions or relaxations of taxation on articles of food. The hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech was in a mood which made an appeal to every section of the House. He said something to try to catch the Radicals on that side of the House. He appealed to the tariff reformers; and in turn to those Members who acted with him on the benches below the gangway opposite. He tried to show that there was no greater infringement of the doctrines of free trade in taxing corn than in taxing tea. But there was this essential difference between the two commodities, that tea was not and could not be produced in this country while corn could be produced here and he hoped always would be.
  MR. SNOWDENsaid that the hon. Gentleman did not grasp his point. What he said was that so far as the pocket of the consumers was concerned, so far as the financial bearing on the consumer was concerned, there was no difference between corn and tea.
  MR. HOBHOUSEthought there was, because the price at which an article grown in this country could be sold was much more affected by an
  664
  import duty than the price of an article which was not grown here. That was a commercial fact which the hon. Member had not distinguished. The hon. Member for Blackburn went on to say that the cost to the consumer of a tax on tea was a great deal more than the profit that accrued to the Exchequer. That was true; and it was a hint to tariff reformers. But of all duties—and it was a curious fact that the hon. Gentleman had missed his mark in this particular—there was no article, as he was informed, the duty on which brought in such a large percentage to the Exchequer as tea. The hon. Member for Blackburn had also stated that we alone of all countries taxed tea to so large an extent. That was also true; but the hon. Member omitted to tell the Committee that there was no nation which consumed so much tea as this nation. So that the argument could be made quite easily to cut both ways. All he had to say in conclusion was that if this were merely a question of sentiment, if it were not a question of real finance, of pounds, shillings and pence, it would be easy and pleasant to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. Nobody knew better than the hon. Gentleman the difficulty of the financial situation. The Government had inherited an encumbered estate. They had found burdens laid upon the estate of this country which were not entirely of their own making. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] He thought he would draw hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had had burdens laid upon the estate of this country which were not entirely of their own making, and in order to redeem and discharge the mortgages laid upon their property, they had had to continue to inflict that taxation which was as repugnant to them as it could be to anybody else.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech with a statement which had caused him some surprise, because he did not, at first, understand what his allusion was. The hon. Gentleman had said that he and his colleagues inherited from their predecessors an encumbered estate. He was amazed that colleagues in one Government should

  665
  have so freely criticised the acts of their immediate predecessors. They now learnt that the hon. Gentleman meant to say that he and his colleagues had inherited a burden from the Opposition. What they inherited from the Opposition was not a burden but a surplus. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] Yes, a surplus of something like £3,000,000, which had gone to make that reduction of Debt for which Gentlemen opposite had so clamorously taken credit. Of course, it was true that every Government and every Chancellor of the Exchequer had to pay interest on debt incurred by their predecessors and by past generations. The National Debt remained, and he did not understand that it was part of the proposals of the present Government to abolish it. On the contrary, they said that the sacrifices they had made in that regard had already exhausted their zeal for the reduction of the debt of the country, and that next year they were going to propose to the House to release the country from the sacrifices they had been making in recent years, in order to spend the money in some other way. Accordingly, the reference of the hon. Member to the financial liabilities of the country had no force whatever. He did not suppose that the Government meant to cease to reduce the Debt altogether. They had come to a point at which they might reduce the fixed charge for the reduction of Debt by lowering the Sinking Fund and resuming control of the money devoted in recent years for that purpose. He would pass from the obiter dictum of the hon. Gentleman which he thought the hon. Member would regret on further consideration, and turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn. He must join the Secretary to the Treasury in complimenting the hon. Member for Blackburn on the manner of his speech. If the hon. Member would permit him to say so, he thought that when he adopted that tone of sweet reasonableness, he was not less but much more convincing than in his more vitriolic mood, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described it, in which he so often discussed financial arrangements. The hon. Member had asked a statement from him as to the course he meant to take. He had often expressed his desire to see a re-
  666
  duction of the tea duty, at least a reduction of a preferential kind on all tea imported from other portions of His Majesty's Dominions. He would be glad to see that carried out now, and to see this heavy duty, in proportion to the value of the article, still further reduced. It is one of the duties which by reduction, he believed, might be made largely more remunerative, because there was no article that he knew of, the consumption of which responded more quickly to reduction of the duty than that of tea. So that by a considerable and striking reduction of the duty on tea they would find in a very short time they would lose much less than the due proportion of revenue. For what was lost per lb. would be made up largely by the increased number of lbs. consumed in the country. That being so, he had considerable sympathy with a Motion for the reduction of the duty. But he had no sympathy at all with the main ground upon which the hon. Gentleman proposed the reduction. The hon. Gentleman proposed it avowedly as a step towards the abolition of all forms of indirect taxation. What he proposed to substitute for indirect taxation he had not disclosed on that occasion. The hon. Member for Preston had uttered similar views. He also was opposed to all forms of indirect taxation; but then he associated with that the enunciation of another tax which the hon. Member for Blackburn did not propose. The hon. Member for Preston proposed that no man should pay indirect taxation, but that every man should pay direct taxation—in fact an income-tax, now confined to those whose incomes were above a certain sum, on a graduated scale beginning at a rate however small. The proposal of the hon. Member for Blackburn was the very antithesis of the proposal of the hon. Member for Preston. It was that the poor should be exempt from taxation—what limit of income should constitute a poor man for the purpose the hon. Gentleman did not say—and that the necessary balance of revenue to meet the expenditure of the country should be secured by increasing the burdens of the rich. To exclude from taxation the great mass of the people of a country whose policy they controlled was

  667
  not a safe or honest basis upon which any State could be built. It might be justified in some oligarchy or autocracy where the great mass of the people had no share in the Government; but no sensible man, or indeed, honest politician, who weighed what he said, would commit himself to the doctrine that the great bulk of those who controlled the policy of the country should make no contribution to the cost of its administration. He was antagonistic, therefore, to the main principle of the hon. Gentleman. More than that, he differed from him as to the incidence of taxation as a whole. The hon. Member had complained that indirect taxes pressed unduly upon the poor. Of course, if the Government depended upon nothing but a single tax on tea or a single tax on corn, as the scale of taxation rose so it would press unjustly upon the poor. But the taxation of the country must be considered as a whole, and, therefore, while much of what the hon. Member said would be true if the tax on tea was the only tax, it became untrue when the tea tax was considered in relation to the rest of the fiscal system. It was, no doubt, true that if they had but a small number of indirect taxes, and if they adopted the principle, which this country had adopted for many years, that indirect taxation should be placed—excluding alcohol—on articles of general consumption, none of which were produced here, these indirect taxes would press invidiously upon the poor as compared with the rich. For that there were two remedies. One was to adjust that inequality by the proper use of direct taxation; and the other was to extend the principle of indirect taxation so as to tax not merely the necessities of the poor, but the luxuries of the well-to-do.
  MR. SOARES: What luxuries would the right hon. Member tax?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would tell the hon. Gentleman what taxes he would impose if ever he was Chancellor of the Exchequer again. The idea of the hon. Member asking him, sitting on the Opposition side of the House, what taxes he would propose to impose whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not yet told the House how he proposed to meet the liabilities
  668
  which the Government had undertaken, was simply preposterous.
  MR. SOARES: The right hon. Gentleman said he desired to tax the luxuries of the rich. All those who supported the Government would like to do so wherever it was possible. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman what luxuries he would propose to tax.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the hon. Gentleman was unable to see the number of luxuries that went untaxed which might be taxed he had a greater poverty of imagination than might be suspected. The hon. Member for Blackburn had contended that the poor man expended as much on these taxed articles of necessity as the rich. That he did not believe. The expenditure in a rich man's establishment on sugar or tea or any other articles of that kind which were taxed was much higher than that of the poor man. The hon. Member for Blackburn did not put it that the poor man paid as much, having regard to the proportion which his expenditure bore to income. He made the definite statement that the poor man took as much of these articles as the rich man. That he did not think was true. The hon. Member was also satirical and suggested that the Prime Minister changed his economic doctrines cm these points to suit the exigencies of the moment—that to use his own words, the right hon. Gentleman always found his conclusions pointing in the direction in which he wished to go. The hon. Member had appealed to tariff reformers for sympathy for his Motion on the ground that 90 per cent. of the present supply of tea came from British Possessions beyond the sea. He would be much more inclined to vote with the hon. Gentleman had he confined his proposed reduction to that 90 per cent. of the supply. He shared the hon. Gentleman's desire to bring the British Possessions into closer connection with this country, but he had not quite the same reason for reducing the tax on the remaining 10 per cent, of supply. The hon. Member appealed to them as tariff reformers, but he had not embodied any proposals as to tariff reform in his Amendment. He appealed to hon. Members supporting

  669
  the Government on the ground that there was no essential difference between a tax on tea and a tax on corn. He was glad to have that admission from the hon. Gentleman. What a pity it was that the Prime Minister did not hold the same opinion, and what a pity it was that the hon. Member was not present to remind the Prime Minister of that when the right hon. Gentleman was so eloquent on the iniquity of a tax on corn. The distinction which was attempted to be drawn between corn and other articles of general consumption was one of the flimsiest of the many preposterous propositions which had been laid down in the course of recent financial debates. One thing which had astonished him and which he thought had astonished some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench was the argument put forward by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the price of an article grown in this country was more affected by a tax than the price of an article which came from abroad and which could not be produced here. He wished the hon. Member had developed that argument. When the whole supply received was taxed it was clear that the whole burden of the tax must be borne by the consumers, together with such additions as were made for outlay and other considerations. But that was not so when a great portion of the supply received was untaxed. The effect of any duty on the price of an article depended upon the proportion which the untaxed supply of the article boreto the whole consumption, and as the proportion of the untaxed supply was large and the taxed supply small, so would the effect of the duty be lightened. But where the whole supply was taxed as in the case of tea, the whole duty was borne by the consumer.
  MR. HOBHOUSEdissented.
  MR. AUSTIN CHAMBERLAINobserved that the Financial Secretary did not agree with him, but he defied the hon. Gentleman to make good the proposition which he had laid down a few moments ago or to find a single economist to support it. He thought the hon. Member for Blackburn might have found a more powerful ground for
  670
  his appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many of them had given promises that they would vote for the reduction of the tea duty. So long as the Unionist Party was in power and the Anti-tea Duty League approached them they were naturally anxious to win any votes they could and gave these promises recklessly and proudly. Now was the time for the redemption of these promises. Or was it one more added to the many expectations held out at the general election and disappointed in the course of the present Parliament? One more promise made only to be broken? He did not intend to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member. He differed from the grounds on which the hon. Gentleman had proceeded; he differed in opinion from him on the subject of taxation. The hon. Gentleman had attempted to win their support by a reference to preference, but he put no preference into his Amendment. Under these circumstances, he would not be surprised if he was not inclined to follow him into the lobby, and he did not suppose the hon. Gentleman would regret it. There was a reason of more general application which prevented his supporting the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman had remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably say that the Budget was already framed, and that it was impossible now to make any alteration; and he had replied to that by saying: "If that be so, what is the use of the House of Commons?" In recent proceedings, a good many of them had been inclined to ask that question. But after all, the finances of the matter must be looked at as a whole. He did not think this Budget was a good one; he thought it was a bad one. It was saddled with a liability for which it made no provision; it created a situation which he believed no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever voluntarily, or with his eyes open, created before. They were light-heartedly imposing upon future years a burden variously estimated at anything from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000 for old-age pensions alone, without regard to the expenditure on the Navy of the sums that would be required for that service, or on the Education Bill, or on any other purpose; and they were doing that

  671
  without the remotest idea in the minds of the House as to how that vast expenditure was to be met. But that was not all. The Government had chosen this moment actually to reduce the resources which they already possessed. He did not think that there was ever a case of such reckless, such short-sighted finance, and he would be astonished, should the Government remain in power, if they themselves were not the first to regret the reckless use they were making of their opportunities now. Hon. Gentlemen opposite smiled as if he were drawing an exaggerated picture. But what was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's description of himself and the estimation in which they stood? He described himself as a robber, not a potential but an intentional robber, looking about to see whose hen roosts he could open most easily, and where he could steal eggs with the least fear of punishment. He confessed that he regretted to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer use language of that kind to describe his position and his policy, and he regretted it the more because he was afraid that it exactly corresponded to the truth. But to pass from the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the position of the finances of the country as a whole, what did they find? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "A stunning deficit, a falling revenue, and a depressed trade."
  That was as strong language as any lie had himself used. The right hon. Gentleman repeated it, and spoke of other countries being in the same financial distress. He went on—
  "I do not know that this consoles the man at the head of the Treasury who has a great deficit to work off."
  A great deficit to work off? The Financial Secretary had spoken of a surplus of £245,000. How much of that was left after the legislative prospects of the Government?
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he was speaking of the Budget of this year and of the expenditure for this year, and there remained the surplus to which he had referred.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the Financial Secretary must go back
  672
  to the Treasury and get up his facts. There was a surplus of £245,000, but if he looked to old-age pensions, for which they had one quarter in this financial year, and to the extra expenditure on other matters, sanctioned by the Government, he would find that there was no longer £245,000. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not speaking of this year; he was looking ahead a little. The great deficit which he had to "work off" was not a deficit which he had inherited from his Unionist predecessor, but a deficit which he had inherited from his predecessor, the Prime Minister, and which he had to work off next year. He said that depression did not console—
  "Men, who have a great deficit to work off; men who have probably in front of them a diminishing revenue, everything falling, estate duties, Customs, Excise, everything diminishing, except the demands on the Treasury."
  That was the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described, not in that House, but to the bankers and merchants with whom he dined in the City of London. It was a position which nobody could view without anxiety, if not alarm. He could not take the responsibility for himself—he did not profess to speak for his friends who had held the same high office in recent years—and under the circumstances he could not vote for a reduction of the taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer still proposed to keep on, unless he had an opportunity of presenting an alternative scheme as a whole. He had to take this Budget as a whole or leave it as a whole. He thought it bad, and that it was framed on wrong lines, but it was not possible for him by means of suggestions in Committee or by any Amendments that a private Member could move, to transform this Budget into such a scheme as he thought would place the finances of the country on a sound foundation. Under these circumstances he would take no part in the division on the reduction of this tax. He would take no responsibility; he must leave the responsibility to the Government for the scheme they had proposed. When the time came to express their opinion on the Budget as a whole, when they came to the Third Reading, he would give his vote against the Bill as being unsound from beginning to end, as

  673
  not to be recast, and as a measure which must be condemned as a whole because it could not be amended in any particular.
  *MR. SOARESsaid he merely rose to call attention to the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the only alternative to this tea duty was a tax upon luxuries. The right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer himself only two or three years ago. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was then looking out for what objects he could tax, and if he knew of objects of luxury why had he not told them. The fact of the matter was, that, like all other tariff reformers, the right hon. Gentleman always took refuge in vague generalities.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I really do not see how this bears on the Question before the Committee.
  *MR. SOARES: I agree that it does not, but I wished to deal with, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and that was the only reason for my rising.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the Financial Secretary had rather complained that they had not specified the source from which the deficit was to be met if the Amendment was carried. But the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that there was an income-tax clause in the Bill which still remained to be discussed, and any deficit that might accrue could be met when they reached that point. In regard to direct taxation, hon. Members on those Benches, if they were called upon to choose between it and indirect taxation upon the poor, would infinitely prefer direct taxes. It was of first importance that people should understand that they were paying taxes, and the money should not be extracted from them by subtle means which they did not comprehend. With direct taxes there would probably be more effective control over the way in which they were spent. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to support the Amendment, and the reasons he had given came rather as a surprise. The Labour Party were usually accused of being hard to satisfy, and if anything was taken by them it was said that they took it with
  674
  a bad grace, and they were lectured for demanding all or nothing. Now, the reason given by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer for not supporting the Amendment was that it only proposed to give him 90 per cent, of what he desired to see accomplished. Of the total amount of tea imported 90 per cent. came from countries under the British flag, and only 10 per cent, from foreign countries, but because the 10 per cent, was to be included, therefore the Resolution was to be rejected. Another point which should not be allowed to pass without challenge, was the statement that the rich man paid more in the matter of indirect taxes upon food than the workman. He disputed that statement entirely. The expenditure of the rich man upon his household, his servants, his establishment, was undoubtedly greater than that of the workman in his home, but the amount spent on the servants was part of their wages. Suppose the servants supplied their own food in every case as they did in some cases, there would be no question then of the establishment paying a bigger amount. When food was reckoned as part of the wages the fact that the master of the establishment had to pay the tax upon it was taken into account.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Member suggest that wages go up and down as the duty on tea is raised or lowered?
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that what fixed wages was the cost of living, and that if the cost of living was high, wages would be correspondingly high. Supposing servants were required to purchase their own food and the cost of food was raised 50 per cent., would they be paid the same wages as before? Certainly not. Therefore, the cost of living regulated the wages paid to servants, though not solely or exclusively, and when the owner of an establishment was paying his indirect tax upon tea, he was paying for himself and his servants, the amount paid for his servants came from their wages, and therefore, the statement that the house of the rich paid no more than the house of the poor was correct. But there was another point of view. Tea was more

  675
  commonly consumed in the houses of the poor than he understood it to be in the houses of the rich. At dinner, tea, supper, and breakfast, tea, coffee or cocoa was the common dish amongst the poor. Among other classes of society wine and the higher priced liquors were the more common form of beverage. The dining-room of the House of Commons would prove it if there was any dispute about the point. The tax paid upon wine was by comparison with tea, an infinitesimal proportion of the price of the article. The tax upon tea was over 100 per cent, of its value. The tax upon champagne was 20 per cent. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that no sensible politician would seek to exempt the poorer part of the electorate from the payment of taxes. If that were so some very great men of the past could not be regarded as sensible. The only one he would name was the late John Stuart Mill who laid it down as an axiom that taxation should not come from the necessities of life of the poor, but from the surplus income of the well-to-do, and the proposition on the face of it was sound. If the taxation of the country was taken out of the incomes of the very poor they were still further reducing the very low Standard of living which already obtained. If it was imperative that it should be so taken, then they would have to grin and bear it as best they could. But when it was known and was not disputed that there was a surplus income in the nation from which the taxes could be taken without inflicting hardships on a single living individual, it was little short of a crime to put these taxes on the underpaid poor. If it was said that to relieve them of taxes while leaving them political responsibility and power was an anomaly which could not be recognised, his reply was that the remedy lay in the hands of that House. Let legislation be so ordered as to ensure for every worker the means of earning a competency and prevent enormous incomes accumulating which had been extracted out of the misery and suffering of the poor, and then apply the canons of taxation in the way the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. But so long as the law of the land permitted these people to be
  676
  robbed until they were in a condition of poverty in which they were unable to find the necessaries of life, apart from taxation, every canon of righteousness and of equity demanded that that House should not impose burdens upon those who were already victims of a most unjust and iniquitous system. He hoped and trusted the Committee would show its opinion of this matter by voting for the Amendment. They had no desire to see the basis of taxation broadened in the way that appealed to hon. Members above the gangway. They were seeking to relieve the poor of the burdens of taxation already put upon them. They believed rightly or wrongly that what was covered by the phrase "broadening the basis of taxation" was to relieve the well-to-do of their share of taxes in order to put them on the poor, and because they believed that they would resist to the utmost any attempt to broaden the basis of taxation on the lines suggested by tariff reformers. But the position of free traders would be strengthened if the Government, having the opportunity and the means at its hand, had broadened the basis of taxation by relieving the overburdened backs of the poor and placing the burden on the underweighted backs of those so well able to bear it. Let the Government accept this Amendment, and they would be able to go to the country on it as an alternative to the cry of broadening the basis of taxation, especially if they found the money for the deficit by a graduated tax upon incomes exceeding £10,000 a year. A small fraction would be sufficient to meet the £2,000,000 deficit which the Amendment would create. He hoped the Government not only in the interests of the submerged poor but in the interests of the principles of free trade would agree to the Amendment, and thereby prove that they were free traders not merely in regard to the great articles of commerce but also in regard to the food of the labouring poor.
  *MR. REESsaid he could not support the Amendment, and if he gave his reasons he could also add that he could not associate himself with the arguments of the hon. Member for Blackburn and the Leader of the Labour

  677
  Party, who seemed to desire to place all taxes on one class. If these were democratic sentiments he began to think there must be something in the arguments of those who held that the time spent at school in learning Greek was totally wasted. If he understood the meaning of the word it meant something absolutely contrary to that which the two hon. Gentlemen had read into it, and implied the negation of all class legislation. He had made no pledge, or if he had it was to endeavour to get the tea duty reduced, and that he would endeavour to do, but only by what he thought effectual measures to that end. There might be other hon. Members who wished to bring about the same end who might not be able to vote for this Amendment. The fact was that the present high rate of duty should by all possible means be reduced, but it did not follow on that account that one was to vote for this Amendment, nor did it seem to be compatible with anything like elementary consistency for hon. Gentlemen who bombarded the Government with claims for social reforms costing more and more and more to came forward now and to seek to take away from them some of the means which they had to pay for such reforms and to pay their way. The hon. Gentleman who moved this reduction spoke very mildly and moderately, but he thought he could remember I that quite lately he had said he would never be so mean spirited as to thank the Government for the Old-Age Pensions Bill. It was a miserable instalment which he despised. But if they wanted more and more social reforms how could the hon. Member opposite reasonably ask the Government to relinquish ways and means by reducing the tea tax. Hon. Members opposite on the Labour Benches were all calling out for those benefits, but it seemed to him that those who pressed for all those reforms should have the consistency to leave the Government some thing with which to pay the bill. He had, however, some clients himself whose case had not been brought before the House, and who had been described by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean as "a white oligarchy"—he referred to the planters who produced most of the tea. There was no class more worthy of the sympathy and attention of the House.
  678
  Planters worked hard in foreign countries where they invested British capital and employed British Indian labour, and they were hard-hit by this very high tea duty, which he wished to see reduced, on account of both the producer and the consumer. Some £40,000,000 of British capital were in - vested in this industry in which some 2,000,000 British subjects were employed. Those planters were the makers of some of the Indian provinces, and were the true friends of the natives. Little had been done for them by the Government, I and their loyalty was taken for granted and i not considered worthy of much purchase. None the less they deserved the sympathy of the House, and their case, as well as that of the consumer, was deserving of attention when this Amendment was before the House. The coal industry only used to pay a tax of 10 per cent., but it came forward and got relieved of it. Sugar used to pay 28 per cent., but those interested set to work until it was reduced to 14 per cent. But that was a very powerful industry. Tea remained at 65 per cent, and that was a great deal too high. The tea industry paid £6,000,000 of duty every year, whilst the alternative temperance drinks brought into the revenue about £500,000, consequently tea stood easily first. He confessed that he did not quite follow the arguments of the Prime Minister when he put sugar so much before tea in respect of claims for reduction, because the tea duty was practically a food tax. It was almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of tea to the poor people, or the boon that would result from a reduction of the tea duty. No less than 93 per cent. of the tea produced in the world was British, whilst 94 per cent. of the sugar produced was foreign. Not long ago he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the respective war taxation paid upon tea and sugar, and he replied that tea paid £14,000,000 while sugar paid £41,000,000, but if the ordinary tea duly was added it would be found that tea since the war paid £51,000,000 against £41,000,000 paid by sugar. In other countries they did not find that tea was taxed to such an extent as in this country, where they taxed the product of British capital and industry much more

