Sitting of 2 June 1908

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE)
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Wye Fisheries Provisional Order Bill; Usk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Ards and Bangor Railways Bill (by Order).—Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.—Read a second time, and committed.
  Standing Orders.—Resolution reported from the Select Committee, "That, in the case of the River Wandle Protection [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Tramways Order Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be considered To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title amended] [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  King's College, London (Transfer) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Hurly's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Hurly's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Hurly's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the Documents deposited in the cases, be returned to the House of Lords.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Grimsby; Iden Green; and Kilburn; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Bassetlaw; Hallamshire (two); North East Derbyshire; Sheffield; and South Huntingdonshire; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions for alteration: From Grimsby; Iden Green; Kilburn; and Saltney Ferry; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Acton; Belfast; Bermondsey (two); Bledington; Catford; Chelsea; Chiswick; Cwmllynfell; Dyserth; Edinburgh; Findhorn; Forest Hill; Garth; Gronant; Hampstead; Hamsterley; Keighley; Leicester; Mold; Neston; Otterburn; Rochdale; Trenddyn; Tring; Watford (three); and Yorkshire (West Riding); to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bridge of Allan; and St. Andrew's to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS BILL.
  Petition from Lewisham, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (DEATHS FROM PLAGUE, ETC.)
  Return [presented 1st June] to be printed. [No. 160.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Reports of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, etc., for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order, dated the 23rd May, 1908. defining a Foreign Animals' Quarantine Station at Iron-gate Wharf, in the City of London [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 25th May, 1908, revoking Order No. 7487.
  1676
  of 23rd May, 1908, defining a Foreign Animals' Quarantine Station at Irongate Wharf, in the City of London [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SALOP).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Salop with respect to the Polling Districts in the four Parliamentary Divisions of the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Reports, Statistics, etc., on Continuation Classes and Central Institutions (Scotland), 1906–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COMMERCIAL TREATIES (COMMERCIAL, No. 4, 1908.)
  Copy presented, of Return showing the countries between which Commercial Treaties were in force on 1st January, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4001 and 4002 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th April; Mr. Hobhouse]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDI TURE.
  Return ordered, "of net Public Income and net Public Expenditure under certain specified heads, as represented by receipts into and issues out of the Exchequer from 1893–4 to 1907–8 inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 254, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Ellis.)
  EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT).
  Address for "Return of the Indian Financial Statement for 1908–9, and of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General thereon."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  England and France and Death Duties.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in regard to the agreement between England and France with respect to death duties, it is to be understood that information hitherto confidential, and furnished confidentially, to the Inland Revenue authorities is now disclosed for the purpose of complying with Article No. 1 of the said agreement.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The information referred to is obtained from documents which, although neither confidential nor furnished confidentially, are not open to public inspection.

  Compensation for Injuries to West at Enfield Lock Factory.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the case of—West, a workman at Enfield Lock factory, who, after being injured several times in the course of following his employment, has been offered a small and, as he considers, an inadequate sum, in compensation; and if the case can be reconsidered with a view to the grant of a pension at least equal to the sum which would be awarded under the Compensation Act of 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the numerous replies which have been given to Questions on this subject during the present session, and in particular to the Answer of my predecessor on 25th March last to the hon. Member for Enfield. I can hold out no hope of any further assistance for this man from public funds.

  Conflicting Duties of Home Office Surgeons.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the apparent inconsistency of surgeons appointed by the Home Office to official positions, as, for example, those
  1678
  of medical referee or certifying surgeon, holding at the same time positions in which they have to represent an interest sometimes at variance with their official functions; whether in consequence the same surgeon often has to act judicially and also to be called as a witness by a litigant in the same case; whether the certifying surgeons in the Potteries districts hold appointments from the Potteries Insurance Company; whether such certifying surgeons investigate on behalf of the insurance company cases of suspected lead poisoning first diagnosed by the medical attendant of the workmen and attend the directors' meeting to be consulted by the insurance company upon cases in their respective districts; whether a workman can only receive compensation for disablement from a scheduled disease if he first obtains a certificate, while in the event of appeal against refusual of a certificate the certifying surgeon is often retained by the insurance company or employers to represent them in appeal; whether he will consider the possibility of providing in future appointments for a greater separation of duties; and, in the case of lead poisoning, whether he will allow the matter to be considered by the Departmental Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) In the case of medical referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is, with few exceptions, made a condition of appointment that the referee shall not hold any position such as that of a works doctor or medical officer of a workmen's club, or any regular employment from an accident insurance company, which might cause him to be regarded as representing the interests of any party in cases arising under the Act. The case of certifying surgeons, who are primarily appointed for duties under the Factory Act, stands on a somewhat different footing, and no similar condition is imposed. I have made inquiries, however, of the certifying surgeons in the Potteries districts and am informed by them that they do not hold appointments from the Potteries Insurance Company, and do not investigate on behalf of the company cases of suspected lead poisoning or attend the directors meetings. It appears that in

  1679
  pursuance of an arrangement made before the passing of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in connection with the scheme of insurance in the special rules, the certifying surgeons have made weekly examinations of operatives who had been suspended by them under the rules and furnished the worker with a certificate of his condition. There have been very few appeals so far against the determination of certifying surgeons, in the first nine months ten, of which two only referred to lead cases, and I cannot say whether the certifying surgeon has appeared before the referee or not. The certificate of the surgeon which is appealed against has, under the Secretary of State's rules, to be submitted to the referee, who is also required to consider any statements made or submitted by either party. If either party wishes to submit any explanation by the certifying surgeon of the grounds for his decision, I do not think that could properly be prevented. As regards the point raised by my right hon. friend in the penultimate sentence of the Question, this is already provided for, as above stated, in the case of medical referees, and as regards certifying surgeons it has not escaped my consideration. It would not, however, be possible to lay down a strict rule, because in industrial districts it is often difficult to find a well-qualified medical man who does not hold some appointment from employers or associations of workpeople. The question would be outside the scope of the reference to the Lead Committee, but I shall be happy to inquire into any case of grievance which may have come to the notice of my right hon. friend.

  Dangerous Street Crossing in Theobald's Road.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention-has been called to the dangerous condition of the junction of Southampton Row and Theobald's Road, Holborn, and the London County Council tramway sub-way where, within five weeks recently, no less than seven deaths have been caused by accidents due to the dangerous condition of the traffic; and whether he will ask the Chief Commissioner of
  1680
  Police to give extra police protection to the public at this spot.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Commissioner of Police is aware that the heavy traffic of all kinds which passes along Theobald's Road renders it dangerous as a thoroughfare, and the two chief points of danger are its junctions with Southampton Row and Gray's Inn Road. At each of these points there are two constables regulating the traffic, and a police patrol has recently been stationed to prevent dangerous driving on the section between these points. Moreover police on beat duty have orders to give special attention to traffic there. The omnibus companies have also been asked to instruct their drivers to exercise special caution in this road. I understand that there have been five persons killed in Theobald's Road this year, but that there has been no fatal accident at its junction with Southampton Row since the opening of the London County Council tramway subway in February, 1906.

  Renewal of Leases of Licensed Premises.
  MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Prime Minister whether, under under the Licensing Bill, a' licence holder holding a long lease of on-licensed premises at a rack-rent will, on the expiration of the time-limit, continue liable to pay such rent although the licence has terminated; and whether in the event of the said licensee obtaining a re-grant of the licence as a new licence under Clause 3 (1), he will have to pay the monopoly value of the licence, although that value is already included in the rent he is paying under the covenants of the lease.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The question is one which depends upon the terms of the particular contract between the parties to the lease, and on the legal construction of such contract, upon which I am not in a position to advise. In view of the long notice which it is proposed should be given of the intention of Parliament to secure the monopoly value to the State, I doubt whether, in practice, any cases of hardship such as are contemplated by the Question will arise.

  Amalgamation of Colonial Audit Branch with the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with reference to the recent amalgamation of the old Colonial Audit Branch with the main establishment of the Exchequer and Audit Department, he will give a reference to the next previous case where three men or more were simultaneously granted certificates under Clause VII. of the Order in Council of 4th June, 1870, the effect of which was to introduce them into a department on a permanent footing but with higher emoluments than existing officials of the same rank who were employed on the same duties, and who entered the Civil Service by open competition,
  (Answered by Mr. Hohhouse.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply of 6th April last, which explained the dissimilarity in the position of the two classes referred to.

  Appointments as Inspecting Surveyor of Customs.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many vacancies have occurred in the grade of inspecting surveyor in the Customs since the creation of that office; and tow many such vacancies were filled by candidates who joined the Customs service as clerks and the outdoor department, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am informed that there have been eight vacancies in the grade of inspecting surveyor since its creation, seven of which were filled by officers who entered the Department as clerks, and the eighth by an officer who entered as an outdoor officer. In deciding on the grade from which appointments shall be made in each case the Board are guided solely by the position held by an officer at the time the selection is made, and not by the rank he held when he joined the Department. Of the eight officers appointed four were surveyors in the outdoor department and four collectors prior to their selection for the post of inspecting surveyor.

  Education of Roman Catholic Children in Protestant Countries abroad.
  MR. HUTTON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will present a Parliamentary Paper showing what is the position of Roman Catholic schools or the children of Roman Catholic parents in the Protestant cantons of Switzerland, in the Protestant states of Germany, in Holland, in the United States, and in the Colonies; also stating what is the position of the children of Protestant parents in Italy, Spain, Austria, and Belgium.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Board hope to publish in the course of a few days a Parliamentary Paper dealing with the system known as the "allocation of rates" in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The volumes of special Reports on educational subjects which from time to time have been issued by the Board describe the educational systems in some of the countries named, but I fear that the Board possess no detailed or collated information on the subject. The compilation of a Return or Memorandum in sufficient detail to be of any value on this very complicated question would involve the collection of a large mass of material from foreign and Colonial Governments, and, owing to the complexity of some of the systems, would further necessitate local investigations. I regret, therefore, that the magnitude of the work is too great to admit of the Board undertaking it with the staff at their disposal. I may at the same time draw the attention of my hon. friend to the list of books and papers on religious instruction in schools in various parts of the world issued by the Board in 1906 [Cd. 3208]. Information on the point referred to in my hon. friend's Question will be found in most of the books and pamphlets named on pages 44 to 74, inclusive, of that document. Most of these documents can be consulted at the Board of Education library.

  Noxious Vapours from Motor Vehicles.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the growing practice on the part of drivers of motor

  1683
  vehicles of discharging volumes of oil-smoke from the exhaust pipes of the cars, to the great inconvenience of the general public; whether the police have had any instructions issued to them for dealing with this nuisance; and who is responsible for those instructions being carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I can only answer for the Metropolitan police district, and I do not think this evil is increasing there, at any rate in proportion to the greatly increased number of motor vehicles now on the streets. With regard to motor cars, when the emission of smoke is due to any temporary or accidental cause, which I believe is almost invariably the case, the police have no power to take any action. As regards motor cabs and motor omnibuses, it is a condition of their licensing in London that "the lubrication of the engine or the carburation of the working mixture must be so controlled that smoke is not projected with the exhaust, or from any other part." A large number of vehicles have been, and are being, dealt with under this rule, and ordered off the streets till their defects are remedied.

  Sunday Closing Shops Bill.
  MR. MCARTHUR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say when the Sunday Closing of Shops Bill [Lords] will be proceeded with.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It has been already stated in another place that the Government are unable, in the existing state of public business, to afford any facilities to the Bill.

  Medical Referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  MR. HILLS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many medical referees were appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act prior to the Act of 1907 coming into force; how many references were referred to each such referee; how many times the county court judges have asked such medical referees to act as assessors with them or called them in to advise them as to their judgments; and have
  1684
  the Channel Islands, and Guernsey in particular, refused to adopt the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) If I understand the first part of the hon. Member's inquiry rightly, he desires to know how many medical referees have been appointed for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. The number is 343. The total number of references made to referees in the nine months from 1st July, 1907, the date on which the Act of 1906 came into force, up to 31st of last March, the latest date for which figures are available, is 189. Of these references twelve were made under Section 8 of the Act, twenty-eight under Paragraph 15 of Schedule I., and 149 under Paragraph 15 of Schedule II. The number of cases during the same period in which referees have been summoned to sit as assessors is thirty-three. The States of both Jersey and Guernsey have deliberated on the question of enacting legislation for the islands on the lines of our Act of 1906, but in. both cases the proposal was rejected.

  Fatal Accident at the Workshops for the Blind Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a fatal accident which occurred recently in the Workshops for the Blind, Belfast, whereby a boy of eleven years of age sustained injuries from falling into a tank of boiling water, which resulted in his death; whether he is aware that the boy was one of some fifteen or sixteen other boys who are employed to lead the blind workers to their work and home again; whether he will say if the tank referred to is sufficiently protected; and, if not, whether he will see that steps are taken to prevent such an accident in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have obtained a report by telegram from His Majesty's inspector, from which it appears that the boy in question was not employed within the meaning of the Factory Act, and that the children, of whom he was one, who lead the blind workers to and from their homes daily, are not supposed to enter the premises at all. The boy, instead of passing

  1685
  between the tanks where there was a passage, climbed over the parapet of the tank and fell in. The tank is adequately fenced by a wall three feet three inches in height and fifteen inches broad. Precautions have been taken to prevent these children from entering the premises in future.

  Protection of Property at Belfast Harbour.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement made in Belfast police court, on behalf of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, as to wholesale larcenies having taken place recently on the quays, for the policing of which the Commissioners are responsible; whether he can state the number of police under the control of the Harbour Commissioners and the annual cost of the same; and whether he will direct the attention of the Commissioners to the necessity of taking proper precautions to safeguard the property of persons using the quays.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am informed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that they are unaware of any statement having been made on their behalf as to the number of larcenies on their quays. They state that the number of policemen employed by them is sixty-eight, and the annual cost £4,868 17s. 3d., and that during the twelve months ending 31st May last there were 113 arrests for larceny.

  Sale of the Estate of J. P. Evans, at Knockaderry.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how matters stand with regard to the sale of the estate of J. P. Evans, situate at Knockaderry, Newcastle West, in the County of Limerick, to the tenants; whether he is aware that agreements for purchase were signed by the tenants about four years ago, and that they are still getting receipts from the agent and receiver on account of rent: and if he will say why it is that the Estates Commissioners are not collecting the interest on the purchase amounts agreed on by the tenants.
  1686
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have had the estate in question inspected with a view to making an offer to the Land Judge for its purchase under Section 7 of the Act of 1903. The inspector's report has been received, and will be considered by the Commissioners in due course. It is not the practice of the Commissioners to collect interest from the tenants in such cases until the Land Judge has accepted their offer to purchase.

  Methylated Spirit Drinking in Ulster.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the continued prevalence of the habit of drinking methylated spirits as a substitute for alcohol in Ulster, and particularly in County Derry; and whether he will consider the possibility of taking some effective steps to mitigate this evil, which is a danger to the health of the labouring classes in the districts affected.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have obtained reports from the police authorities which go to show that the practice in question does not now prevail in Ulster to any considerable extent. In some parts of County Tyrone the practice is stated to exist to a small extent, and in the city of Londonderry a few cases have from time to time come under the notice of the police; but the practice appears to be on the decrease. Under the Spirits Acts, 1880, any person who sells methylated spirits as a beverage incurs a penalty of £100, which is recoverable by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The police have been instructed to afford all possible assistance to the Inland Revenue authorities in the prevention and detection of the offence in question.

  Regulations under the Sugar Convention.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Additional Act of 28th August, 1907, especially having regard to Article 3, operated as a notice terminating the existing Sugar Convention on 1st September, 1908, and as the making of a fresh and different Convention for five

  1687
  years from 1st September, 1908; and, seeing that the Sugar Convention Act, 1903, which authorised the making of Orders in Council and regulations under the original Convention, cannot give validity to regulations carrying out a fresh Convention upon different terms and for a period not contemplated by the Act of 1903, will he say whether it is proposed to introduce a Bill to give power to make Orders in Council and regulations which will be valid after 1st September, 1908.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) In reply to the first part of the Question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Additional Act, where it is stated that "the contracting States undertake to maintain the Convention of 5th March, 1902, in force for a fresh period of five years, commencing on 1st September, 1908." With regard to the necessity for further legislation suggested in the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question on 27th May, and to the reply given in this House on 26th May to a Question put by the hon. Member for Brighton.

  Darfield Council Schools.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether any, and, if so, what, grant has been paid in respect of the temporary council school erected at Darfield for the week commencing Monday, 1st September, 1907; whether he is aware that the school was not completed at that period; and can he say whether the Catholic school at Low Valley will now be restored to the grant list, seeing that the conditions laid down by his predecessor in office as to the provision of a temporary council school at Darfield were not fulfilled on the appointed day.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the temporary council school was opened on 2nd September. The claim for grant has not yet been received. I understand that certain persons have given notice of their intention to provide a new Catholic school, and-that the local education authority have appealed under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902, on the ground that
  1688
  the proposed school is not required. It will be the duty of the Board to decide the issue under Section 9 of that Act.

  Prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total number of persons proceeded against for offences under Section 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, on the last occasion when the provisions of the section were operative; the results of such proceedings; the number of cases in which appeals were taken from the decisisons of resident magistrates, and the results of such appeals; and the number of persons in respect of whom cases were stated for the opinion of the High Court of Judicature, with results.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Proclamations under Section 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act were last in force from 16th April, 1902, to 14th July, 1903. Several prosecutions, however, took place under Subsection 3 (a) of Section 2 in which case a proclamation is not necessary, between 13th August, 1901, and the issue of the proclamations on 16th April, 1902. Between 13th August, 1901, and 21st January, 1903, when the last of the prosecutions took place, the total number of persons proceeded against under Section 2 was 189, of whom 129 were convicted, forty-three discharged, and seventeen ordered to find sureties. Appeals were taken in the case of fifty-four persons, the results being that as regards twenty persons the decision was affirmed, as regards thirty the sentence was reduced, and in the case of the remaining four persons the decision was reversed. Cases were stated for the opinion of the High Court in four cases comprising seventeen defendants. In three of the cases the magistrates' decisions were upheld, and in the remaining case the decision was upheld as regards one of the three defendants and reversed as regards the other two.

  Extension of Public Trustee Act to Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  1689
  of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of extending the Public Trustee Act to Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for North Wexford on 25th May.

  Extra Messing Allowance to Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the additional allowance of £10 per annum sanctioned by the General Officer Commanding, Northern Command, to be given to sergeant instructors of Volunteers, in consideration of the extra price of meat, bread, groceries, fuel, and light outside barracks has been withdrawn on the formation of the Territorial Force; and if he can state why that allowance has been withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Any payment of the nature indicated would have been confined to particular Volunteer corps and paid out from the corps funds. As I explained yesterday, the Army Council will consider recommendations made by associations for increase of the authorised allowances in the case of sergeant instructors performing extra work.

  Closing of Liquor Shops in Bombay.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Excise Committee, 1905–6 recommended that liquor shops should be closed at 9 p.m. or earlier; whether the Government of India adopted this recommendation and issued orders accordingly whether the Excise Commissioner in Bombay has fixed 9.30 as the hour of closing, and that in certain cases shops will remain open until midnight; and whether he can state what are the special reasons for this departure from the general policy approved by the Government of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The recommendation of the Committee was
  1690
  that as a general rule the closing hour should be fixed at 9 p.m., but that this limit might be relaxed in special cases, when a special fee should be levied. The Government of India accepted this recommendation, and issued orders accordingly. As to the action taken in Bombay, the Secretary of State has no information, but he will inquire.

  Construction of Bhamo-Teng Yuen Railway.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the estimated cost of construction of a metre-gauge steam-traction line of railway from Bhamo, in Burma, to Teng Yueh, in Yunnan, and from Teng Yueh to Tali Fu; what are the estimated length, ruling gradient, degree of sharpest curve, amount of rise and fall, and number and length of tunnels in each case; and what is the estimated return that might be looked for on the capital invested on the completion of the two lines, and the time necessary for construction in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) It would not be in the public interest to give the detailed facts and figures asked for by the noble Lord.

  Pay or Colonial Local and Assistant Auditors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the old Colonial Audit Branch men now serving abroad had their prospects as local auditors and assistant auditors confined to a minimum of £300 and a maximum of £600 a year; whether those of them who elect to enter the newly amalgamated Department will have home scales of pay open to them up to £1,000 a year; if so, will he explain the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to the effect that such officials will in future have their pensions calculated on the home scales of pay instead of, as heretofore, on the higher Colonial rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-

  1691
  General had reference to existing conditions, not to remote contingencies. Members of the old Colonial Audit Branch (who were in receipt of salaries varying from £300—£700 per annum, and entitled to be pensioned on those actual salaries) would, on accepting the new terms, be eligible for a pension on rates of pay rising from £100—£350 per annum only. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Colony or Protectorate.