  679
  than any other continental country. It was true that, but for the set-back which had occurred in this country by a reduction in the consumption, tea would have had a very successful year, but that was because of the boom in cheap tea and while the producer benefited the consumer suffered. In Russia the consumption had largely increased, and they were reducing their duty, and that was an example which he sincerely hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shortly see his way to imitate. He did not think it was necessary to trouble the Committee with figures or statistics showing how great the burden of taxation was, because that aspect of the case had already been dealt with. He gathered that a poor man could not get a drinkable tea under 1s. 2d. a pound, and that was a great deal too much. He thought the Anti-Tea Duty League and other associations would do well to keep up their agitation in order that the Government might be brought to recognise that tea had quite as much claim upon them as sugar. He was sorry to introduce this jarring note between tea and sugar, because they were two substances which often appeared in an intimate and friendly conjunction in the cup and elsewhere. It was, however, necessary to press the case of tea as compared with sugar because the latter always seemed to get the better of the argument, not on account of the intrinsic merits of the case, but because of the far greater influence with which the sugar case was pushed. Lord St. Aldwyn said that the sugar tax was not only a war tax but a tax necessary to produce a revenue for the general purposes of this country, and tea had a much better claim for reduction than sugar. He was prepared to admit that this had been a prosperous tea year for the trade. He might add that he had personally no interest whatever in the tea trade. But although there had been a prosperous year in tea it had all been in consequence of the high price of low-class tea. The consequence was that the poor people got a poorer quality of tea to drink. The sellers of low quality tea had been doing so well that there had not been that outcry against the duty which would otherwise
  680
  have occurred, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take it from that fact that everything was all right with the tea trade. On the contrary the public had suffered. He was afraid that the planters might be tempted by high quotations to pluck chiefly grades of bad tea which would be to the detriment of the people of this country. The trade of; London, too, was affected, and dealers were disposed to prefer Calcutta under existing circumstances. There was another result of this high duty and it was the largely increased consumption of China tea. He was not one of those who spoke ill of everything Chinese, and he had no sympathy whatever with the perpetual denunciation of this nation, to which he was condemned to listen, but having seen the manufacture of tea both in India and China he had no hesitation in saying that it was much better for the people that they should drink cleanly-manufactured Indian tea than the dirty low-class China tea. He did not say that of China tea generally, but the low class of China tea was very dirty. He meant no disparagement whatever of China tea, but only of a certain class of stuff. The tea importers brought into this country a very low class of cheap China tea for blending purposes, and they were obliged to do this to enable them to sell at 1s. or 1s. 2d. a pound. He thought the best thing for Parliament to do was to endeavour to get these taxes reduced gradually, and not press session after session for every kind of expensive reform which made a reduction of the tea duties absolutely impossible. To show his own appreciation of the real position, he would vote against the Amendment, acceptance of which had been rendered impossible, as everyone must recognise, by vast commitments, to which both sides of the House with their eves open had consented.
  Mil. HUNTsaid the lion. Member who spoke just now told the House when referring to the tea tax in 1905 that he had long been anxious for a free breakfast table, and that the tax on tea was not defensible because it affected the rich infinitely loss than the poor. He remembered seeing pesters forty years ago calling on the electors to support Liberal candidates who were in

  681
  favour of a free breakfast table. It was a long time coining. It was now generally admitted that tea was just as necessary as bread itself. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had stated that the effect of taking 2d. off the tea duty would be to take more than £2,000,000 out of the Exchequer. Most of that money was coming out of the pockets of poor people. This was supposed to be a free trade country, and yet the import duties paid on tea, tobacco, and other commodities used by the working classes amounted to over £20,000,000 a year. The import taxation per head of the population amounted to 15s. 3d., while in Germany, which was supposed to be a protected country, it was 9s. 5d. He could not understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite could pretend that this was free trade. It was not free trade at all. The Secretary to the Treasury preferred to tax tea instead of wheat because the one could not be grown in this country and the other could. One was produced by British labour in this country, and therefore a tax must not be put on the imported article, but a tax might be put on tea because it did not help in any way the labouring people of this country. The poor paid two or three times as much of the tea duty as the rich. If a rich man spent 6s. for two pounds of tea at 3s. per pound, he only paid two fivepences per pound for duty; but if a poor man spent 6s. for six pounds of tea at 1s. per pound, he paid six fivepences for duty. That was supposed to be for the benefit of the working classes of this country. That system of taxation was supported by Liberal and Labour Members. There was an enormous amount of manufactured goods coming into this country which the poor never bought.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is really getting very wide of the subject.
  MR. HUNTsaid he was sorry he had got over the line altogether. He was only going to refer to sugared articles incidentally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated at Manchester that what the people had to pay for sugar they would get back in the shape of old-age pensions. The tea was going to be just in the same position—only more so, because the tax was very much heavier. If the money was to be got out of the
  682
  working classes for old-age pensions in that way, he would remind the Committee that a great many of them were I not going to get any benefit at all. He wondered how hon. Gentlemen could insist on this heavy taxation of tea and still call themselves free traders. Would someone on the other side get up and state where free trade came in?
  MR. CURRANsaid that after listening to the clear, logical, and explicit speech of the hon. Member for the Ludlow division of Shropshire the Committee would have no difficulty in making up its mind on the question at issue. The hon. Member for Blackburn had no desire to conceal the fact that this Amendment embodied a fundamental principle, namely, the principle of direct taxation. He and his friends were in favour of direct taxation, and they were also in favour of shifting the burden of taxation from the shoulders of industry to the shoulders of the moneyed. He had the good fortune to be in the United States of America in 1900. During that year the South, African War was raging, and the Americans also had a war all to themselves, called the Philippine War. He was astonished on his arrival in the United States to find that in buying certain commodities he had one cent or two cents extra to pay over and above the normal price, as a war tax. He persuaded those people that he was paying a war tax in his own country, but irrespective of that they made him pay the war tax of the United States on the commodities he purchased. The Americans know how much it was costing. The American workman was able to estimate the direct cost of the Philippine War, and the result so far as he could see, during the three' months it was at its height, was that there were no Mafeking nights in the United States. There was calmness, and a lack of enthusiasm in regard to the prosecution of the war. In his judgment, if the principle of direct taxation was introduced in a similar way in this country, we should have a great many less wars and a good many less Imperialists in that House than were to he found on the occasions when War Estimates were up for discussion. The Secretary for the Treasury had twitted his hon. friend with not laying down any specific method whereby the money

  683
  could be raised. He had also told the Committee that the present Government was suffering because of a legacy left them in the shape of liabilities by the late Government. They were all well aware of the liabilities which were handed over to the present Government owing to the extravagance of the late Government, but why impose a tax on the poorest classes of the community to make up for that extravaganc? The workers were, practically ground between two millstones. The people who were in receipt of under £1 a week and who had the average family responsibilities were the economic slaves of the employers and they were the economic and agricultural slaves of the landed proprietors. If they contributed the labour part and only received one-third in wages in return as the result of their labour power, in his judgment the people who took the other two-thirds ought to bear the taxation in order that it might be removed from their shoulders. He submitted that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench required to be very careful in regard to the methods of maintaining taxes on tea and sugar. There was a possibility that it might be used against them by hon. Gentlemen like the Member who had just sat down when the next election came round. They, on the Labour Benches, stood for free trade, although they did not speak under the shadow of Richard Cobden and John Bright, both of whom were anti-trade unionists and rigid individualists. There was one living relic of that school in the House—possibly there were others, but they concealed their opinions more judiciously—and that was the hon. Member for Preston. The Labour Members did not take up the attitude which individualistic free traders took up; but they did say that to tax commodities because they came across the ocean or across a frontier was a fictitious tax which the consumer
  had to pay. Consequently, they took up the position of propounding international reciprocity without attempting to build around the British nation, or the British Empire, barriers which gave no advantage or privilege to the worker, but afforded capitalists and monopolists an opportunity of rigging the market and charging the highest prices to the consumer. The fact was that if this tax were taken off there were other sources of revenue to which not only the Treasury Bench, but most of their supporters, were practically committed. What about the taxation of land values? That had been discussed in the House repeatedly and the hon. Members who now formed the Government voted for it.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member could not discuss all other sources of taxation.
  MR. CURRANsaid he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, but had only been pointing out that there were other sources of taxation which might be tapped if the reduction of the tea duty was made. In conclusion, he maintained that if the Government were prepared to carry out certain financial reforms to which they were committed, the tea tax would be reduced, and double, aye, quadruple the amount would be made up from other courses of revenue.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEappealed to the Committee to bring the discussion to a conclusion, as it was absolutely necessary to go on to other Amendments on the Paper. They had already debated longer and more, fully the tea clause of the Finance Bill than was usual.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 188.)

  AYES.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Agnew, George William

  Barker, John

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'd

  Armitage, R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Black, Arthur W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Branch, James

  Brigg, John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Robinson, S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Russell, T. W.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jackson, R. S.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Sears, J. E.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Seely, Colonel

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Cleland, J. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lambert, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Smeaton, Don ld Mackenzie

  Crossley, William J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lyell, (Charles Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Duckworth, James

  Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  McCallum, John M.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Dunns, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  McCrae, Sir George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McMicking, Major G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Erskine, David C.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Fell, Arthur

  Massie, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Trevelyan, diaries Philips

  Ferens, T. R.

  Menzies, Walter

  Verney, F. W.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Vivian, Henry

  Findlay, Alexander

  Middlebrook, William

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walters, John Tudor

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mond, A.

  Walton, Joseph

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Morse, L. L.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Napier, T. B.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Weir, James Galloway

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nussey, Thomas William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hall, Frederick

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn L.(Rossendale

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Williamson, A.

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

  Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.)

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

  Harwood, George

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

  Winfrey, R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rees, J. D.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robortson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  686

  687

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Hogan, Michael

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Renton, Leslie

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boland, John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Joyce, Michael

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Seddon, J.

  Clough, William

  Kelley, George D.

  Shackleton, David James

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Snowden, P.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanier, Beville

  Cox, Harold

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Starkey, John R.

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Crooks, William

  MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Summerbell, T.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  M'Killop, W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Markha, Arthur Basil

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Wardle, George J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Halpin, J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Winterton, Earl

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hills, J. W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Hodge, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  *MB. FELL*MB. FELL moved to add to Clause 1: "Except in the ease of tea produced in any country forming part of the British Empire, in which case no duty shall be charged." This was, he said, an Amendment which he had moved last year on the Finance Bill, and he would not have moved it this year if circumstances had not changed, and, if he might say so, if they had not had another Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought he would be able to show that both these points had a material influence on the action which might be taken in regard to this question. Last year when he moved his Amendment the Prime Minister wag Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that right hon. Gentleman to some extent had pooh-poohed the question of Chinese tea competing with Indian tea in the market. He could not then but acquiesce in the contention of the Prime Minister, for the figures were in his favour. Having regard to the fact that there was now a new Chancellor of the Exchequer and that a material change had taken place in the situation in relation to China and Indian and Ceylon teas he thought he was justified in
  688
  moving this Resolution. He regretted that the only way of discussing the question at that stage was by moving a reduction. He now moved that there should be a reduction of Id. on the duty on tea produced in the British Possessions and Dependencies, which would mean, if agreed to, a loss of £1,162,000 to the Exchequer, for they could make the estimate from last year's imports. But he would have much preferred that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should recommit this Bill so that an extra Id. could be put on China tea which would give the right hon. Gentleman £150,000 further this year. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would not object to that, because they had ample evidence that the margin of the Budget was very slender, even if it had not gone the other way. That could be arranged by recommitting the Bill and providing that duty on all tea should be 6d. and that 1d. should be taken off that which was produced in British Possessions and Dependencies beyond the seas. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, in regard to

  689
  this matter, stated that the latest figures he had showed that the imports from China were only 5,600,000 lbs., whilst from India and Ceylon they were nearly 300,000,000 lbs., so that the import of China tea might be regarded as a negligible quantity and the competition from China was not worth consideration. The imports of China tea were now, however, increasing, and the favoured position of Indian tea might be wholly lost by a wave of popular opinion in favour of China tea. He was not beside the mark in saying that the consumption of China tea was increasing and might grow until China tea would be a very great competitor of that grown in our own Dependencies, as the following figures would show. The figures of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of 5,600,000 lbs. was the import of China tea for 1905. In 1906 it had grown to 13,500,000 lbs., and in 1907 to 19,000,000 lbs. That it had grown to four times as much in two years pointed a warning to us, and was a very strong argument in favour of this Motion, which sought to give some benefit to Indian and Ceylon tea over that grown in China, Java, and other foreign countries, of the growth of which we had no knowledge, and over which we could have no control, and which we could not test, except in the docks when it arrived. This question not only affected India and Ceylon, but also other British possessions. Natal was now growing tea. In 1906 the export from Natal was 899 lbs., last year it was 576,000 lbs.—a remarkable increase. The value of the first exportation was £38, last year it was £17,000. Next year it might be doubled. At all events it was becoming an important factor in the economy of the Colony of Natal, which we ought to be glad to support. He understood also that tea was to be grown in Uganda, and the Shire highlands, which might in the future form sources of our supply. The reduction would be of immense advantage to them and to the Empire. This was an important question, because both in the Colonies and abroad these teas were becoming better known. In Russia, where at one time China held the field, the consumption of Indian tea was on the increase, as indeed was the case all over the Continent. It was one of the
  690
  great factors of the world's economy, and India and Ceylon were supplying tea to all parts of the world. He desired by this Amendment to assure the growers of India and Ceylon and our other possessions beyond the seas that the greatest market in the world should be secured to them, and that they should, when they sent their teas here, have some assured benefit over the foreigner—some preference over China teas. Thereby they would be enabled to withstand any fickle change that might take place in the popular taste. There was another side of the question, another way of looking at it. It was a question of preference extended to our own Colonies and Dependencies which would give them some benefit. Although that argument did not meet with any great response last year, except from the Opposition Benches, that night it had met with a response from the hon. Member for Blackburn, who had pointed out in supporting the reduction he moved that those teas came from our Colonies and Dependencies. On that ground he claimed the support of the Opposition, and the support of the hon. Member for Blackburn and his friends. The ground on which support was claimed for this proposal was that we would rather consume teas which came from our Colonies and Dependencies than teas from China, especially when we considered what the countries were from which they came. When we considered the wonderful markets we had for our goods in India and Ceylon and the advantages they gave us in those markets, we should do well if, by reducing this duty in the way he proposed, we conserved the British tea markets for them. He had received many letters from India during the last year thanking him for what he had done. The planters in India might well look for some recognition of the way in which they supported this country. He did not say they did not make money out of tea, but he did not think that they made much on the whole, for they had their ups and downs like most others, and he believed that nothing had had more ups and downs than the tea markets of India. The way these planters supported us during the late war merited some recognition from us, and we could not show it in any

  691
  way better than by giving them this slight preference. He had shown how it could be done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer without any draft on the Budget. Without going into any question of tariff reform or anything of that kind, he put it that this was an occasion on which they might give this slight benefit to India and Ceylon; it was really a slight one which he hoped that the Committee would admit. Circumstances had changed since he brought the matter forward last year, and the arguments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer then used had not proved sound in the light of events. The right hon. Gentleman thought that China tea was not going to have an increased sale in England, but in that he had proved entirely wrong, and he hoped that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would look at the matter afresh, and see whether he could give a favourable answer in some way to these people, who were looking to their parent for some recognition of them as devoted and attached children, and he trusted that the opportunity would not be lost.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, at the end, to add the words 'except in the case of tea produced in any country forming part of the British Empire, in which case the duty shall be charged at the rate of 4d. per pound.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not 'propose to go into the question of colonial preference and those other matters because his reason for refusing the Amendment had no relation to his view upon that particular question. The financial reasons he found amply sufficient without assigning others. He was not sure if he were to speak on its merits that the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman was a strong one. The hon. Gentleman had said that there was a very large increase in the consumption of China tea, and had referred to the fact that there was an increase of 5,000,000 lbs. as compared with last year. But if he would look at the consumption of China tea during the last seven or eight years he would find that there was very little difference indeed. In 1900 it was 21,000,000 lbs., it then went down to 17,000,000 lbs., then
  692
  it went up again to 27,000,000 lbs., then down to 17,000,000 lbs., 21,000,000 lbs., up again to 27,000,000 lbs., then down it dropped to 15,000,000 lbs., and this last year it was over 18,000,000 lbs.
  MR. FELL: It was 19,000,000 lbs.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was 18,776,000 lbs., in round figures 19,000,000 lbs. But it had been fluctuating around that figure for the last seven or eight years, while the consumption of Indian and Ceylon tea had run up to something like 280,000,000 lbs. The superiority was so immense that he did not think that a preference would make very much difference. The consumption of China tea was very largely a question of taste, and it would be indulged in without any regard to the extra penny or twopence. There had been a very considerable extension of our trade with China during the last few years; from 1885 to 1907 it had considerably more than doubled, and he did not think that this was a time at all to accept the proposition to put a special tax against the foreigner in favour of our Colonies. He did not think that he ought to do that with China, and if he had any such intention China was the very last country on which he would begin to operate. But he would rather not go into that question. The hon. Gentleman had given his reasons as cogently and as forcibly as possible, but he on his side had reasons amply sufficient of another kind for refusing the Amendment, and he would rather dwell upon them than enter the wider field of controversy to which the hon. Gentleman would like to lead him.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that after the speech which he had made earlier in the afternoon the Committee would know that he was not able to support his hon. friend on that occasion, though he would not on that account be thought unfait ful to the cause of preference. If they took the proposition which his hon. friend had brought forward, and considered the arguments in its favour, he was not sure that there was not a good deal to be said for it, if indeed the arguments in its favour were not overwhelming. They had to look

  693
  at the situation as a whole and at the Budget as a whole. He could himself conceive a much better Budget. He wished it were in his power to offer a complete scheme in lieu of that for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. But he could not propose an alternative Budget under the circumstances, and he was bound to adhere to the resolution to which he had come to leave the responsibility alike of the imposition of taxation and the remission of taxation to the Government, and to take no share of it upon himself. He only desired to say one or two words in reference to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said on the question of foreign competition, as to the danger to the Indian and Ceylon trade, and as to the question of preferential duties being of no advantage to our Colonies, As regarded the first question, the importation of China tea was not to be measured wholly by the amount which was sent to this country. No doubt, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, a considerable quantity was imported by people who preferred the plain quality of China tea to that of India and Ceylon, and to whom it was probably rather an article of luxury. Such people would not be deterred from having that which suited their taste by the imposition of a slightly higher duty. To that extent China tea was a luxury. There were, however, importations of China tea of a very low quality indeed, and though they were perhaps small in amount, certainly very small in proportion to the total consumption of tea, he thought that they would injuriously affect the price of Indian and Ceylon teas, and so bring down the consumption of those teas. He, therefore, thought that some differential treatment might be more effective than the right hon. Gentleman supposed. He might add that he himself was disposed to anticipate, though of course he spoke with no skilled knowledge, keener competition in future, not so much from China as from Java, which produced a tea very akin to the Ceylon tea, which was much more likely to be a rival to it in the public taste. The other observation which he wished to make was that even if the result of preference to Indian and Ceylon tea was not to
  694
  diminish the proportion of foreign tea sold in this country, it might still be a great stimulus to the Indian and Ceylon trade. As he had said earlier, no article operated upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer more quickly responded to the lowering of the duty than tea; and if they were able to make, not a large, but a sensible reduction, in the duty on Indian and Ceylon teas he thought they would find a rapid increase in the consumption of those teas, even though the consumption of China tea remained stationary. That was to say, the total consumption of the country would be larger in respect of Indian and Ceylon tea, but the amount of China tea consumed would remain about the same, and, therefore, its proportion to the whole would be less. These were the general observations which he wished to make on the Amendment which his hon. friend had moved. He would like to support preference for our Indian and Ceylon fellow subjects in this matter, and he would like to establish a general system of preference; but he did not think that they could conveniently press the matter piecemeal at present, and he must leave to the Government the responsibility of their scheme.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had answered his hon. friend by saying that as he could not find the money he could not accept this Amendment. Surely that was a confession of very considerable mismanagement of the national finances. Take the question of the Army. More money had been spent on the Army since the present Government had come into office——
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
  MR. ASHLEY: Am I not entitled to prove that this Amendment would be justified?
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's observations are going too wide of the Amendment.
  MR. ASHLEY: Am I not entitled to show that money could be found by

  695
  economies in other branches of the services?
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has to deal with the Amendment, which is the expediency of giving preferential treatment to the Colonies in the matter of tea The sources, or the economies which might be effected, whence money could be found to meet the deficiency of revenue, are outside of the Amendment.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid he would pass to the Amendment, which he supported on two grounds: the first being that of Colonial preference. He was sure that in theory most members of the Committee were in favour of giving our own people across the seas some preference over foreigners, and especially, he thought, we should give a perference to our people in India and Ceylon who had had very bad times in the tea trade. He would wish the Committee to consider whether Natal did not deserve some sympathy. The tea industry there was in its infancy, but had shown most remarkable progress in the last two years. A preference would undoubtedly stimulate it. He was informed that Natal tea was nearly as good as Indian tea and of very much the same quality, and would therefore appeal to a large class in this country. Tea-growing was also being taken up in the Shire Highlands and in Uganda, both of which Colonies had been started in the last ten or twenty years by a large expenditure of English capital in the building of railways and opening up the country, and by sending out some of our very best men to administer it. Surely it was unwise to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. A preference would be a very great boon to them. He was not convinced last year that the reduction of 1d. would be sufficient to make a substantial reduction in the price of tea, and therefore on that ground he supported the Amendment that it should be 2d. instead of 1d.
  MR. HOLTpointed out that the trade of India and Ceylon had been built up without a preference of any sort. The whole of our imports of tea thirty years ago came from China. To-day nine-tenths came
  696
  from India and Ceylon, so that it could not be reasonably suggested that they needed assistance. We imported a small quantity of tea from Japan, which was on the point of revising her tariff. Supposing that now we discriminated against Japan in a way which did no real harm, but a thoroughly good theoretical injury, was it not quite certain that in the revised tariff in 1911 we should find British manufactures treated in a worse way than they otherwise would have been? In regard to China, she had never asked to send us tea or to trade with us at all. We went to war with China, and by force of arms backed up by diplomacy we had insisted on China opening her markets to our goods, and it would be a very wrong and immoral action on our part to put any impediment in the way of her sending her goods to us. Our Consul at Hankow wrote in this year's Report that there was a growing feeling of antagonism to foreign traders and that the injustice of protected countries restricting Chinese customs duties to a bare 5 per cent. ad valorem was constantly harped upon in the native newspapers. He believed they would find, if they adopted the policy suggested by the Amendment, a steady opposition to the exportation of British goods into China, which was a market that we had done a great deal to cultivate, which was certainly growing and had responded very well to the efforts which had been made in that direction. India was a very great market for our Manchester goods, but China was the next best market, and it certainly seemed a pity in the efforts to cultivate the best market to strike a great blow at the second best. Holland was a country which almost more than any other country had treated us well. It was a free-trade country and we had been given access into Dutch markets. The Dutch East Indies had thriven rapidly, and given us favourable opportunities. If we acted in a way hostile to goods of Dutch origin we should be putting ourselves in a very foolish position, because we should be starting a tariff war with a nation with whom we had every wish to remain on good terms, and who had treated us always in trade matters extremely well. Holland, after all, had a very peculiar position in Europe and

  697
  Germany would be only too pleased to incorporate Holland in her dominions.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into these questions. They are far outside the question whether preference should be given to tea imported from the Colonies.
  MR. HOLTsaid that, if we drove Dutch products to find their market in Germany, he could not but help fearing that the consequences might be disastrous in other directions than those of trade. This was a most beauti-
  ful illustration of the truth that the doctrine of retaliation was utterly incompatible with the doctrine of Colonial preference. Here was the first suggestion made to establish Colonial preference, and it was aimed at three of our best friends and customers which had treated us as well as any three nations in the world. He hoped the Committee would not listen to the proposal.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 251. (Division List No. 189.)