  Appointment.

  Old rate of pay.

  Local allowance, now applicable in addition to E. and A. D. salary.

  £

  £

  Gold Coast

  Local auditor

  400–20–500

  200

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150*

  Southern Nigeria

  Local auditor

  550–20–700

  300

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150*

  Cyprus

  Local auditor

  400–20–500

  200

  Sierra Leone

  Local auditor

  400–20–500

  200

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150*

  Gibraltar

  Local auditor

  300–10–350

  150

  Gambia

  Local auditor

  300–10–400

  150*

  Uganda

  Local auditor

  400–15–500

  200

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150

  Nyassaland

  Local auditor

  400–15–500

  200

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150

  East Africa

  Local auditor

  550–20–700

  300

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150

  Northern Nigeria

  Local auditor

  400–20–500

  200

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150*

  Hong Kong

  Local auditor

  650–20–800

  300

  Assistant auditors

  300–10–400

  150

  * With minimum, of £300 in respect of salary plus allowance.

  Rates of Fay of Colonial Auditors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the rates of pay of the old Colonial Audit Branch local auditors and assistant auditors in each of the various Crown Colonies and Protectorates, and the new rates of local allowance applicable to each of such places.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.)

  Reorganisation of Estate Duty Office.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the main outlines of the new reorganisation scheme in the Estate Duty Office, as it affects the old Second Division staff in that Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Under the scheme in question, the Second Division staff in the Estate Duty Office will disappear. A limited number will be absorbed into the new establishment as opportunity offers, and the rest will be transferred to other offices.

  Entrance Examination for the Estate Duty Office Clerkships.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the subjects set in the new examination for the estate duty office bear no relation to the departmental work, that this examination has admittedly been framed to suit the educational curriculum of the public schools, and that second division clerks have heretofore efficiently performed the duties of that department, he will explain why these senior and experienced men are not given the opportunity to share, according to their length of service, in the higher emoluments now offered to new entrants for performing the same duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) It is not a fact that the second division clerks in the estate duty office have heretofore performed the duties of that department. As a general rule they have only performed such of those duties as are proper to clerks of the second division. Selected members of the class will be considered for promotion to the new higher establishment.

  Date of Launching of Scottish Fishery Protection Cruisers.
  Mr. E. L. HARMSWORTH (Caithnessshire): To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the dates of he launching of vessels employed by the Fishery Board for Scotland in the prevention of illegal trawling.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The fishery cruiser "Vigilant" was built in 1886, the "Brenda" in 1898, the "Minna in 1900, and the "Freya" in 1904.

  Ordnance Survey Maps.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Ordnance maps of the recent survey printed by the cheaper process of zinc or stone plates on soft-surfaced paper are sold to the public at the same prices as the maps of former surveys produced by the more expensive process of printing from copper plates on hard-surfaced paper; is he aware that, owing to the running of ink and colours on the new soft-surfaced paper, the maps are much less convenient for use for the chief purpose for which the public require them, namely, to colour and write on for use in the Land Commission; and will he take steps to reduce the cost of the soft-surfaced maps.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The 6-inch maps printed from zinc or stone are sold at the same price as those printed from copper plates. There is no difficulty in applying ink and colours to the paper on which these maps are printed in the condition in which they are issued, and in view of the cost entailed in the preparation of these maps no reduction in their price can be made.

  Entrance Examination for Admiralty Writers.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Civil Service examination for entry on to the permanent staff of writers was found to be unsatisfactory, and, if so, in what respects; and whether, since its abolition, an equal number of candidates of equal merit have been forthcoming.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Civil Service examination for the entry of copyists was not found to be unsatisfactory, but since its abolition the Admiralty have had no difficulty in obtaining as many men of this class as required, and their merits have been quite equal to those of the copyists entered by the Civil Service Commission.

  Overtime of Boys in the Fairfield Shipbuilding Yard.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary

  1695
  of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the boys employed at the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company's yard at Govan are still working overtime; and whether he will give instructions to the factory inspector there to make strict inquiries into the matter, with the object of preventing this company compelling boys who are under a certain age to work overtime.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) These works were visited again on 26th May by two inspectors, when three young persons were found working illegal overtime. A second prosecution is under consideration. The inspector reports that the firm have now posted notices in the works prohibiting the employment of young persons after hours by foremen or sub-contractors. Other visits will be paid.

  Desecration of Graves at Tisbury.
  MR. MORSE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the desecration of graves which has taken place in the parish churchyard in Tisbury, in Wiltshire, in the recent digging of a trench for drainage purposes; and whether he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no information on the matter to which my hon. friend refers; but I will make immediate inquiries and give the facts my careful consideration.

  Imports of Wholly-Manufactured Articles.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the aggregate value of the wholly-manufactured articles imported into this country in a state ready for consumption in the years 1906 and 1907, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I must refer the noble Lord to the printed Answer to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Hythe on 25th May, of which I am sending him a copy.

  Importation of French Silver Goods.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with respect to the proposal to admit into this country, without any test, silver goods bearing the French mark only, he will take no action in the matter until he has received the views of those interested in the British trade, which they propose laying before him.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill). The hon. Member may rest assured that no action would be taken in the direction indicated in his Question without full consideration being given to the views of those likely to be interested.

  Undenominational Religious Teaching— The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board regard the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed as falling within the undenominational religious instruction which may be given in accordance with Clause 14 of the Education Act of 1870, as well as the Apostles' Creed, which the Board have decided is not a religious formulary prohibited by that clause.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). I beg to refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave yesterday.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Joint Naval and Military Exercises.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether during the past twelve months the Army Council have asked for the co-operation of the Board of Admiralty in carrying out joint naval and military exercises; whether the application has been refused; if so, whether it has been refused on the grounds of economy; and whether, in view of the great importance of such joint manœuvres, and of the fact that this country cannot engage in any war in which the co-operation of the Army and Navy will not be necessary, the Board of Admiralty will consider their

    1697
    decision and will co-operate effectively with the Army Council.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): During the past twelve months, no application from the War Office for the co-operation of the Admiralty in carrying out joint naval and military exercises has been refused. The Admiralty recognise the importance of cooperation between the Army and Navy, and many joint exercises have been carried out during the past twelve months.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will joint exercises of this nature take place during the coming summer?
    MR. MCKENNAasked for notice of the Question.

    Naval Mechanicians.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many mechanicians are now serving afloat in His Majesty's ships; what duties do they perform; are they in addition to or part of ships' complements; and, if the latter, what number of engine-room artificers are thus displaced.

    MR. MCKENNA—

    Approx.

    Mechanicians confirmed in that rating

    80

    Acting mechanicians

    70

    Total

    150

    The primary duty of mechanicians is keeping watch in the engine-room when the ship is under way; when not under way, they are employed on such repair work as does not require the highest skill. Confirmed mechanicians are part of the ship's complement—acting mechanicians are additional to complement. At the present time two confirmed mechanicians replace the engine-room artificer, and one stoker in a ship's complement. The number of mechanicians sent to any one ship is limited to six.

    Naval Engine-room Artificers.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty by whose authority
    1698
    and for what reason has the standard for entry of engine-room artificers into His Majesty's service been recently reduced; and are candidates allowed a second opportunity of competing directly after failing to pass, or must a specified period elapse before another trial is permitted.
    MR. MCKENNA: No reduction has recently been made in the standard for entry of engine-room artificers. There is no specified period which must elapse before a second trial is allowed to a candidate who has failed to pass, the examining officers at the ports alone being in the position to judge whether it is any use allowing a man who has failed another attempt, and if so, how soon he should present himself for re-examination.

    Army Council.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any member of the Army Council has ever served in the Horse or Field Artillery; and, if so, for how long.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): Yes, Sir. The Master-General of the Ordnance served for eight years in a battery of Field Artillery and three years in a battery of Horse Artillery.

    Cadet Corps.
    MAJOR COATES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be able to issue regulations fixing the relations of cadet corps to the Territorial Forces; and if, in the meantime, he is able to sanction the formation of cadet corps.
    MR. ACLAND: The status of cadet corps, other than those who will be invited to join the officers' training corps, will be considered with County Associations as soon as they have had time to work out the main questions connected with the Territorial Force, which now claim their attention. In the meanwhile it is not proposed to entertain any applications for raising new corps.

    The Mohmand Rising.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the effort on the part of the Government of India to extend the railroad into the territory of the Mohmands was an important factor in bringing about hostilities on the North-West Frontier.
    SIR H. COTTON: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether alarm was excited among the Mohmands by the construction of the Loi-Shilman strategic railway in a direction north of the Khyber; whether the agitation among them against the railway began many months ago; whether this railway and the surveys for its extension were one of the chief animating impulses of the hostility which culminated when the Mohmands appeared in arms at Shabkadr; and whether all further operations on that railway have now been abandoned.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,)I stated last Tuesday the main causes which in the opinion of the Secretary of State led to the recent Mohmand rising, and no direct evidence has been brought before us to show that the construction of the Loi-Shilman Railway was one of these causes. On the contrary the Mohmand tribes whose territory is nearest to the railway have been friendly throughout the recent operations. As regards the future of the railway I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave last Tuesday to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean.
    MR. SMEATONasked the hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to be perfectly candid and admit at once that the railway was the sole cause of the rising.
    [No Answer was returned.]
    SIR H. COTTONasked whether all further operations on this railway had been abandoned.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I stated last Tuesday that the railway had been sanc-
    1700
    tioned up to milestone 300 from Lahore, and no proposal for extending it beyond that point is at present before the Secretary of State.
    SIR H. COTTONasked the hon. Gentleman whether he could explain the exact need for the construction of the railway.
    MR. BUCHANAN: All that has been before the House on previous occasions.

    The Fighting at Kharga.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state approximately the number of killed, wounded, and prisoners on the British and Mohmand sides, respectively, in the recent fighting at Kharga.
    MR. BUCHANAN: In the recent fighting near Kharga the enemy were reported to have lost 140 killed. The numbers of wounded are not known. The losses among the British troops engaged were two Indian soldiers killed and nine wounded.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Were no prisoners taken?
    MR. BUCHANAN: We have no information on that subject.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to give notice that I will repeat the Question on 11th June.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    SIR C. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the recent developments of the Indian situation in the Transvaal, and especially to the British-Indian contention that the Transvaal Government now propose to act contrary to the agreement of January last by enforcing the Registration Law against some 5,000 British Indians entitled to return to the Colony, as a condition of their re-entry; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction aroused in India by this legislation at the beginning of the year, His Majesty's

    1701
    Government will make friendly representations in the matter to the Government of the Transvaal.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no information regarding the alleged proposal of the Transvaal Government, but as was stated by the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies yesterday, inquiry is being made of the Governor, and I am not in a position to add anything pending his reply.

    The Hague Conference.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEI beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House when Papers relating to the proceedings of the Hague Conference, stated in February to be in course of preparation, will be issued to Parliament.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY;): It is hoped to lay the Papers this week.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the difference in economic effect between the original Brussels Sugar Convention, which prohibited the importation of bounty-fed sugar into this country from various foreign countries, and the Protocol arising out of the Additional Act, which prohibits exportation of bounty-fed sugar from these or other countries.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Under the Convention of 1902 no bounty-fed sugar could be imported into this country without the imposition of a countervailing duty. As a result of the terms of the Additional Act, any State not party to this instrument will be at liberty to export to this country any quantity of bounty-fed sugar it pleases. Under the Protocol arising out of the Additional Act the exportation of bounty-fed sugar from Russia is not, as the hon. Member appears to suggest, prohibited, but merely restricted as to the maximum amount to be exported in any one year without return or exemption
    1702
    from excise. For instance, under the original Sugar Convention, as applied by His Majesty's Government, no sugar from Russia could have been imported into this country at all. Under the new arrangements, which I must repeat are not dependent upon the consent of His Majesty's Government and entail no obligation upon us, Russia may in September next send 300,000 tons.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether other countries besides Russia might send bounty-fed sugar into this country without restriction.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that we were at liberty to accent sugar from any country.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether our adhesion to the Convention had not now the effect of endorsing action which would have the result of prohibiting Russia from exporting more than a given amount of sugar to this country.
    SIR EDWARD GREYreplied in the negative, and was understood to say that, while the Government were cognisant of the arrangement, it could have been made without their consent.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is not that a reason for our absolute withdrawal from the Convention?
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that our withdrawal from the Convention would not prevent Russia from making this arrangement with other countries. On economic grounds there was no cause to make this particular limitation a reason for separating ourselves from the other Powers.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: On what grounds, unless economic, is such a Convention fixed?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: On general political considerations.

    Case of Mr. Nicholas Luxenburg.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position

    1703
    to make any statement as to Mr. Nicholas Luxenburg's claim against the Russian Government for his illegal arrest and incarceration at Odessa in March last.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am consulting the Home Office on this case, and shall, if need be, consult the Law Officers. Mr. Luxenburg has suffered owing to his arrest, but before putting forward a claim to compensation it is necessary to be able to base it either upon our own practice as to compensation or upon International Law. As soon as a decision has been come to, I shall be ready to communicate it to the hon. Member.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I will repeat the Question a fortnight hence.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Memorandum as to the reasons for Mr. Luxenburg's arrest by the Russian Government at Odessa in March last has yet been received; and whether a claim for compensation can now be put forward on Mr. Luxenburg's behalf.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for East Down.

    British Trade in Morocco.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received representations of the injury to British trade in Morocco in consequence of the continued unsettled state of affairs prevailing there; and whether he can take any steps, in concert with France and other interested Powers, to bring these unsatisfactory conditions to an end.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware that trade must suffer by continuance of disturbance in Morocco; but I must refer the hon. Member to Article 2 of the Anglo-French Declaration of 1904, and to the special position of France and Spain in Morocco under the Algeciras Act. The measures now being taken are those considered best adapted to restore order.

    Sugar Convention—Additional Act.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Germany refused to ratify the Additional Act extending the Brussels Sugar Convention for a further period of five years, unless Russia would consent to enter into a protocol, prohibiting her from exporting sugar for six years beyond a certain specified quantity; and if His Majesty's Government were cognisant of this attitude of Germany when they agreed to ratify the Additional Act.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: On signing the Additional Act the German Government gave it to be understood that their ratification of the instrument must depend upon the admission of Russia to the Convention upon terms which were acceptable to the great sugar-producing States. At the special meeting of the Commission convened in November last to consider the question of the adhesion of Russia, various methods of compromise were suggested and discussed; and the modification in the system of exportation of Russian sugar eventually decided upon was the only solution on which there was any possibility of an agreement being reached between the various States of the Sugar Union. I would again remind the House that His Majesty's Government do not undertake any obligation in respect of the stipulation tending to the restriction of the exportation of Russian sugar; and, in view of the facts which I have previously given with regard to the export of Russian sugar, it would not have been reasonable, and I consider it would have been inexpedient, for His Majesty's Government to act otherwise than they have done.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: May I ask if the attitude of Germany in insisting on Russia coming into the Convention on the basis of limiting her exports was not the inevitable result of this country's action?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not quite follow the point.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: May I put it in another way?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. It seems to be an argumentative Question.

    Congo—Berlin and Brussels Acts.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House if the Belgian Government has assented to the publication of the representation made by His Majesty's Government at Brussels on the conditions of Congo annexation in connection with treaty rights and with the Berlin and Brussels Acts; and whether it can be circulated at once.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have been in communication with the Belgian Government as to publication. They desire that publication should be made simultaneously here and in Belgium, and I expect to lay the Papers on the 15th instant.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEwas understood to ask if similar representations could not be made with regard to the internal affairs of Russia.
    SIR EDWARD GREYreplied that in that matter we were under no treaty obligations, and there was no parallel between the two cases.

    Shanghai Settlement Boundaries.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information with regard to the recent fracas between British municipal police and Chinese police in the Shanghai settlement; and whether, in view of the fact that the development of the district since 1898, when the boundary line on the north of the settlement was last fixed, has now made that line entirely an artificial one and a constant source of friction, he will now press for a re-arrangement of the boundary between Shanghai and the Pao-shan district in the interests of harmonious administration.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: We have no information with regard to the incident
    1706
    referred to, which, therefore, was probably not of a grave character. But His Majesty's Minister at Peking will be requested to report the facts and also to furnish his opinion as to the advisability of the course indicated in the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

    Case of James Koffie of Elmina.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report has yet been received from the Vice-Consul with regard to the case of James Koffie, of Elmina.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Acting Consul at Boma has reported that James Koffie was condemned by the Territorial Tribunal, and not by court-martial, at Lusambo, on 13th July, 1905, to two and a half years penal servitude, and has been released. The Judge, clerk, and interpreter of the Court before which Koffie was tried declare that at no time did he request permission to communicate with the British Consul. The Vice-Governor-General of the Congo State has also informed His Majesty's Acting Consul that Koffie's case was examined by the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the judgment of the lower Tribunal.

    The "Knight Commander."
    MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any further progress has been made in the settlement with the Russian Government in the case of the "Knight Commander."
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Russian Government have declined the proposal of His Majesty's Government that this case should be submitted to arbitration. I am now considering what further step should be taken.

    Cuba and the Schooner "Experiment."
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information with regard to the killing of a British subject on board the schooner "Experiment" by shots fired from a Cuban revenue cutter; and whether His Majesty's Government has addressed any

    1707
    representations to the Cuban Government on the subject.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The incident was reported by the Acting Governor of the Bahamas. His Majesty's Minister at Havana was instructed to make representations to the Cuban Government. The matter is, however, not yet settled.

    The Porte and the Bagdad Railway.
    MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has information to the effect that the Porte has pledged, as security for the Government bonds with which payment is to be made for four additional sections of the Bagdad railway, the ceded revenues administered by the Public Debt Commission, which will again come under the control of the Sultan's Government in 1913.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the affirmative.

    Parental Responsibilities.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on 28th April last, Frederick Smith, a labourer, of 26, Spencer Road, Stoke Newington, was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for non-payment of arrears of 1s. a week which he had been ordered to pay towards the maintenance of his son, Frederick Smith, in the Carlton Reformatory at Bedford; what explanation can be given of the taking of such proceedings in view of the fact that the man was at the time unable to pay such a contribution by reason of ill-health and unemployment; and whether he will take steps to have the order rescinded.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The order to contribute was made on the 27th of September last. As Smith took no notice of the order he was summoned in February, but the case was twice adjourned for a month in order to give an opportunity of paying. As he did not carry out his promises to pay, a
    1708
    commitment was issued on 24th April. Every consideration has been shown to this man, who has made no representations of ill-health, and I am not preppared to take any action in the matter.

    Natives at the Franco-British Exhibition.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cause inquiry to be made in regard to the treatment of the 135 British subjects, natives of Ceylon and India, in the compound at the Franco-British Exhibition; will care be taken that they be furnished with a sufficient supply of suitable food and clothing; and will arrangements be made for them to obtain exercise outside the compound.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have communicated with the authorities at the Exhibition, and I am informed by them that all these natives are brought over under a contract whereby they receive a free journey from India or Ceylon to London, and back at the close of the Exhibition. I have ascertained, further, that they receive good salaries, and are properly housed, clothed, and fed. They can move freely about the Ceylon village and in the Indian arena, and get more exercise than they actually care for. They have, besides, on Sundays the run of the whole Exhibition.
    MR. WEIRsaid that up to Sunday not one single person had been let out of the compound.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had every reason to believe in the accuracy of his information.
    MR. WEIRsaid they had been there several weeks. He further asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the contractor who brought these natives over was a German. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept his statement that they were not properly clothed or fed?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen them? I have, and they are the nearest thing to Adam before the Fall.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Workmen's Compensation Act and Cruelty to Children.
    SIR F. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statements in the last Report of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that many cases of neglect and cruelty to children have arisen from a lump sum having been paid to widows who have thus been tempted into reckless and dissolute courses, breaking up their homes; and whether he will address a circular to County Court Judges urging them to invest such compensation in the way best calculated to secure continuous benefit to the children as well as the widow concerned, and to vary any order or award, under subsection (9) of the First Schedule of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, either at their own discretion or on any reasonable representation made to them by the police, or by any society or otherwise.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen the statements in the Report referred to in the Question, and I propose to communicate with the Society with a view to obtaining particulars of the cases on which the statements are based. When this information is obtained, the suggestions made by the hon. Member will be carefully considered. I agree that all possible steps should be taken to protect the compensation paid in these cases, in the interests both of widow and children.

    Injury to Atlantic Cables on the Irish Coast.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the past few days seven or eight Atlantic cables have been cut or otherwise damaged off the West Coast of Ireland by steam trawlers, causing interference in commercial business between the United Kingdom and the United States and Canada; whether warnings are issued to the proprietors of steam trawlers as to the exact locations of the cables; and, if not, whether he will take this and any other possible measures to safeguard the commercial interests of the community.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,):
    1710
    I have received representations from several bankers, brokers, merchants, and shipowners, to the effect that there has been damage to submarine cables off the West Coast of Ireland, and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs informs me that he has received a similar representation from the American Ambassador. I understand that the subject has also been brought before the notice of my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General by the companies concerned, and the question has been raised at the International Telegraph Conference now sitting. I cannot say whether this damage, which took place some fifty miles from the Coast, has been caused by the operations of steam trawlers, but I am making inquiries, and am considering in consultation with my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General whether any steps can be taken under the International Telegraph Convention and the Submarine Telegraph Act, or otherwise, for the protection of the cables, assuming the trawlers to be in fault. I understand that one of the companies concerned has recently substituted a stronger type of cable in the area affected, with good results. There are very often obvious objections to showing the routes of these cables on the Admiralty charts, but His Majesty's Government will take whatever steps may be possible to safeguard the commercial interests of the community in regard to this matter.

    Dismissal of Railway Employees.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is not incumbent on the Board of Trade to protect men from arbitary dismissals by railway companies, chiefly on account of the positions they hold, who have been elected by their fellow workmen to represent their grievances to the directors or on the Conciliation Boards under the agreement arrived at on the termination of the railway men's agitation on 6th November last year; whether his attention has been called to a number of men who have been recently dismissed under those circumstances by the Midland Railway Company, and whether he will hold an inquiry into the causes of such dismissals at which the men shall have opportunities of meeting the company's officials to prove their cases.
    MR. CHURCHILL: With regard to the particular instances of dismissal of men on the Midland Railway, I may remind my hon. friend that in two of these, to which he drew my attention by the Question which he asked on the 28th ultimo, an explanation has already been furnished by the railway company. In the first case (that of W. Charter) they state that the dismissal was, with others, rendered necessary solely by declining traffics and bad trade outlook, and the notice was issued to him before he had taken the action for which he is alleged to have been dismissed. In the second case in which it was represented that an employee elected to a conciliation board (W. Carter) has been suspended, the company declare that their decision in the matter was taken in the interests of discipline. I understand that it is suggested that three other men, whose names have been sent to me by my hon. friend have been dismissed by the Midland Railway Company because of their connection with movements for improved conditions of service, and I am communicating with the company with regard to their cases, and will also forward to the railway company any observations or criticisms which my hon. friend may desire to make on the facts as stated by them in regard to these, or the two cases I have first mentioned. Speaking generally, however, the Board of Trade cannot undertake to secure the immunity from dismissal upon ordinary grounds of railway employees elected on to the conciliation boards or prominent in connection with the working of the conciliation scheme settled in November last. If I were led to believe that men were being systematically or deliberately dismissed or reduced on account of their position as representatives of the employees, I should be bound to take such action as may be open to me to protect the character of the conciliation boards. So serious a charge could not, however, be preferred without direct and extensive evidence. The general manager of the Midland Railway emphatically repudiates any suggestion of the kind. I will continue to watch carefully the general process of setting up the new conciliation boards, and will inquire specifically into any personal cases which my hon.
    1712
    friend may bring to my notice, but I have no statutory power to enforce such an inquiry as he is asking for, nor do I feel that I could usefully make a friendly proposal for one at the present juncture.
    MR. BELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of another board of the Midland Railway has been discharged to-day for taking the chair at a meeting on Sunday last; that the reply given by the general manager in regard to the man Charter is inaccurate and not fully stated; and for those reasons is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to hold an inquiry before which the men may have an opportunity of stating their case?
    MR. CHURCHILL: If my hon. friend will put me in possession of any further facts I will give the matter immediate attention, but at present I do not see that I can add anything to the statement I have made.
    MR. BELL: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to invite the general manager and an official, whose name I will give him, to attend at his office and at the same time give the men an opportunity of facing those officials?
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is possible for me to invite the representatives of either party to the Board of Trade, but it is not possible for me to ask them to meet unless both parties are agreeable. That I cannot do.
    MR. BELL: This is a very serious matter. We have to choose between this and perhaps a general strike, and the result of the last agitation was to avoid a strike. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will invite the general manager of the Midland Railway Company to appear at his office and also the officials whose names I will give him and give them the opportunity of declining to come? I will also give him the names of the men who ought also to be invited.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am quite certain that if I were to invite any of these officials to come to the Board of Trade at present

    1713
    they would come, of course, as a matter of courtesy. But I should not like to issue such an invitation as the result of a pledge given in the House of Commons. That would add compulsion to what must necessarily be a voluntary operation. I am quite ready to consider very carefully what immediate steps should be taken in regard to a matter which I thoroughly agree is a question of high public importance.

    Stornoway Mail Service.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that there has been an increase of more than 100 per cent. in the correspondence and parcels dealt with at the Stornoway post office during the space of ten years succeeding the introduction of the Jubilee postal reforms, can he see his way to place a faster and better steamer on the Stornoway service.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I carefully considered the question, but I regret that I find the increase in the cost of the postal service in the Stornoway district during the last ten years has been even greater than the increase in the revenue, and as the service is at present maintained at a heavy loss to the Post Office, I should not be justified in incurring additional expense to secure the employment of a faster steamer.

    Education and Pauperism.
    MAJOR COATES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if, in the Education Bill, he would provide for the abolishing of Section 40 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, and thus release the taint of pauperism on the children of those receiving outdoor relief, and also relieve the boards of guardians of requiring, as a condition of relief, that the children shall attend school.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on this subject on 11th May, of which I will send him a copy.

    Salterhebble (Halifax) School.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that All Saints' School, Salterhebble, Halifax, has been rebuilt at the expense of the parents and foundation managers without any cost to the rates; and if he will consider the desirability of restoring the school to the list of grant-earning schools.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the school has been rebuilt. Before any application for its recognition as a public elementary school can be entertained the requirements of Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902, must be complied with.

    Underfed Gateshead Schools Children.
    MR. J. JOHNSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the number of underfed children attending the elementary schools in Gateshead; is he aware that the council refuse to adopt the Act passed to benefit such children; and if he intends to issue any orders or instructions regarding the powers vested in councils to relieve underfed children.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have no information as to the number of underfed children in Gateshead. I have no power to compel local education authorities to put the Provision of Meals Act into force, but shortly after the Act was passed the Board issued a Circular to all local authorities calling attention to their powers under the Act and to the advantages which might be obtained by exercising them.

    Government and Furnishing Contracts.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether only Metropolitan firms are allowed to tender for contracts for joinery, furnishing, and decorative work in connection with Government buildings in London; and, if so, whether this rule has been adopted because of the alleged difficulty of inspection during the manufacture where this is carried on outside the London area; and whether he will give instructions that in future Government contracts shall in all cases be open

    1715
    equally to all manufacturers in the United Kingdom.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The limitation of competition to firms in the Metropolitan area applies only to articles of joinery and upholstery which are supplied for Government Offices in London and which have to be inspected while in course of construction. Inspection is necessary to ensure good workmanship and the use of good materials, and to prevent sweating. I am not prepared to throw such contracts open to all manufacturers as it would necessitate the employment of a largely increased staff of inspectors, and would probably lead to financial loss and delays. The list of Metropolitan manufacturers is a large one and affords ample scope for competition.

    Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Death Duties.
    MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the Paper issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue setting forth the practice of the Department in dealing for Death Duty purposes with the various interests connected with the sale of intoxicating liquors and ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 14th May, 1890, has been reprinted by the King's printers this year, with the words upon it, Reprinted, 1908; and if he will inform the House by whose instructions and at whose request this Paper was reprinted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): H.C. Paper No. 176 of 1890, Inland Revenue (Death Duties), Public Houses, was reprinted by H.M. Stationery Office, in the ordinary course for sale to the public, in order to meet the heavy demand for the Paper.
    MR. BOULTON: Has this Paper been superseded by a later Paper, and, if so, will the later one be circulated?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware, but I will make inquiries.

    Customs and Excise Changes.
    MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the uneasiness throughout the Excise service at the changes contemplated in the way of transferring the establishment licences to the local authorities and the Excise work to the Customs; and can he assure the Excise officers that their interests will be properly safeguarded and that they will not suffer financially nor so far as regards their present prospects of promotion.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: Until the changes referred to have actually taken place, it is not possible to forecast the future needs of the public service. I may, however, take this opportunity of stating that I shall be prepared before the end of the present financial year to consider favourably a recommendation from the Board of Inland Revenue to award gratuities to those Excise officers who may be called on to undertake the new work this autumn in connection with old-age pensions.

    Pollution of the Trent.
    MR. RAPHAEL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that there is a large amount of sewage pollution within the area of the Trent Fishery Board, and if he will take such steps as may be necessary to enforce upon the Board the due performance of its duties; and if he will give particulars of the annual income and expenditure of the Board, particularly with regard to the proportion of income expended in salaries and in prevention of the pollution of the river.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): We are aware that there is a large amount of sewage pollution within the area of the Trent Fishery Board. There is no statutory compulsion cast upon Fishery Boards to prosecute in cases of pollution, but the Board in question has been very active within its limits in dealing with the matter. Their Report for 1907, which I will send my hon. friend, gives the financial particulars desired.

    Small Holdings.
    SIR F. CHANNING: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board have already taken steps, under Section 16 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, to acquire land by agreement or to exercise any of the other powers conferred by the Act on county councils, with a view to demonstrating the feasibility of the establishment of small holdings in any locality; and, if so, in what counties and in what districts; whether the Board have in contemplation any schemes for utilising their powers under Section 16 of the Act; and whether the Board will consider the advisability of selecting two or three suitable areas in the country wherein to establish groups of small holdings to demonstrate the profitable working of the special branches of small farming which are most likely to succeed in those areas, and to encourage the development and equipment of such groups of small holdings by co-operative societies under the provisions of Section 39 of the Act.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: In view of the number of small holdings that will be established all over the country by county councils, the Board have not thought it necessary to take any action in the direction mentioned, but if they decide to do so they will bear in mind the suggestion made by my hon. friend in the latter part of his Question.
    SIR F. CHANNING: Will the Board take an early opportunity of considering the latter part of the Question, having regard to the season during which agricultural operations can be carried out?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board will bear that in mind.
    SIR F. CHANNING: I will draw attention to this question on the Estimates.

    Down Survey.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether,
    1718
    seeing that the book of surveys and distributions at present in the Record Office, Dublin, are the abstracts of the Civil Survey of 1640 and the Down Survey of 1654–6, and therefore the counterpart of the Down Survey maps which have just been issued by the Ordnance Survey, Ireland, the Government will see its way to publish, as a State Paper, the book of surveys and distributions.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The abstracts of the surveys and distributions of the Civil and Down Surveys are contained in twenty large volumes, of 400 pages each. The books show the lands distributed and the names of the persons to whom the lands were granted; the whole work is in ordinary manuscript and there are no maps or sketches attached. It is not proposed to publish them in the manner suggested.

    Scottish Government Reports.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can say when the Annual Reports of the Local Government Board (Scotland), the Congested Districts Board (Scotland), and the Fishery Board (Scotland) for 1907 will be issued; and if he will see that they are in the hands of Members before the Scottish Estimates are taken.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I am taking steps to ensure that the Reports in question shall be in the hands of Members at an early date and in any case before the Estimates are taken.

    Protection of Scottish Fisheries.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any steps have yet been taken to place a new Fishery Board cruiser at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland, for the protection of the line-fishing industry against the depredations of illegal trawling.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am not in a position to add anything to my reply to my hon. friend on 2nd April last.

    Lewis Cottars.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the promise set

    1719
    forth in the Scottish Office letter of 15th February, 1904, to the Lewis local committee, will he state whether the Congested Districts Board have yet been able to arrange a scheme under which Lewis cottars may voluntarily migrate to the mainland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Congested Districts Board is in correspondence with the Landward Committee of the Stornoway Parish Council in order to ascertain whether any and, if so, what Lewis cottars are able and desirous to migrate to the mainland. When that information is forthcoming, the matter will be further considered.
    MR. WEIR: And while the matter is under consideration these people are starving.

    Island of Lewis Road Schemes.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Congested Districts Board can now see their way to provide a grant for the construction of a road between Tolsta and Ness, Island of Lewis, as urged in a resolution passed at a meeting at Ness early in the year, representing 4,000 inhabitants of the Ness district.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Answer is in the negative. The Board do not see their way to make a grant in respect of this road; but they have resolved to offer grants on the usual conditions in respect of two other roads in Lewis, the construction of which has been pressed upon them, and is considered more urgent.

    Morrich Mhor Grazing Rights.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state in how many instances the Tain Borough Council have effected arrangements with persons who claim grazing rights over Morrich Mhor; and, in view of the fact that the crofters and fishermen inhabitants of the village of Inver have possessed grazing rights over the Mhor for generations, will he take such action as may be necessary to prevent these rights being infringed.
    MR. SINCLAIR: This is a matter over which, as I have already informed my hon. friend, I have no jurisdiction. I
    1720
    learn however, on inquiry, that the burgh town council have come to an arrangement with the tenants surrounding the burgh's portion of the lands in question. The lands referred to in the second portion of the Question are not now within the control of the town council.
    MR. WEIR: With how many has an arrangement been come to?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I think three.
    MR. WEIR: Three; and three only.

    The Dublin Crown Jewels.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in connection with the disappearance of the Dublin Crown jewels, the Dublin Herald and Athlone Pursuivant were called upon to resign; and, if so, why.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Towards the end of last October it was decided, with the approval of the Crown, that the Office of Arms, Dublin Castle, must be reconstituted. This involved the retirement of Athlone Pursuivant and Dublin Herald, who were notified to that effect, and who resigned office accordingly.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Have the offices been abolished?
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes. At all events they have not been filled up. I do not know that they have been abolished.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: What is the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman in saying it involved reconstruction if he does not mean the abolition of those offices?
    MR. BIRRELL: I said it involved reconstitution, and liberty was taken to abolish the offices if necessary.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask at about what date these two gentlemen resigned?
    MR. BIRRELL: I must have notice of that Question.

    Maynooth.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrangements have been made or negotiations entered into with a view to creating Maynooth a constituent college of the new Dublin University, or for the affiliation of Maynooth with it.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer is in the negative.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent the inclusion of Maynooth College under his scheme?
    MR. FLYNN: Could not this Question be asked and answered in the Standing Committee upstairs where it was discussed for many hours of the day?
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my Question?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will answer the Question upstairs.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,subsequently referring to this reply, appealed to the Speaker to decide whether it was for a Minister to say that a Question which could be answered in Committee upstairs need not be answered in the House. He pointed out that four-fifths of the Members of the House were not members of the Committee, and asked for a ruling from the Chair as to whether the course which had been taken would be held to constitute a precedent.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Answer to the Question was given in the negative. The hon. and gallant Member asked a further Question which the right hon. Gentleman said he would be glad to discuss upstairs.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it an obligation on any Minister to answer any Question if he regards it as vexatious or frivolous?
    MR. SPEAKER: There is no method of compelling him.

    The Irish Lord-Lieutenancy.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether, during the absence of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, Lords Justices are appointed for the government of the country while the Lord-Lieutenant is out of the Kingdom of Ireland, and are duly sworn into office for that purpose, and that a Roman Catholic is ineligible for the position of a Lord Justice; and, having regard to the fact that in the absence of the Sovereign from the realm no appointment of Lords Justices has for a considerable time taken place, on what ground is the appointment of Lords Justices for the government of Ireland during the absence from that country of the Lord-Lieutenant regarded as necessary, more especially as from those appointments persons holding the faith of the great majority of the people of Ireland are excluded.
    MR. BIRRELL: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The practice of appointing one or more Lords Justices for the government of Ireland during the absence of the Lord-Lieutenant is of ancient origin, dating back, as it does, to the fourteenth century at least. If Lords Justices were not so appointed there would be no one in Ireland possessing the power to exercise the prerogative of mercy in criminal cases or to perform other important official acts which do not admit of delay.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Lord-Lieutenant could not go as far as Holyhead without a ceremony which involved a slight upon the Catholic population, whereas the King could go wherever he liked without the appointment of Lords Justices.
    MR. BIRRELL: Well, I am not responsible for that.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Cannot my right hon. friend abolish this absurd gingerbread practice?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    De Montalt Estate, Dundrum.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state upon what grounds the Estates Commissioners are giving portions of the untenanted lands of the De Montalt estate, Dundrum, County Tipperary, to the sons of farmers who already occupy farms of 60 and 70 acres each, whilst excluding those whose holdings are uneconomic, being valued at about £5 and under; and can he say under what section of the Act of 1903 have portions of the De Montalt estate been given to the Rev. Mr. De Boe and to Messrs. Fraser, Scott, Hadnett, and Hickey.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate was on resale divided into 100 parcels which were allotted to 100 different persons. Seven parcels only were allotted to the sons of tenants who occupy 60 acres or upwards. These sons of tenants were eligible to receive parcels under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act; and in the Commissioners' opinion they were fit and proper persons to be allotted parcels. In distributing the land, the Commissioners have acted to the best of their judgment and in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by Parliament. The Rev. Mr. Du Boe and Messrs. Fraser and Scott are being made tenants to the Commissioners, with the view to subsequent sale to them. It has been judicially decided that the Commissioners have power to make lettings. Mr. Hadnett is eligible under Section 2 (1), both as a tenant and the son of a tenant, and Mr. Hickey is also eligible as the son of a tenant.

    Rathkeale School.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have agreed to contribute two-thirds of the cost of a new school-house for the boys at Rathkeale, or two-thirds of the cost of repair of the old building, on condition that the school be vested in trustees; whether he is also aware that the manager signified his willingness to vest the school-house
    1724
    in trustees, provided the Commissioners advanced the total sum required; and whether, having regard to the fact that the present building cost some £800, all of which was provided locally, and also to the fact that the Commissioners are willing to advance probably £700, the two-thirds cost of the new building, conditionally, he will point out to them the reasonableness of the demand for the full cost of repair, having regard as well to the saving which would be effected by this course.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is not the case that they have agreed to contribute two-thirds of the cost either of a new school-house or of improving the existing building. They cannot agree to make such contribution until the manager is in a position to comply with the necessary conditions. It is the case that the manager has signified his willingness to vest the existing school-house in trustees upon condition that the Commissioners advance the total sum required, but the Commissioners have no power, under the approved regulations, to regard the existing fabric of a school-house as constituting any part of the local aid necessary to warrant a grant for improving the premises.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What are the conditions imposed by the Commissioners before they make an advance?
    MR. BIRRELL: They require a contribution from the management of the school of one-third of the cost of building or repair, and they then contribute two-thirds.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Having regard to the fact that the locality subscribed £800 towards the cost of the old building will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Commissioners the reasonableness of the demand for the full cost of repair in this case?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will look into the matter.

    International Prize Court of Appeal.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's

    1725
    Government continue to have the intention as to preliminary legislation before ratification of an agreement to establish an International Prize Court of Appeal stated by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. ASQUITH,): The views of the Government have undergone no change, and the Answer returned by my predecessor in office to the hon. Member for the Norwood division of Lambeth, on 4th February last, still holds good.

    Cancer Research.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, with reference to the meeting held in Berlin on 23rd May with the object of founding an international association for the prosecution of cancer research, he will promise the assistance of this country in that direction.
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; as at present advised I am not disposed to give such a promise as the hon. Member suggests. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund, which is supported by Government, is doing all it can in the encouragement of individual intercourse and exchange of material between investigators of different countries.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is this Government support financial or moral?
    MR. ASQUITHasked for notice of the Question.