  AYES.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Renton, Leslie

  Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm

  King, Sir Henry Scymour (Hull)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew- Bonar (Dulwich)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stanier, Beville

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Fell and Mr. Ashley.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Findlay, Alexander

  Agnew, George William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cameron, Robert

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Armitage, R.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gill, A. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barker, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Hall, Frederick

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Cox, Harold

  Halpin, J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crean, Eugene

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crooks, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bell, Richard

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

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

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S

  Hart-Davies, T

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Harwood, George

  Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duckworth, James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Boland, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Branch, James

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Essex, R. W.

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

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hobhouse, (Charles E. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Hodge, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hogan, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Fenwick, Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Holt, Richard Dinning

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morse, L. L.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hudson, Walter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Snowden, P.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Napier, T. B.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey. Sir Edward

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Summerbell, T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland. J. E.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Malley, William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tomkinson, James

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Toulmin, George

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ure, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Verney, F. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Vivian, Henry

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lupton, Arnold

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wardle, George J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waterlow. D. S.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Weir, James Galloway

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitbread. Howard

  Maclean, Donald

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

  White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wiles, Thomas

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Robinson, S.

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williamson, A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson. John (Durham, Mid.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

  Seddon, J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Menzies, Walter

  Seely, Colonel

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shackleton, David James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Middlebrook, William

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford))

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Mond, A.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  MR. KETTLEsaid the Amendment he proposed to move gave preferential treatment to Ireland in regard to the sugar duty. He did not want to weary the Committee by a repetition of the case made out on constitutional grounds with; regard to the tea duty. He was aware I that Ireland shared in the benefits from the reduction in the sugar duty, but he did not think the entire case which had been made from the Irish benches had been met by the reply of the Chancellor
  700
  of the Exchequer. The sugar tax in Ireland produced in 1904 £602,000, and it produced the same amount in the following year. The year before the War it produced £688,000. He thought it would be agreed that every argument which applied to tea would apply with greater force to sugar. Practically speaking, the people of Ireland were buying and using proportionately the same amount of sugar as the people in this country, but they had to pay the tax out of incomes which were about one-third the average income of the rural population of Great Britain. That meant that the people of Ireland were much more heavily hit than

  701
  the people of Great Britain. The object of the Union was stated to be that if Ireland was associated with England the Irish people would have the advantage of living on the credit of a rich neighbour, and that Irish resources would be developed in a way which would not be possible if Ireland relied upon her own resources. If the terms of the Act of Union had been respected in the Finance Bills of the House, the effect would have been that the entire party above the gangway would be the most ardent and fanatical Home Rulers, because they would have discovered long ago that the government of Ireland was not paying a dividend. With the operation of the old-age pension scheme in Ireland and the comparatively small reduction in the sugar tax; with the decline in other branches in the revenue in Ireland; with the financing of land purchase and the endowment of a University; with the other sundry grants which must be made to sundry other objects; with the impossibility of raising a single fresh tax or making any old tax more fruitful, this country would shortly be confronted with a state of affairs in which the taxation would be much larger than could be got out of the country even by bleeding it white. He supposed that the response of the Government would be the same as was stated in regard to the tea duty Amendment, and consequently he would feel it his duty again to register his objection in the division lobby. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 1, after the word 'allowance,' to insert the words 'in the case of Great Britain.'"—(Mr. Kettle.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid the hon. Member had recognised that all the arguments which he advanced in support of his Amendment on the sugar duty had precisely the same weight and tendency us those which he advanced at an earlier stage of their proceedings. If he did not repeat the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was not because he wished any personal discourtesy, but simply because he did
  702
  not wish to take up the time of the House. While the financial effect of the hon. Member's previous proposal would be very great, the effect of this would also be very serious, because it would abolish revenue to the extent of £300,000.
  MR. HAZLETONsaid the Committee would understand that if he did not go over the same arguments and the same objections in regard to the decision of the Government in this matter, it was not because those arguments did not apply with equal force. The same arguments and the same objections from an Irish point of view remained with regard to the decision which had just been announced as existed in the earlier case put that evening. The Secretary to the Treasury had stated that this Amendment would mean a loss of £300,000 a year of revenue from Ireland. That was exactly the merit which they saw in the Amendment, and there would be no point at all in proposing it unless it meant a reduction of the taxation derived by this country from Ireland. In his opinion they would never see a reform in the government or in the expenditure of Ireland until Irish expenditure became greater than its income. It was with the view of reducing taxation in Ireland that he supported the Amendment. He hoped it would receive sympathetic treatment.
  MR. KETTLEsaid there were some facts which he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would carry in his mind. He and his friends had noticed that since the present Government had been in power there had been a steady attempt on the part of the representatives of the Treasury to depart from the findings of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland, which the Liberal Party accepted when in Opposition. Such relief as would be afforded by the reduction of the sugar duty would be entirely automatic, and that reduction was not granted with a view to give Ireland any advantage. While the protests which Irish Members had made had been without avail, he could assure the Government that people in Ireland were asking what was the

  703
  difference between Tory finance and Liberal finance, and were coming to the conclusion that when the Tories were in power they expected to be robbed; it seemed in the nature of things; and when the Liberals were in power they had not that expecta-
  tion, but nevertheless they had that experience.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 235. (Division List No. 190.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Jowett, F. W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kelley, George D.

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shackleton, David James

  Crean, Eugene

  Macpherson. J. T.

  Snowden, P.

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

  Summerbell, T.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Halpin, J.

  Nield, Herbert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Nolan, Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Kettle.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hodge, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Cameron, Robert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Armitage, R.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cave, George

  Gill, A. H,

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Gretton, John

  Barker, John

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

  Guinness. Walter Edward

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn L.(Rossendale

  Beale, W. P.

  Cox, Harold

  Harcourt Robert V. (Montrose)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bell, Richard

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Crooks, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Crossley, William J.

  Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harwood, George

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Davies, Sir W. Howell(Bristol, S

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dowar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Duckworth, James

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Branch, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Brigg, John

  Essex, R. W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fell, Arthur

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jackson, R. S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stanier, Beville

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Napier, T. B.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lamont, Norman

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Tomkinson, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Verney, F. W.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Radford, G. H.

  Vivian, Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn Lt.-Col. A.R.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Walters, John Tudor

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Renton, Leslie

  Weir, James Galloway

  Maclean, Donald

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robinson, S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williamson, A.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rowlands, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Menzies, Walter

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Winfrey, R.

  Middlebrook, William

  Seely, Colonel.

  Wood, T. M. Kinnon

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Morrell, Philip

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Morse, L. L.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Question put, and agreed to.

  *MR. HAROLD COX*MR. HAROLD COX moved to insert after the word "eight" the words "until the first day of July, 1909, when all duties upon sugar, molasses, glucose, mid saccharine, upon the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland shall cease." He would merely explain that the object of this Amendment was to make the sugar tax like the tea duty, an annual instead of a perpetual tax. He was quite sure that that would be approved of by all Liberals. The consequence of it would be that the House would every year have an opportunity of reviewing the tax. His Amendment would have no effect on the Budget, it was purely a matter of Parliamentary convenience; and he thought that the House of Commons should have every year an opportunity of reviewing every tax. He would remind the Committee that when
  706
  the sugar tax was discussed in 1901, the whole of the Liberal Party was in favour of making it an annual tax. He would be in order in reading some of the names of the gentlemen who supported that proposition:—Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerinan, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Burns——
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Is this in order?
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to read the names. The constituencies of the hon. Members may be mentioned.
  *MR. HAROLD COX: I am reading the names from Hansard.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: You cannot mention the names in the House. You may refer to hon. Members by their office or constituencies.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was afraid he did not remember the constituencies of all the hon. Members he wished to refer to; but they included the Secretary of State for War, the President of the Local Government Board, the Postmaster-General, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary for Scotland, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Solicitor-General, and the Secretary to the Treasury himself. All these and many other hon. Members were in favour of the very Motion he was now moving, and the Liberal Whips told for it. It seemed to him that under these circumstances the Government must accept this Amendment, and therefore he would not use any arguments in favour of it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 4, after the word 'eight,' to insert the words 'until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, when all duties upon sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin, upon the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland, shall cease.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he was greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for including his name in the list which he had read out; but he thought the hon. Gentleman would see that the argument in favour of his proposal must be resisted on quite different grounds from those he had stated. [Cries of "Why."] The hon. Member had said there was no money in his proposal. That was quite true, it did not affect this year's Budget. But what the hon. Gentleman wanted to do was to get the Government to disclose what was to happen next year. [Cries of "No."] If the Amendment were agreed to, that after 1st July, 1909, all duties on sugar should cease, it was quite clear that it must carry with it a suggestion of what was to happen to the duty on sugar next year.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Let me remind my hon. friend that these are exactly the words we have just passed with regard to the tea tax.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that he would remind the hon. Gentleman that that must
  708
  disclose to some extent the intentions of the Government as to what would happen in the case of the sugar tax next year. But it was not his real objection to the Amendment; he based his objection to the proposal on the ground that if it were carried, the importers of sugar would hold up the whole of their imports immediately until 1st July, 1909, on the off chance of the sugar duty not being re-imposed after that date. There would not be merely a great interference with the sugar market—and sugar, as one of the Members for Ireland had stated, was one of the staple foods of the people of this country—but the result would be a great dearth, an absolute famine of sugar. The hon. Gentleman proposed to initiate a sugar famine, to enhance enormously the price of sugar, and indirectly to impose a tax which directly he wished the Government to remove.
  MR. STUARTsaid that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seemed to have entirely misunderstood the real meaning, bearing, and significance of the Amendment. It was to put the House in the position that the sugar duty would have, like the tea duty, to be imposed each year. If the clause was not changed by the adoption of the Amendment, and if the Government did not choose to meddle with the sugar duty next year, then it would not be in the power of the House to discuss the question except on a side issue. The Amendment no more said that the sugar duty would not be re-imposed next year than the previous clause said that the tea duty should not be. The wording was somewhat different undoubtedly from the wording of the tea duty clause; but it would be seen that that was necessary because it had to repeal a certain existing law, or part of the law. He would be very glad indeed if anyone could suggest any other means by which they could change the sugar duty from being a permanent duty to one to be imposed each succeeding year. He had supported the right hon. Gentleman's Budget on many points. He felt the propriety of supporting the Government Budget proposals on their vital points, because the Government were doing so well as they were doing; but he sincerely loped that they would not oppose an

  709
  Amendment which was fair and which would not entangle the Government in their financial proposals in the least.
  MR, BOWLESthought the Committee generally must have shared the surprise of the hon. Member for Sunderland at the really extraordinary character of the reply given by the Secretary to the Treasury. That hon. Gentleman, so far as he understood him, had given two reasons why he could not accept the Amendment. It appeared to him that those reasons had nothing in the world to do with the Amendment. First of all, the hon. Gentleman said that if the Committee adopted this Amendment it would disclose to the whole world the intentions of the Government in regard to the sugar duty next year; but the hon. Gentleman had not told the Committee how they would be disclosed. All that the Amendment did was to make the sugar duty temporary instead of permanent—that it should last only until 1st July 1909, at which date Parliament might have an opportunity which it would not otherwise have of reconsidering the matter. Then the hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment would affect the imports of sugar. He did not see how the hon. Gentleman could seriously suggest that either of these consequences could follow.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Most seriously.
  MR. BOWLEShoped that someone on the Treasury Bench would explain how if this duty only remained in force until 1st July, 1909, it would have any effect whatever on the action of sugar importers. He thought the hon. Member for Preston had rendered a real service in making the suggestion he had done. As the Committee were aware, an enormous proportion of the whole tax revenues of the country was raised automatically every year without any necessity of the intervention or knowledge of the House of Commons. They heard a great deal about Parliamentary control, but there was something like 70 per cent, of the tax revenues raised year by year which no Parliament in our time had sanctioned. That was done under permanent enactment. In the interests
  710
  of the House he really desired to see that practice done away with. The proposal of the hon. Member for Preston involved no diminution in the amount of money provided for by the Government. It would merely enact that on 1st July, 1909, the House would have necessarily the opportunity of considering the sugar duty again, instead of relegating it to the reconsideration, of the Government of the day. He maintained that the Amendment was entirely reasonable, and, in his humble opinion, the Government would be very well advised to accept it.
  *MR. GRETTONsaid that there were very serious difficulties in raising discussions on this tax as now imposed on account of the forms of procedure in the House. The Secretary to the Treasury had said that the adoption of the Amendment would produce a sugar famine; but he thought that was perfectly absurd. The well known position which the Government would be in in the next financial year would make it far more probable that the importers of sugar would rather rush to get rid of their stocks than to hold them up. He supported the Amendment because he believed that every tax imposed on the people of the country ought to be under the full control of Parliament.
  SIR EDWIN CORNWALLthought the Amendment would have exactly the effect his hon. friend had stated. If hon. Members looked at the words of the Amendment they would see that that was so—
  "When all duties … shall cease."
  If those words were put into an Act of Parliament, he did not think the Government would possess so free a hand as now.
  SIR F. BANBURYwished to support the Government, but not on the grounds stated by the hon. Member for Sunderland or the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member for Sunderland agreed with the Amendment, but was going to vote against it because the Government had done so well. In his own opinion, the Government could not have done worse, and he proposed to vote for the Government because they had done so

  711
  badly. The Financial Secretary opposed the Amendment on the worst ground that had ever been advanced in the House, either from the Treasury or any other Bench. He admitted it would not interfere in any way with the Budget I but advanced the startling proposition that importers of sugar would hold back their stocks for a year in order to see what the Government were going to do next year.
  MR. HOBHOUSEdenied saying anything so ridiculous. What he said was the sugar would be held back until there was a sugar famine.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked why should people hold back sugar for any time because something was going to happen next year. Why did not the tea dealers hold back tea? The Amendment put sugar in exactly the same position as tea. That was to say the Government in 1909 could review the sugar duty without falling into any of the pit-falls the hon. Gentleman had alluded to. The hon. Gentleman's argument originally did not touch the point, and his statement just now took away any force it previously had. He supported the Government because he wished to be consistent. He believed he was one of those who in 1901 voted for making this tax permanent, and having heard no reason from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which led him to alter his opinion he should support the Government in this good work.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid the Liberal Party had for many years past been advocating a free breakfast table, and therefore he much regretted that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should have intimated so early in the debate that the Government, would not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for the City of London had been consistent, and having voted for making this tax permanent now supported the Government; but he would like to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury consistent too; as in 1901 the hon. Gentleman voted for its being made a temporary tax. It would have been so simple to have put on record that they
  712
  looked upon this tax as of a merely temporary character.
  MR. A. DEWARexpressed the conviction that they all, including the Treasury Bench, desired that the sugar tax should be only temporary, but when the hon. Member for Preston moved an Amendment and the hon. Members opposite congratulated him on having done a public service, and the hon. Member for London supported the Government, he was inclined to be suspicious. What his hon. friend the Member for Preston desired to do was to tie the hands of the Government so that next year they should not have a free choice in regard to the tax. The Government desired to make this a temporary tax, and to abolish it as soon as possible, but they wished to have a free hand in the matter. Having regard to the old-age pensions scheme it was thought better to leave the tax on this year, though next year they hoped it would be off If his hon. friend could not trust the Government he could.
  MR. GUINNESSproposed to amend the Amendment by leaving out all the words after "1909." He thought there was a good deal in the argument of the Financial Secretary that it would cause delay if this tax was going to be taken off finally and completely. If these words were left out it would ensure that the House would have the opportunity of considering the matter on its merits next year. Unless the first part of the Amendment were accepted it would be impossible to consider the matter next year. Most of them on the Opposition side were anxious to see the sugar duty abolished altogether. But that could not be done under the present system of taxation.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he only put the words in to make his meaning clear, and if the Deputy-Chairman would tell him if the Amendment was clear without them, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he could not make any statement on the merits of the Amendment. He could only say it was quite in order to amend the

  713
  Amendment by leaving out the words proposed to be left out. The hon. Member must satisfy himself of the effect of the proposed Amendment to his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'nine,'"—(Mr. Guinness.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. STUARTsaid he was very much afraid the effect of the Amendment would be that if no action were taken next year, the tax would go on as before. He did not think that that was what the Committee for a moment desired. He did not wish to prejudge the question at all; he simply wanted to see the tax made an annual tax instead of a permanent one. It seemed to him that the justification of the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury was that he really believed the Amendment would tie the hands of the Government absolutely and require them to undertake to abolish the tax next year. That was not the case at all and he felt there was some misunderstanding on his part. It might be well if they asked some more experienced Member of the Government to consider between now and the Report stage, how the tax could be simply made an annual one. There was a feeling on the part of some Members of the Committee that the words proposed by the hon. Member for Preston would in some way tie the hands of the Government. If that were so, surely some Amendment could be made to carry out the views of the hon. Member without tying the hands of the Government. The matter might be held over till the Report stage when the Government might bring in some phraseology to make the tax an annual one without tying their hands. He did not believe the Amendment to the Amendment would make matters any better.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he desired to point out that the Amendment would have the effect desired. It would make the clause read: "The
  714
  duties, drawbacks, and allowance in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin set out in the schedule to this Act shall, as from the 18th day of May, 1908, until the first day of July, 1909,when all duties upon sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin, upon the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland, shall cease, etc." Everything, therefore, was included and would come under review on 1st July, 1909.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that by the acceptance of the Amendment to the Amendment they would place themselves in the very undesirable position of reestablishing the duty as it existed at the present time. He was quite certain that none of his hon. friends desired that, but it would be the inevitable result of the acceptance of the Amendment to the Amendment.
  MR. HAROLD COXsuggested that, instead of the proposal of the hon. Member opposite, they should add at the end of his Amendment the words "unless Parliament otherwise determines." That would make it clear that it was the wish of the House to leave it open till next year.
  MR. GUINNESSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "At the end, to add the words 'unless Parliament otherwise determine.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  Question, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought that if the Government would accept these words it would get them out of the difficulty. He had consistently supported the idea that the tax should be temporary and that it should be possible for the House of Commons year after year to go into the question as to whether it should be continued or not. The tax was made a. permanent one in 1901, and there was no doubt that that was a

  715
  very objectionable thing to do. It was a tax upon food, and it was imposed for the specific purpose of the war. There were no grounds which at that time justified its being made a permanent tax. He was not a Member of the House at the time, but he remembered reading how for a whole night the members of the present Government, unanimously supported by the then Opposition, protested against the tax being made a permanent one and thus taken from the yearly review of Parliament. It was now fairly agreed that the Amendment in its altered form would make it clear that the tax was temporary and was one which the Government of the day could put into the Finance Bill and continue, but which the House of Commons would have a right to consider and discuss. That was all they asked; why could not the Government agree? The Secretary to the Treasury had told them that if they made the tax capable of being yearly reviewed, they would bring about a very objectionable state of things in the market; but it would, at any rate, be no worse than the state of things which existed in the tea market. If it was desirable that the tea duty should be annually reviewed, why should not the sugar duty be treated exactly in the same manner? It had been made clear that the Amendment simply intended to put the sugar duty on the same footing as the tea duty. He hoped the Government would admit that taxes on food were not things which should be permanent, and that they would accept the Amendment.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid the Secretary to the Treasury had surely seen by this time that the solitary argument which he had advanced against the proposal of the hon. Member for Preston had scarcely that force which they expected arguments from the Treasury Bench to have. He honestly confessed that until the hon. Member moved the addition of the words "unless Parliament otherwise determine" he could not have voted for the Amendment; but surely, now those words were to be added, the principle so dear to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Parliament should have the opportunity of reviewing
  716
  the taxes yearly, must come home to them. Where could be the danger of an annual revision of the sugar duty the same as the tea duty? The Secretary to the Treasury must by this time have seen the absolute fallacy of the single argument he had advanced against a proposition which really embodied one of the doctrines of the Liberal Party, and which must find acceptance by Liberal Members, who wished that Parliament, the mirror of the nation, should have controlling power over taxes of all description. He could not see that an annual review of the sugar duty could be any more detriment to the Government than the yearly review of the tea duty.
  Question proposed, "That the words as amended be there inserted."
  MR. SCOTTsaid he wished to support the Amendment. He gathered that members of the Government had pledged themselves repeatedly with regard to the sugar tax, and that they had made stronger prouncements against that tax than against the tea tax. They now argued that Parliament must not be trusted to debate the sugar tax. That was a position which they could not altogether defend. The House would never deny to the Government its support if a tax on sugar was essential, and surely the Government ought not to say that they could not trust Parliament to discuss it every time the Budget came up, and that therefore they must depart from the strong views they held in 1901. It had been suggested that this could be altered on Report, but it was not likely that they would have a Report stage. He appealed to the representative of the Government whether he, could not meet the strong desire expressed by many of their supporters that this should be made an annual and not a permanent tax.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he could understand that if there was in practice any difficulty in discussing the question of the continuance or the abolition of the sugar tax it would be very undesirable

  717
  and most unconstitutional to restrict the power of the House of Commons to debate it. But was there in practice any difficulty in doing this? They had always discussed the continuance or abolition of every tax imposed by the Finance Bill, and there was very nearly no restriction at all on the freedom of debate. The hon. Member for Preston had rather taunted certain members of the Government with having voted for the tax, in its original inception, being an annual tax and now continuing it as a permanent tax. If there was any inconsistency in that, position he was quite willing to admit it, but there was a difference in saying when a tax was imposed for the first time, that it was much better that it should be an annual tax, and when they found it a permanent tax continuing it as such while the House had liberty to discuss it as it had done each year since the present Government had been in office. He therefore could not accept the Amendment even as amended.
  MR. HAROLD COXpointed out that there was a very great difference between a clause appearing in the Bill year after year and the necessity of moving a new clause. He raised the question last year, and lived very great difficulty in raising it because he had to wait till the Report
  stage to move a new clause. The opportunity did not arise in Committee. If the clause was in the Bill they could automatically deal with it in Committee and it had to come before the House. This was not such a light matter as the hon. Member seemed to think. The whole Liberal Party was in the position of saying they were opposed to the sugar tax when asked for as a war tax. Now they were asked to keep it on as a permanent tax. Every Member who voted with the Government was voting for making the sugar tax permanent, and he wondered how they would reconcile that with what they had said to the country.
  MR. HARWOODas one who had voted with the Government when the matter was raised before, said he should like to have some better explanation of what was the difference between sugar and tea. Why should sugar be treated differently from tea? Why should one be temporary and the other permanent? He would like to have some explanation; otherwise, he must vote against the Government, and he did not want to do so.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 191.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N.E.)