    Education Bill.
    MR. TALBOTUniversity): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to proceed with the Committee stage of the Elementary Education Bill before the House adjourns at the end of July.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

    The House and the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will give an opportunity of discussing Civil Service Estimate, Class 2, Vote 1,
    1726
    Subhead A. (Department of the Lord Chancellor).
    MR. ASQUITH: The Vote in question provides only for such portion of the Lord Chancellor's salary as is paid to him in respect of his duties as Speaker of the House of Lords, and whilst what I am about to say is a matter for the decision of the Chair, I do not understand that it would be possible on that Vote to raise any question affecting the discharge of the Lord Chancellor's functions in any other capacity than in his position as Speaker of the House of Lords.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether any Minister in this House could be responsible for and answer Questions on behalf of the Lord Chancellor in respect of departmental and administrative as distinguished from his Lordship's judicial functions.
    MR. ASQUITHreplied that he thought he was responsible.

    The Appointment of Magistrates.
    MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in consideration of the dissatisfaction that is prevailing as regards the present system pursued in connection with magisterial appointments, he will appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the present conditions of the borough and county benches, and, if considered desirable, to make recommendations as regards an alteration in the manner magistrates are selected.
    MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that a Select Committee would be an appropriate instrument for inquiry, if inquiry were needed. But I shall be glad to receive and consider any suggestions which my hon. friend or others may make in regard to the method of selection.
    MR. MORTON: Will my right hon. friend take means to see that all classes are properly represented on the county benches?
    MR. ASQUITH: As my hon. friend knows, it does not directly fall within my Department; but I am sure my noble

    1727
    friend the Lord Chancellor has that object in view.
    MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Lord Chancellor does his duty in this respect?
    [No Answer was returned.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the arrangements for Thursday.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that from inquiries he had made, he believed it to be possible, while maintaining the character of Thursday as a day of Supply, for the House to meet at twelve on that day. The Foreign Office Vote would be put down. He imagined that it would be for the general convenience of the House that the consideration of that Vote should be concluded at an early hour. A further opportunity would be given for a general discussion on the Foreign Office Vote.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will Questions be taken on Thursday? Of course that is an inconvenience to Ministers.
MR. ASQUITH: I will consider that.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will put them down on chance.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may we take it the debate on the Foreign Office Vote will not be concluded on Thursday, and that there will be another opportunity for discussing it?
MR. ASQUITHwas understood to assent to that.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Coroners (Ireland) and the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Amendment Bills): Mr. Ffrench, Mr. Clancy, Marquess of Hamilton, Mr. James O'Connor, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Lard-
1728
ner, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Moore, Mr. Muldoon, Mr. Long, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, Mr. Newnes, Mr. Robert Harcourt, and Mr. King.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Public Rights of Way Bill): Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Walker, Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Winfrey, Mr. Hyam, Mr. Arnold Herbert, Mr. Harold Cox, Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Byles, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Meysey-Thompson, Mr. Cross, Mr. Younger, and Mr. McArthur.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Municipal Elections Bill): Major Coates, Mr. Younger, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, Mr. Cleland, Mr. McCrae, Mr. Adkins, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Thomasson, Mr. Collins, Mr. Arthur Priestley, Mr. Wads-worth, Mr. Morton, and Mr. Brotherton.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Dr. Macnamara; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Masterman.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Vivian, Mr. Hills, Mr. Guinness, Mr. Abel Smith, Viscount Morpeth, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Sir John Dickson-Poynder, Mr. Ryland Adkins, Mr. Bateman Hope, Mr. Alden, Mr. Barran, Mr. Montagu, Sir John Dewar, and Mr. Morrell.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. Charles Craig; and had appointed in substitution (in respect

1729
of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. Harmood-Banner.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Post Office Savings Bank Bill): Mr. Wardle, Mr. O'Malley, Mr. Patrick White, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Claude Hay, Sir Henry Seymour King, Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Starkey, Mr. Harold Cox, Mr. Agnew, Sir Edward Tennant, Mr. Armitage, Mr. T. R. Bethell, Major Dunne, and Mr. Mackarness.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.

  PUBLIC-HOUSES (EXTENSION OF FACILITIES).
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby), in asking leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the provision of accommodation for supplying food and of other improvements in connection with premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail, said it was a short and non-controversial Bill. The facilities referred to were five in number—first, the provision of accommodation for the supply of tea, coffee, cocoa, or food in licensed houses; secondly, the making of such premises more open, airy, well-ventilated, or clean; thirdly, the improvement or enlargement of the sanitary accommodation; fourthly, the substitution of the provision of chairs and tables, either wholly or partly, in lieu of existing bar accommodation; and fifthly, the provision of games, newspapers, music or gardens, or any other means of reasonable recreation. It was a temperance Bill, and the idea was that it should make for temperance and for sobriety. He believed it was generally admitted that the conduct of individuals was very largely influenced by their environment. There were many publicans and holders of licences who were sincerely desirous of making their premises more decent and cleaner, of supplying food and non-alcoholic refreshment, and of substituting chairs and tables for mere bars, but the accommodation was so limited, and the restrictions imposed by the magistrates and the Legis-
  1730
  lature so difficult to get over, that they were prevented from making their licensed houses so comfortable, so respectable, and so commodious as they wished. This was not a party Bill, and it was in no sense controversial. There were, he knew, some persons who would rather end public-houses, but his suggestion was that they should make the public-house brighter, and as it was inevitable that no matter how many public-houses were reduced some would remain, he gathered that even those who would end a portion of the public-houses would be with him in allowing the Bill to be read a first time. In France and Belgium and other Continental countries there were no restrictions which prevented that class of trader from enlarging and making his premises structurally convenient. He had the same facilities as other classes of traders, and what was the result? In France the convictions for drunkenness last year were only 623, of which 207 alone were in Paris, and if they compared that with the 197,000 convictions for drunkenness in England and Wales it showed that the removal of restrictions which made drinking secret and carried on in ill-regulated places, and gave proper facilities for reasonable refreshment in decent places, would do a great deal to get rid of the drunkenness and insobriety from which this country at present suffered. It was for those reasons he asked the House to allow him to introduce the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the provision of accommodation for supplying food, and of other improvements in connection with premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail,"—(Mr. William Rutherford,)—put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. James Mason, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Gretton, Colonel Hall Walker, Mr. Goulding, Sir Henry Kimber, Earl of Ronaldshay, and Mr. John Rutherford.

  PUBLIC-HOUSES (EXTENSION OF FACILITIES) BILL.
  "To facilitate the provision of accommodation for supplying food, and

  1731
  of other improvements in connection with premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

FINANCE BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [1st June], "That the Bill be now read a second time. Which Amendment was:—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in view of the growing liabilities of the nation for naval and military defence, old-age pensions, and education, and of the necessity for giving additional relief to ratepayers from the increasing charge for national services now thrown upon the rates, this House regrets that no attempt is made to increase the resources of the Exchequer by broadening the basis of taxation,"—(Mr. Laurence Hardy,)—instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the beginning of his speech last night complained that his hon. friends on that side of the House had dealt with everything except the Finance Bill, but it seemed to him that the rebuke he had directed might with some force be applied to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and what he (Mr. Law) proposed to do was to follow the precept and not the example of the right hon. Gentleman. He remembered hearing a statement by some member of the Government that they were blessed with a new kind of Parliament, and they were therefore entitled to make precedents. They were doing so, and among these precedents there was none that marked more distinctly an entirely new departure than the Budget which they were discussing. The Postmaster-General had told them quite truly on the previous day that this Budget was remarkable for three things. It was remarkable for the scheme of old-age pensions; it was remarkable also, though in a lesser degree, for the diminution of the sugar duty; but it was remarkable most of all for the fact, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, that for the first time, he ventured to say, in their history the Government of the day by means of the Budget had imposed upon
1732
the country obligations, undefined but very definite, without having the courage at the same time to face the problem as to the means by which those obligations were to be met. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had challenged them to oppose old-age pensions or the reduction of the sugar duty. Both of these things were popular, he admitted, but he did not see how it was possible for anyone to defend the great increase of obligations involved in the one and the great loss of revenue involved in the other, and certainly so far no serious attempt had been made to make that defence. He asked the House to consider exactly what the financial position of the country was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at this time next year, whoever he might be, would be faced in consequence of the proposals of this Budget by a deficit due to old age pensions alone which was estimated by the Prime Minister at about five millions, which had already grown in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to six millions, and which he expected would reach a much larger sum before they had done. But that deficit was based upon the assumption that the existing duties would yield at least the same revenue which they were expected to yield this year, and they could not do so. This year they obtained for a small portion of the year a part of the full sugar duty; that represented something like £400,000, and obviously it must disappear next year. In making his estimate this year the Prime Minister anticipated an increase in the income-tax for the reason that last year was a prosperous year, and that there would therefore be more income-tax yielded. That could not apply next year, because everyone admitted that next year they would have to deal with a year which had not been prosperous from that point of view. He thought he was not exaggerating when he said that the diminution of revenue from those two causes alone would amount to about a million sterling. For old-age pensions alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to find a sum of seven millions sterling, and it seemed to him that to impose those obligations upon the country without at the same time facing the liability involved was a kind of finance which it was absolutely impossible to defend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an attempt to defend

1733
it. He had told them that it would be quite unprecedented and improper for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to budget beyond the year with which he was dealing. It was obvious that that was purely a technical defence, and that it did not touch the real problem, but even as a technical defence it broke down absolutely in the light of the action of the Government. Last year the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, actually provided in advance for a problematical charge on account of old-age pensions, and now the curious argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it was quite right and proper to provide for a charge which was not certain and only problematical, but the moment that obligation became irrevocable then it was improper for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make provision for it. It would be quite impossible to find any words which would condemn the whole Budget so strongly as those used in condemnation of it in advance by the Prime Minister last year. He told them then that it was his duty to budget for the future. The exact words used by the Prime Minister were important, not merely because of the unequivocal condemnation which they gave to this Budget but for the soundness of the principles they contained. He said—
"The country has reached a stage in which, whether we look merely at its fiscal or its social exigencies, we cannot afford to drift along the stream and treat each year's finance as if it were self-contained."
Well, he was not content with drifting along the stream, for now he plunged over the cataract, and the only defence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give was to deny the principle laid down by the Prime Minister last year and to say that it was his duty to treat each year's finance as if it were self-contained. But the Prime Minister went even farther in direct condemnation of the course which he had taken this year. Speaking, he thought, in regard to the sugar duty, the right hon. Gentleman said—
"I cannot deal with the surplus in such a way as to involve any permanent diminution of revenue."
But even that was not enough. Some hon. friend taunted the right hon. Gentleman that in that case they could look for no remission of any kind of taxation,
1734
but the right hon. Gentleman would not have that, and this was how he explained it—
"I am budgeting"—
he said—
"for the next two or three years, and it is in face of that situation that what I said applies."
He told them therefore last year that for the next two or three years, i.e., the time for which he expected to be responsible for the finances, he could look forward to no diminution in revenue. What was the explanation? It was a curious change of front, and no explanation had been given so far. He hoped the Prime Minister would give some explanation, but if he did not, he did not think they would have much difficulty in guessing at the real cause. There was a great change in the political situation. Last year the tenure of office of the Government seemed still secure. The Prime Minister then could employ his whole energy in trying to produce a sound Budget. The position was not now quite so secure, and the Prime Minister seemed to be much more exercised in producing not a sound but a popular Budget. That change was one which he thought was a characteristic of the Government and of the Liberal Party all along the line. When they came into office three years ago they were very ambitious, and they spoke really as if their accession to power meant the dawn of a better day. They were not so ambitious now; they were still not without ambition, but it was a more modest ambition. It hardly extended beyond the intention expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the, Board of Trade, the intention to remain two or three more years in office. That was a modest ambition. He saw no reason why it should not be realised. Indeed, he thought the position outside had strengthened the Leader of the House within the House itself. He noticed two or three weeks ago a picture which represented the Prime Minister as a lion tamer, a picture very flattering to him but not so flattering to the lion. In that picture the right hon. Gentleman held a whip. It would have been complete if it had been labelled "Bye-election," for that was the scourge by which he kept his unruly followers in order. The obligation imposed by

1735
old-age pensions, great as it was, was not the only nor perhaps the greatest obligation which would have to be faced immediately by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His hon. friends who moved and seconded the Amendment had pointed out the obligation in connection with the relief of local taxation; and that was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It must be faced some time, though it was not an immediate obligation. There was also a demand, not for education, but in the name of education, for some money to be supplied by the Treasury. How much that would be, he did not profess to know. If they could judge the intentions of the Government by their Bill they would know, but in this instance the Bill was no guide to the intentions of the Government. But apart from these indefinite obligations there was an obligation which was quite as definite in his opinion as that of old-age pensions itself. The Prime Minister had quite recently given the House a clear and unequivocal pledge that if the German naval programme which started this year looked next year like being continued we should have a building programme as well. Not one of the German naval programmes in recent years had been abandoned or postponed; several of them had been anticipated, and therefore it was practically certain that that was an obligation which this country would have to face next year. And yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose this time to make a speech in which he actually held out to the country the hope of a reduction in our naval expenditure—a time, moreover, when it had been admitted by the Prime Minister and some other members of the Government that if the German naval programme was carried out, and if we had no shipbuilding programme in consequence of it, the German navy, in the biggest size of battleships, would in only three years be actually stronger than ours. The right hon. Gentleman had chosen that time to represent to the House and to the country that it was we who were responsible for the growth of armaments. If that speech really represented the view of the Government, then the security of the country was in the gravest danger. If, on the other hand, the Prime Minister's views represented
1736
the feeling of the Government, then for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to court the applause of his followers below the gangway by holding out hopes of reduction which were impossible of fulfilment was a course not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. With all these obligations in front of them, the Government elected to take off the sugar duty. He was not going to say anything in detail in regard to that duty, but he was bound to point out that its evil effects had been greatly exaggerated. It had been suggested, for instance, that because sugar was the raw material of some industries the duty was therefore specially obnoxious. Why was it obnoxious on that account? Our manufacturers were not handicapped in any way by the duty as against their foreign rivals in the home market, and foreign manufacturers had to pay the full equivalent on the goods they sent in. Since the Government came into office the price of sugar had not been high, and therefore no one could pretend that that duty was an intolerable burden or one which it was necessary, in all the circumstances, to remove. But whether or not it ought to be removed depended really on what was the substitute which was proposed for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given them any substitute, but the Prime Minister had indicated two. The first was the raiding of the Sinking Fund, and that recommendation was supported by the Prime Minister by a serious error of fact and by a false analogy which was condemned in every quarter of the House except the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister indicated another source of revenue which was much more alarming. It was contained in the closing sentences of the Budget statement. He did not think that those sentences had yet attracted in the country the attention which they deserved. The Prime Minister pointed his successor to two sources of direct taxation—death duties and income-tax—as a fruitful field whose surface he had only scratched. That source of revenue must be taken in conjunction with old-age pensions, or any other scheme for social reform. As regarded that, he thought that the contributory scheme was ruled out without sufficient examination. He thought

1737
that that was proved even by the speech of the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentleman gave a description of the system in Germany which was recognised in every quarter of the House as a caricature. It was a misrepresentation. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] It was a misrepresentation so gross that it would not have been excusable in any Member of the House, but it was almost incredible in the case of the Minister responsible for this Bill. The contributory scheme was ruled out with too much haste. Until a few weeks ago everyone, on both sides of the House, including the Prime Minister, considered that no scheme of old-age pensions could be justly brought forward which was not contributed to by the class who would benefit by that scheme. The real and vital distinction at this moment between legitimate social reform and practical Socialism was the method by which those reforms were to be paid for. If they were to be paid for by all classes of the community in proportion to their ability, then it was just and fair social reform. If, on the other hand, they were to be paid for entirely by one class exclusively for the benefit of another class, then it was practical Socialism. That was a perfectly clear issue. The Government had at last taken their line on that question and had selected the solution of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. The hon. Member for Blackburn the other day gave them an outline of the Budget that he would present. It was to raise the £20,000,000 necessary for old-age pensions by taxes levied upon the richer 10,000. That was very simple. But the proposal of the Prime Minister in principle did not differ in the least from the proposal of the hon. Gentleman below the gangway. The two proposals had this in common, that they both intended to tax exclusively one class for benefits to be enjoyed exclusively by another class. That was the exact position in which they were left by the unexhausted sources of civilisation as shown in the free trade finance of the Government. He was quite sure that from a practical point of view that method of raising revenue would fail. The rock upon which it would split had been pointed out
1738
clearly by the Prime Minister himself. He had shown them that last year, owing to the reduction of the income-tax to a level which was recognised as fair, there was a great increase in the sum assessed for the tax. The converse of that must be equally true. If the class to be taxed in that way regarded the tax as confiscatory when it was stretched to a point where it was considered absolutely unjust, then the source of that revenue would inevitably dry up. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the big fortunes were precisely those which could not escape. That was wrong in fact. There was one kind of big fortune which could not escape, viz., that derived from landed property. But what about another and more important class of big fortune in this country which was derived from trade? That kind of capital was fluid, and did anyone suppose that if they began to attack it in that sort of way it would not leave this country and get beyond our reach? [An HON. MEMBER: That is old.] It was old, he admitted. He considered that it was a commonplace on which all sections in the House were agreed. They saw now what the proposals of the Government really were. What would happen under those circumstances was shown by the hon. Member for South Hackney yesterday in a very interesting speech. He suggested that a special tax should be put on capital abroad. If that was intended to keep capital from going abroad and if he himself believed it would have that effect, he would be in favour of it. But almost in the same breath the hon. Gentleman told the House of a conversation he had had with a friend who was a Member of the Upper House—no doubt one of the newly created Members—who said that he did not pay taxation now on foreign investments. Did the hon. Gentleman think that taxation, which those who had foreign investments now evaded, would not be entirely evaded if there was an attempt to do something which would be practical confiscation of those great fortunes? But this Budget had at least this advantage—that it placed before the country a clear issue as to the way in which revenue was to be raised. The proposal of the Government was

1739
that all additional needs should be financed by direct taxation, which, in his opinion, would have precisely the opposite effect, as far as the working classes were concerned, to that which hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to imagine. On the other hand, the proposal of the Opposition was embodied in the Amendment before the House, viz., to broaden the basis of taxation. He noticed that when that phrase was used hon. Gentlemen opposite always laughed as if they thought that sneers would get rid of the argument; but it was an argument which they could not evade so easily, and which sooner or later they would have to face. They sneered at it when it was under discussion, but when it came to practical proposals they adopted it themselves. The Government had just introduced and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had obtained the Second Reading of the Port of London Bill, and if that Bill was to be carried into effect it would involve important changes in the method of raising revenue. It would have been, much simpler to raise more revenue by merely increasing the old dues on ships. But the Government did not intend to do that, because they believed that the taxation would be felt more if entirely based on ships than if divided between ships and cargo. He thought the Government were quite right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer next said that duties on goods would not produce sufficient to meet all the needs of this Budget. That was admitted. It was not proposed as a substitute for all other taxation; but the Opposition said that the great and pressing needs made it incumbent upon any Government to look about for some new method of raising revenue which would not impose an intolerable burden upon somebody or other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
"You cannot get additional revenue from taxation on manufactured goods."
When asked why not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said because the revenue was so uncertain. Did he really regard that as a serious argument? When the death duties were imposed, they were regarded as a very uncertain source of revenue. If to-morrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a scale of
1740
duties on manufactured goods coming into this country, the officials at the Treasury would tell him, as accurately as they could tell him, the need of any other form of taxation, what the yield would be in any given year. The right hon. Gentleman next said—
"If you carry out your proposals, you will have all these goods made at home and then you will have no revenue."
The right hon. Gentleman must know that in other countries, which had imposed duties far higher than were suggested here, the effect had been so to increase the whole trade of those countries that the imports even of manufactured goods, instead of diminishing, had actually increased. If we put on prohibitive duties, of course the revenue would dry up, but nobody proposed to do that. The right hon. Gentleman had on the previous day described him as "a thoroughgoing protectionist." Well, he did not know that he took much exception to the word protectionist if the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood what it meant. But he must deny that he was a protectionist in the sense in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the word in his platform speeches. He had no desire to make any change in our fiscal system which would have the effect of causing everything to be made in this country, whether this country was suited to its manufacture or not. He was not a protectionist in the crude sense of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own Patents Act. That seemed to be the crudest and most absurd protection. Under that Act, for the sake of getting additional employment in this country, the right hon. Gentleman was going to compel all the articles protected by it to be made in this country, whether this country was suitable or not. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] Yes, that was the object of the Act. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is just as well that he should understand what the Patents Act is. The Patents Act does not compel anybody to manufacture anything here.

1741
It simply says that the monopoly will be withdrawn if it is abused.
MR. BONAR LAWthought he understood the Patents Act. He certainly understood it better than its author. Even by the right hon. Gentleman's explanation the effect of the Patents Act was that, unless the articles were made here, the patent would be withdrawn. He maintained that that had the effect of causing things to be made here for which this country was not suitable. It had another effect. The right hon. Gentleman said the previous day that the Opposition were very fond of making speeches in the country where they could not be contradicted; but that remark applied equally to himself. He told an audience in Lanacashire that the difference between the Patents Act and protection was that the Patents Act would make things cheaper. He would ask the House to consider what the effect of the Patents Act would be in the light of a particular instance. A friend of his in Germany had for a long time been selling in this country a number of patented articles. In his factory in Germany he was able to make these things, not only for England, but for Germany as well. Under the Act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, this gentleman had to have two factories instead of one, and the result was that the consumer here in England had to pay the increased cost resulting from the right hon. Gentleman's Patents Act. The only way to get the present House of Commons to pass an Act of protection like that was not to let hon. Members understand that it was at all contrary to the principles of free trade. So far as he was concerned, he had no desire to put on any duties in this country which would cause goods to be made here on which we were not able to compete with our rivals on equal terms. All that those who advocated this change wanted was to give our own manufacturers and our own workmen a preference in our own market which would enable them to compete better with their foreign rivals in that market. The real point of the Amendment was its financial side. Every country had found it a means of raising revenue even before they used it for protection. Even in India the Party
1742
represented by the present Government themselves used it for obtaining revenue, giving no countervailing duties, except in the case of cotton. The Secretary for War condemned these proposals, because, as he said—
"The burden would be noticed so little that people would not exercise proper scrutiny."
The right hon. Gentleman condemned this method of raising taxation because we should not feel it. That was a disadvantage which certainly did not apply to the alternate method of the Government. Surely it was the greatest recommendation one could possibly give to any system of taxation. The extent of any burden was the extent to which we felt it. As Hamlet said—
"For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
If it did not seem to be a burden, then for all practical purposes it was no burden whatever.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What about wheat? [OPPOSITION cries of "Order."] I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question and he refuses to answer it. [Renewed cries of "Order."]
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his speech in his own way.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he must follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer's example rather than his precept. He would now criticise some of the right hon. Gentleman's references to the conditions prevailing in Germany. He was amazed to hear the speech of the Prime Minister in which he contrasted so complacently the position of our finances with that of the German Empire. He was more amazed to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night repeat those remarks. Last week he told the Chancellor of the Exchequer exactly what the position of German finances was. As the right hon. Gentleman had ignored those figures, he would repeat them. The price of German funds, compared with our own, was relatively much higher now than twenty years ago. To take another index—the total debt of Germany was only something like £170,000,000. In addition there were the debts of the German States, but the

1743
German State debts might fairly be compared to the debts of local authorities in this country. Then the German nation owned the German railways, and a large part of the debt was for building these railways. They were remunerative, and more than paid the interest on the debt. From the point of view of debt, Germany was now infinitely stronger than this country. There was another test which was more important still, and that was the test of the burden of taxation upon the people of the country, for upon that depended the elasticity in time of necessity. The right hon. Gentleman following the Prime Minister spoke as if the people of Germany were suffering under an intolerable burden. The total debt per head of the German people, State and Imperial, was only something like half per head that under which the people of this country were groaning. Why, then, it was asked, did Germany borrow? He gave the explanation last week. The unification of the German system was not yet complete. A particular kind of tax could only be imposed with the consent of the different states, and such a thing as that could only be realised in this country if the proposals of some hon. Gentlemen opposite of Home Rule for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland were an accomplished fact. If ever the stress of national emergency arose, the funds were available and would be obtained, and there was no excuse whatever for saying that Germany was in a critical fiscal condition. The facts and figures which he had given were taken from a book lately published by that distinguished writer Dr. Zahnt, who, discussing the question of armaments, had pointed out that, if the result of economy was to render a nation liable to be beaten in war, it was the worst possible kind of economy. He further pointed out that moneys spent upon armaments could be made reproductive, that in the event of war the nation which had the armament that would win would not suffer financially, but would gain. ["Oh."] And it was on the German navy that the borrowed money was now being spent. The right hon. Gentleman made another excursion into German finance. He gave figures to show that the cost of living in Germany was 6s. or 7s., as compared with 5s. in this country. The right hon. Gentleman did not say
1744
where he obtained those figures. Where did he get his figures? He expected out of his own imagination.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am prepared to produce the document.
MR. BONAR LAWwas glad to hear it. In regard to the whole comparison between Germany and this country, the point ought to be not whether the German people now were in as good a position as the English people, but what the comparison had been since the change in the fiscal system of Germany was made. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not forgotten the statistics with which he used to be familiar when President of the Board of Trade. The fiscal Blue-book pointed out that in the twenty years from 1880 to 1900 the rise in wages had been greater in Germany than in other countries, and that there had been a great fall in the cost of living in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that there had been a great increase in the last few years in Germany. Yes, but did he realise the increase in the cost of living in this country? Everything had risen, and to an extreme extent. For the comparative cheapness of sugar the late Government were responsible. The right hon. Gentleman read a resolution passed by a number of members of the German Parliament, a resolution that was contrary to everything German. The group in question happened to be the smallest of all the groups in the German Parliament, and, like all small groups, it was the most divided of all the groups.
AN HON. MEMBER: It was carried unanimously.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that any hon. Member could get up a meeting of two men and a boy to sign a resolution against our rule in India or Egypt, or anything else. The resolution, though of course of no value, was perhaps of some little use in adding to the ignorance of foreign observers. If the observation of the right hon. Gentleman was intended to represent that there was a large body of opinion in the German Parliament

1745
and in Germany in favour of the fiscal system which prevails in this country, it was a statement made in ignorance, and appalling ignorance, of the whole political condition in Germany. There were, of course, parties in the German Parliament and among the German people who were opposed to the present volume of taxation, and who desired to see the tariff reduced; but there was no political party of any kind which would recommend that their market should he left open without restriction to the competition of Britsh goods. If any proof of that were necessary it was to be found in the fact that the leader of the very little group to which the right hon. Gentleman referred last night recently stated in public that the idea of a free trade Parliament was rooted out in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, but some statements of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down I think require some rejoinder from this bench. Really I do not remember ever to have heard before such a succession of remarkable observations of various kinds, covering such a wide range of policy and economics, in the course of so brief and closely-reasoned a speech. Perhaps the most striking, or, at any rate, one of the most striking, of his assertions was the protest of the hon. Gentleman that he was not a protectionist, and he showed that he had his own interpretation of protection. He said that the Patents Act was a measure of protection—crude protection. A patent is in itself a protection. It is a restriction upon free trade—a very proper and prudent restriction given by the State. It is a protection of monopoly and privilege given to an inventor in order to stimulate invention. We say that that privilege should not be extended except in so far as it conduces to the public advantage. That is what my right hon. friend has done in regard to the privilege of patents. He has taken care that the monopoly shall not be extended beyond those limits in which it can be shown that it will develop industrial enterprise. Before that measure was passed it was open to a foreigner to obtain a patent in this
1746
country, and, in virtue of that piece of parchment, to employ a British policeman to stop British manufacturers from embarking upon that industry at all, no matter how desirable and suitable it was that such an industry should be created in this country. What a shocking and absurd state of things that we should artificially, and by a law of our own, in virtue of no other power than our own self-denying ordinance, fetter the free activity of our own people in regard to some manufacture for which our country was peculiarly suited! But where was the hon. Gentleman when all this was going on? He stands out as the protector of British trade, the sole friend of the manufacturers of this country. What was he doing during the two years his influence was active at the Board of Trade? What were he and his friends doing but enforcing day by day the law which forbade British manufacturers, at the behest of foreign subjects, from embarking on industries for which this country was economically suited? What we have done is not to establish protection. We have said that in certain circumstances where the privilege does not conduce to the public interest here, the privilege should be withdrawn, and the patent no longer operate. Does that mean protection? No, it means we revert to free trade. [OPPOSITION cheers.] it is of no use for hon. Gentlemen to laugh. We revert to free trade in that particular article. From the moment the patent lapses the article can be made by everybody, whether in England, Germany, or France, and sent into this country without adverse discrimination of any kind. That is what the hon. Gentleman calls protection. We should be quite content if that were the only protection we were advised to give. We ask no more than that there shall be a fair field and no favour, and where a patent is withdrawn absolute free trade in it will be the consequence of such withdrawal. The hon. Gentleman made a great many statements in regard to Germany which will, I think, have to be examined a little more critically and carefully in the course of the next few days. He challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to certain figures which he quoted, and I understood from my right hon. friend that he will

1747
take steps to place those figures at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman and leave the House to judge. He also asked for the production of a particular document, and there is no objection to giving him entire satisfaction. I ask the House to notice particularly in regard to Germany one remark of the hon. Member, because it is really an illuminating remark; it shows the political inwardness of the protectionist mind. The hon. Gentleman quoted an opinion of Dr. Zahnt—and indicated that he shared it—that armaments may be made reproductive.
MR. BONAR LAW: I only said it was something which we in this country ought to take to heart.
MR. CHURCHILL: I notice that whenever we get to an important point in this controversy the hon. Gentleman and his friends decline to give a plain answer. Here in the course of an argument designed to show the goodness of the position of Germany financially and in credit he says that armaments are no doubt a heavy burden, but he quotes, to show that that burden is not so heavy as it appears, the observation of Dr. Zahnt that armaments may be made reproductive. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that the natural consequence of that argument is that he quoted the statement of Dr. Zahnt with a measure of approval.
MR. BONAR LAWwas understood to dissent.
MR. CHURCHILL: At any rate, he thought the statement was one pregnant with truth. This is not a very new policy. The idea that if you murder a man you may subsequently steal his money is a very primitive one. The great Napoleon for many years insisted on maintaining the whole fabric of his Empire on contributions levied by force on foreign States, but I am not of opinion that the ultimate historical conclusion of that great experiment could be said to be profitable either for Napoleon or the country over which he presided. When we are told that firmaments may be made reproductive, what about the South African War? Great gold mines were at stake, great armaments were employed, vast sums of money were spent, but
1748
there is no result at present of a financial character, and no dividend of a satisfactory or remunerative character has yet been achieved by this country. For myself I welcome this opportunity of repudiating altogether on the part of the great majority in this House the idea that we should be animated in our expenditure on armaments by any hope of making a profit out of such shocking means of human destruction. Then the hon. Gentleman proceeded to speak of the German financial position. With a great deal of what he said I should not be disposed to quarrel. He spoke of the small debt of Imperial Germany; I think he said it was £200,000,000. He showed how much of that debt was remunerative. It was invested in State railways and produced a valuable return. It was more comparable to the debts of our local authorities than to our National Debt, which, as everybody knows, represents only one thing—gunpowder. He proceeded to show how the debt, local and national, in Germany was only half the National Debt which exists in this country per head of the population. I have heard an expression "money talks." Let us see what the markets of the world have to say to the imposing catalogue of German financial assets. In spite of all these advantages which Germany possesses over us—a smaller debt, the reproductive character of that debt, the valuable possessions of the State in forests, railways, and minerals—what is the rate at which Germany has to borrow in the markets of the world? We can borrow at something under 3 per cent., whereas the German Empire, enjoying all the advantages of scientific taxation, has to pay 4 per cent. for money secured on all these assets. There can be no other test of the credit of a country than the price at which it can borrow. I am content to be guided in my conclusion by the ordinary market price at which the country can borrow. Judged by that prosaic and simple test, the hon. Gentlemen's arguments only serve to establish it on more unshaken foundations. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to reproach us with our finance. Each party in the State admires its own record, and I can quite understand that in a speech in a controversial debate a speaker on the opposite

1749
side should be glad to contrast our record with the record of his friends. But of all subjects, I should have thought finance was the one which he would most carefully and prudently have avoided. I should have thought when the hon. Gentleman was considering on what subject to criticise the Government the one word of warning which he would have kept before his eyes was never to refer to the financial policy of the Opposition in his speech. The record of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to impose taxation. The record of His Majesty's Government has been to take off taxation. The record of the Party opposite was to pile up expenditure year by year beyond all expectation or precedent. The course of this Government has been thriftily, with care and pain and with the suffering and affliction which necessarily attend upon a policy of retrenchment, to reduce expenditure steadily year by year, so far as our opportunities have admitted.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You have increased it.
MR. CHURCHILL: We have reduced the unproductive expenditure of the State. Armaments are the unproductive element of expenditure; it is in that branch particularly that the finance of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite deserved criticism and censure, and it is in that very matter that we have succeeded in making notable and substantial reductions. Lastly, I come to the question of Debt. The hon. Gentleman used the expression that we propose to raid the Sinking Fund. When a Party leaves office, having piled on the Debt £120,000,000 or £130,000,000, having left the borrowing practices of every department in a wholly unsound and unsatisfactory condition, having in years of peace increased the aggregate capital liabilities of the State, and having in the last two years of their responsible authority only reduced the capital liabilities of the State by, I think, £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, then, when that Party has been succeeded by an administration which in three years has been able to reduce those liabilities by between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000—a provision utterly unequalled in the experience of
1750
this country—silence, I should have thought, would have been the best policy. The hon. Gentleman's omissions were as remarkable as his assertions. We are confronted with an Amendment which urges the broadening of the basis of taxation. When the Government make a proposal, they are bound to make their proposal in all detail; and if an effective debate is to be conducted when the Opposition move an Amendment embodying a considered statement of policy, they ought to support that statement of policy by facts without which it is only meaningless jargon. What then, is your policy of broadening the basis of taxation? The hon. Gentleman spoke of a duty on manufactured articles. Is that the only duty he had in his mind? We are not afraid as free traders to discuss the merits of a duty on manufactured articles. We believe that on careful investigation it will be found just as susceptible to effective criticism as the duties on food, bread, and meat, which the hon. Gentleman omitted to notice. I am informed that a duty on manufactured articles, which is spoken of commonly as if it were a single duty, involves duties on at least 250 or 260 substantial and main categories of imports. Each of these articles is susceptible of much further classification. I make no doubt, from what I am credibly informed, that many hundreds of articles would be placed on the schedule of what is called a duty on manufactured articles. The hon. Gentleman must also remember that any enhancement of prices which might occur in this country owing to a duty being placed on manufactured articles, would inflict a hardship not only on the manufacturing population, who, it might be argued, would obtain some return, but also on the agricultural population, who would be forced to pay more for all the commodities they use, and would not get any returning measure of protection to compensate for their losses, if such compensation could be effective. It is well-known that no scheme of fiscal reform will ever be tolerated or put forward by the Party opposite which does not provide for protection of the farming and landlord classes in regard to agricultural products at least equal to the measure of protection afforded to manufacturers

1751
for manufactured articles. And, Sir, I say that the two things, the taxation of food and the taxation of manufactured articles, are inseparably interwoven, and must stand or fall together. For my part, I have always believed we shall be able to smash the taxation of manufactured articles in this House, and I am quite sure we shall be able to smash the taxation of food. The hon. Gentleman opposite, in spite of the intimate association between these two questions, contented himself by referring solely to the taxation of manufactured articles. I ask him now, specifically across the Table, does he include within the scope of this Amendment the taxation of bread and meat?
MR. BONAR LAW: Make me Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will answer you.
MR. CHURCHILL: An Amendment has been put on the Paper specifically urging the broadening of the basis of taxation, and many Gentlemen of distinction and eloquence on that side of the House have risen in support of it. They have risen to explain it, and they owe an explanation to the House and the country; they owe it to themselves, and they owe it, if they wish to do justice, to those Members of their own Party who are, perhaps, prepared to support a general tariff on manufactured goods, but are pledged against the taxation of food. Therefore I think it is a fair question, and I think it will be thought so outside. On this Amendment this evening, when it comes to voting upon it, are those who vote for it voting for the taxation of bread and meat as well as of manufactured articles, or are they voting only for the taxation of manufactured articles? Surely that is a question which should have an answer. But no answer will be given, not because the hon. Gentleman opposite could not rise in his place at once and say: "Of course I mean to support the right hon. gentleman the Member for Birmingham in his policy of the taxation of bread and meat"—he could do that in a moment—but because it would interrupt the harmony. It would mar the sweet concord between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester-
1752
shire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, sitting there side by side. Could the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich take the responsibility of introducing such an explosive topic? It is tact that has led him to withhold this important explanation from the House. It is tact, and it is tact only. But we know perfectly well the proposals the hon. Gentleman had in mind, and the House is perfectly well able to estimate the reasons and the motives of the hon. Gentleman's silence. I have one word to say of a more general character before I sit down. It is, I venture to submit to the House, when discussions on broadening the basis of taxation are raised, a mistake to suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to get more money for the public service by putting on many taxes than by putting on a few. There are some people who think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get all he wants by putting on only one. But, at any rate, the wealth which is laboriously accumulated by our people in the course of the year is contained in a central reservoir of national wealth, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may draw off for the services of the year so much as Parliament gives him leave to take. It makes no difference to the total amount of our accumulated wealth whether it is taxed through one or twenty or even 500 outlets—except this, that every outlet which is made from the reservoir has its own leakages. Multiply your outlets and you multiply the leakages; and we believe that our old established and carefully-considered fiscal system has resulted in the collection of the maximum possible revenue with the least possible waste in the course of collection. When we are told to broaden the basis of taxation by the imposition of duties on the imports of the country, not to be corrected by a countering Excise, upon the face of it it is absurd to contend and to suggest that more money can be raised for the service of the State by unorthodox and, I would say, dishonest methods than can be raised by those simple methods which secure the whole yield of the taxes to the Exchequer. Why, Sir, the great principle which this House ought

1753
to guard and cherish is that, when the tax collector comes to the private citizen and takes from him of his wealth for the service of the public, the whole of that money taken shall go for the purposes for which it is intended, and that no private interests, however powerfully they may be organised and however eloquently advocated, shall thrust their dirty fingers into the pie and take the profit for themselves. There is but one other point I wish to make before I it down, and it is the last argument I would submit to the House with respect to the Amendment which has been proposed. We are asked to broaden the basis of taxation. That means we are asked to increase the ratio of indirect taxation and to diminish the ratio of direct taxation. That means in other words, that we are to make the poor pay more. It means nothing else. Very remarkable figures have several times been quoted in this House with regard to the ratio of taxation. In 1841–2 the ratio was 73 per cent. indirect and 27 per cent. direct. Ever since that period with every extension of the franchise, with every development of what we call democratic Government, with every improvement in the general, social, and political conditions of the country, the ratio of the two classes of taxation has steadily and ceaselessly altered. Indirect taxation as a whole has always become less and less in proportion, and direct taxation has always become more and more, until so strong has the remorseless pressure of events become that even under a Conservative administration actual parity and equipoise were established in 1903, and in the present year the scale was markedly turned on the side of the direct taxpayer who actually contributes a larger proportion of the total revenue of the State than the indirect taxpayer. That is a great evolution; not only a financial evolution but a social evolution. It marks the steady march and progress of democratic finance in this country, and, for my part, I suggest to the House that no efforts should be neglected which will continue that movement and that tendency until, in the end, indirect taxation which presses on the shoulders of the masses of the people, is reduced only to that class of indulgences which, perhaps, a wise and prudent
1754
Government would seek to check and discourage, and the burden of maintaining the cost of administration is in every respect exclusively borne by those who derive rents from land and interest from capital. That movement of taxation to which I have alluded is directly countered and challenged by the Amendment now before the House. We are asked by those who propose the Amendment to set the tide back. We are asked, not merely to maintain the existing social balance in our land, and the existing balance of fortune as between rich and poor, and that is hard enough in all conscience for many of them. We are asked deliberately to turn the scale in the opposite direction. We are asked deliberately to carry the war into their country and to make, in the name of broadening the basis of taxation, an effective attempt to alter the social balance to the detriment of those who live by weekly wages, and to the advantage of those who live by interest on accumulated capital. Against that movement I have no doubt this House, at any rate, will stand firm. If the hon. Gentleman opposite with his power of reasoning and argumentative skill were to ask us to consider other proposals for broadening the basis we might be glad to go with him. If he asked us to broaden the basis of society, to broaden the basis of education, to raise the general basis of culture and comfort throughout our land, there, indeed, is a work in which we could co-operate with the Party opposite; but we shall embrace this opportunity, we shall welcome this opportunity of once again recording an absolute opposition, unqualified and emphatic, against a policy which seeks to broaden the basis of taxation by making it press more heavily on the threadbare shoulders of the poor.
MR. HILLSsaid that by all the axioms of taxation it could not be right that all the revenue of the country should come from one tax. Of course, the argument for indirect taxation was a far broader one than that. He wanted to answer a few points that the President of the Board of Trade had made. He had made a very severe attack on his hon. friend, and had taunted Mm with quoting with approval a statement of