  Crooks, William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Barnes, G. N.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duncan, C(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Faber, George Dension (York)

  Joyce, Michael

  Boland, John

  Fell, Arthur

  Kelley, George D.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gill, A. H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Glover, Thomas

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Cave, George

  Gretton, John

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Harwood, George

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Clough, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  M'Killop, W.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hills, J. W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hodge, John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Crean, Eugene

  Hogan, Michael

  Mooney, J. J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stanier, Beville

  Nield, Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Renton, Leslie

  Summerbell, T.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Malley, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Harold Cox and Mr. Scott.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Snowden, P.

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Duckworth, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Alden, Percy

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Armitage, R.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Astbury, John Meir

  Essex, R. W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Barker, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maclean Donald

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Callum John M.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Beale, W. P.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bell, Richard

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Massie, J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gulland, John W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Menzies, Walter

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Halpin, J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Branch, James

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mond, A.

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Bright, J. A.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brodie, H. C.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Brooks, Stopford

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cameron, Robert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Partington, Oswald

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Radford, C. H.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Johsnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E,

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell(Bristol, S.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  720

  721

  Robinson, S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Russell, T. W.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Williamson, A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Toulmin, George

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Seely, Colonel

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wood, T. McKinnon

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walton, Joseph

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  MR. MCARTHUR MR. MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Kirkdale) moved to amend the clause so as to provide for the grant of a rebate on foreign-refined sugar stocks held on 18th May, the day on which the Budget Resolution came into force. He was understood to say that on that day the considerable stocks in possession of importers were depreciated to the extent of the reduction of duty, and they had thereby suffered serious pecuniary loss. That sugar had been bought in the ordinary course of trade. [Interruption.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
  MR. McARTHUR,continuing, said those stocks had depreciated to the extent of the reduction of the duty. The Committee would quite understand how that came about. [More interruption.]
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his hon. friend was raising a most important matter touching the interests of a large trading community, and it was impossible, owing to the state of disorder prevailing in the House, for the hon. Member to make himself heard.
  MR. MCARTHUR,resuming, said it was a great injustice to those men to have to suffer such a great pecuniary loss, more especially because it was a loss which they did everything in their power to avoid. They wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointing
  722
  out this very danger. They told the right hon. Gentleman that they had heard a report that he was going to reduce the sugar duty, and they asked him if that was his intention to remember their stocks, pointing out that if he did not allow them a rebate they would be great sufferers. The right hon. Gentleman made a guarded reply to those representations, in which he said that their interests should have careful attention, and upon that assurance they had relied. They might have been protected from loss in two ways: either the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have given them sufficient time to dispose of their stocks, or he might have allowed them a rebate. As a matter of fact, he only gave them eleven days to dispose of their stocks, and as two of those days were Sundays the period allowed was practically reduced to nine days, which was quite an insufficient time. If the right hon. Gentleman could afford to take off part of the sugar duty, surely he could afford this small amount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had all along. under-estimated the amount required for the purpose of rebate; he had put it down at £11,000, the members of the trade, themselves had made careful inquiry and they found that it amounted to no less than £38,399. What happened in connection with the Finance Act of 1903 was a parallel case. At that time the late Lord Ritchie, then Mr. Ritchie, proposed to abolish the duty on corn, and to make a reduction on glucose, and he made provision that all those who had stocks on hand should have

  723
  a rebate equal to the difference in the duty. He could not understand why that precedent should not be followed on the present occasion. In 1903 there was no party against it; on the contrary the Party opposite supported it and tried to widen it. Why the Government had adopted a different course now it was difficult to understand. He entirely acquitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer personally of any want of consideration, for he would be the last man to be wanting in consideration, but he could only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was driven by circumstances over which he had no control to take the course he had taken. He hoped that even at the last moment he would reconsider the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman could not undertake to do so, he must appeal to the Committee to consider the case of the people for whom he pleaded. They were not wealthy people, and he did not suppose that they commanded many votes, but he did not see why they should suffer to the extent of £2,000 or £3,000 each through no fault of their own, and simply because the Exchequer had failed to make arrangements which would have obviated this loss. He asked that they should be placed in such a position that this remission of taxation should not be the means of throwing a loss on innocent persons. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 7, at end, to insert the words 'and the reduction shall be deemed to have taken effect as respects the duty which has been paid by any person on any sugar molasses, glucose, or saccharin which was in his stock or possession at the close of the eighteenth of May, nineteen hundred and eight, 'provided that the excess duty paid thereon by such person amount in the aggregate to a sum not less than twenty-five pounds.'"—(Mr. McArthur.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not complain that the hon. Member had raised the question, but he thought he was entitled to point out that they had already had several debates on this identical point on the Budget. The hon. Member, representing, as he did, a considerable num-
  724
  ber of gentlemen in Liverpool who were interested, no doubt, thought that he was bound to make a final protest, and he merely mentioned the matter, not in order to complain, but as an excuse for not going into it himself as fully as he had done on former occasions, when both he and the Prime Minister gave very fully the reasons which prompted the Government to refuse a rebate. There had been several reductions of the sugar duty from time to time, and in no case was a rebate granted. These reductions had been made by Chancellors of the Exchequer belonging to both parties. Mr. Gladstone on three occasions reduced the sugar duties, and never gave a general rebate. He gave short notice exactly as the Government had done on the present occasion. Sir Stafford Northcote did the same thing, and he gave no rebate. The hon. Member had referred to the case of the corn duties, but that was very different. Corn was the principal food of the people, and there was a real danger—indeed, as a matter of fact, corn was being held back for the time that the duty would be taken off—them was a real danger that there would be a scarcity of corn unless arrangments had been made by the Treasury to grant a rebate in order to bring corn into the market at once. That was not done in order to meet pecuniary losses to dealers in corn, but purely in order to meet the general convenience of the public. But there was no danger of that kind in this case, and there had been no real inconvenience. He admitted there must have been some loss to individuals, but, comparatively speaking, it was a small loss. Meantime, speaking of the trade as a whole, they had done very well by the imposition and reduction of the sugar tax. It was true that many individuals had come into the trade since the imposition of the tax, and did not derive any advantage when the tax was put on, but in the main the firms were the same. It was not so many years since the tax was imposed, and the loss, if it were divided among those who had come in since, would not be a very heavy loss, and certainly was not to be compared with the money that was made when the tax was imposed by Lord St. Aldwyn. Then the dealers took very good care to stock their warehouses with about three or four months stocks, while the usual stock was

  725
  from a fortnight to three weeks, and all three or four months' stock was put upon the market, not at the price at which it would have been sold but for the duty, but at the price plus the duty which had been imposed. All the great dealers were in the business when the tax was imposed, and if the balance of profit and loss were struck it would be found to be enormously to their advantage. The reduction of the duty was such an advantage to the trade as a whole that the comparatively small loss they suffered in respect of the fortnight or three-weeks stock they had in hand was a mere nothing compared with the benefits they had got. A member of the deputation who had waited upon him told him that the duty had cost him a considerable sum par annum which he could not put off on his customers. He saw no real reason for depriving the revenue of the year of som thing like £200,000.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: £40,000.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was sorry to say that that was not the case. If it had been merely a matter of £40,000 it would not have been worth quarrelling about. Unfortunately, it was a good deal more. There were other sections of the trade which would come forward and say: "If you have granted a rebate to the saccharin and glucose people, why have you not given it to us?" And if they granted it to one, they could not possibly refuse it to another. He had got to deal with all those who were interested in some way or other in the reduction of the sugar duty, and in order to meet the demands of all
  those cases he should at least have to find £150,000 to £200,000. He did not think he was justified in doing it, having regard to the fact that this was a reduction and not an increase. Since they were really by this Budget enormously benefiting the trade itself, they ought to take the profit and the loss, seeing especially that the profit was very much larger than the loss.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid In desired, on behalf of a small body of who had been made to suffer in their pockets, to support the Amendment. He had made the most careful inquiry into the amount of stocks held, and he believed that the amount of loss to the Exchequer would not exceed more than £40,000.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: For their own particular business.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the amount involved in the words of the Amendment before the Committee did not exceed £40,000. The point was considered very carefully in connection with the corn duty, when the House of Commons declined to inflict hardship on a few men in the trade. It was on behalf of the few individuals who had been obliged to carry stock for the purposes of their business that they urged that this small sum should be made good to them.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 53; Noes, 272. (Division List No. 192.)

  AYES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Coates, Major E. F.(Lewisham)

  Gretton, John

  Anbrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm'gham)

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Doughty, Sir George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Faber. George Dension (York)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

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

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Forster, Henry William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Nield, Herbert

  Rutherford, W.W.(Liverpool)

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Younger, George

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stanier, Beville

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Harmood- Banner.

  Renton, Leslie

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Sir W. Howell(Bristol, S.

  Joyce, Michael

  Astbury, John Meir

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Barker, John

  Duckworth, James

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamont, Norman

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Bell, Richard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bethell, T. R.(Essex, Maldon)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lynch, H. B.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Bowerman, C W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Branch, James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Brigg, John

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis

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

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Halpin, J.

  M'Killop, W.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Massie, J.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Menzies, Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Middlebrook, William

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molteno, Perry Alport

  Clough, William

  Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W

  Mond, A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Mooney, J. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

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

  Hodge, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Morse, L. L.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Napier, T. B.

  Cory, Sir Cifford John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cox, Harold

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Craik, Sir Henry.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Crean, Eugene

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

  728

  729

  O'Grady, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Malley. William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P.J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Partington, Oswald

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wardle, George J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sears, J. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitbread, Howard

  Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, F.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Radford, G. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Snowden, P.

  Williamson, A.

  Rendail, Athelstan

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strache, Sir Edward

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, P.W.(St. Pancras, S.)

  Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Summerbell, T.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Toulmin, George

  Bill read a third time, and passed.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he presumed that the Government had reduced this duty from ½d. to a ¼d. in the interest of the poor consumer of this country, but it was a moot point as to whether it would be of any benefit to them. When the hon. Member for Preston moved a similar reduction last year, he remembered it was opposed by the Government. The hon. Member then urged that, although this reduction might not at once benefit the consumer of sugar, it must do so ultimately. That view was quoted by the Prime Minister, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman supported it in a rather negative fashion because he declined to accept the Amendment. He argued that sooner or later the small reduction on the sugar duty might get down to the consumer, but that the process would be so slow that the ultimate benefit to the consumer would only be reached after a considerable time. He then went on to argue that a very small reduction of the sugar duty would benefit some of the powerful interests which had been
  730
  raising considerable agitation to get it reduced or abolished altogether. He also pointed out that the people who would really benefit would be principally the manufacturers of mineral waters and confectioners. The intention of the Government, in moving the reduction of the duty, was to pacify some of their most hearty supporters who last year were placed in a somewhat awkward position. The first year the present Government came in to power they moved a reduction of 1d. in the pound on tea, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that that reduction would benefit the consumer. When a further reduction of 1d. was moved the next year, the right hon. Gentleman felt quite satisfied that it would not give any material advantage. It was rather hard to reconcile the two attitudes of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Hicks Beach) ventured to submit to the Committee that the reduction of the sugar duty by one-half would benefit manufacturers of mineral waters and confectioners much more than the humble consumer in the country or big towns. The reduction meant that the duty per lb. instead of being ½d. would be about ¼d. It was very doubtful

  731
  whether the purchaser of a pound of sugar would get the full benefit of the reduction or any benefit at all. It was quite obvious that the person, who purchased less than a pound would get no benefit at all. He wished now to draw the attention of the Committee to another aspect of the question. When the Government first proposed the reduction, they estimated for an expenditure in the current year on old-age pensions of £1,200,000, the Prime Minister informing them that the scheme would cost about £6,000,000 the first full year, but in the course of the debates on the Bill, the Estimate of the cost in the first full year had risen first to £6,500,000 and finally to between £7,500,000 and £8,000,000. Furthermore, by a curious piece of legislation, they were legislating, not only for this year and next year, but for their possible successors in 1910, and the country would then have to face an expenditure on old-age pensions of between £10,000.000 and £11,000,000. The passage of the Old-Age Pensions Bill, therefore, had put a very different complexion upon the financial affairs of the country. If it-was clear that the cost of the estimated scheme in 1909–1910 had risen from £6,000,000 to £7,500,000 or £8,000,000, it was, he thought, also obvious that the provision of £1,200,000. which the Government had made for this year, would be quite inadequate. It was, therefore, plain that the Government would have to find before the end of the current year more money for the Old-Age Pensions Bill than they were; prepared to find when they introduced the Budget. They had had a most disquieting statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Addressing the Corporation of the City of London at a banquet about a week ago, he announced that he had to face a "stunning deficit, a falling revenue and a declining trade," in the current year. That was a most remarkable statement for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have made. If he remembered rightly, the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman in the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill, were careful to explain that although the prospects of increased trade during the current year were not very bright, yet they felt confident that the general
  732
  trade of the country had passed through its most acute period of depression, and that they might therefore hope for a happy fulfilment of their Budget expectations. It was carious how quickly the opinions of the present Government changed. They had heard that the provisions the right hon. Gentleman had made in the Budget were not likely to he fulfilled and we were this year likely to be faced with a "stunning deficit." He therefore suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he was not doing right in reducing the sugar duty by half. It was obvious that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought out the means by which he was going to provide money next year to carry out the old-age pensions scheme, because he had said recently he would have to rob someone's hen-roost, but he was not yet certain whose. The Government had left the Committee in a state of grievous uncertainty, and when they framed the Budget had obviously not the slightest idea where they were going to get the money from for old-age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman knew that his old-age pensions scheme would cost him £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 more than he anticipated, and knew he would have to rob a hen-roost next year to pay for it, and therefore he ought not to make a bid for the popular vote by reducing the sugar duty in this way. The reduction could only benefit the confectioners and the mineral water manufacturers and would not benefit the consumer in any way whatever. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman should not reduce the sugar duty until he saw in what state the country was at the beginning of next year. The Government, by reducing the sugar duty this year, were making a mistake which the right hon. Gentleman would seriously repent when he had to produce his Budget in the coming year. He might be told that the omission of this Cause would entirely upset the Budget and the sugar trade throughout the country, because the reduction came into force on 18th May, so that it had been in force for some two months: but that was no argument at all. The House had a right to complain of the way in which they had been treated with regard to this Budget. It. was now the 14th July, and this was the first opportunity they had had of

  733
  discussing its individual provisions in Committee. It was the latest date upon which a Budget had ever been discussed in Committee for many years past. He entered his protest against such a proceeding on the part of a Liberal Government, who spoke so loudly at the general election of the care that ought to be taken in examining the Estimates and making provision for the payment. He protested against the discussion on the Estimates being so long delayed in Committee. He opposed the Clause.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that during the discussion connected with the old-age pensions scheme he had more than once supported the extension of the proposals of the Government. When challenged by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to how he would meet the deficit which those proposals would create he had pointed out that the Government had it in their power to extinguish the deficit by retaining in their hands the fiscal facilities they possessed and refusing to reduce the sugar duties. He retained that view. In fact his view went a little beyond that. In view of the great obligations which the Government were incurring it was reckless and dangerous finance to surrender any portion of the present revenue. But if it was wise and the Government thought it wise to count on undisclosed resources in order to provide the revenue required under these proposals, sooner than remit this particular tax they should have amplified their resources by retaining the duty on sugar and made their proposals less unequal, less partial, less unjust, and unfair than they were at present. Upon this question he should adhere to the course which he had already announced he would take. He thought this Bill was inherently bad, and it was not possible to deal with it by detailed Amendments in Committee. What they required was not a change here and there, but an alternative scheme, complete and homogeneous, dealing with the whole financial situation. Under those circumstances, although he sympathised with the views of his hon. friend who opposed the clause, and although he was greatly tempted in the interests of national finance to vote with him in order to preserve their sources of revenue to meet their great and growing liabilities, he should pursue the same course and
  734
  leave to the Government the whole responsibility for the financial situation which they were creating. As he had refrained from voting for reductions which under other circumstances and with a different Budget he should have gladly supported, so he should refrain from rating for the retention of a tax which he relieved was absolutely necessary on a broader system of national finance.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the clause was being opposed in order to protest against a reduction of the sugar duty. The Government had already been pressed from all quarters of the House to abolish the sugar duty altogether. He did not think at the present moment that any good purpose would be served by going into the question of the sugar duty at any great length, because they had already had two or three debates in which the matter had been thoroughly discussed. He thought the Government were thoroughly justified in their action to this reason. Sugar was not merely a food, but the raw material of several very prosperous industries which provided considerable employment for a large number of people, and when a considerable tax was imposed on sugar it must necessarily impair, embarrass, and restrict the operations of those particular industries. To that extent, the Government, by reducing by more than half the tax upon sugar, must encourage and assist those industries. He should have thought that they would have commanded the blessing of the right hon. Gentleman in this attempt to assist British industries. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt at some length with some remarks which he made in the City, and stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the bankers that trade was worse than last year, that the revenue was falling, and that he should have a considerable deficit to meet this year. He simply stated on that occasion three undeniable facts. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he objected to the reduction of this duty because it would not benefit the consumer. That was not the view of the consumer himself nor of those who do lit with the consumer. The Civil Service Supply Association had published an announcement in a special document

  735
  in the following terms: "Sugar. Alteration in duty. Reduced prices." That was the view of those who dealt directly with the consumer. Sugar was used largely by the working classes, and they must be benefited because there had been a reduction in the price, and the right hon. Gentleman could find that out for himself if he inquired from his grocer. He did not think any good object could be served by denying that fact. He agreed that if they had simply split the duty by one-half the consumer would not have benefited so much and the reduction might have gone into the pockets of the dealers, but it was a reduction of over one-half, and so it went largely into the pockets of the consumer. They had reduced the taxation on an article which was consumed in the poorest households in the country, which was a necessity of life, and the taxation of which bore rather heavily upon the poorest part of the population. They had reduced taxation upon an article which was a raw material in a number of industries in this country, and which provided excellent employment for scores of thousands of people. He was inclined to think that some of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would benefit by this reduction, but he knew that all over the country there were industries which would benefit, and it would tend to give employment to British labour. For those reasons he thought the Government were justified in making the reduction.
  *MR. SNOWDENsaid he had an Amendment down on the Paper for the rejection of this clause. He should not, however, in view of the terms of the hon. Member's Motion, be able to follow him into the division lobby. The reasons why he had put down his Amendment were those which he had given that afternoon against indirect taxation. He was anxious that something should be done to lessen the very unfair burden of taxation which rested upon the poorest part of the population, and in support of that argument he would like to quote from an authority familiar to hon. Members opposite—he referred to the very useful handbook compiled for the use of Liberal platform men, by the right hon. Gentleman who now
  736
  occupied the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland—
  "In his 1901 Budget speech Sir M. Hicks-Beach stated that the average consumption of sugar is 56 lb. per head per annum. In a labourer's family the consumption of sugar is a pound a head per week. In a family of six persons a tax of ½d. a pound means an increased weekly expenditure on sugar alone of 3d. a week. The extra cost of jam and other food, of which sugar is a large constituent part, almost certainly raises this extra burden of taxation to 4½d. per week. A tax of 4½d. a week is very little to a rich man; it is very much to a man earning 15s. a week, and there are tens of thousands of families in Great Britain and Ireland where the weekly earnings are even below this figure. It is true that an agricultural labourer pays no income-tax, but nearly half the national revenue from taxation is provided by the taxes which the working classes already pay on tea, coffee, cocoa, dried fruits, beer, spirits, and tobacco. On 15s. a week a tax of 4½d. is the equivalent of an income-tax of 6d. in the £."
  Under the Bill now before the Committee the sugar tax was to be reduced by a half, but there still remained a tax of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 a year. That worked out at 1s. 7d. per head of the population. That meant about 7s. 6d. a year for sugar tax per family. But that did not represent the whole amount taken out of the pockets of the consumers, for there was no allowance made for the trade profits on the tax. The Prime Minister eighteen months ago gave a reason for maintaining the sugar duty which, to his mind, was the most astounding ever put forward; he said that the tax was very remunerative as; it brought in £6,000,000 a year. That was the best reason the right hon. Gentleman could give for its retention. Surely that was an argument which would support the most nefarious taxation ever put on What was wanted was that the righteousness of a tax should be justified, and neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to justify the retention of the tax on its merits. He could quote dozens of statements by the Prime Minister on this point, but he would only give one. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the sugar tax, said:—
  "The tax is vicious in principle, it is burdensome in its incidence, unequal in its operation as between classes and interests."