1755
a German author. It was surely well known that that view was widely held on the Continent, and whether right or wrong it was a view of which the House ought to take account. It would be a dangerous state of mind if this House and the party opposite were to imagine that the whole world was animated by the idealism which inspired some of them. It was not so. Surely all those facts were extremely important, and they could not afford to disregard them. They had been told that German finance was very unsound; that Germany was borrowing money to build her fleet. That might be right or wrong, but it was a consistent policy which the German people supported and one in which they meant to persevere. They were building their Fleet out of capital because their financial system was too cramped and restricted and they could not at the present time tap all the resources of their country. No doubt the time would come under the stress of war or some great danger when the whole country would be forced into some sort of real unity' and until that time came, although the money was there and the country was very rich, it could not be reached, and the German nation was tiding over that time by the use of capital instead of income. The right hon. Gentleman made some play upon the word "protection" and denied that the recent Patents Act was a protectionist measure. He listened with amazement to that statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that all patents were monopolies, and that if they further restricted a monopoly that was a free trade measure. Under the old law before the recent Act the owner of a British patent could manufacture in any part of the world he chose, but now he had to manufacture in this country. He entirely supported that Act, and he regarded it as a form of protection. It was really amusing to see the straits to which hon. Gentlemen opposite were put in trying to defend the Patents Act upon free trade lines, and until the right hon. Gentleman rose he did not think anybody had defended it upon those grounds. The object of that measure was perfectly obvious and clear, for it was the means of bringing employment to this country on the part of people who sought the protection of our
1756
laws. When a person got the advantage of our patent system it was only right that he should be obliged to work the patent in this country, and give employment to our own people. From the point of view of free trade and the consumer it did not matter where an article was made so long as it was sold cheaply, but surely this Act from that point of view was quite indefensible. The Opposition had been attacked on the ground that they had not shown the exact meaning of the Amendment, and because they would not explain the meaning of the phrase "broaden the basis of taxation." He should have thought very little explanation was necessary. If the President of the Board of Trade would look round Europe he would see plenty of examples of a broader basis of taxation than existed in this country. At the present time we imposed certain taxes and import duties on certain articles, and his point was that it would suit us as a nation to change the incidence of some of those taxes and impose them on manufactured articles produced in this country. A large amount of Customs duties we paid now—in fact we paid more than any other country in the world, and they were all paid on things which were not produced in this country. There were cases in which it would pay us better to shift those duties on to things which we did produce, and that would give employment to the people of this country. They were met with the argument that if a tax was protective, and kept out the foreign article no revenue would be derived, whilst, if it did not keep out the foreign article, there would be no advantage to home employment. As a matter of fact under the system he suggested they would get the advantage both ways. When foreign goods came in they had to pay the Customs duties. They would have to meet strong competition and come in at the home price. If that was so, then the foreign importer could not sell at a higher price and he would have to pay the duty, and, in that way, the revenue would benefit. If the goods were kept out, home production was stimulated, and so they benefited in both cases. He agreed that this would not happen in a simple ease. Certain articles would be kept out to a certain extent

1757
and some would not. In so far as they came in they would contribute to the revenue and in so far as they were kept out they would benefit the trade of this country. He could not see any answer to that. Surely all parties in this House were interested in home production and industries and, if by a tax they could effect an increase of industry, surely it was worth trying. A tax could do a great deal of good. They had been told that if the taxpayer knew what he was paying, it would stir in him the divine spirit of economy and he would look more to the expenses. He would far rather collect the taxes without any friction, or hardship, or burden on the person paying the tax. A tax could be made to keep out certain foreign articles and turn the course of trade, and it was for that reason that he argued in favour of a revenue tax. They had to find out the way a tax would affect them in all the varieties of their daily life. It was not enough to say they had simply to get revenue for the State; besides that, they had to see the exact effect of a tax on the national life, and that was why they ought not to regard it merely for the purpose of collecting revenue. They had carefully to consider its effect on the industries of the country and see how far it would stimulate them or the reverse. They had to look at the country as a whole and adopt that system which would stimulate most their industries. A few weeks ago a proposal was made from that side of the House that the duty on home-grown sugar should be suspended in order to encourage the production of beetroot sugar in England. It would have been a very small industry and would have employed very few people. Still, it would have employed some, and might have been the starting of a large industry, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer at once refused to accept the proposal, and it was extremely hard to find any reason for that refusal. The price could not have been raised by growing beetroot sugar in England, and so the consumer would not have been affected. It was a very small thing; the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have licensed a few acres and afterwards might have extended the project if successful. He could have limited the
1758
production to a very small area and it was quite clear the revenue would not have been appreciably affected. It could not have done very much harm, because, for many years to come, the production would have been so small that the loss of revenue would have been insignificant. It had always been to him very extraordinary why the free trade party would not stir a single finger to help British industries. He should like to know if that was the doctrine of all free traders, because it was surely a reductio ad absurdum. There was a chance here of increasing employment, and yet they refused to avail themselves of that chance for no reason that had been stated. Surely statesmen were not there to carry out any preconceived notions of their own, and, if that was so, why should they sit still and allow their hands to be tied when by a very simple act, by which the State would not lose at all, they might confer very great benefit? It seemed to him that the free trade party opposite insisted on regarding the whole nation as though they were consumers. He would have thought that in a strong industrial country the most important person was the producer. Why should the person who consumed be more important to the State than the producer? If there was one person in the State whom they should look after it was the producer. Everybody was a producer. If a man invested his money somewhere, that money would be used for the purposes of production, and, therefore, the investor was a producer. He could not conceive the case of a man who was not a producer, except, indeed, the case where a man hoarded his money and did not allow it to be used in industrial concerns. He could not imagine the case of a man who was a consumer only. That brought him to the question of the income-tax. The same people who talked about this as a nation of consumers only were all strong supporters of the proposal to put higher taxes on incomes. If they could tax the idle rich, and if all their incomes were unearned, as some hon. Members still seemed to think they were, he would not object to increase the income-tax. But income-tax was not paid half so much by individuals as by industry, and it really was the very worst tax to increase

1759
from the national point of view. He was afraid that the income-tax at a certain figure was now a permanent part of our financial system. Still he regarded with great suspicion all the talk about a graduated tax and a super tax. It was simply means of piling up the tax on productive wealth. They could not distinguish between productive and nonproductive wealth; it passed the wit of man to do so. If a man had special wealth which he employed in increasing the wealth of the community, he could not see any reason why that man should bear any special form of taxation. Some hon. Members who did not want to increase indirect taxation found refuge in proposals for the taxation of land values. That was a sort of happy land of which they knew nothing, but they regarded it as a place where all evils could be redressed. He quite agreed that any wealth which the community created was a fair subject of taxation. It was just as fair a subject of taxation as railway stock. If a man bought railway stock which went up in price the increase in the value was not caused by anything done by the holder of the stock; it was the community that gave the increased value. He failed to distinguish the increase in the value of an investment of that kind from the increase in the value of land. They had often been told that if they taxed the land they would diminish the price of it. He wished he could believe that the argument was sound; if it were sound, he could see some very valuable extensions of the argument. What he and his friends on that side of the House said was that industry and employment were not promoted by extending the income-tax so much as by imposing small duties on a large number of articles. The argument as to convenience of collection was all, he believed, on the side of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was far easier to collect the sugar tax than separate taxes on a number of manufactured articles. But they had to look at the effect of these duties upon the country. It was because the income-tax was almost all a tax on industry and production that he regarded with apprehension the tendency to raise it. He had not heard a single speaker in this debate who had really argued- for a practical scheme: of retrenchment, except the
1760
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke about the reduction of expenditure on armaments. Surely it was perfectly well known that no real reduction was possible in that direction in the immediate future. It was a delusive hope to hold out. It could not be done. All branches of the public service wanted more money. No one had got up and argued in favour of the old Liberal doctrine of retrenchment. Now under a Liberal Government the country was spending more money than it had done under the most expensive Conservative Government. He was not in the least blaming hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. Retrenchment was impossible, and now they had to look for fresh sources of revenue. He submitted that it was extremely important to collect the money from the taxpayers in the way that they would feel the payment least, and in the way that would most stimulate the industries of the country.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that he was just as ignorant now of the specific articles which the Members of the Opposition wished to tax as when the debate commenced. He and many of his colleagues regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to take the extra duty off tea this session. They were all pleased, however, that a ¼d. per pound had been taken off sugar, and they hoped that next session there would be a reduction of the tea duty and a repeal of what remained of the sugar duty. One of the most remarkable declarations he had heard during the debate was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night when he stated that it was the desire of the Government to abolish all taxes upon food, and to place the taxes upon people who were well able to bear them. He was pleased to hear that declaration, because it was altogether in the direction which the Labour Party and some Members on the Liberal side of the House had advocated for a long time. They had advocated that, instead of taxing the food of the people, the revenue should be got from a graduated income-tax, so that every man and woman in the land should pay according to their ability. What opposition could there be to the raising of taxation in that manner? He was delighted that

1761
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to steer his ship in the next session of Parliament in that particular direction. He had heard a great deal about the broadening of the basis of taxation from Members of the Opposition. He had been wondering where they were going to commence. This debate was near the finish, and the House had not been told where they were going to start. It was not a broadening, but a narrowing of the basis of taxation that was wanted. It was too broad already for the working classes, and they wanted to put it in a narrower compass; to impose a graduated income-tax which would give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the best value and which he hoped would be ultimately adopted. They had been told the usual story about protection and duties on imported goods, manufactured timber, and other articles. He had a right to say that they were bound to judge hon. Members' speeches in the House according to their remarks outside. He represented a town which had passed through a very severe trade depression and where a great deal of unemployment prevailed. Certain Gentlemen said to the workless workers that what they ought to do was to adopt the method of protection, and then the problem of unemployment would be solved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire went to Sunderland a short time ago and told the working men that protection would be a remedy for unemployment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that, if the hon. Gentleman referred specially to him, he had never suggested that there would be no unemployment if our fiscal system were reformed. What he advocated was a reform of our fiscal system as a means of increasing employment in this country.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends brought forward protection as a remedy for unemployment. Germany had been much talked about in the House. That very day he had received a letter from a friend in Germany in which he said—
"I have just received my first demand-note for taxes. The German Army will receive from me about thirty marks a year, the Church
1762
about twenty, and the remaining seventy marks will be employed for municipal purposes. So I am in for a little over £7 a year, all told!
The Vaterland is really a very dear country to live in. The wages of the working-man are lower than in England, and he works longer hours too. Excepting cigars and beer, everything costs him more than the English worker. Rents are oppressively high. Three rooms in Essen cannot be had for under thirty-five marks per month. Five rooms on a flat cannot be had for less than sixty marks. A suit that costs £3 in England, cannot be bought for under £4 here. In fact, clothes of any kind are at least 25 per cent. dearer than in England, and the material is not so good. It looks well, and here its recommendation ends."
That was a letter dated 24th May, and, therefore, was not written for the purposes of this debate. The writer was a young man, an English clerk in a German house, who had been in various parts of the world; and yet hon. and right hon. Gentlemen got up in the House and said that all was well in Germany on account of their adoption of protection. He was astounded at their audacity in quoting Germany to working men, for anyone who knew the facts was aware that in Germany the working men worked longer hours and for lower wages in any calling than in this country. At the last general election in Germany 3,250,000 votes were cast for the Party to which he and his friends belonged in this country; and a manifesto was issued by all the Socialist and Labour men which stated—
"Down with protection, which has been a curse to the poor and a benefit to the rich in Germany."
He also knew that the Socialists and labour men in that country stated that if they had a proper system of proportional representation in Germany they would soon have free trade. If protection was going to be the solution for unemployment in this country, how was it that there were 60,000 unemployed in Berlin demanding work and a reduction of the taxes on food? And how was it that there there were 5,000,000 of men unemployed in America and many thousands in France? No, protection would be no remedy for unemployment. He appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches not to play with the unemployed and fool them by telling them that protection was a remedy for unemployment. If they did, they might rest

1763
assured that the unemployed working men in this country would take things into their own hands and act in their own particular way before long. What was wanted was to discuss this question in a serious mood with the view of finding a solution for unemployment. When comparisons were made between France and Germany and this country, it should be remembered that for every ton of steel rails or ship plates produced in this country we had to pay to the idle landed aristocracy a royalty of something like 5s. 6d. per ton, whereas in Germany the royalty amounted to from 8d. to 1s. 6d. per ton, and that went to the State and not to private individuals. Hon. Gentlemen above the gangway on the Opposition side did not tell these things to the working men of this country. If they told that side of the story working men would realise how industry was handicapped in that direction compared with the iron and steel industry in Germany. It had been said that ratepayers were paying a heavier burden year by year and that some relief should be given to them. He had been a member of a borough council for fifteen years, and had always taken the greatest interest in the ratepayers in both town and rural districts. Hon. Gentlemen above the gangway on the Opposition side had in their mind's eye the increased rates on the people in the rural districts—upon land as against rates on property in large industrial centres. He remembered well the Agricultural Landowners' Relief Bill, as it was called, which was passed by the Tory Government some years ago, and which placed £7,000 additional taxation on the ratepayers in the town which he represented in order to give the £2,000,000 a year to the landowners of the country. But when those people were crying out about the undue rates imposed on them as landowners, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pay no heed to them. Slowly but surely the incidence of taxation had been shifted off the shoulders of those interested in land on to the shoulders of those who occupied houses and other property in the towns. In 1871 the rates borne by land amounted to £6,730,000, and on house and other property to £3,370,000. In 1868 land gave £5,500,000 and other property £11,000,000.
1764
In 1891 land gave £4,260,000 and other property £23,560,000. Or to put it another way, in 1817 the percentage was land 66·66 per cent. and other property 33·33 per cent.; whereas in 1891 the taxation had been shifted round and house and other property in towns was bearing 84·69 per cent. of the whole of the rates. Therefore, in his opinion instead of any further relief being given to landowners the Agricultural Landlords' Relief Act ought to be abolished. The representatives of the landowners in the House had cried year in and year out for relief in regard to taxation, local and Imperial. In spite of all the relief given what was the position to-day? Compared with 1860 land paid £1,000,000 less in rates, and instead of imposing a tax on imported food he urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax land more and other property less in order to get revenue for social reforms. More land would by that means be cultivated than at present. With regard to old-age pensions, as one who had been a member of a trade society for twenty-seven years and of a friendly society for twenty years, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not stick to the 10s. maximum which he intended to put in the Bill. After he had been a member of his trade society for forty years he would be entitled to a superannuation allowance of 10s. a week, and if after being a member of his friendly society for, say thirty years, he should get a shilling or two of an allowance he would be debarred from receiving an old-age pension. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one directly interested in trade and friendly societies to alter the proposed maximum from 10s. to 15s. or even £1 a week.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that hon. Gentlemen opposite were returned to Parliament pledged to economy, and during the month preceding the general election every one of them went about the country declaring to the electors that when the Liberal Party returned to power they would largely decrease the national expenditure. He was afraid that the electors had found out that those sanguine anticipations had been completely falsified. If hon. Members would refer

1765
to the total expenditure budgeted for this year they would find that provision was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an expenditure of £152,869,000, and that that sum was in excess of the provision in the last Budget of the Tory Government which allowed for an expenditure of £151,788,000. Whatever might be the desires and wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was obviously quite impossible for them to reduce the general expenditure of the country next year without decreasing the strength of the Navy or Army, and that would be absolutely inconsistent with the declaration made by the Prime Minister, who Lad stated that if Germany carried out a large shipbuilding programme this country would not be behind in strengthening her Navy. They also had to recognise this fact—that under the present Budget the Government not only did nothing satisfy the claims made upon them for many years past in the shape of grants for the alleviation of the burden of local taxation, but they had increased the claims on the Exchequer enormously by giving old -age pensions. The President of the Board of Trade had declared that it had been the policy of the Liberal Party since they had come into power to pay off the liabilities of their predecessors and to reduce taxation. They had reduced taxation certainly, but nobody could believe that the liability they had undertaken in regard to old-age pensions would enable them to relieve taxation in the years to come. As a result of the Old-age Pensions Bill taxation would have to be increased. The Prime Minister and the Government took credit to themselves for the fact that by the next year the Government would have in three years paid off no less than £47,000,000 of Debt. That was a matter of which the Government might be proud, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer ignored one important point, which was that of £47,000,000 of Debt paid by him no less than £13,500,000 was provided by surpluses from the Budgets, which, as everybody knew, had by law to be appropriated to the reduction of Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to take too much credit for that £13,500,000, because it was obvious that one of two
1766
things must have occurred. Either the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers must have unwittingly under-estimated the revenue, or else, having accurately estimated the revenue, they had deceived the public by imposing unnecessary taxation on the country. But whilst the Debt had been reduced in that way the Government at the same time had announced to the country that they were bringing in a scheme of old-age pensions on a non-contributory basis. He had listened in vain for some valid arguments from hon. Members opposite as to why old-age pensions should be given on such a basis, but although hon. Members might have good arguments at the bottom of their hearts they had been careful during the debate not to bring them to the surface. He could not help thinking that the scheme of old-age pensions on a non-contributory basis was not one that this House ought to support. Such a Bill was not a direct incentive to thrift, but on the contrary a direct incentive to every person in the country to be as unthrifty as possible. If a scheme of old-age pensions was about to be brought forward he thought the people who were to benefit by such a scheme should pay something directly or indirectly to the scheme by which they were to benefit and on that ground he objected to the Government proposal to halve the sugar tax. The right hon. Gentleman next year would have strong appeals made to him to remit the half of the sugar duty that now remained. As to that the Prime Minister had told the House this year that by remitting half the duty he would relieve the general consumers of this country. The same thing was said about the tea duty when he took half off the year before last, but when the same question was raised on last year's Budget the right hon. Gentleman said he found he was mistaken, and that it was no use taking off another penny. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come to the same conclusion when the sugar duty came up for discussion next year, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the appeals that would be made to him to repeal this duty altogether. It brought in £6,700,000, and there was no duty which could be put on that would

1767
yield so much with such ease and without doing any serious harm to the consumer. Various proposals had been put forward by hon. Members opposite and below the gangway for providing the sums required for old-age pensions in the future. The sum, which started with the Prime Minister's estimate of £6,000,000, was quickly increased by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to £7,000,000, and, judging from the remarks which came from all sides of the House, it would in a very few years be increased to £16,000,000. Hon. Members below the gangway opposite thought that all this might be secured by an increased income-tax on large incomes. The hon. Member for North Paddington pleaded very hard for such a scheme. He did not call it a super-tax, but a graduated income-tax. A super-tax or a tax of a larger sum on incomes over a certain amount could only be collected by one of two methods, the method of degression, namely, by putting a 2s. tax upon all incomes, and leaving those whose incomes were below £5,000 to claim for an abatement of a portion of the tax, or by requiring those whose incomes were over £5,000 a year to make a declaration of their income. It was pointed out by the Select Committee that it would be a great inconvenience to adopt the first method, and with regard to the second, which was the one advocated by the hon. Member for Paddington, he would refer the hon. Member to, the remarks made by the Prime Minister last year, which gave very good reasons why it would be almost impossible to force a general declaration from persons whose income was more than £5,000 a year. A further objection to a high tax on large incomes was that it tended to destroy or at any rate contract the most readily available reserve on which the State could draw in the case of an emergency. That was the most serious danger of a high income-tax. It appeared to be the policy of hon. Members opposite not to keep the income-tax for use in the case of an emergency, but to impose a high tax for the purposes of defraying the general expenditure of the country and the old-age pension scheme in particular. He strongly objected to national finance of that nature. Reference had been made in the debate to one reform most
1768
urgently needed throughout the country, a question that had been before the Government for a good many years. He referred to the reform of local taxation, and he had hoped that the Government would have done something in the present Budget to remove a grievance that had existed for so many years. The Government accepted earlier in the session a Resolution dealing with the subject, and assented to a Motion that the present system of local taxation needed the immediate attention of the Government. It was perfectly clear to anybody conversant with the work of county councils and county borough councils that they were now in a very serious situation. The rates had increased from 3s. 8d. in the £ in 1889–90 to 5s. 11d. in 1904–5, notwithstanding that during that period the rateable value had increased 38·4 per cent. He believed that the agricultural ratepayer had a very serious grievance at the present moment, in spite of the Agricultural Rating Act of the last Government, which had not benefited the landlord as an hon. Member below the gang-way had said just now. [Cries of "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite seemed to object to that statement, but he had observed that all the Liberal candidates who went to the agricultural districts had said that they would vote for a renewal of the Act. That was in very marked contrast to the action of the Liberal Party when the matter was brought before the House. The Prime Minister, a few weeks ago, had admitted in the House that the agricultural community still had a serious grievance. The farmer who was rated on his land and buildings, that was to say the raw material of his industry, had a very real grievance as compared with the man who had a fixed income, lived in one house, and owned no other property subject to rates, and also as compared with the tradesman in the town, who was rated only on his house and shop premises. But what he wished particularly to put before the House was the fact of the general increase of expenditure that had been incurred by local authorities for what were really national services. The expenditure of the local authorities in 1888–9 was

1769
£48,000,000, and it had increased in 1904–5 to £107,000,000. These figures showed that the local authorities were now incurring an enormous expenditure on national services which ought to be paid for more largely out of the National Exchequer. The tendency also was not to take duties away from local authorities, but to increase the obligations put upon them. One party came into power and passed a Small Holdings Bill which had increased very largely the work of local authorities. In the present session the Government had brought forward the Housing Bill, which, if carried, would largely increase the work of the local authorities. It seemed to him that if the House went on as it had done in the past twenty years, passing over fifty Acts which had thrown additional work and liabilities on the local authorities instead of relieving them, it would lead to a very serious condition of administration. Both sides would admit that the local authorities in the past had carried out the duties entrusted to them with great industry and ability; but if they continued to force them to carry out what were really national services as well as local services, they would bring about a serious state of things. Those people who had an aptitude for county business would find themselves unable to devote to it the time required, and the result would be that they would have the whole work run by a body of paid officials, or a class of county administrators would spring up who would not possess the confidence of the electors, and who would apply their powers for their own ends and not for the general welfare. That he believed to be a real danger, and he thought the way to avoid it, and also to relieve what was a very serious burden and grievance, was for the Government to take over some of these national services which were now rendered by local authorities. He believed it to be possible for the Government to take into their hands the administration of the police, and also the entire administration of the lunatics of the country. He believed, too, it would be a good thing if they eventually took over the entire administration of the workhouses, leaving the local authorities to administer outdoor relief. He believed
1770
that on those lines they could afford important and real relief to the local ratepayers of the counties, without waiting for that very vague thing, a really honest and true Valuation Bill—which was always thrown in their teeth when they approached this subject—and at the same time do useful service to local government throughout the country.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich had appeared as a critic of Liberal legislation and in the familiar character of a prophet of woe. For three or four years he had been engaged in that character and he really wondered that the hon. Gentleman had not by this time tired of the role. He could remember that in the early days of the tariff reform movement the hon. Member prophesied such an influx of cheap steel and iron to be dumped into this country at something like £2 a ton, that our industries would be almost wiped out. In various ways the hon. Gentleman had been constantly engaged in prophesying woes, "carrying panic to our friends and comfort to our foes," belittling our own country and extolling Germany and other protectionist countries in comparison with it. The hon. Member had said that the Government by its Budget, was placing enormous future burdens on the country without any attempt to provide for them, but for his own part he would submit in answer that there could be no better way of budgeting for the future and providing for liabilities than in paying off debt, and thereby reducing interest; and that had been done in the last three years to a far greater extent than at any previous time in the history of the country. The hon. Gentleman had gone on to touch upon the subject of a tax on manufactured articles, and he had skilfully avoided the challenge to deal with the question of a tax upon wheat, meat, and articles of dairy produce. It was very easy to talk about a tax upon manufactured articles, which was something like the vague phrase "broadening the basis of taxation." When they came to deal with the question of a tax on manufactured articles, the man did not live who could define what a manufactured article was.

1771
Where was the so purely manufactured article that it was not useful in some of our industries? He would take a simple illustration. In the town of Nantwich in his own constituency, there was the tannery industry, and boot and shoe factories. The first question was "What is leather? Is it a manufactured article or not?" The tanner said it was manufactured, and wanted protection. The boot and shoemaker said that would be the death blow to his industry. The South Wales tin, plate trade, which had been attended with such prosperity, depended on the importation of cheap German material. That most exquisitely manufactured article, the American sewing machine, was imported for the purpose of stitching boots or to sew on uppers, and it formed an absolutely essential part of the boot-making industry. In regard to Germany, the fact of the protection which existed there was a proof of our manufacturing superiority. They could not compete with us. Other countries, in some cases, were obliged to protect themselves, or thought they were, in order to keep out our manufactured goods, because in spite of the cost of carriage and other things they knew that we could compete with them in their own markets. All this was a confession of their inferiority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire demanded that the Ministerialists should state their policy. Well, here was the Budget, which provided for the present year, and if it were true, as the hon. Member for Dulwich had said, that they had plunged into the vortex or gone over the cataract, then next year they would see how they stood. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] That was another prophecy of woe. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have to provide for the Budget; the Liberal Government would have to provide for it; but if the prophecy came true, then from the party point of view it would be a great advantage to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they would have no reason to complain. But he thought the Government and their supporters could take care of themselves, and they had sufficient confidence in the resources of the country to believe that if they maintained peace, if they were more sober and temperate, and if
1772
they maintained free trade, the natural increase of the country and of its revenue would be sufficient not only to provide for old-age pensions, but to increase and improve upon them, and it was in that belief that he heartily supported this Budget. There was one matter he wished to mention, and that was with reference to the statement of the hon. Member for South Hackney as to the enormous unclaimed balances lying in the banks. He was a director of one of the largest banks in England, and had some experience of the banking world, but he must confess his utter ignorance of any such balances. It was enormously exaggerated. He hardly thought they existed at all, and anyone who depended upon finding £100,000,000 of unclaimed deposits of which the country could lay hold, would find nothing but a. mare's nest.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has informed us that the Arabian Nights estimate of the unclaimed balances lying at our banks is not going to prove any great national asset in times of financial difficulty. But I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, who was so able, though so brief, a critic of the hon. Member for Hackney, does not show the same happy optimism as that which characterised the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney. What does he tell us He tells us that, if we only adhere to oar present fiscal policy, he had not the smallest doubt that the natural growth of the revenue will enable us to pay for old-age pensions in the course of next year without recourse to any new taxation. The hon. Member may, and doubtless does, know a great deal about the unclaimed assets which are lying at the banks; but I do not think he can have studied very much the growth or decline of public revenue if he entertains so sanguine an estimate of what is going to happen next year on the present basis of taxation. Nor do I for one moment believe that the Prime Minister will express the same roseate view of next year's Budget as the hon. Gentleman looks forward to. I must confess, as far as I am concerned, to a considerable disappointment in the speeches which, so far, have come from

1773
the Treasury bench upon a financial position which every thinking man, whatever his view of the fiscal problem may be, must regard as a serious one. We have had three speeches from the front bench opposite. The speech of the Postmaster-General, which was delivered, first, seemed to be more appropriate to a discussion such as we have often had, and doubtless are often to have again, on the fiscal question, than to the Amendment before the House. The right hon. Gentleman dealt at length with the questions of Colonial preference and dumping. I do not think either of those questions is before the House on the present occasion. I hold strong views on both those questions, but they are not views which come into or ought to come into the present debate; for even if I did not believe in the great advantage of establishing some commercial bond with our Colonies, even if I did not think it necessary to safeguard the interests of this country against certain kinds of illegitimate competition, I should still believe that, in the present financial position of the country, a widening of the present basis of taxation was eminently desirable and necessary. Therefore, it is a wholly irrelevant issue to raise as to whether we on this side of the House think that, if the present basis of taxation were extended, we should be enabled to have, in addition to new sources of revenue, an opportunity to establish, on terms favourable to the free trade of this country, arrangements with our Colonies, or that we should be able to deal with illegitimate competition. If those facts are true, they are not raised by this Amendment. We are discussing a different but a not much less important issue—how you are going to deal with the enormous liabilities which we see immediately facing us, and whether you are going to deal with them on the basis of taxation which alone is the basis that the present Government apparently are prepared to accept. That issue was certainly not dealt with by the Postmaster-General. He delivered a speech which was either belated or prophetical and anticipatory, which might have been in order and appropriate last year or may be so next year, but is not in order or appropriate on the
1774
present occasion. He was followed from that bench by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have a very high opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's abilities. He has been an acute and ardent critic of mine for many years. I have had to meet him across the floor of this House on all sorts of questions and on all sorts of occasions, and no man could have the opportunities which I have had of forming an opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's capacity without forming a very high opinion. But, frankly, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman since he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite done himself justice. Partly, no doubt, that is due to the fact that he is in a somewhat difficult position. He is. responsible for the Budget as every Member of the Cabinet is responsible; but he is not responsible for it in the ordinary way, or to the full extent to which ordinarily a Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible. He did not frame it. Doubtless he approved it with the other Members of the Cabinet, but he was not engaged in the laborious work of thinking out all the details of it. Consequently, he comes to the House as the defender of another man's work rather than of his own. We ought to make full allowances for that position; but, even after doing so, I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman, considering the great and responsible position he now holds, has rather too clinging reminiscences of his happy time as a guerilla chief below the gangway, and he deals with these great national issues in the happy tone of humorous irresponsibility which amused, if it did not edify, us when he was an important Member of the Opposition below the gangway. Further, if I wanted to establish that criticism, I could do no better than to point to the sort of misrepresentation—I do not say it was very blamable, but I am not sure it was very worthy—in which the right hon. Gentleman indulged in regard to the speakers who preceded him. My hon. friend the Member for Windsor last night advanced a perfectly sound economic statement that in certain conditions of supply and demand the foreigner paid not only part, but the whole of the import tax, and he gave as an illustration a tax supposed to be put upon the small

1775
quantity of coal imported into this country. That was a perfectly sound economic doctrine illustrated by a perfectly apposite hypothesis. The Chancellor of the Exchequer jumps up and thanks my hon. friend for having made the only suggestion offered from this side of the House, and says he understands that the method by which the Opposition would raise the necessary funds for our great expenditure is by imposing a tax on coal imports from foreign countries. That is all very well as a passing joke, but it is not of much use in a serious discussion. If I may, with all respect, continue the same line of criticism, I thought the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps by ancient habit, dragged in too much discussion about the Education Act of 1902. I made so many speeches upon that Bill that I never, unless I am forced by the Parliamentary situation, go back upon that well-beaten track. Not so the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Next to myself, I think he made more speeches upon that Bill than any other Member. He could not resist going back upon it, and he made the extraordinary statement that that Act was the main cause of the growth of local rates in this country. It was nothing of the kind.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the last ten years.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely dissent from that. It is perfectly true that the improved education given under that Act at the will of the local authorities has increased the cost of education, but the giving of rate assistance to voluntary schools has not added to the burden on local authorities—it has diminished it. If the voluntary schools had been allowed slowly to starve out, which was the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and had been replaced one by one as they disappeared by board schools, the burden on the ratepayers would then, indeed, have been augmented, and it would have been augmented, not because the Act of 1902 had been brought in, but because it had not been brought in. It is a widespread and complete delusion to suppose that the fact that voluntary schools were allowed to participate for certain educational purposes in a part of the rates was in itself, and apart from the general im-
1776
provement in education, otherwise than an economy. The last speech delivered from the Treasury Bench was from the President of the Board of Trade. I will not say he dealt with the closely-reasoned and able speech of my hon. friend who sits near me. On the main issue raised by my hon. friend he made no reply at all. What he dealt with in a speech which certainly was not deficient in ability, but, naturally enough, under the circumstances, had rather a platform flavour about it, was not the main substance of my hon. friend's argument, but certain casual and side issues; and I have frankly to admit that I do not think he dealt with them either very fairly or very successfully. My hon. friend told the House that, in a very serious and, to use the Chancellor of the Exchequer's word, scientific book upon economic matters, a German author had pointed out that armaments, in the case of a successful war, might be made to pay, or more than to pay, their cost. The President of the Board of Trade thereupon informed the House that my hon. friend's opinion was that we ought to increase our armaments because they might be made a reproductive source of expenditure. That was not the point of my hon. friend's remark. My hon. friend neither felt nor expressed approval of this German view. The importance of the German view was this: If a scientific German, dealing with this question in absolutely cold-blooded fashion as a scientific doctor might deal with a disease, comes to the conclusion that expenditure on armaments cannot be put wholly to the debit side of the national account but must be regarded in part as a reproductive source of revenue, if that be a common and widespread view in Germany, the position of this country, which has to keep a position at sea and on land which makes it free from all danger of attack, is more than ever a difficult one, seeing that one of the greatest naval and military nations of the world takes quite a different view of naval and military expenditure from that which we take in this House and this country. But a greater and more extraordinary misrepresentation and misapprehension of my hon. friend's argument is to be found in the manner in which the Patent

1777
Laws have been dealt with. My hon. friend had pointed out with unanswerable force that while the present Government are perpetually lecturing us about the doctrines of what they call free trade, when they come to practical legislation those doctrines are thrown to the winds: and he took as an illustration of his thesis the legislation of the late President of the Board of Trade in regard to patents. His argument was that by the legislation of the present Government the foreign owner of a patent may keep his monopoly in this country if he manufactures in this country. The President of the Board of Trade seemed to think that he lost his monopoly in this country and that part of that monopoly was handed over to the British manufacturer. It is not handed over to the British manufacturer. It remains where it is now, in the hands of the foreign manufacturer. It is quite true that the English, or British, workman may gain by the fact that the foreign manufacturer has got to bring his work over to this country if he means to keep his monopoly. That is a kind of argument more favoured among hon. Gentlemen on this side than on the opposite side of the House. They always talk as if the very last thing you ever have to consider in your legislation is whether you give, or do not give, employment to the working classes of this country. But, Sir, that is not all. It is manifest, as my hon. friend pointed out, though the President of the Board of Trade could not, or would not, see it, that cases may and do arise in which it is more costly for the foreign monopolist to manufacture in two places than in one place. If he desires to obtain the same profit for himself and the same consumption for his goods, he ought not to be obliged to transfer part of his works to a country in which he does not reside, and the result of compelling him to transfer is that the cost to the consumer will be augmented. I thought that the one thing that hon. Gentlemen opposite never tired of telling us was that the only thing you ever had to consider in making your legislative and fiscal arrangements was, not the employment of the working classes, but the cost to the consumer. And yet, as my hon. friend proved conclusively, both in theory and, by the illustration he gave, in practice there is not the smallest doubt that this
1778
compulsory transfer of a part of a foreign capitalist's capital from the foreign country to this country must end in an. increase in the cost of production. [Cries of "No."] Must or may. Now, as I hear a hon. Gentleman below the gangway cheer with undisguised irony at the substitution of "may" for the word "must," I must withdraw the word "must." It is a word very seldom used in these economical discussions without having some exceptional case thrown in your teeth; and I prefer, therefore, to say that, while it cannot possibly diminish the cost to the consumer, in some cases it will increase it. [Cries of "May.]
MR. JOHN WARD: In certain cases it may decrease the cost.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. There the hon. Gentleman is, I think, in error; and for this reason, that if it suited the German manufacturer, or the foreign manufacturer, to manufacture in this country rather than in his own, the Patents Act of the right hon. Gentleman was wholly unnecessary. He would come here without any of that gentle compulsion which the free trade principles of the right hon. Gentleman permitted him to extend to this particular form of enterprise. After all, these arguments, which I have culled from the three Front Bench speeches opposite, and which touched some of the most important points raised by the respective speakers, are far and remotely removed from the very serious issues in question at the present time. These issues have been treated, and I do not complain of it, as merely party issues. It is perfectly fair for hon. Gentlemen, if they think it worth while, to discuss their own wonderful claims to national gratitude for the diminution of the National Debt. It is quite true that they usually grossly overstate them, and that under analysis they do not amount to very much. Nor do I quarrel with the various other partisan statements made on the other side. Plenty of partisan statements are made on this side—I do not say unfair or incorrect, but intended to throw discredit on those who now hold power and throw credit on those who held power a few years ago, or vice versa. I do not want to press that aspect of the question as it affects either side upon the

1779
to tention of the House. I will, therefore, content myself with pointing out that we are now face to face in a very novel and exceptional manner with the immediate future of the financial necessities of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us yesterday that the difference between the two parties was that one wanted armaments and the other wanted social reform. Sir, that is a deplorable way of stating things. I believe that every party in this House wants social reform, and I am certain that no party in this House is so foolish as to desire to spend an unnecessary shilling on armaments. I have had practical experience of Cabinet Government for many years, and if hon. Gentlemen could overhear the discussions either in the present Cabinet, of which I know nothing—though I could guess a great deal—or of the Cabinets of which I was a Member, and of which I do know something, they would really know that this illusion that there is any party in this House who has a kind of abstract desire to throw a burden on the taxpayers of this country in respect of armaments to which they are not driven, by what they rightly or wrongly regard as irresistible logic, to think necessary for the safety of the country, is wholly groundless. They may be wrong. These questions of defence are very difficult. The questions of Army reform are of extraordinary difficulty. Even with regard to the Navy, which has never presented the same immense difficulties, there are constantly arising problems not easy of solution, in which sensible and impartial men may well come to different conclusions. But it will only mislead hon. Gentlemen in their own speculations and comments if they seriously think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer or responsible Government readily admits the expenditure of a single shilling on armaments, with all the necessary incidence of increased taxation, unpopularity, criticism in this House directed against successive Governments in turn, until they are driven by irresistible argument to the painful necessity of sanctioning that expenditure. The President of the Board of Trade told us that the present Government have produced great economies in the Army and Navy. I am sure that they have done their best in both, and
1780
have not spent a single shilling that they did not think necessary, and by their own admission there are a great many shillings they have not spent that they do think necessary, and that are going to be spent next year and the year after. I would earnestly ask the House not to be misled by the antithesis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer between the two sides when he said that the desire of one was in the direction of national well-being, while the other preferred the barren production of death-giving machines. We all want economy in military matters, and desire such expenditure as we can afford on matters of social reform. Therefore there is no difference on that point. The anxiety of the present situation arises from this—that, so far as I know, never in the history of the country until the present moment have we been face to face, not merely with remote possibilities, but with the actual and immediate necessities for a vast expenditure for which no provision is made or foreshadowed by the Government. We have said that, if this situation is to be faced, you will not be able to rely on your old sources of revenue; you must find new sources, or, in the technical phrase, broaden the basis of taxation. Hon. Gentlemen, not anxious to pursue this discussion on the issue which we are trying to put forward, but to place it on a footing more favourable to themselves, have put a series of questions as to the exact Budget that we should bring in if we were responsible for public finances, and they claim to have secured a triumph when they put the question whether we should be prepared to tax this or that article of food. Any men who looks at the position seriously knows that it is folly to ask what Budget a party would bring in that can have nothing to do with the national finances for the next three or four years, according to Gentlemen opposite, while they will not tell us what is to be their Budget next year. A Government which will not tell us the Budget of next year can hardly complain of us if we do not tell them a Budget which cannot be for three or four years and may be indefinitely postponed. Hon. Gentlemen may entertain the agreeable view that their tenure of power is going to be indefinitely prolonged, and in that case I at all events