  737
  The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that in his speech on the reduction of the tea duty he had not suggested some compensating source of revenue. He was under the impression that he would not be in order in making such a proposal. A penny in the £ on the income-tax would bring in nearly all the loss which would accrue from the loss of the sugar duty, and at present the people who paid income tax could afford it far better than those who had to pay the sugar duty. It had been said that sugar was not only a necessary of life, but the raw material of a great industry. The consumer was not going to gain in the purchase of the products of that industry, such as jam and sweets, by the reduction which the Government had made. There would be no reduction in the price, but the reduction might benefit the trade. He was not there particularly to champion the trade, but if it was going to benefit the trade, it might also benefit the workpeople who were engaged in it. When the sugar tax was imposed six or seven years ago a striking case came under his own observation. A skilled workman in a confectionery establishment before the imposition of the tax had an average income of £3 a week, but after the tax was imposed he could not earn more than 30s. a week. He had no doubt that that case was typical of a considerable number. Therefore, if the half reduction which the Government now proposed affected the trade to that extent, he welcomed it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had opposed the suggested repeal of the sugar tax on the ground that next year the Government would require all the revenue they could get to meet their liabilities. He himself wanted the repeal of the sugar tax, because he did not want the Government to get it for the purpose of financing their old-age pension scheme. He objected to people being kept in poverty for fifty years in order to provide money for a scheme of which only a small proportion would derive the benefit. He and his friends wanted the money to be raised, not by taxes on the necessaries of life, but by taxes on those who would. never feel the additional taxation placed on them. Owing to the form in which this Amendment had been moved it
  738
  would be impossible for him to support it.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND moved to reduce the duty on tobacco, unmanufactured, grown in Ireland, and containing 10 per cent, or more of moisture, from 2s. 10d. to 2s. 8d. He felt bound to raise this question, because he had been asked to do so by the tobacco-growers of Ireland. He acknowledged the sympathetic way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already dealt with the subject, for there was no doubt that he had gone some way towards meeting their demand. They were very much obliged to him for that. He wished to point out that the Treasury allowance of 2d. on Irish-grown tobacco which had been made was not really an adequate allowance. He hoped his Amendment would be accepted, for while it would only involve a small matter to the revenue in regard to money, it would be a great benefit to the tobacco-growers. He quite admitted what the right hon. Gentleman had done for them, and they were very grateful for it; but he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not possibly extend this rebate.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 26, to leave out the words 2s. 10d.,' and insert the words '2s. 8d.'"— (Mr. William Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the word '10' stand part of the clause."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had gone a very long way to meet the case presented to him with so much skill, and he thought the hon. Member ought to be satisfied. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was sure that when he explained the reasons for his next Amendment he would get some sympathy in the House.

  739
  The fact was that more than ten years ago he introduced a Bill for the purpose of repealing the law which prohibited tobacco-growing in Ireland. Everyone knew how heart-breaking it was to have a measure in which he was interested opposed year after year, no matter how late he lay in wait at all hours of the night to get it slipped through. At the end of those ten years he had his Bill passed unanimously by the House, and he had gone to the House of Lords to see the Royal Assent given to his little Act. He was delighted to find that the object of that Act was embodied almost word for word in the Finance Bill they were now discussing. He had read it with the greatest possible pleasure—even with exultation,—until he came to the words which repealed "The Irish Tobacco Act, 1907." So that his little Act had hardly breathed, its lungs had hardly been inflated when it was put out of existence! It was a great honour to have it embodied in the Finance Bill; it was a poor thing, but his own; why kill it? Nobody could expect him to sit silent and allow his Act to be repealed; it was the most painful thing that had happened to him since 1885, when he found it necessary to vote for the extinction of his own constituency, the borough of Wexford. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to meet him when he moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 23, to leave out the words 'and the Irish Tobacco Act, 1907.' "—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he quite appreciated the parental pride and anxiety which the hon. Member had felt about his Act, and the very pathetic appeal with he had made. He would assure the hon. Gentleman that this was not a case of infanticide on his part. The child wan not destroyed, but simply translated into a more exalted and more permanent sphere by being embalmed in the Budget of the year. He would be very happy to respond to
  740
  the hon. Gentleman's appeal by having something put in on the margin about bringing into force and re-enacting the Irish Tobacco Act of 1907. He hoped that would meet the hon. Gentleman's views.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that, as a matter of fact, he could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was perfectly clear that tobacco-growing in Ireland would not be arrested, even if this Act were repealed. As he understood the matter, before that Act was passed there was a prohibition of tobacco-growing in Ireland. His friend's Act repealed the prohibition and this Clause in the Finance Bill now proposed to repeal the Act which repealed the prohibition.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would read subsection (3) he would find that it contained all that his Act prrovided for. If that was not the case he should have a lot more to say.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought subsection (4) covered the case.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that before the matter was departed from he thought he ought in common justice to say that every Chancellor of the Exchequer before whom he had brought the matter, including the present Prime Minister and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given encouragement and support to the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he must in fairness acknowledge, met them very favourably.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  *MR. SEARS*MR. SEARS (Cheltenham) moved an Amendment providing for the consolidation of the Customs and Excise and

  741
  the Inland Revenue services, which he said would be a measure of real economy and efficiency. He did not think anyone would dispute that there was room for reform, and he would not be exaggerating when he said that reform was more necessary in the Customs than in probably any other branch of the service. He desired that the reform should be in the direction of absorption, rather than of reconstruction, and that the smaller and less efficient Department should be absorbed in the larger and more efficient. The proposal which the Government had brought forward was one which would break up the entire machinery of the Inland Revenue, and it was proposed to construct new machines out of the old parts. Many of these parts would be unfitted for their new positions, and altogether unequal to the new work which they would have to perform. The work of absorption was begun by Mr. Gladstone in 1882. Why should it not be completed on his lines? It would be an infinitely simpler task, and the lines were much sounder than those which were proposed in the present Bill. In the evidence he gave before a Committee of the House in 1888, Mr. Gladstone said he found the traditions of the Board of Customs did not come up to the traditions of Somerset House. The change from the malt duty to the beer duty was promoted by the Board of Inland Revenue. The Board of Customs in dealing with the change in the wine duty never felt they could make any suggestion, and undoubtedly their advice was that they should continue as they were. He was then asked—
  "Then your idea would be that the Customs should be merged with the Inland Revenue Board and not vice versa?"
  And he replied—
  "Undoubtedly; if the amalgamation takes place, I hope to see the Inland Revenue Department continuing to be the dominant element in the compound."
  That was a clear expression of opinion upon the 1dentical situation to that which was now before them. In answer to a question he had been told that the circumstances to-day were not what they were then, but these words of Mr. Glad-
  742
  stone's were just as applicable to the present circumstances as when they were uttered. So far as size and efficiency were concerned, there could be no comparison between the Inland Revenue and the Customs. The organisation of the Inland Revenue was spread over the whole country, whereas the Customs was confined to the seaports. It seemed to him that the only course to follow in any amalgamation, and that which would create the least disturbance, was to complete the work of absorption which Mr. Gladstone began in 1882. Another very important point was that the Excise branch of the Inland Revenue had a thorough acquaintance of the work of the Customs and therefore absorption by that branch would be a very simple matter. Besides the warehouses which were under the control of the Excise, forty-two ware-houses were transferred from the Customs to the Inland Revenue by Mr. Gladstone, effecting a saving at that time of £15,000 a year. The Excise officials therefore understood all the important work of the Customs, but, on the other hand, the Customs officials knew nothing about the distinctive work of the Excise. The work of the Excise was infinitely more varied, intricate, and responsible. It required practical and scientific knowledge which could only be acquired as the result of a life's study in the work of the Department. There was not a single Customs officer who knew anything about this important and intricate work of the Excise, who knew anything about distilleries, breweries, rectifying houses, glucose factories, and methylating premises——
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member there is a rule in this House against the reading of speeches. He seems to me to be reading every word.
  *MR. SEARSsaid he had got extensive notes, but he was certainly not reading his speech. The Customs Board was not only incapable so far as the special work of the Excise was concerned. Its general incapacity was pointed out to the House by Mr. Gladstone. Sir Algernon West, in his "Recollections"

  743
  quoted the opinion of Mr. Gladstone to the following effect:
  "The Customs Board was, and always had been, very behind; he had never had but one suggestion from them in all his long experience, and that was the penny duty on all packages, which he had at once been forced to give up and run away from like a dog with its tail between its legs. He wondered at the cause of the difference in the traditions of the two Departments."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:
  What is the date of that?
  *MR. SEARSsaid it was in 1886. At the time Mr. Gladstone was speaking, all the principal posts in the Inland Revenue were occupied by practical men. The position in the Customs was just the reverse. The Chairman of the Customs then, as now, was not a practical man. The members of the Board had no practical experience of the work, the advisers were in the same position, and the men who occupied the chief outside posts of control were also men without practical training. The other day, in answer to a Question, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had to admit that only one of the Inspectors of Customs was a practical man, and that there were seven clerical inspectors. That was quite sufficient to explain the condition of things of which Mr. Gladstone complained and which existed now. Nearly all the principal posts in the Customs Department were in the hands of men who had had no practical training. That was quite sufficient to explain the unbusinesslike methods which prevailed throughout the Customs Department. He might give some illustrations. Twenty-six years ago the Customs had the centralised system of clearing goods out of warehouse. If a man wanted to clear his goods out of warehouse he had to go through all the formalities of obtaining an order, and then go to the warehouse one to three miles away. Under the Excise system, on the other hand, the trader had only to go direct to the warehouse, and the officer in charge there was armed with full power to clear his goods. There was no needless waste of time and no unnecessary inconvenience or expense. The Customs Board at that time modified its
  744
  method and conformed to the better method of the Excise, but they had now lapsed into their old and wasteful methods of twenty-six years ago. He might point to the numerous and unnecessary staff of the Customs and the duplication of work. The warehouse staff had to make three different returns to three different Departments, viz., the book-keepers at clerical centres, the Accountant Controller-General, and the Statistical Department. On the other hand, the Inland Revenue, although they were doing precisely similar work, made return to only one branch. That was a much more simple, cheap, and efficient process. Were these wasteful methods of the Customs to be the standard methods for the entire service if the Excise was transferred to the Customs Department? Their methods of stocktaking were of the loosest. In 1903 the balance sheet of the warehouse transferred to the Inland Revenue showed stock representing £1,200 of duty, but there was not a single package of goods in the warehouse. A very loose and unsatisfactory condition of things therefore prevailed, and he thought a Board with these unbusinesslike methods was not the Board to take over the large and important duties of the Excise. The proposal, it was said, was brought forward on the personal advice of certain distinguished officials, but no inquiry had been held, and the practical men at the head of the Department had not been consulted. He thought there was other and more important advice which they might take. He had already quoted the opinions of Mr. Gladstone, and there was the opinion expressed by practical men. In the Revenue Review for May there appeared an editorial article written by an able, experienced, and well-informed outdoor official. The writer said—
  "With all due respect to the distinguished officials who have had experience of the inner working of the two offices, we may venture to say that they have evidently not advised Mr. Asquith of the huge difficulties in the way of a complete amalgamation of the two Department, and they can have but a faint conception of the extraordinary ramifications of the Excise Department. Was any practical official of the Excise Department consulted? And by practical official we mean not any ornament of the indoor branch, but a man who has learned his duties in passing through all the grades of the outdoor branch, and in doing so, qualified

  745
  himself to be a real live practical adviser of the Board. Timely consultation with such officials would surely have prevented this catastrophe to the Excise branch of the Inland Revenue, this ill-advised scheme which may, on the face of it, appear to make for economy, but which, when the varied duties now performed by Excise officials are provided for, will scarcely result in such, and will certainly not, so far as the work performed by the Excise Department is concerned, result in greater efficiency."
  He did not wish to trespass on the patience of the Committee, but, on the other hand, he thought he had made out a clear case. Here was a proposal which, according to the opinion of men who had had practical experience of the service—and they were the only practical men, so far as he knew, who had expressed any opinion on the subject; those with knowledge of the Department had not been consulted—was condemned as one which, instead of making for economy and efficiency, was likely to lead to disorganisation of the important Excise service. He could not, therefore, allow this proposal to pass without entering a protest.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 25, to leave out from the word 'transfer,' to end of line 37, and insert the words 'from the Commissioners of Customs to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the management of any Customs duties which are under the management of the Commissioners of Customs at the time the order is made, and to transfer all the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Customs to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. (2) If an order is made under this section such order shall include the amalgamation of the Board of Customs with the Board of Inland Revenue and the disposal of the Customs House in Thames Street.' "—(Mr. Sears.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. HOBHOUSEthought the Committee at this late hour would agree with him that he should not weary them with detail raised by his hon. friend. But he would like to make a very brief but clear statement of the reasons for this alteration. The reasons were practical ones, and were dictated by considerations of economy and efficiency.
  746
  The Committee would remember that the amount of revenue which was raised by the Inland Revenue and Customs jointly came to something like £130,000,000. Up to the present moment the amount of money which had been under the control of the Customs was something like £30,000,000, and that under the Inland Revenue was about £100,000,000. Under the proposed amalgamation the division between the Inland Revenue and the new Board of Customs and Excise would be about £50,000,000, so that the division of money between the two authorities would be about equal. But a much more important division was that of work. Under the new arrangement the Customs and Excise would dial entirely with goods in their collection of revenue, while the Inland Revenue's work would be entirely personal—that was to say, they would deal with the collection of death duties, stamps, etc., whereas the new Board of Customs and Excise would deal entirely with goods which were subject to Customs or Excise duties. At the present moment the duties of the Customs and Excise led them to use bonded warehouses, Customs goods were to be found in Excise warehouses and Excise goods in Customs warehouses. The amalgamation of these two bodies, therefore, would lead to the removal of the present anomalies, and would enable the staff, to be amalgamated, producing economy and despatch of business. He did not think he could go into questions raised by the hon. Gentleman more than to say that the proposed amalgamation so far as he could find was exceedingly popular with the trade. He could quote, if necessary, extracts from trade, journals to say how delighted they were at the proposed alteration, leading, as they thought it would, to the despatch of business and to economy and efficiency which were of the first importance to them. He trusted his explanation would be satisfactory to the Committee.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not intend to raise any large question at that period of the sitting. He thought it was difficult for anyone except a responsible Minister to weigh exactly the balance of advantage but he could quite believe there might be advantages in the course the Government had taken. At any rate, he saw no

  747
  outstanding principle which should prevent such a proposal being accepted, but that question he did not propose to discuss. He rose only to say a sentence which was called for by the speech of the hon. Member for Cheltenham who moved the Amendment. The whole argument of the hon. Member's speech was that the Customs administration was inefficient. So far as he could catch the names of the authorities whom the hon. Gentleman cited they all related to a state of affairs of a generation ago, with which he (Mr. Chamberlain) admitted he was personally unacquainted. But having served in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer he could not allow to pass without contradiction the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the Customs Department was inefficient or was not likely to discharge its duties with satisfaction to the State or to the trade amongst whom they had to exercise many invidious tasks imposed upon them. He did not say a word in detraction of the officers of Inland Revenue. The same thing applied to them and to the Board of Inland Revenue which presided over them. But in his short experience at the Treasury not only as Chancellor of the Exchequer but as Financial Secretary at a time when Lord St. Aldwyn, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was imposing new taxes, he had had some opportunity of seeing the Board of Customs at work, and of seeing the skill, patience, consideration, and adaptability with which they studied the necessities of the Revenue in raising those new taxes, and, at the same time, the convenience of the traders affected by them. He ventured to say that if the hon. Gentleman consulted the great trades affected by the coal tax, the sugar tax, or the corn tax, and asked them to say whether, granted the necessity for the taxes, the Customs put the taxes in force with consideration for the trade and with skill to avoid unnecessary interference with trade, he would get an answer from every competent man most flattering to the Board of Customs. He would not have spoken at all on this subject, as he was content that the Government should meet their criticisms, had it not been for the grounds on which the hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment. Having held offices he had, and having been greatly indebted to a
  748
  past Board of Customs and to the Customs officials of the day, he could not allow the criticism to pass without expressing the indebtedness to them not merely of this House for carrying out its wishes, but of the trade for carrying out those wishes in a manner least irksome to that trade.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he should not like a matter of this sort to pass without calling attention to the fact that the proposed transference would mean a very great inconvenience to Liverpool. At present the collection of Customs in Liverpool amounted to the sum of £7,000,000 a year, and the collection was done in a building most unsuitable for the purpose, being far removed from the centre of commerce, and at great detriment to the trade of the Port. Now to that building, so inconvenient and so unsuitable for the collection of £7,000,000, was to be added the collection of this large amount of Excise, without any consideration being given to the wants or necessities of the Port. This was not a new matter, because an application had been made for some time to provide a suitable building for the collection of what was really one-fourth of the whole Customs duties of the country; but the Exchequer could not see their way out of £7,000,000 even to provide £100,000 or £150,000 for this purpose, and yet they proposed to add to that inconvenient Customs-House the additional duties which would come under this section. He would not like the proposal to pass without a protest, and the expression of a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the want of so great a port as Liverpool when looking at the enormous sums of money Liverpool found in Customs and Inland Revenue.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he had not been called upon to move the Amendment standing in his name, which was to leave out Clause 4.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the Amendments to the clause having all been disposed of he put in regular course the question "that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill." To leave out Clause 4 was not an Amendment. Hon. Members could vote against Clause 4 standing part.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he wished to approach the Committee in reference to the statement which had been made by the Secretary to the Treasury in respect of the transference under this clause. That statement lacked essential details. The matter was not one which could be discussed in the light and airy manner shown by the Secretary to the Treasury. He might observe in pacing that, although the hon. Gentleman occupied the port of Secretary to the Treasury, he had not thought fit to say a word in defence of the Customs Department in view of the attack of the hon. Member sitting on the Government side of the House. Such an omission he believed had never characterised the office of Secretary to the Treasury up to that hour. But, having said that, he would invite the hon. Gentleman's earnest attention to the necessity of giving the Committee full information as to the conditions under which more than 3,000 officers of the outdoor Excise staff would be transferred, and, so far as he could make out, and he thought his information was correct, though the indoor staff might benefit by the change contemplated by the Government, the outdoor staff who were a body of men regarded by successive Governments as officers most efficient and most loyal, would probably not benefit, and they had many grievances which they had impressed without undue agitation or publicity upon successive Ministers. Surely it would have been proper, and it would have been considerate of the hon. Gentleman, if when he made his statement a short while ago he had given the Committee some indication as to what was the outlook of this very important body of officers under the changes proposed by the Government. There was a feature in the proposals of the Government which he believed was open to the gravest possible objection, namely, that this amalgamation was to take place by
  750
  Order in Council, which meant in effect that the House of Commons would have no control and no voice in the carrying oat of so great a change in the machinery by which the taxes were collected. Indeed, it was a curious fact that this procedure should be adopted by a Government which called itself Liberal, but nevertheless, preferred methods which were not only drastic and unbusinesslike, but absolutely undemocratic. Anyone who had given a moment's thought to this matter must be of opinion that it was a subject worth the attention of an Inter-Departmental Committee before the House of Commons should be asked to decide as to the transference. He could not agree with his right hon. friend who had just, spoken that this was a matter which could be left to any Government without control by the House of Commons, because he believed that the duties of these officers and the claims which they had advanced for the reconsideration of their position were considerations of sufficient importance to necessitate a very careful public inquiry before assenting to the matter passing into the hands practically of the Treasury, and, therefore, to an office which was not over-popular in the country and certainly was not popular amongst Civil servants. The Secretary of the Treasury, no doubt, since he held this office, had had laid before him on behalf of more than 3,000 Excise officers a respectful demand that the terms of their service should be reconsidered. He wanted to know on their behalf whether under the proposed agreement any scheme had been prepared by the Government which would improve not only the conditions of their service but the pay attaching to their office. If the hon. Gentleman was able to give any satisfactory information upon the point he believed he would do a great deal to bring about smoothness and contentment in respect of all the details of the amalgamation contemplated in this clause, to promote the efficiency of the staff, and, above all, to make the collection of the taxes and the arrangements under the Old-age Pensions Bill work smoothly. He therefore earnestly hoped that the hon. Gentleman would, even though it was late, give the Committee some adequate statement as to the great

  751
  changes proposed under this clause, and the almost revolutionary change that was proposed to be brought about in the conditions under which a very efficient and deserving body of public officers worked.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he quite agreed that it was inconvenient to discuss this important change at that hour, but it was the only opportunity they had, and he thought that before the House actually sanctioned the transference of very great powers from one department of the State to another, they ought to have a little more information than the Secretary of the Treasury seemed to think was necessary. So far as he could gather from the hon. Gentleman's previous statement, it meant the transference of the collection of about £60,000,000 of revenue from the Inland Revenue to the Customs, and he informed the Committee that this change would be of very great advantage to the country at large, because it would produce economy and also efficiency and despatch of business. The hon. Gentleman quoted statements from various trade journals to the effect that the proposed change was viewed with gratitude. They were all agreed that the taxes of the country, however pleasant, they might be to some people, and however unpleasant to others, ought to be collected with as great economy as possible to the Exchequer and as little inconvenience as possible to the trading community. The hon. Gentleman told them very briefly that this change would produce economy in collection, but he gave no reason to show how that economy was going to be produced. If he did, then he was afraid he misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman could give the Committee in a very few words the reason which led him to make that statement he thought the Committee would be grateful to him. He could only conclude that it would be brought about by some change in the wages of those Excisemen who were to be transferred to the Customs Department. So far as he knew, the wages in the Customs and Excise services were very much the same, but he presumed if the hon. Gentleman was going
  752
  to produce some economy that those public, servants who were now serving their country in the Excise Department were to suffer some loss of wages, as a result of the transference. He sincerely hoped that was not the case, but he would like some assurance from the hon. Gentleman. He thought that when some sort of change of this sort was going to be carried out, they ought to be told what the views of the two departments were. He did not think it would be at all unconstitutional if the hon. Gentleman told them what were the opinions of the Board of Inland Revenue and of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Customs. Of course, if it was asking for information which it was not the habit of the Government to give, he would not press the point, but he thought it would be a great advantage to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman could say what were the opinions of the heads of the departments with regard to these important changes.
  MR. HOBHOUSEassured the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the heads of the Customs Department and the Inland Revenue were very desirous of making the change indicated. He neither knew nor cared whether it was constitutional to state that they were so desirous. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that such a change could not possibly have taken place without their assent. In reply to the hon. Member for Hoxton, it was impossible to say at that moment what the conditions of service would be when the two staffs were amalgamated. They must first of all get the assent of the House to the amalgamation of the staffs; but the hon. Gentleman might rest assured that, as he had already told the officers of both services, the greatest care would be taken for their interests when this change was made.
  SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Where is the economy?
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the hon. Gentleman had been appealed to by several hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House to defend what he meant by the economies to be effected

  753
  under the proposed amalgamation. It was trifling with the House of Commons not to give an indication as to what arrangements would achieve the economy which he described as one of the great objects of the change. It was making a farce of the Committee.
  MR. C. DUNCANsaid he did his best a few days ago to raise this question as it affected the men in outdoor employment, and the Secretary of the Treasury was courteous enough to receive a deputation from these men, who were thus enabled to lay their case before him. It seemed utterly unreasonable to expect that the Minister who had charge of the matter could give the result of that interview yet. There had not been time in which to consider the various points put before the official on that occasion. It seemed to him only reasonable to expect that a certain time should be allowed for consideration to be given to the matter put before the hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, it was inopportune for the hon. Member to press for an answer at that moment.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  *SIR CLIFFORD CORYsaid the Amendment which stood in his name if passed would extend the present duty of 1d. in full which was now charged on policies where the premium was 2s. 6d. per cent, or under to all voyage policies, irrespective of the amount of the premium. The mercantile community were grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he had made in reducing the duty on voyage policies where the premiums exceeded 2s. 6d. percent, from 3d. per cent, to 1d per cent., but it was hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would go a step further and make it 1d.
  754
  in full on all voyage policies. As the Prime Minister said in his introductory speech, "The vast majority of voyages are quite short—porhapsonly a few days," and practically admitted did not justify a high duty. An ad valorem duty of even 1d. per cent. left this country at a disadvantage compared with other countries where such duties were not charged. The Amendment would secure uniformity if the duty were made 1d. in full on all voyage policies irrespective of the rate of premium, as in cases of fire insurance and every other form of insurance of which there were 41, except life, which had a special character of its own. The loss to the revenue would be inconsiderable if the Amendment were passed. The Prime Minister stated that the loss to the revenue by the reduction from 3d. per cent, to 1d. per cent, amounted to about £80,000, and the further reduction to 1d. in full would not amount to more than £40,000, less the amount which would accrue by the payment of the 1d. for policy, say a not reduction of about £35,000. It was not a very considerable sum, especially when the convenience and saving to the commercial community was considerable, as by making the duty 1d. in full in lieu of the ad valorem system it would mean a considerable saving of labour to the Revenue Department, where the cost of collection would on an ad valorem basis be out of all proportion to the duty received. Furthermore, it would mean a great convenience and saving of labour to insurance companies and brokers, though the commercial community, the principals concerned, and being spared the calculation of duty in their invoices would most of all appreciate the concession, and, therefore, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to see his way to grant this concession.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 10, to leave out the words 'shall be substituted for threepence,' and to

  755
  insert the words 'in full shall be substituted for threepence ill regret of every full sum of one hundred pounds and also any fractional part of one hundred pounds thereby insured.'"—(Sir Clifford Cory.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not help thinking that his hon. friend's Amendment was a little unreasonable. The Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to consider the grievances of the commercial community, and he did so by introducing a proposal in the Budget which cost £80,000 to the revenue. Now it was said: "Well, you might as well go on to £120,000." That was what had happened with regard to every concession that had been made, and he did not think it was encouraging to the Chancellor of the. Exchequer that every concession he made should be used as an argument for further concessions. He quite agreed that there was a certain amount of inconvenience, but if his hon. friend would suggest how that inconvenience could be redressed without a further raid on the Exchequer he would consider it. If between this and next year his hon. friend could find some means of not breaking further into the revenue he would be very happy to consider the question of a fixed charge instead of an ad valorem one, but he could not possibly face the contingency of a further loss.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the Amendment that he had put down to substitute 5s. for 10s. as the stamp duty chargeable under Section 9 of the Inland Revenue Act, 1906, was intended to mitigate a very severe and oppressive stump duty which was imposed upon small holders as against large ones. Hon.
  756
  Gentlemen below the gangway were very fond of talking about the burden of taxes on the poor, and that the poor should be relieved. If they believed in those principles they would support this Amendment. Originally the stamp duty on such things as compensation for unexhausted improvements was an ad valorem one starting at 3d. on sums up to £5, and going up to, he did not know how much, but something like £2, on large sums. In the Budget of 1906, for some reason which was not explained at. great length to the House, and certainly was not clearly understood in the country, the duty was changed to a uniform one of 10s., and the effect of that was if the small holder had an arbitration award made of, say £10, he had to pay a duty of 10s., and if a farmer had an award made of, say £190, he only paid 10s. The object he had in view in putting down the Amendment was to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he thought was a very great injustice on small holders in this matter. The present duty was so little known that in Whitaker's Almanack the change which was effected in the Budget of 1906 was not even noticed, and the stamp duties that prevailed before were to be found in Whitaker's Almanack of this year. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would see there was a great deal of reason in what he asked—whether he could not see his way even without losing revenue to effect a change which would do justice to those for whom he was appealing. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to his proposal in some other form by which he would not lose revenue, he would be perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question because it was apparently one which affected a number of small people who could ill-afford to pay the duty.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 21, at end, to add the words 'and five shillings shall be substituted for ton shillings as the stamp duty chargeable under Section 9 of the Inland Revenue Act, 1906.'"—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
  Question proponed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member had put before him the difficult proposition how to reduce duty from 10s. to 5s. without reducing the revenue. The Amendment was only put on the Paper last night.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I asked a question about the matter some time ago.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not quite sure of that point, but he would promise that if the hon. Gentleman would give him a few illustrations of the kind of cases to which he referred he would give the matter his very careful consideration, with a view to seeing if something could be done. He pointed out that the duty was introduced in 1906 as the result of pressure to reduce a grievance, though he could quite believe that in redressing one grievance they might create other grievances.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question proposed. "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINrose to ask the Government whether, when this clause was disposed of, they would accept a Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He thought the Committee had carried on the discussion in a spirit of which the right hon. Gentleman could I not complain. The time had been occu-
  758
  pied pretty much in proportion to the membership of the various parties in the House, and in view of the advanced period of the morning and the fact that the next clause raised a question which was causing very considerable interest in the country he hoped that clause might he taken at a time when they were fresh and not wearied by prolonged discussion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had had some hopes that they might be able to add Clause 6, but still he recognised fully what the right hon. Gentleman said. He thought he and the hon. Members who had been acting with him had treated the Government very fairly, and if the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the Government that they should not take the next clause to-night he would be perfectly prepared to respond to it. He knew perfectly well, judging by the experience to-day, that the Opposition would not take any unfair advantage to-morrow, but would assist the Government; to got the Bill through in respectable time.
  Clause agreed to.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved to report progress. Of course, he said, there were a good many questions to be discussed and they would have to sit after eleven o'clock to-morrow, but he was quite sure that on the Opposition side there would be no desire, to prolong the debate beyond what was necessary in order to put matters properly before the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  SEED POTATOES AND SEED OATS SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.

  WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. MOONEYsaid he had handed in a drafting Amendment which was rendered necessary, he was sure, by an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. Clause 1 laid down that, licences must be issued by the Department, but if Clause 2 were allowed to pass in the form in which it stood, and it was desired to start a company in Ireland to carry on the industry they would have to come to London to register the company. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted. The Amendment was to add the words "or Ireland," in page 21, line 21, at the end.
  *THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The words were inserted in Committee last night.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have satisfied myself that the words were inserted in the Bill.

  TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked in reference to the power given to the Department to lop trees, what arrangement the
  760
  Postmaster-General had made to ensure that the trees should be properly lopped. So far as he was aware, he did not believe the Postmaster-General had in his Department any qualified tree-lopper. The right hon. Gentleman had a large staff who might know a good deal about the constitution of telegraph poles and wires, but he did not suppose they knew much about horticulture, and though at first sight this might appear to be a small matter, those who appreciated the beauty of trees would recognise that an unskilled hand lopping a tree might ruin its beauty, and destroy the amenities of a place. A tree might be of priceless value to the beauty of a cottage, and he knew there was a strong feeling throughout the country on the matter. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some very strict regulations as to the manner in which this lopping was to be carried out to give facilities for the erection of wires. Would the right hon. Gentleman besides issuing regulations appoint an officer who would be responsible to him for treating the trees kindly, and in a husbandlike manner?
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON)said he was perfectly aware that the question of lopping trees required consideration, and lie thought the point was really met by the Amendment which was inserted in Committee, leaving it in the power of the owner himself to do the lopping.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.

NEW PEER.
The Right Hon. Sir Antony MacDonnell, G.C.S.I., K.C.V.O., having been created Baron MacDonnell of Swinford in the county of Mayo—Was (in the usual manner), introduced.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Leicester Corporation Bill.—Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Holderness Water.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Margate Corporation Bill.—Reported with Amendments.
London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.].—Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Orders made on 25th June last and the 6th instant discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Criccieth Water and Improvement Bill. Reported with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [H.L.].—Reported with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill—Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Fatal Accidents (Damages) Bill [H.L.]; Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Rochester Bridge Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Doncaster Corporation Bill; Mother-well Burgh Extension, etc., Bill; Swinton and Mexbrough Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Central Ireland Electric Power Bill; Tyne Improvement Bill; London United. Tramways Bill; Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill.—Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit To-morrow till Two o'clock.
Usk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.—Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. [No. 147.]

PETITIONS.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  Petition in favour of: of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Administration Report on the railways in India, for the calendar year 1907.
EXPLOSIONS (EXPLOSION OF GELIG NITE AT ROSLIN, EDINBURGH.)
Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an explosion of gelignite which occurred at the factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Roslin, Edinburgh, on 26th March, 1908.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 13th July, 1908, providing for special grants in aid of certain school boards in Scotland.
FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, for the year 1907. Part II. Salmon Fisheries.

ARMY.
List of exceptions to the Army Regulations as to pay, non-effective pay, and allowances sanctioned during the year 1907–1908.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Duke of Devonhire be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore); and that the Duke of Devonshire be Chairman of Committee; read, and agreed to.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL. [No. 144]
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL. [No. 145.]
    WILD BIRDS BILL. [No. 146.]
    Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed.
    CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] NOW CROFT ING PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 148.]
    PUBLIC HEALTH (MARKETS IN RURAL DISTRICTS) BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
NEW BILL.
  CRAN MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to legalise the use of cran and quarter cran measures in connection with trading in fresh herrings in England and Wales was presented by the Earl Carring-ton; read 1a, and to be printed. [No. 149.]
COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
    The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order. [No. 150.]

    MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (MERCANTILE CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES) BILL [H.L.]
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the excessive increase in both our national and municipal expenditure is a serious menace to the prosperity of the country, and, if continued, must inevitably lead to disastrous results. Our national expenditure in twenty years has risen from £90,000,000 to £121,000,000, an increase of £31,000,000, and, if your Lordships pass the Old-Age Pension Bill, will receive another huge addition, and our municipal expenditure has gone up from £54,000,000 in 1886–87 to £139,000,000, an increase of no less than £84,600,000. So far as municipal expenditure is concerned, the rise may be considered as due, firstly, to the desire for healthier and happier conditions, and of this increase no one complains. It is, however, felt that there has also been much unnecessary and wasteful expenditure owing mainly to two causes. No doubt there are others. The rapid changes in the mayoralty are not conducive to economy. They were comparatively immaterial before the days of

    541
    municipal trading. But now that so many municipalities carry on great businesses these changes are most unwise In Germany the burgomasters are appointed for a term of years, which is a much wiser system. The two main cause of extravagance are however, probably first, that many of the electors pay no rates. The extravagance and waste have been greatest where this is the case It appears from the London County Council Returns that in Poplar no less than 80 per cent, of the voters are compound householders, who have votes but do not directly pay rates. In West Ham, where also the rates are exception ally high—they amounted last year to 9s. 8d. in the pound—it is significant that out of some 48,000 hereditaments there are over 34,000 compounded. In London as a whole over one-third of the voters are of this character. I need not, however, enlarge on this, because the evil was clearly pointed out by Lord Onslow, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and other Lords in a recent discussion. Moreover, not only is it the case that a large percentage of voters pay no rates, but a large proportion of the rates are paid by those who have no votes. When the money is spent by one set of people and paid by another, no wonder there is extravagance.
    The present Bill is intended to mitigate, in some measure, this latter evil. Resolutions in support of the principle have been passed by the London Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the Industrial Freedom League. The Bill has been drafted by the Institute of Directors, and, as your Lordships will see by the Memorandum, it is supported by over 1,500 commercial undertakings in all parts of the country. In fact, it has the general support of the commercial community. It is based on the axiom that representation should go with taxation. In Leeds no less than 26 per cent, of the rates are paid by companies which have no vote; in Sheffield 30 per cent., in Birmingham 28 per cent, in Manchester 32 per cent., in Liverpool 32·4 per cent., and in the City of London 50 per cent. I do not think I need occupy your Lordships' time by enlarging on the injustice and danger of such, a state of things. Moreover, there is a tendency for this proportion to
    542
    increase. I trust, therefore, I shall have satisfied your Lordships that there is a strong and almost unanimous feeling on the part of those interested in the joint stock enterprise of this country that in asking for the favourable consideration of this Bill they are only pleading for bare justice.
    Now what is the view of the municipalities? At a meeting of the London County Council on 4th February, 1908, the following resolution, on the motion of Mr. Pilditch, seconded by Mr. Felix Cassell, K.C., was carried by a large majority—
    "That it be an instruction to the Local Government Records, and Museums Committee to report as to the prevalence of conditions under which large sections of ratepayers paying rates to considerable amounts are without representation on the various administrative and spending authorities in London, viz., The London County Council, the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and the Boards of Guardians, and are rendered ineligible to sit as members of certain of such bodies, and as to the possibility and best method, of redressing such anomalies."
    At a meeting of the Court of Common Council, on 27th February, 1908, Mr. Bowles, the Chairman of the County Purposes Committee, said that—
    "It had been arranged to invite representatives of the London County Council, Stock Exchange, and London Chamber of Commerce to attend with a deputation before the President of the Local Government Board, before whom the whole case in favour of voting on behalf of limited liability companies would be laid."
    At the autumnal meeting of the Association of Municipal Corporations, in October, 1904, the Town Clerk of Longton called attention to the following resolution passed by the council on 27th November, 1902—
    "That this Council, having regard to the expression of opinion on the part of municipal corporations and other bodies, to the effect that it is just and expedient that the principle of permitting ratepaying companies and incorporated bodies to exercise the right of voting at municipal elections, should be recognised and given effect to by the Legislature."
    He referred to the large number of private trading concerns converted into limited companies. These concerns had to contribute to the rates as before, while they had no representation. It was also robbing the local councils of able men. The Town Clerk of Barrow-in-Furness seconded the Motion, which was carried. I hope we shall receive

    543
    the support of His Majesty's Government. Lord Wolverhampton, in a recent speech said that—
    "He agreed on one point with what had been said by the chairmen of railway and other great public companies with regard to this matter, and that was that taxation and representation should go together. He believed that last year the large railway companies of the country contributed to local rates upwards of £3,000,000, and yet they had no representation on the local boards. There should be no difficulty in devising some means for that purpose."
    This measure is in the true sense thoroughly democratic, and similar provisions have been adopted in many of our Colonies, as, for instance, in Cape Colony, Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria, Newfoundland, and perhaps others.
    Lastly, I come to the question whether the Bill will be beneficial. No doubt, a single vote is very little for a great company. But then, perhaps, we shall be told that this Bill can do no good; that giving the vote to a few companies will effect nothing. Of course, we feel that to give a single vote in any local election to a great institution such as the North-Western Railway, or the Gas, Light, and Coke Company is no adequate recognition of the justice to which they are entitled. Still it is something. Then, again, the number of companies is considerable, and is on the increase. Moreover, the effect can-not be measured by the mere number of votes. The actual votes which would be given by this Bill would scarcely ever determine an election. In some constituencies, however, there is a substantial number of companies, and the vote would not be altogether negligible. But votes must be weighed as well as counted; the effect would not depend on the mere number of votes.
    At present the companies have no locus standi at elections; if their representative attends a meeting of electors he may be asked if he is an elector, and, not being so, is placed at a great disadvantage even if he is heard at all. This Bill would give him a right to attend, and to lay his views before the other electors. From this point of view the Chambers of Commerce and the companies attach considerable importance to the Bill. They believe it
    544
    would promote economy, and that expenditure would be directed with more wisdom and prudence. My Lords, I commend this Bill to your favourable consideration, and on behalf of the companies I do not merely ask it as a boon, but may fairly claim it on their behalf as an act of justice.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Avebury.)
    *LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I listened with attention to the noble Earl's speech, and had hoped to have heard some strong arguments in support of this Bill. I must confess to being somewhat disappointed at not hearing any stronger arguments than he has brought forward. Nor do I quite understand why this Bill has been introduced at this particular moment. It has been urged that mercantile corporations and companies have no municipal franchise, and therefore cannot vote or have any say in local elections, and it is contended that as they contribute largely to the rates they should be entitled to vote on all questions affecting the imposition of rates. We are all agreed, generally, as to the principle of representation accompanying taxation. But the proposal contained in this Bill is an altogether new departure.
    The views of the important bodies to which the noble Lord has referred as being in favour of this Bill are entitled to very careful consideration, but I was not aware before that any urgent demand had been made for the change which he proposes. These bodies have never possessed any right of voting at the election of town or county councillors, and the power which they formerly had of voting at the election of members of local boards was taken away by the Local Government Act, 1894, when district councils were substituted for local boards. The Act also took away their power to vote at the election of guardians. The demand for powers such as those proposed to be given by the Bill has sprung up comparatively recently, and it will be seen that it is not consistent with modern legislation on the subject. Moreover, the Bill seems to be badly drafted, and it is doubtful whether it would carry out the intentions of the noble Lord if passed.

    545
    The object of the Bill, according to the title is—
    "To confer the municipal franchise upon mercantile corporations and companies."
    As I say, I doubt very much whether the Bill would do that. What it would do would be to confer on some officer appointed by any of these bodies a franchise which is to some extent founded on one of the municipal franchises, but which in some material respects does not correspond with it. It would enable the officer to vote at any local election, and would provide that he should be qualified to be elected at any such election. The franchise for local elections upon which the Bill seems to be founded in the £10 occupation burgess qualification. To obtain that franchise certain conditions must be complied with. The person claiming it must, during a prescribed period—viz., the twelve months immediately preceding 15th July—have been an occupier or owner or tenant of some land or tenement in the parish of the annual value of not less than £10; someone must have been rated during the twelve months to all poor rates in respect of property, and all sums due in respect of the property on account of any poor rate made during the twelve months immediately preceding 5th January, or of any assessed taxes due before that day must have been paid. Now the clause in the Bill only requires that the corporation or company shall be in occupation of the property and be rated in respect of it. It does not require that the occupation or rating shall have extended over the twelve months preceding 15th July, or any other period, or that the rates shall have been paid. Hence the franchise proposed to be conferred differs materially from the municipal franchise referred to in the title.
    The title is also somewhat misleading in another direction. The Bill confers a qualification for being elected, to which the title does not refer at all. In fact the Bill seems to me to be a great deal wider in its aim than one would infer from the title. Again, in Clause 2 it is provided that the officer authorised to vote on behalf of a corporation or company shall make his claim in the prescribed form. This seems to mean the form contained
    546
    in the schedule, though the schedule is nowhere mentioned in the Bill. The schedule, however, only relates to a claim to have the name of the officer inserted in the list of burgesses of municipal boroughs, and does not apply to any list of voters for other local elections. The Bill refers to all local authorities, and therefore on this point the authors do not make their intentions clear. I am of course aware that the Bill does not relate to Parliamentary elections, but it does relate to all local elections, and to carry that out there should be another form attached to this in respect of all other local elections.
    Further, the form refers to "assessors" of parishes. There are now no such persons in England and Wales. Whether the Bill is intended to refer to local elections in Scotland and Ireland does not appear, except that I presume it is as they are not specially excluded. The Government have carefully considered the matter and have decided that they cannot give their support to the Bill. The time for the introduction of the Bill seems, as I have said, to be inopportune. A valuation Bill has been promised and the Government have also intimated their intention of introducing legislation in an early session in relation to Parliamentary elections, in connection with which questions of this kind must be considered. The Government fail to recognise that any serious or widespread demand exists for the proposals in this Bill It could not pass in its present somewhat crude form, and the Government, therefore, cannot support the measure.
    LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I really do not think we ought to allow the Bill to be dismissed so summarily as is proposed by the noble Lord who has just sat down. What is the line of opposition taken by the noble Lord representing His Majesty's Government? He suggests that this is a very small measure, that it could not come into operation at once, and that it is new and ill-drafted. To oppose a Bill because it is new is remarkable, and the more remarkable when the opposition comes from a Member of a Liberal Government. As to the objection that it would not come into operation at once, is that a

    547
    line of argument to be deliberately sustained? I venture to think that the fact that it would only affect a small element of the electorate is scarcely sufficient ground for opposition. I will not follow the noble Lord into his examination of parts of the Bill, which is a matter for Committee rather than the Second Beading. The question now is whether your Lordships will refuse to assent to the principle of allowing banking and commercial corporations and limited companies to have a voice in the elections of the local authorities to whose expenditure they so largely contribute. I confess that for my part I feel that the House has not heard from the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government any sufficient or valid objection to the principle of the Bill. I, therefore, hope that, if the Bill is to be rejected, it will not be rejected so summarily as is proposed.
    LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I have observed that when there is nothing else to be said against a Bill we are always told that it has been badly drafted. As a layman I am, of course, at a great disadvantage in attempting to answer the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government on that point. I can only say that the Bill was drawn by a lawyer of very great experience; and I submit that that argument, and, indeed, most of the arguments brought forward by Lord Allendale are really questions for Committee and do not go to the principle of the Bill. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether I am to understand that this question of the representation of companies is going to be dealt with in the Bill which His Majesty's Government propose to introduce. Unless the noble Lord can give me some assurance on that point I shall ask your Lordships to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, which has the almost unanimous support of all those engaged in the commerce and industry of this country.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I do not wish to say very much with regard to this Bill, and certainly I do not desire to appear as one who objects to any innovation. But this is certainly a very strong proposition. Hitherto votes have been given by men; now they are to be given by companies of men. It is quite a mistake to think that these properties are not represented; they are represented by their owners, who are all human beings. It is proposed to divorce the responsibility of exercising the franchise from the in dividual personality and to put it in the hands of a legal entity. Speaking for myself, I think that is a very strong proposal, and one of which I do not my self approve.
    VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I confess I think there is something to be said for the principle contained in this Bill, because, as a matter of fact, in regard to local rates these companies are not represented by their shareholders as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has inferred. But I would suggest to my noble friend who has introduced this Bill whether it is worth his while to proceed further with it in view of the very decided opposition which has been given to it by His Majesty's Government. We understand that the question will soon arise in the shape of a Bill dealing with valuation and rating in England, on which it would be possible for my noble friend to bring forward this matter as an additional clause to the Bill. The principle involved is no doubt rather a new one in rating legislation, and as it is quite clear that this Bill cannot become law in the present session with the opposition of His Majesty's Government, I would suggest to my noble friend that it is hardly worth while to proceed with it now.
    On Question that the Bill be read 2a, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Not Contents, 31.

    CONTENTS

    Marlborough, D.

    Cawdor, E.

    Waldegrave, E.

    Northumberland, D.

    Cromer, E.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Churchill, V.

    Bath, M.

    Lauderdale, E.

    Halifax, V.

    Bristol, M.

    Morley, E.

    Hardinge, V.

    Northbrook, E.

    Hutchinson. V. (E. Donough more)

    Camperdown, E.

    Onslow, E.

    Iveagh, V.

    Clinton, L.

    Monk Bretton, L.

    Clonbrook, L.

    Newlands, L.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Courtney of Penwith, L.

    Newton, L.

    Atkinson, L.

    Dunboyne, L.

    Oriel, L. (V. Masserene.)

    Avebury, L.[Teller.]

    Ebury, L.

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    Barrymore, L.

    Faber, L.[Teller.]

    Redesdale, L.

    Belper, L.

    Kilmarnock, L.(E. Erroll.)

    Ribblesdale, L.

    Calthorpe, L.

    Lawrence, L.

    Templemore, L.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    Macnaghten, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Loreburn, L (L. Chancellor.)

    Wolverhampton, V.

    Heneage, L.

    Herschell, L.

    Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

    Airedale, L.

    Knollys, L.

    Allendale, L.

    Lochee, L.

    Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

    Armitstead, L.

    Lyveden, L.

    Carrington, E.

    Burghclere, L.

    Nunburnholme, L.

    Chesterfield, E.

    Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

    O'Hagan, L.

    Crewe, E.

    Denman, L. [Teller.]

    Pirrie, L.

    Russell, E.

    Eversley, L.

    St. Davids, L.

    Fitzmaurice, L.

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Althorp,V. (L. Chamberlain.)

    Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Cross, V.

    Haversham, L.

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

    POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
    Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.
    Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    LORD ASHBOURNE: I should be very glad, as this Bill has not been before the House for some time, if the noble Earl would give a short explanation on one or two points. When the Bill was orginally introduced everyone, of course, realised its general importance, and one of the matters that attracted attention was that it did not include Ireland. Ireland had been included in and omitted from previous Bills, and it was deemed wise to refer it to a Select Committee. The result of the consideration of the Committee was that they recommended the desirability of including Ireland, and the Bill was reprinted in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee and included Ireland practically without qualification. But, in view of the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, I would invite a short explanation from him on one or two points.
    550
    I should think myself that on a question like this, dealing so much with the happiness and the welfare of the people, it would be desirable as far as possible to have common legislation. I do not see why what are safeguards in the matter of poisons in England, Scotland, and Wales, should not be applied also to Ireland. That was the idea, I gather, of the Select Committee, and I do hot quite follow the alterations which it is now proposed to effect. The Amendments on the Paper purport, as I gather, to apply only two sections of the Bill to Ireland. I think that must be a mistake. I assume there is nothing more susceptible of general application to all parts of the country than a schedule of poisons. What is a poison in England should be a poison in Ireland. The schedule mentioned in the first section of the Bill is a very considered section. It was thought out and discussed, I have no doubt, with the wisdom of scientific knowledge. I gather, from my reading of the noble Earl's Amendments, that the schedule is not extended to Ireland. I only mention it because I can hardly think that that is intended, and if I am right in that the matter can be adjusted later. It is quite obvious it cannot be intended. If it is intended it is unintelligible, and if it is unintelligible it is indefensible.
    There is one other matter to which I would draw attention. It has been

    551
    required that persons selling poisons should label them as poisonous. I have no doubt that the law is not sought to be changed, but this is one of those occasions when repetition would be desirable; and as you are dealing in this Bill with poisonous substances I think it would be desirable to take the opportunity of a very short statement in the schedule to the effect that, as already indicated, poisons should be marked "Poisons." For common caution it is needed. I do not know whether it has been considered that poisonous substances used for agricultural purposes should be sold to the public without any indication that they may be dangerous to human life. They are called in the Bill poisonous, and therefore they might be very dangerous. It may be dealt with already, and I do not propose to say anything further on the subject. My only desire was to direct attention to it. I would also draw attention to the second part of the schedule. Under the heading of "Carbolic Acid" there is a statement that it is to be contained in a closed bottle and to be marked "Poisonous." I do not object; I think it wise and sensible; but why is that alone to be marked poisonous? That is a matter that may have been considered by the Select Committee, and it is one that can readily be set right in drafting. I do not think it would be desirable or fair that I should say anything more in reference to the matter now.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I think it might be for the general convenience if I say a word on the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, opposite before we take the Bill clause by clause. As regards the general inclusion of Ireland, it is perfectly true that there was some dispute on that subject, and it was left to the Committee to decide one way or the other. They recommended the inclusion of Ireland, and the noble and learned Lord has very naturally, I think, drawn attention to the fact that only certain clauses, by an Amendment which I shall have to propose, apply to that country.
    The case for the inclusion of Ireland was founded mainly on Clause 2 of the
    552
    Bill. It was pointed out that the need for these agricultural and horticultural substances was very specially felt in Ireland owing to the sparsely populated character of some parts of the country, and that particular side of the question was very strongly pressed from Ireland. That applies also to Section 5, but Section 3, relating to companies, was not as strongly pressed from the Irish side. The case does not arise there at all to the same extent as it does in England, and when the matter came to be looked into, it was found that the pharmacy laws in Ireland are so different in many essential respects from those in England that, as a matter of drafting, it became absolutely impossible to incorporate them in this Bill. That is, as I am informed, the reason which actuated the Irish Office in asking that the other clauses of the Bill should not apply to Ireland. The noble and learned Lord raised the question of the schedule, and asked why that w s not made to apply to Ireland. Ireland has always had a schedule of its own, drawn up by the College of Surgeons and amended from time to time by Order in Council. If, therefore, Ireland desires to have this particular schedule, or the amended schedule which I am going to propose, nothing is easier than for an Irish Order in Council to be obtained assimilating the Irish schedule to this one.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: It is much easier to put it in this Bill.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: We do not know that Ireland wants this schedule. We have no information that it does. This is a schedule prepared by the Privy Council and the pharmacists of England, and whether it is the particular schedule which is preferred m Ireland, I am not in a position to say. But if the noble and learned Lord is Tight in thinking that it is, the two can quite well be assimilated. As regards the question of marking poisonous substances sold for agricultural and horticultural purposes, the noble and learned Lord will find that that is amply provided for in the regulations to be issued by the Privy Council. Those regulations have not, I think, been laid on the Table of the House, but I should be quite prepared to lay them at any

    553
    time. The noble and learned Lord will find that his point is fully covered by those regulations. I think these are the only matters which were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Any other point that arises can be dealt with in the course of the discussion in Committee.
    House in Committee, according to order.
    [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
    Amendments made by the Joint Committee agreed to.
    Clause 1:
    *LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he thought it only fair to mention that, as at present advised, he would move, at the next stage of the Bill, that this be one of the sections that should apply to Ireland. It could be applied, he understood, without much alteration. He could not understand why, when they had thrashed out in a Select Committee with all the advice at their disposal, a new schedule carrying the schedule of poisons up-to-date, it should be enacted for England only, and that the old Irish schedules should be left to be varied from time to time as Ireland might think right.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course, there can be no objection to the noble and learned Lord pursuing the course which he indicates he means to take; but between how and then we shall, no doubt, be able to discover whether the Irish authorities desire to adopt this schedule, or not.
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2:
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I move an Amendment in page 1, line 15, to leave out "for use exclusively in connection with agriculture or horticulture," and to insert "to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep
    554
    dips or weed killers." This alteration is made to make it rather more clear exactly what substances were intended to be sold under this section. The form of it, I think, was suggested by the Pharmaceutical Society, and I understand that the Board of Agriculture agree to it, and, so far as we know, it is not objected to by anybody. In fact, the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Hill) has something of the same kind on the Paper.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'for use exclusively in connection with agriculture or horticulture,' and insert the words 'to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep dips or weed killers.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    VISCOUNT HILLsaid he noticed with satisfaction that the noble Earl had moved an Amendment to meet what they considered the rather wide wording in the clause as it stood. Practically there was very little difference between the noble Earl's Amendment and his. He would, however, ask the noble Earl whether he did not consider the word "bacteria" a little too wide. It might on some occasions cause the introduction of disinfectants.
    LORD SALTOUNsaid the Committee had considered this matter very carefully, and he thought the words in the Bill were better than those in the Amendment moved by Lord Crewe, or in that standing in the name of Viscount Hill. The words in the clause were "for use exclusively." That kept them entirely for agricultural and horticultural purposes. There was very little in the matter, and if the Minister for Agriculture accepted Lord Crewe's Amendment he (Lord Saltoun) would not object.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,who also served on the Committee, agreed very much with the noble Lord who had just spoken. They were anxious to benefit agriculture by enabling farmers to get these things which they needed in their trade as easily as possible, and the wider the wording the better he would have liked it. But he supposed there were

    555
    practical reasons which had led the Government to propose this restricting Amendment. For himself, he very much preferred the Amendment moved by Lord Crewe to the still more limited Amendment standing in the name of Viscount Hill.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: One noble Lord thinks these words too wide, and the other is of opinion that they are too narrow. Therefore, I think the words in my Amendment seem to be indicated as the correct ones.
    LORD MONK-BRETTON LORD MONK-BRETTON moved an Amendment in page 1, line 17, to leave out "a local authority" and to insert "any local authority authorised to appoint an analyst for the purposes of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act." He said the object was to make the foods and drugs authority the licensing authority under this Act, and the purpose of that was to obtain economy in the local administration of the Act by employing existing food and drug inspectors instead of new officials, and also to make the new areas coincide with those of the Foods and Drugs Act. It was certain that this Bill would necessitate greater inspection, because poisons were sold by more people and the danger which the public ran was increased. Sir Herbert Maxwell's Inter Departmental Committee reported that the great disadvantage was that there was not sufficient inspection, and they advocated more inspection. Now there ought to be still greater inspection. Under the Bill as it stood the matter was left to the Privy Council. He did not think the Privy Council were the best body to leave it to, because that council had no connection whatever with local authorities. The whole connection of the Privy Council with the administration of poisons, had, he ventured to submit, now become archaic. They were made the authority for the administration of the Poisons Act at the time when there was no Local Government Board and no local authorities, and therefore he asked their Lordships to insert in this Bill the local authority which was to administer the Act. He believed that the foods and drugs authority was the best to administer
    556
    the Act. The County Councils Association had petitioned the Committee with regard to the matter, and he might mention that this Amendment was put before the Committee and that the numbers were equal. He believed those who voted, against it did so because they thought this was a question which would be more usefully raised in the House where members of His Majesty's Government were present than in Committee, and he agreed. The Amendment followed exactly the wording of the Margarine Act of 1887 and the Foods and Drugs Act of 1899, and whether in those words or in some other words he asked the Government to insert the provision that the foods and drugs authority should be the licensing authority under the Bill.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'a local authority,' and to insert the words 'any local authority authorised to appoint an analyst for the purposes of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act.'"—[Lord Monk-Bretton.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this is rather a complicated and intricate point, and I am not quite sure that the noble Lord in his Amendment does what he imagines he is doing. The effect of what the noble Lord desires to do would be that towns with a population exceeding. 10,000 would be included, not by any test of the present population, but by the test of the population as it was in the year 1881. Then it is not the case that it is the local authorities who are charged with the appointment of analyists who inspect and take samples for the purpose of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act. That business extends to any local authority which appoints a medical officer of health, an inspector of nuisances, or an inspector of weights and measures. These licences, of course, do not apply very largely to urban districts. That is obvious. The question is infinitely more important in connection with rural areas, because Clause 2 is drawn in order to meet a particular case of thinly-populated rural areas. What would happen under the noble Lord's Amendment would be this: The authorities entitled under his Amendment to issue licences would be the following: the Common Council of the City of London, the borough councils of London, the county councils

    557
    of extra-Metropolitan counties, the councils of county boroughs, and the town councils of boroughs containing, according to the census of 1881, a population exceeding 10,000, and possessing either a Court of Quarter Sessions or a separate Police Court. The authorities we propose under the regulations are: the London County Council in London, the county councils of extra-Metropolitan counties, the councils of county boroughs, and the town councils of all boroughs exceeding 10,000 in population at the last census—the census of 1901; and I must say that ours seems to me of the two to be the more practical proposal. There is no particular connection that I can see between the work of foods and drugs inspectors and the issuing of licences under this Bill. I do not see that there is any special relation between the two things. I do not know whether the actual authorities are open to variation, but I suppose everybody would agree that the county councils are the proper authorities in the counties, and I should have thought the London County Council was the best authority for the London district. I am quite content myself to leave the matter as it is, and I confess I do not see the advantage of the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupported the proposal of the Government as against the Amendment. As drafted the Bill left the selection of the local authority to the Privy Council. The sketch which the noble Earl had given of the local authorities would, he believed, be thoroughly satisfactory. He thought it undesirable to have separate authorities for small country towns with 10,000 population; and that it was best to leave the Bill as it stood.
    LORD BELPERsaid he understood from Lord Crewe that the authority in the counties would be the county council. But where was it stated that that would be the authority?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I ought to have explained that it is in the draft regulations proposed by the Privy Council.
    LORD BELPER: Those regulations I are already decided upon and in print?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, they are drawn up.
    LORD BELPER: Then we may take it that the authorities stated by the noble Earl are to be the authorities under the Bill?
    *THE EABL OF CREWE: Yes.
    LORD BELPERdid not, in these circumstances, see any necessity for making the proposed alteration.
    LORD SALTOUNsaid he had been in favour of the Amendment, but after-hearing the explanation of Lord Crewe as to who would be the authorities under the Bill he suggested that Lord. Monk-Bretton should withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT HILL VISCOUNT HILL moved an Amendment, to insert "nor shall the provisions of this section be applicable in any municipal borough or in any urban district containing a duly registered chemist and druggist actually carrying on the business of a chemist and druggist." It might be suggested in some quarters that he was proposing a. measure to encourage trusts, but i was another principle altogether. The object of the Bill, no doubt, had been to meet the difficulty of farmers in some parts of Great Britain in obtaining sheep dips, etc. in small quantities. He did not know whether the evidence was satisfactory as proving that there was such a terrible inconvenience as had been represented. The farmers themselves did not attempt to approach the local chemists for these dips. In many cases they obtained them from the persons who purchased their wools, and in other cases co-operative parties went round the country and dipped the sheep at so much per hundred. In the county of London there were 12,000 qualified poison sellers. Surely that was enough for agriculture in this part of England. All large cities and towns were equally well supplied. His feeling in this matter

    559
    was that the Government were persuaded to look upon this rather from the manufacturers' point of view. The manufacturers were the men who would benefit by the provision as it stood in the clause. He considered that the safety of the public was a far superior consideration. They naturally looked to the Government to support commercial activity, but, on the other hand, they must remember that the trade in poisons necessarily should be dealt with in a much more serious and different manner from the trade in ordinary commodities.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'poisons,' to insert the words' nor shall the provisions of this section be applicable in any municipal borough or in any urban district containing a duly registered chemist and druggist actually carrying on the business of a chemist and druggist.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the Committee will not accept the noble Lord's Amendment. He desires that the provisions of this section shall not be applicable in any municipal borough or in any urban district containing a duly registered chemist and druggist actually carrying on the business of a chemist and druggist. It does not at all follow that because there is a chemist in a place, the reasonable requirements of agriculturists will be met. It is quite possible that he might decline to supply these substances at all. He might not think it worth his while. No provision is inserted in the Amendment compelling him to meet the requirements of the public at all, and, of course, it obviously would be impossible to insert such a section. These licences will, I think it is quite certain, being in the hands of responsible local authorities, be issued with very great care; and I have no doubt that no licence will be issued at all in places where there are chemists who are in the habit of selling these things and who satisfy the public. I must draw attention to subsection (2) of this section, which says that before granting any licence under this section the local authority shall take into consideration whether in the neighbourhood where the applicant for the licence carries on or intends to carry1 on business, the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the purchase of such
    560
    poisonous substances are satisfied. Therefore, if the chemist is there and sells the things, obviously no licence will be issued; but if he is there and does not sell the thing, the licence ought to be issued.
    *LORD HAVEBSHAMsaid the noble Viscount (Lord Hill) could not possibly have moved this Amendment if he had been on the Committee. They had abundant evidence that there was an enormous number of small towns in the West of Ireland and in the North of Scotland where there was no chemist at all. But, even supposing there were one, that man, under the noble Viscount's Amendment, would enjoy an absolute monopoly of the sale of these things, and the whole of the clause, which was to enlarge the area in which these things might be obtained would be rendered nugatory. If the noble Viscount would look at the next clause he would see that the whole question of licences was left to the local authority. If greater facilities were required the authority would grant the licence; if not they would refuse it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT HILL VISCOUNT HILL moved to amend the proviso—
    "Provided that His Majesty may by Order in Council amend this provision by adding thereto or removing therefrom any poisonous substance,"
    by adding, after the word "substance," the words—
    "Not being an article included in the schedule to this Act."
    He explained that the object was cover a difficulty. He was afraid that when the Bill became an Act it would be quite possible at any time for those in authority to remove a poison, such as corrosive sublimate, from the schedule by the action of the Privy Council. If it was worth the while of Parliament to pass an Act restricting the sale of these very dangerous poisons, he thought the proper action to pursue was that if the poisons were to be at all changed the matter should be done by Act of Parliament.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'substance,' to insert the words 'not being an

    561
    article included in the schedule to this Act.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: This is a question of machinery and convenience. I am sorry to oppose the noble Viscount's Amendment again, but I think it might lead to some practical inconvenience if it required an Act of Parliament either to withdraw some substance which it might be found was not safe to leave under this section or to add some newly invented substance which might be wanted. It might, for instance, be found that some substance authorised under this schedule was too dangerous to be sold. I do not think it is likely to happen, but it might conceivably occur, in which case the Privy Council would wish to withdraw it. But what is more likely to happen is that a new substance might be invented and the Privy Council might wish to include it. But these things are not done in the dark. Notice has to be published in the Gazette, and thereby the matter is brought before the cognisance of everybody when any proposal for a new Order in Council is intended. I think that will be an ample safeguard.
    VISCOUNT HILLsaid the explanation of the noble Earl that public notice would be given of any change was satisfactory to him, and he, therefore, withdrew his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3:
    Verbal Amendment agreed to.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: The next series of Amendments open up the whole vexed question of titles, about which there has been so much controversy both in and out of the House. I hope that by these Amendments we have arrived at a conclusion which is fairly satisfactory to everybody. It is, I hope, accepted both by the Pharmaceutical Society and also by the companies who sell. I propose, in lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words "and may use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist," and to subsequently insert the words
    562
    standing in my name on the Paper. I had better speak of the Amendments together as the whole matter is one. I move to insert—
    "A body corporate, and in Scotland a firm or partnership—"
    —in Scotland a firm or partnership is a technical term which, I understand, has a different meaning from that which it would bear in England—
    "—may use the description of chemist or druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist, or of dispensing chemist or druggist, if the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business are observed—"
    that is to say, provided there is a qualified man in every shop or place in which the business is carried on—
    "And if one at least of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate, or one at least of the members of the firm or partnership, as the case may be, is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, but nothing in this provision shall authorise any body corporate, or in Scotland a firm or partnership to use the description of pharmacist."
    It is important to see how it comes about that the great companies accept this Amendment, as I am glad to believe they do. They do not use the title of chemist and druggist or chemist or druggist. Harrod's Stores, the Army and Navy Stores, and others, do not use this title, and therefore they are not obliged by this Amendment to place a qualified chemist on their board. All that they want to do is to be able to call themselves chemists on their labels and to sell, as they do in a very well-managed fashion, the various drugs. There are other companies who sell on a large scale who also are not affected by this provision, because they do have qualified men on their boards. There are some of the great chemist companies so well-known by name and by advertisement who do not object to this Amendment for that reason. But it was pointed out to us that there is a third possible class of company—namely, the bogus company; that is to say, a man gets six other men of straw to form themselves into a company. It is conceivable that a man who has been removed from the Pharmaceutical Society for malpractices might form a company of that kind, call himself a chemist and druggist, and set up as a one-man company. That we prevent, as we hope,

    563
    by this provision that there must be a qualified man on the board or partnership. I think, therefore, that this Amendment, which has been the result of a great deal of discussion and a great deal of thought, has at last reached a sufficient measure of agreement to satisfy all parties. So far as regular chemists are concerned, by a subsequent Amendment we preserve to them the special title of pharmacist. That will be the mark that will differentiate them from those who merely sell drugs as chemists, and by that means I hope we have secured, if not their complete approval, at any rate their acquiescence. I therefore move this series of Amendments with considerable confidence that the House will be willing to accept them.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words 'and may use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist,' and in line 16, after the word 'business' to insert the words 'A body corporate, and in Scotland a firm or partnership, may use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist or of druggist, or of dispensing chemist or druggist, if the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business are observed, and if one at least of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate, or one at least of the members of the firm or partnership, as the case may be, is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, but nothing in this provision shall authorise any body corporate, or in Scotland a firm or partnership, to use the description of pharmacist.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    *LORD HAVERSHAMcongratulated the noble Earl in charge of the Bill upon the strategy with which he had turned their flank by the alteration of his own Amendment. As the Amendment stood the previous night the words "dispensing chemist or druggist" appeared at the end, but they had now been dropped. The addition of those words was strongly objected to by some of the leading firms who had been in the habit for many years of using this term. He was very glad that the noble Earl had been able to drop those words, as such a provision would have constituted a grievance, and involved a serious financial loss to the companies concerned. The description of "pharmacist" was a very different thing. Pharmacist was a professional term; chemist was a trade term. He failed to see what security the provi-
    564
    vision in the Amendment of requiring one qualified chemist to be on the directorate of the company would afford, as the qualified director might be a sleeping partner, and the safety of the public arose from having a qualified dispenser in each shop. He held in his hand the judgment of Lord Blackburn, in which the noble and learned Lord distinctly said that the whole safety of the public depended on the keeping of a qualified assistant to superintend and conduct the sale of drugs.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYagreed with Lord Haversham, but felt that as a settlement had been arrived at by compromise it was inadvisable to reopen it.
    LORD SALTOUNsaid the wording had been very carefully considered by the Committee, and the provision requiring a qualified person to be in charge of every shop was inserted solely for the protection of the public. The Committee did not accept the provision that one of the members of the firm should be a duly registered chemist, but, as the matter had been agreed to, he did not desire to say anything more on the subject.
    LORD EBURYasked permission, as he was a party to the compromise on this question two years ago, to define his attitude in regard to the present proposals. Having ascertained from the newspapers the intentions of the noble Earl with regard to this Bill he sought and secured assurances that the proposals, where they varied from the compromise of two years ago, should be so worded as not to bring within their operation companies which, although they transacted the business of chemists and druggists, did not employ that designation in their title. His noble friend gave him those assurances and had repeated them again to-day. He was sure the assurances were quite sincere. But there would be one better alternative, in his opinion, than the acceptance of the proposed words, and that would be to pass the clause in the form in which it came down to the House from the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Bill. If that alternative were offered to him he would certainly embrace it.
    VISCOUNT HILLsaid he had obtained information as to a company that had recently been formed under the new Companies Act. The men concerned were engineers, but they had registered themselves as chemists and druggists. Supposing they employed a qualified man to sell drugs, he would only be a servant. He would like to know what guarantee the public had in such a case of the safe dispensing of medicines.
    LORD ASHBOURNEunderstood that the Amendment was consistent with the earlier provision that every place of business would have to be conducted by a duly qualified chemist. He understood that that was not to be affected.
    *THB EARL OF CREWE: That is so. Noble Lords will see in the Amendment the provision that it is subject to the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business being observed.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: And, in addition, the Amendment seeks to secure that in certain cases there shall be a duly registered chemist on the board of directors?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: That is so. This is really not a very important matter, but it does represent, as several noble Lords have said, an arrangement which has been arrived at. My noble friend behind me is perfectly right in saying that the titles either of chemist, or of druggist, or of chemist and druggist, or of dispensing chemist and druggist, cannot be used, although the business may be carried on—it is important to bear that distinction in mind—unless there is a qualified chemist on the board of directors. As the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ebury, has said, we fully admitted that to compel, for instance, the Army and Navy Stores, with which the noble Lord is connected, to place a qualified chemist and druggist on their board for the purposes of this Act would be something of an absurdity; and he, of course, will admit, in his turn, that he is relieved from any such responsibility by the terms of the Amendment now before the Committee. He does not want to use the title either of chemist or druggist, and, therefore need not have a qualified man on
    566
    his board. The noble Lord behind me, Lord Haversham, asked why this Amendment was necessary at all. Its intention, I admit, is not entirely for the protection of the public, although it does to some degree enter into the protection of the public. It is the desire of the pharmacy profession to meet a case of this kind. A one-man company is formed, employing no doubt a qualified assistant, but that man is, as the noble Viscount opposite has pointed out, the absolute servant of this not merely unqualified, but possibly disqualified person. Therefore, although he may be held in one sense responsible, he may be placed in a position of extreme difficulty as between his duty to the public and his duty to his employer. That kind of company, we maintain, has no locus standi to exist at all, if it is prevented from existing by this Amendment. I think it will be altogether to the advantage of the public. We entirely appreciate the work done by great chemist companies, such as Boots, and companies of that kind. We also appreciate the work done by individual chemists in small shops; but the small employer who uses a qualified chemist for his own purposes is not, we think, a person who deserves any sympathy or support; and it is the fact that it may very fairly be held that public safety is to some extent compromised by the existence of shops of that kind. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree to the Amendment as it stands.
    Consequential Amendments agreed to.
    Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4:
    THE EARL OF CREWE THE EARL OF CREWE moved to amend subsection (b)—
    "Providing for the registration, upon payment of the prescribed fee, as pharmaceutical chemists or chemists and druggists under the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 and 1868, without examination, of any persons holding colonial diplomas who produce evidence satisfactory to the council of the society that they are persons of sufficient skill and knowledge to be so registered,"
    by adding, after the word "diplomas," the words "or of qualified military

    567
    dispensers." The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment which is inserted at the desire of the War Office, and I have no doubt your Lordships will agree to it.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 35, after the word'diplomas,' to insert the words 'or of qualified military dispensers.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5:
    LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out the word "poison" and to insert the word "substance" in five places in Clause 5. His object was, he explained, to avoid the confusion which probably might arise owing to the use of the word "poison" to cover the very many meanings attached to that word in the Bill. It was very little more than a verbal Amendment, but he thought it one of considerable advantage.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 4, line 1, to leave out the word poison,' and to insert the word 'substance.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not know that the proposed substitution is very much of an improvement in the Bill as it stands, but I do not wish to offer any opposition to it.
    Consequential Amendment agreed to.
    LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend the first subsection, which provided that—
    "It shall not be lawful to sell any poison to which this section applies by retail, unless the box, bottle, vessel, wrapper, or cover in which the poison is contained is distinctly labelled with the name of the substance and the word poison',"
    by omitting "Poison," and inserting "Dangerous; not to be taken." He said it was practically the same as his other Amendments, and was to show the difference between the two classes of poisons.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 4, to leave out the word 'word,' and to insert the word 'words,' and to leave out the word 'poison,' and to insert the words 'Dangerous; not to be taken.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
    *THB EARL OF CREWE: I do not think that it is practically the same. You have to consider the effect of the word "poison" on the public. These things undoubtedly are poisons, and, in my opinion, the word "poison" is a more effective word to frighten the public than the word "dangerous."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Consequential Amendments agreed to.
    Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6:
    *THE EARL OF CREWE*THE EARL OF CREWE moved to omit from Clause 6 the words applying the Bill to Ireland. He said: I have already explained, on the Motion to go into Committee, the reasons which actuated us in applying only two sections of this Bill to Ireland, and I do not think I need say any more on the subject. I shall move a new clause after Clause 6 dealing with the application to Ireland.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 4, line 19, to leave out from the word 'nine' to the end of the clause.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he, too, had stated all he wished to say on this point. But he would observe that the particular Amendment it was now sought by the noble Earl largely to obliterate was moved in the Select Committee by the Chairman, Lord Haversham, and assented to without objection.
    THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE,who last year moved the exclusion of Ireland, from the Bill, said that as its application to Ireland had been considered by the Select Committee and they recommended that Ireland should be included, he would not further oppose its inclusion.
    Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment moved—
    "After Clause 6, to insert the following new Clause":—'(1) The provisions of this Act relative to the regulation of sale of certain poisonous substances for agricultural and horticultural purposes and to restrictions on sale of certain mineral acids shall apply to Ireland, with the following modifications: (a) For the reference to the Pharmacy Act, 1868, there shall be substituted a reference to the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, and the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) 1875, Amendment Act, 1890, and the reference to regulations made under Section one of the first-mentioned Act shall not apply; (b) for references to Orders in Council by His Majesty, or to Orders in Council, there shall be substituted references to Orders in Council by the Lord-Lieutenant; (c) the reference to a duly registered chemist and druggist shall include a reference to a registered druggist. (2) Save as provided by this section, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to Ireland.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    Schedule:
    *THE EARL OF CEEWE*THE EARL OF CEEWE moved to leave out the Schedule and to insert a new Schedule. The noble Earl said, I need not say anything upon this Amendment except that the amended Schedule has been arrived at by a comparison of the original Government Schedule with that presented by the Pharmaceutical Society. It has been the subject of close discussion between the competent people representing the Government chemists and analysts and the society, and we hope that this Schedule as now to be amended really produces the best features of both the lists which were prepared, one by the Government, and one by the society.
    Amendment moved—
    "In pages 5 and 6, to leave out the Schedue, and to insert the following new Suhedule:—'Part I.—Arsenic and its medicinal preparations; aconite, aconitine, and their preparations; alkaloids:—all poisonous vegetable alkaloids not specifically named in this Schedule and their salts, and all poisonous derivatives of vegetable alkaloids; atropine and its salts, and their preparations; belladonna, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0·1 or more per cent, of belladonna alkaloids; cantharides, and its poisonous derivatives; coca any preparation or admixture of, containing I or more per cent, of coca alkaloids; corrosive sublimate; cyanide of potassium, and all poisonous cyanides and their preparations; emetic tartar, and all preparations or ad-
    570
    mixtures containing I or more per cent, of emetic tartar; ergot of rye, and preparations of ergots; nux vomica, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0·2 or more per cent, of strychnine; opium and all preparations or admixtures containing 1 or more per cent, morphine; picrotoxin; prussic acid, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0·1 or more per cent, of prussic acid; savin and its oil, and all preparations or admixtures containing savin or its oil. Part II.—Almonds, essential oil of (unless deprived of prussic acid); antimonial wine; cantharides, tincture and all vesicating liquid preparations or admixtures of; carbolic acid, and liquid preparations of carbolic acid and its homologues containing more than 3 per cent, of those substances, except preparations for use as sheep wash or for any other purpose in connection with agriculture or horticulture contained in a closed vessel distinctly labelled with the word 'poisonous,' the name and address of the seller, and a notice of the special purposes for which the preparations are intended; chloral hydrate; chloroform, and all preparations or admixtures containing more than 20 per cent, of chloroform; coca, any preparation or admixture of, containing more than 0·1 per cent, but less than 1 per cent, of coca alkaloids; digitalis; mercuric iodide; mercuric sulphocyanide; oxalic acid; poppies, all preparations of, excepting red poppy petals and syrup of red poppies (papaver rhæas); precipitate, rod, and all oxides of mercury; precipitate, white; strophanthus; sulphonal; all preparations or admixtures which are not included in Part I. of this Schedule, and contain a poison within the meaning of the Pharmacy Acts, except preparations or admixtures, the exclusion of which from this Schedule is indicated by the words therein relating to carbolic acid, chloroform, and coca, and except such substances as come within the provisions of Section 5 of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    LORD ASHBOURNEinquired whether the amended Schedule contained any substantial alterations.
    *THE EABL OF CREWE: It does not include, so far as I know, any new substances of importance except in a technical sense. The terms of description are in some degree altered, but the Schedule does not include any new substance which would be of interest to the noble and learned Lord or myself.
    Bill reported, with Amendments to the House.
    Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    LORD ASHBOURNE: Why is the Standing Committee to be negatived?

    571
    If the Standing Committee is to be recognised at all, it is just a Bill of this kind that should be referred to it.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I would remind the noble and learned Lord that the Bill has been very carefully considered by a Joint Committee and has also had the advantage of the close attention of the Government draftsman. But, if the noble and learned Lord wishes it, the Bill shall go to the Standing Committee.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: I think the fact that the noble Earl has thrown over a substantial part of the recommendations of the Select Committee is a good reason why this Bill should go to the Standing Committee. I will, however, withdraw my objection.
    THE EAEL OF CAMPERDOWN:I beg to give notice that, on some early day, I shall move the abolition of the Standing Committee stage.
    On Question, Standing Committee negatived.
    The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 151.)

    LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to amend the law as regards a landlord's right of distress. I think I may almost describe it as a reply to an invitation from the Judicial Bench. As your Lordships are aware, the law of distress in its primary form enabled the landlord to seize on any goods in place of rent due. The extreme severity of that law was alleviated long ago, and the Act of 1871 exempted from seizure the goods of lodgers, excepting in so far as they were in arrears of rent to their immediate landlord. That left the general law in a condition that required a good deal of amendment and a strong case that happened two years ago drew special attention to it.
    572
    Your Lordships will probably remember the incident. A society of artists entered into an agreement with a person to hold an exhibition of their productions in a hall in the West End, and scarcely had their pictures been stored there than the superior landlord seized them in distress to meet the rent due to him from the immediate landlord of the society. The case was brought before the Courts, and Mr. Justice Neville expressed a strong opinion upon the barbarity of the law, and said it was a scandal that it should remain in that condition unamended. He was constrained, however, to allow the right of the superior landlord to be exercised. The case was carried to the Court of Appeal where the same language was held in respect to the state of the law and the necessity of amending it.
    The present Bill is intended to move in the direction indicated, if I may say so, by members of the Judicial Bench. It proposes practically to place all tenants in the position in which lodgers are placed under the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act of 1871, and to exempt their goods from seizure by the superior landlord, except so far as the tenant might be in arrear to the immediate landlord. To that extent the superior landlord would be entitled to seize and make good his claim. I think the principle of the Bill will recommend itself to your Lordships' approbation. The Bill does ensure the result aimed at, though I must admit that the form of it may require some attention. It is, in fact, an illustration of that form of drafting to which the attention of your Lordships was recently drawn and which is open to much criticism. It is an illustration of drafting by reference, but I hope that objection to the form of the Bill will not interfere with the acceptance of the Second Reading in order that in Committee it may be put into a shape that will more recommend itself.
    The observations made from the Judicial Bench in the case to which I have referred excited the attention of many people. When I read them I thought the amendment of the law which was invited by Mr. Justice Neville and the Judges of the Appeal Court might reasonably be introduced into your Lordships' House. I therefore drafted a Bill for the purpose. I recognised, however,

    573
    that any Bill introduced in your Lordship's House would stand no chance of becoming law, owing to the state of business in the other House, unless it received the support of His Majesty's Government. I subsequently observed that a Member of the other House had taken up the subject and introduced a Bill, and thereupon I readily agreed not to proceed further with my own project. The hon. Member who had charge of the Bill did not secure a good place in the ballot, and the only way in which it was possible to pass the Bill was by presenting it to the other House in the form in which it has now reached your Lordships. It has been considered there very carefully. It was read a second time and referred to one of the Grand Committees, where it was gone into in great detail. A readiness was expressed—I do not know that I can put it higher—on the part of the representative of the Government to entertain the notion of a Consolidating Bill to amend the law of distress, which would incorporate the present Bill and the Act of 1871 in one measure.
    But I appeal to your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Beading on account of its merits, so that we may have an opportunity in Committee to put it in a shape which may commend it to your Lordships generally. I should be happy to confer between now and the Committee stage with any of your Lordships who might do me the honour of making suggestions as to the form of the Bill. I certainly hope that this scandalous state of the law will not remain unamended for another year. I beg very confidently to recommend the principle of the Bill to your Lordships.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to interpose between the noble Lord and the House, except to say that though this is not a Government Bill, it is one which the Government support, simply because it gives fair play. I hope that your Lordships will distinguish between form and substance. The question of form is, after all, a small matter. The Bill is drawn on the basis of assimilating other persons to lodgers. It might have been drawn
    574
    otherwise, and have been placed alongside a Consolidating Bill in the same way as the Patents Bill was a year and a-half ago. As to the question of form, we can correct that. The point is whether it is right in substance. Surely it is right. I do not want to dogmatise, but I think everybody will hold that.
    At present the general law is that the landlord may distrain on any goods he finds on the premises, whether they belong to the tenant or not, in order to pay the rent due by the tenant alone. In other words, the property of one man may be taken to pay the debt of another. That is very cruel indeed in operation, as was exemplified in the case of the Society or Artists to which reference has been made. They had placed their pictures in the hall for the purpose of selling them, and had paid the rent for the use of the hall; yet down came the superior landlord and seized their pictures and sold them because his tenant had not paid him. That is revolting, I venture to think, to all lovers of fair play.
    May I read two or three sentences from what was said by Lord Blackburn as to how this extraordinary law came to be the law of England. The learned Judge said—
    "The general rule of common law was that whatever was found on demised premises, whether belonging to a stranger or not, might be seized by the landlord and held as a distress till the rent was paid or the service performed. That was the old law, and it produced no harm. But in the reign of William and Mary a very harsh and unjust law was passed by which the right was given to the landlord to sell goods seized, and to apply the proceeds to the payment of the rent unless the tenant or owner of the goods first paid it; and this held out a great temptation to the landlord to seize goods although he knew they were not the tenants.'
    I do not believe most landlords would seize the goods of a stranger which were upon their tenants' premises. It is wrong, hard, and unfair, that that should be done. There are exceptions to that harsh rule which have been engrafted upon it from time to time, so that the enactment has been eroded a good deal. The principle of the Bill is one of elementary fairness, and one which will, therefore, appeal to your Lordships.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, while I have no intention of offering any objection to the Second Reading of the

    575
    Bill I was glad to recognise in the candid and temperate statement of Lord Courtney that he was aware of the fact that the Bill requires consideration and amendment. No one would seek to defend at this time of day the right to seize one man's property for another man's debt. Efforts have from time to time been made, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, to meet this harsh rule in certain cases. The most notable is the Act of 1871, known as the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act. That Act gave protection in respect of lodgers' goods, and is in beneficent operation. But this Bill is clumsy and awkward, and in some particulars may not be quite defensible. I do not doubt that it represents an honest desire to deal with the problem; but when it comes to be considered it will be found to need alteration. After all, landlords are not to be treated as outlaws. There may be cases in which they have a legitimate right to appeal to this old law of distress, and, therefore, that law should not be too drastically dealt with. I noted the noble Lord's statement that he had applied his own skill to drafting a Bill. It would be very interesting if the noble Lord's Bill could be put side by side with this one, and perhaps he will give us an opportunity of doing so.
    VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before we part with the Second Reading of this Bill I think it would be useful to call the attention of your Lordships to its extraordinary drafting, which has been already admitted by the noble Lord in charge of the measure. It is one of the worst specimens of drafting by reference that I have ever seen. The Act which it is proposed to amend is the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act of 1871. I hold that Act in my hand. The enacting part of it, omitting the preamble, takes less than a page of the Statute-Book. It consists of no more than three enacting clauses, which this Bill proposes to amend.
    How does it propose to amend them? In the first place, wherever the word "lodger" occurs in the existing Act, certain other words are to be substituted. The word "lodger" occurs fourteen or fifteen times in the forty-five lines of
    576
    the original Act. Next the Bill proposes to strike out six lines of the first section of the existing Act, and to substitute ten lines for them. It strikes out three lines in the second section of the Act, and substitutes five lines for them. Then it leaves out the whole of the third section in the Act, and substitutes a much longer one; and, finally, it contains a new clause altogether excluding certain goods. Then there is the short title and the construction of the Act. If it were intended to frame a Bill from which it should be impossible for anyone to ascertain the law, that purpose could not have been carried out better than in this Bill. No one, whether lawyer or not, could possibly ascertain from it what the law is without having the other Act also in his hand.
    After what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I should hope that, assuming the House is prepared to accept this Bill as it stands—I do not know whether it is or not—His Majesty's Government would take up this question, repeal the Act of 1871, and bring in a complete Bill enacting the law as it is proposed to be amended by this Bill. I must say that if we are in this House to fulfil our duty as a revising Chamber, we should never find a better case for its exercise than is afforded by this Bill. I hope that is the course which His Majesty's Government will follow. I also trust that, after what has been said recently from both sides of the House as to the evils of legislation by reference, some practical step will be taken to show the other House and those concerned that, at any rate, we do not approve of this evil system.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am in entire agreement with everything that has fallen from the noble Viscount, both as regards the form of this particular Bill and on the general subject of legislation by reference; but I confess I am a little nervous when he asks us to take up a private Bill, after what fell from the noble Marquess yesterday, even when the object is such a good one as this Bill has in view. I therefore cannot make any promise of that kind, but I am sure that if the noble Viscount devoted himself to wording it he would

    577
    do it quite as well as, if not better than, we could. I agree that if the Bill is to leave your Lordships' House it ought to leave it, though not in substance, at any rate in form, very different from what it is at present.
    THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with a subject which is much better dealt with by lawyers than by laymen, and I had hoped that some noble Lord would have called attention to the matter of this Bill as well as to its form. I do not consider the matter is quite so simple as some noble Lords seem to think. I suppose we all agree that hard cases such as that mentioned by Lord Courtney ought to be remedied; and if the Bill had been confined to dealing with cases of that sort I think we should all have agreed. But I must point out that it goes a great deal further. Under the Bill a ground landlord may be placed in a serious difficulty if the person to whom he had let land on a building lease disappears after having obtained a premium from a tenant to whom the property had been sub-let without the landowner having any voice in the matter.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He could take possession of the property. A landowner letting land on lease or otherwise always reserves the power of re-entry in the event of the rent not being paid, and if the ground rent were not paid he would take possession of the property with the improvements upon it. That is what makes ground rents such a valuable property.
    THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: If the noble and learned Lord says that, of course I accept it; but I was informed that there was no protection for the ground landlord in the Bill.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

    EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

    SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I have some confidence in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, because it is one of the very few measures relating to Ireland which have been fortunate enough to pass the House of Commons with unanimous consent. I am informed that it has the approval of the temperance party, and also of the trade in Ireland. It is a Bill to amend the law relating to drunkenness in Ireland and for purposes connected therewith.
    I need only mention a few of the most important clauses. The first clause protects the property of a woman where the husband has been proved to be a habitual drunkard, and the second clause does the same for the property of the husband where the wife is a habitual drunkard. Clause 4 prevents anything so protected from being sold, and the fifth clause gives a right of appeal when an order imposing a fine or inflicting punishment has been made under the Act. The seventh clause states that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, where the breach of contract for which damages are awarded under that Act consists of or includes drunkenness, or was directly contributed to by drunkenness, the Court may award imprisonment in default of the payment of the said damages as if the same were a penal sum. The 8th Clause makes a person liable to a penalty who, being drunk while in charge of any person, or animal, or thing, endangers the life or limb of any person; and Clause 10 provides a penalty for persons found drunk in charge of children on licensed premises. There are one or two points, which, perhaps, may require Amendment in Committee, but I think I may recommend the Bill as a good one in itself. I therefore ask your Lord-ships to give it a Second Reading.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
    LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a very clear and concise account of the contents of the Bill, which has the approval of the Government, and to the Second Reading of which they cordially assent.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it is impossible to read this Bill without seeing that it is aimed at meeting a great evil. It was piloted through the House of Commons by the Marquess of Hamilton the Member for Londonderry, and it deals with a matter which has attracted a great deal of attention in that part of the country with which my noble friend is connected. It provides for the grave case of husbands who become habitual drunkards and ruin their homes, and also with the case of married women who become habitual drunkards and wreck the happiness of their families. The Bill commended itself to general approval in the House of Commons, and I apprehend that your Lordships will be pleased to accord to it a rapid transit through this House.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

    ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

    THE FLYING OF THE UNION JACK
    *EARL HOWE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government, with a view to removing any possible doubt that may exist on the subject, whether it is a fact that the full Union Jack may be flown on land by every citizen in the Empire as well as on Government Offices and Public Buildings.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl asks me, with a view to removing any possible doubt that may exist on the subject, whether it is a fact that the full Union Jack may be flown on land by every citizen in the Empire. As many of us know, there
    580
    has existed in the public mind a Curious confusion as to what flags may be flown and what may not. At one time it seemed to be believed that the Royal Standard could be flown anywhere and by anybody. That, however, as we now know, is not the case. It was formally announced that the Royal Standard is the personal flag of the Sovereign, and cannot properly be flown without His Majesty's permission, which is only granted when either the King or Queen is present. But, of course, a very different state of things applies to the Union Jack. I think it may fairly be stated, in reply to the noble Earl, that the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag, and it undoubtedly may be flown on land by all His Majesty's subjects.
    THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords' I am very pleased indeed to hear from His Majesty's Government the statement that the Union Jack may be flown on land by all British subjects. There has been a certain amount of doubt on the subject, and it is as well that it should have been set at rest. It is rather curious that a British citizen is about the only one who is not quite certain under what flag he really stands as a private citizen; and I have known of some instances in this country where the Union Jack has actually been pulled down by the police. I am obliged to His Majesty's Government for having definitely cleared up this matter.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, til To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.