1781
have no call to answer the question, for it is quite clear that I shall be in my grave before an answer is required. But I will answer a question which was put in tones of electoral triumph by the President of the Board of Trade. I will not refer to the past, either to his triumphs or his failures. He and I are fellow-sufferers, and have each other's reciprocal sympathy. He told us in his speech this afternoon that my hon. friend near me did not dare to touch the question of a tax on corn, because it would immediately produce a collision of opinion between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. That really is extremely absurd. It seems to be forgotten that I was a member of the Government which put a tax on corn, when the financial necessities of the country required it. And certainly, if I thought that the financial necessities of the country required it again, I should do again what I did in 1901, before, I may incidentally remark, the fiscal question arose at all. And, therefore, upon this subject of broadening the basis of taxation in connection with the taxation of foodstuffs, certainly, if the financial necessities of the country required it—which is the only thing we are discussing at this moment—I should no more shrink from doing it again than I shrank from doing it before. But, when the Pesident of the Board of Trade deduces as a corollary from that, that my friends and I are prepared to put a fresh burden upon the threadbare shoulders of the poor, let me remind him that I have over and over again stated that whatever be the new financial needs of the country which we see in front of us, at all events I shall not be a party, if I have anything to do with providing the new resources, to increasing the burden upon the working classes of this country. And when the right hon. Gentleman declares that our policy is one that is going to increase the burden upon the working classes of this country, he is bound, if he wishes to be fair, to say that it is no part of our policy and intentions that any additional proportionate burden shall be thrown on those on whose shoulders taxation may in certain circumstances be extremely heavy. Then what a curious thing it is that, while Members on that bench have
1782
been occupied in making these wholly unfounded charges against the alternative we propose, they have not attempted the smallest defence or explanation of what is the policy they themselves propose. The person who came nearest to saying what that policy was was the Postmaster-General. He said—"If we want more money, we shall reimpose the old taxes." What finance is this? You know you will want more money. The Prime Minister is not, I believe, going to deny to-night, certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer never denied, that the additional money required next year cannot be short of £10,000,000. If the obligations of the country with regard to the Fleet and old-age pensions are carried out, how are you going to get your £10,000,000? You have taken a farthing off the sugar tax. I suppose you are going to put it on again. I am asking the Government to tell us their alternative. What is their alternative? Some Gentlemen on that Bench say: "Don't ask us about alternatives. You cannot ask that. We shall do more than meet the obligations that fall duo this year. Leave next year and us to take care of itself and ourselves." I am sure the Prime Minister will not say that. I am not going to quote the views which he expressed last year. They are familiar to the House. He told us last year when we were not committed to an immediate old-age pensions scheme, that we must look at finance not by the year, but by some longer period. He cannot get up now and tell us that, now that we have got immediately before us the necessity of providing old-age pensions, we should restrict our gaze to the eight or nine months which separate us from the end of the financial year, having plunged into obligations which next year will amount to £10,000,000 more than all the obligations of this year, and in the year after most assuredly exceeding £10,000,000. He cannot deny that he has not contemplated the general outline of his new proposals, and that in dealing with the finances of the present year, we ought not to take some stock of the resources which are to meet these new obligations. I think the mistake the Government and the majority of the House are making is to regard our present position as normal. It is quite

1783
true that in ordinary times, when a Government has not got to face much more than the automatic growth of the Estimates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may well be excused from dealing with any but the finance of the year for which he is budgeting. But when you are bringing forward Bills which are going immediately to cost you £6,000,000 He far as old-age pensions are concerned and which are certainly going to cost in the near future more than £6,000,000—a Gentleman below the gangway estimated the cost at £20,000,000, and this does not seem excessive in the light of the investigations of the Commissions who have examined it—and when the Government, for a reason they have never explained, have postponed the naval requirements of this year to the years that are to follow, this House is not face to face with a normal situation. The situation is absolutely abnormal. That is the situation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to face. If he is not going to reimpose the tea duty and the sugar duty, and if he is going to remain, as the Postmaster-General stated, within the limits of our accustomed finance of the last few years, it can only be by an enormous increase of our direct taxation, which would horrify all those great masters of finance to whom hon. Gentlemen in other connections are always making appeal. What Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel would have thought of piling up the income-tax as they propose to pile it up, those acquainted with the financial history of the country may be able to explain to the House. I say that these proposals would have been regarded with horror by those gentlemen; and it is surely the irony of fate that those who profess to represent in this House the old financial traditions of the country, those who profess to carry out the teaching of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, should base their whole financial policy on principles which those great financial authorities would surely have regarded as nothing short of national disaster. I have not dwelt upon one great source of expenditure referred to in very able speeches on both sides of the House—local taxation. You have got your old-age pensions—you are pledged to it. I do not know how the
1784
Government stand with regard to local taxation. I understand that it is some day to be scientifically dealt with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us so I suppose he is going to lay siege to that particular problem just as some general of the old school laid scientific siege to some place with elaborate caution and great expenditure of time, drawing parallels closer and closer to the attacked walls, and deferring the final assault until perhaps it could no longer be delivered. It is agreed on all hands that we have these new commitments with regard to old-age pensions and naval construction. It is more or less agreed that money must be found for local taxation. We say that in those circumstances you must look out for new sources of taxation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the old sources are sufficient, to which we reply that the old sources are not sufficient unless you are going to use the income-tax and the death duties in a way which the authors of those taxes never contemplated, and in a way in which, in my opinion, they cannot be used, not merely without gross injustice to the few, but—what is far more important—serious detriment to the industrial interests of the many.
MR. ASQUITH: I have listened, as I always do, with attention and respect to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. But I must profess myself to be in precisely the same state of mental bewilderment at the end of this debate as I was at the beginning in regard to the purpose or even the meaning of the Amendment which has been the nominal and ostensible subject of discussion. We are upon the Second Reading of the Finance Bill which is the proper and natural occasion for the Opposition to challenge, and, if they are so minded, to impeach the Budget of the year. Now, the Budget of the present year, whatever else may be said about it, has two main and dominating features. In the first place it proposes to set up, for the first time in this country, upon a modest scale, and subject to carefully guarded conditions, a system of old-age pensions. In the second place, after fully providing for the whole estimated cost which will fall upon the current financial year of

1785
that new system, it proposes to devote the remainder of the estimated surplus to the reduction by ¼d. of a duty which is admitted on all hands to be unique in this respect, that it is at one and the same time a tax upon one of the first necessities of life and upon the raw material of many most important industries. Those are the two main proposals of the Budget. The question I ask at the end of this debate, and which has never been answered from beginning to end by any Member of the Opposition, is this—Is either or are both of them attacked? If—and that is quite a conceivable position—if hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the financial condition of the country is such that, however desirable in the abstract, the institution of old-age pensions might be itself at present premature and improvident—rand some of them do think so, though they do not say so—then the proper course, the only manly and courageous step, is to vote against the Second Reading of the Old-Age Pensions Bill. If, on the other hand, no longer relegating old-age pensions to that dim and distant future in which they have been for the last fifteen years—a phantom and will-o'-the-wisp at election times but never attempted to be translated into a concrete form—if they think that that era is over and that the time has come for some honest and serious and practical attempt to deal with the matter, but that in those circumstances you ought not to part with any portion of the sugar duty, then they ought to vote against the Second Beading of this Bill, or, at all events, to move the omission of the clause which proposes the reduction of duty. But they have taken neither the one course nor the other. This Amendment expressly admits that old-age pensions are now or ought to be an item in the normal expenditure of the country. The Amendment, on the other hand, is absolutely silent as to the desirability of retaining the sugar duty, and it is one of those occasions when silence is as eloquent as speech. And let me here incidentally remark that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was very eloquent yesterday upon the wickedness of reducing indirect taxation at a moment when you are going to confer upon the
1786
poorer class of the population a new boon in the shape of old-age pensions. He even made it out to be inconsistent with some declaration of mine, to which I entirely adhere, that all classes of the community ought to contribute in the form of taxation to expenditure of this kind. But the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us—and I take note of the admission; and I contrast it with what was said by his colleague last night—that in any rearrangement of taxation on a broadened basis care will be taken that the proportionate burden to be laid on the shoulders of the working classes will not be increased. Well, you cannot have it both ways, and we shall note with interest, in the future development of a hypothetical character which is some day or other to see the light, how the ardent desire of one of these right hon. Gentlemen to see that the working classes in the shape of indirect taxation shall pay their share of all forms of national expenditure will harmonise with the promise of his Leader that in no case shall the burden upon the working classes be increased. This Amendment contents itself with a hollow and sounding generality about broadening the basis of taxation. If we could only agree—it is a very large "if"—as to the meaning of that term, I suppose there is no man on either side or in any quarter of this House who is not prepared to give at least an academic assent to the proposition that taxation ought to be broadened. Of course it ought. The broader taxation is, the more solid and secure is the edifice you build upon it. Yes, but what do you mean by broadening the basis of taxation? Not one ray of light has been shed upon the vexed and complicated question. And, for my part, I find it difficult to avoid a contrast between the mild and studied language of this Amendment and the coyness with which speaker after speaker has avoided developing any intelligible meaning in it—a contrast between the attitude of to-day and the fervid demonstrations which only a year ago we witnessed from those very same quarters on the subject of Colonial preference. What has become of Colonial preference? The Colonial Premiers are gone, it is true, but are they so soon forgotten? [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] The right hon.

1787
Gentleman who has just sat down, speaking ostensibly in support of an Amendment for Broadening the basis of taxation, occupied ten minutes or a quarter of an hour in a charming dialectical disquisition on the theory of monopoly as applied to patents—a very interesting topic in its proper time and place—and yet he did not give us one hint as to what he and his followers meant by the proposition they are putting forward—namely, how you are going to broaden the basis of taxation. We do not know to this day what are the new taxes to be imposed. We have not even got an answer to the question which I have put before, and which my right hon. friends have put in the course of this debate—Does it, or does it not, mean taxation of wheat, meat, dairy produce, and the necessaries of life? I repeat, by this Amendment the Budget is not attacked, old-age pensions are not repudiated, and nothing is said as to the manner or direction in which taxation is to be broadened. Now I will come to the one relevant point which, so far as I have been able to follow the arguments of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has been made in the course of this discussion. It is said by implication if not expressly, "We do not attack the Budget of the year so far as it seeks to make provision for the necessities of the year; what we are attacking is your reckless improvidence in not taking stock of the future, in not facing the ultimate liabilities which your present policy will entail, and, above all, in not taking us into your confidence as to the manner in which you are going to meet them." Now, a phrase of mine has been quoted which I used last year, when I said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House ought to budget, not for one year, but for years in advance. I entirely adhere to that phrase. What does it mean? What impression was it intended to convey, and did convey? Did anybody out of a madhouse ever suppose that a Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to get up here and twelve months in advance tell you how he was going to levy the taxation in his Budget of the next year—what he was going to put on the income-tax or take of it, what he was going to put on beer or sugar, or what not, or even how he was going to deal with the Sinking Fund?
1788
Anyone who has any acquaintance with public finance knows that that would be to court disaster, because all the acute intellects who are engaged in finance in this country would set themselves to work to defeat in advance the scheme you were about to put forward, and to secure that you should get no revenue from it of any sort or kind. But that is the imputation that is attributed to us, and which is considered a high crime and misdemeanour. Now, when J. said that you must budget for the future, what I meant was this, that you must have before you a clear forecast of what are the lines and directions which your expenditure is going to take—expenditure upon national services and expenditure upon social reform; and before you make any experiment in the way of increasing that expenditure, such as we are making this year in the case of old-age pensions, you must have satisfied yourselves that the resources of the national finance would be equal to meeting in the future the new obligations that you are about to create. It is in that sense that you must budget for the future, and it is in that sense, and with the most complete recognition of the binding force of the obligation, that this Budget and the proposals it contains, have been introduced. But what have we done? I am amused to see the source from which the accusation comes, and in a moment I will ask one or two questions as to the antecedents of the Gentlemen who have constituted themselves my censors. I am accused of reckless and improvident finance, and an hon. Gentleman yesterday from the benches below the gangway asked me what I meant when I said last year that I was trying to lay the foundation for old-age pensions. I can answer both the charge and the question in the same breath. We have deliberately postponed dealing with this matter until we had laid what we conceived to be a solid financial foundation for the future. How have we laid it? In the first place, we have effected, I am glad to say, large economies during the last three years in the spending services of the country—but not economies so large as either my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or myself would like to see. But they were economies, and very substantial economies, and they are to be judged

1789
not merely by the actual cash diminution in the expenditure on the national services of the country, but by comparing them with the rate at which the increase of expenditure was going on in the years which immediately preceded our advent to office. That is the way in which we have sought to lay the foundation for the necessary expenditure on social reform. In the next place, during the time when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had curtailed year by year until I had brought practically to an end the system of borrowing for what is called capital liability. In the third place, after all deductions, we have made an effort, unprecedented in the financial history of this or any other European country, to reduce the burden of the National Debt. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night, and I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down repeated it, that our success in some respects was due to a series of accidents. Sir, those accidents are accidents which occur only when a Liberal Government is in power. The accidents are these, that in each of these years the surpluses of revenue over expenditure have been much larger than was expected, and have gone to the reduction of the Debt. Now what have those surpluses been due to?
MR. HICKS BEACH: To bad budgeting.
MR. ASQUITH: They were due to the fact that, by rigorous economy, my colleagues in charge of the great spending departments have in those years found themselves able to do with less money than was estimated by a reasonable forecast. The trade and prosperity of the country, of course, had their share in increasing the revenue. But it was also due, and particularly last year, to a readjustment of the income-tax upon elastic lines which led to a far larger yield than anyone had foreseen. Do you call that an accident? I do not call it an accident. When once you have put your taxation upon a sound foundation you are entitled to whatever extra revenue it brings yon in. Let us see what the history of this old Sinking Fund has been in days gone by. The right hon. Gentle-
1790
men opposite came into office in 1895. The first complete financial year for which they were fully responsible was the year ending 31st March, 1897. There was then for the old Sinking Fund a realised surplus of £4,200,000. That ought automatically to have gone to the reduction of the National Debt. What became of that? Every penny of it was diverted from reduction of the Debt and went to pay for naval works. The very next year they had a realised surplus of £2,470,000, and again that was diverted from the reduction of the Debt, and applied to military expenditure. In 1899, £2,055,000 was diverted from the reduction of the National Debt, and went towards the needs of the Public Buildings Expenses Act. And this was done at a time when the Government were largely increasing the sums devoted out of taxation to Army and Navy purposes and were borrowing on the market for extra capital liabilities. What possible title have Gentlemen with such a record as that to taunt me with my exceptional good fortune, because I have left the old Sinking Fund alone, and allowed it to go to its proper purpose? These censors and critics of ours, who think they can taunt us effectively with reckless and improvident finance, finished up their pre-war taxation by reducing the permanent annual charge for the Debt from £25,000,000 to £23,000,000. The fixed charge for the reduction of the Debt for the last year we were in office was £29,500,000. Therefore £6,500,000 was spent out of the taxation—that is, the whole sum estimated as the cost of my right hon. friend's old-age pension scheme.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman complete his statement by saying what is the fixed Debt charge this year and the year we went out of office?
MR. ASQUITH: The last year the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office it was £28,000,000. I raised it in my first year of office to £28,500,000; in my second year I raised it to £29,500,000; while this year I took the amount I said I would for old-age pensions and I left the Debt charge at £28,000,000, having in the meantime reduced the capital Debt by £40,000,000, and the annual charge for the interest on the

1791
Debt by £1,250,000. I am much obliged for the interruption. I have thought it necessary to go into these details in order that people may see who are the reckless and improvident financiers. No doubt it is galling to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to find that the promise—I am almost afraid to call it a proposal, but let us say the prospect—of old-age pensions, which was dangled by them before the eyes of the electorate for the best part of a dozen years, has now for the first time become an actual, concrete, legislative proposal which Parliament is going to pass into law. It is also galling to them to find that more than half of the sugar duty is to be relieved, for which, in their opinion, the only compensating taxation is a tax on corn and meat. These are, no doubt, galling facts, and may account for a good deal of the violent language and irrelevant argument introduced into this
debate. When I ask the House to reject this absolutely unmeaning Amendment, and when I ask them instead to assent to the principle and provisions of the Budget, I do so on the grounds, as I have endeavoured to show and I think the debate has shown conclusively, that free-trade finance within the limits and upon the principles of free trade has given us a condition of financial stability upon which, without making any comparisons with other nations, we can fairly pride ourselves, find upon which, if we only pursue a fiscal policy on lines equally suited to the special exigencies of our national life, will enable us to meet, and more than meet, all the charges that lie before us.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 367; Noes, 124. (Division List No. 111.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Brigg, John

Devlin, Joseph

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bright, J. A.

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brodie, H. C.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

Brooke, Stopford

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Agnew, George William

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

Dillon, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bryce, J. Annan

Dobson, Thomas W.

Alden, Percy

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Duckworth, James

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Armitage, R.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Byles, William Pollard

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cameron, Robert

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Astbury, John Meir

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Atherley-Jones, L.

Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Erskine, David C.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Essex, R. W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Chance, Frederick William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barker, John

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Barnard, E. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Everett, R. Lacey

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fenwick, Charles

Beale, W. P.

Cleland, J. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Beck, A. Cecil

Clough, William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Bell, Richard

Clynes, J. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Flynn, James Christopher

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

Furness, Sir Christopher

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Cooper, G. J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Bennett, E. N.

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

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

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glover, Thomas

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bathell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cowan, W. H.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cox, Harold

Grant, Corrie

Black, Arthur W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Grayson, Albert Victor

Boland, John

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Crosfield, A. H.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Bowerman, C. W.

Dalziel, James Henry

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Grove, Archibald

Branch, James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Gulland, John W.

Lynch, H. B,

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rees, J. D.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rendall, Athelstan

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

Hall, Frederick

Maclean, Donald

Ridsdale, E. A.

Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Crae, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

M'Killop, W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

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

Rowlands, J.

Harwood, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Maddison, Frederick

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mallet, Charles E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Haworth, Arthur A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Hazleton, Richard

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hedges, A. Paget

Marnham, F. J.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seaverns, J. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Middlebrook, William

Seddon, J.

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seely, Colonel

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Mond, A.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Higham, John Sharp

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Hobart, Sir Robert

Montgomery, H. G.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Mooney, J. J.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hodge, John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morrell, Philip

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Holt, Richard Durning

Morse, L. L.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Morton, Alphens Cleophas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Horniman, Emslie John

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Snowden, P.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Myer, Horatio

Spicer, Sir Albert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Napier, T. B.

Stanger, H. Y.

Hudson, Walter

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholls, George

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Idris, T. H. W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Steadman, W. C.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norman, Sir Henry

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jardine, Sir J.

Nuttall, Harry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jenkins, J.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Summerbell, T.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sutherland, J. E.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxtsth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomasson, Franklin

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Tillett, Louis John

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Perks, Robert William

Tomkinson, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lambert, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Toulmin, George

Lamont, Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pollard, Dr.

Ure, Alexander

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Verney, F. W.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Lehmann, R. C.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Wadsworth, J.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lever, W. H (Cheshire, Wirral

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

Walters, John Tudor

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pullar, Sir Robert

Walton, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Radford, G. H.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Lupton, Arnold

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wardle, George J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Waring, Walter

1794

1795

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wiles, Thomas

Winfrey, R.

Waterlow, D. S.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Wodehouse, Lord

Watt, Henry A.

Williamson, A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Yoxall, James Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Whitbread, Howard

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

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Whitehead, Rowland

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

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fardell, Sir T. George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Gardner, Ernest

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Walter Edward

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

Haddock, George B.

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banner, John S. Harmood

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hunt, Rowland

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Joynson Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kerry, Earl of

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Castlereagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cave, George

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

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

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Cross, Alexander

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Younger, George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Question put, and agreed to.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like to know why this Bill was introduced, and why it was necessary to make alterations in the Friendly Societies Ace of 1896. He had read the Bill as carefully as he could, and had come to the conclusion that with one or two exceptions there was not very much in it to find fault with. He was informed that the friendly societies, a very excellent body, were extremely desirous of introducing the Bill, but the House of

1797
Commons existed to consider legislation, and because a certain section of the community wished to alter the law, it did not follow that the House of Commons ought to pass the alteration without knowing what it was they were passing. He thought that some explanation should be given of the Bill by its promoters. Clause 2 at once struck him as being rather peculiar. It said—
"A person of or under one year of age may be admitted as a member of a registered society or branch, and accordingly in Section 36 of the principal Act (which relates to the membership of minors) the words 'but above one year of age' shall be repealed."
He had provided himself with a copy the principal Act of 1896, and he would endeavour to elucidate the various references in the Bill. In the principal Act he found that any person who was above one year of age might become a member of a friendly society. It seemed to him to be rather extraordinary that this Amendment should be put into the Bill, practically providing that a child a week old might become a member of a friendly society. There had been occasion to deprecate the bad practice of insuring infant children, which led, he would not say to infanticide, but to very great suspicion that something of that sort had taken place. He had talked with an official of the friendly societies in the Lobby the other day, and he had asked him to explain the clause. His answer was that other companies did it. He thought that of all the bad explanations he had ever heard that was one of the worst He gathered that what the official meant was that because insurance companies insured children under one year of age, friendly societies were anxious to be put on the same footing. But that was putting the cart before the horse. He would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that the proper course to pursue was to prevent the insurance companies from insuring anyone under one year of age, and in that way put the friendly societies and insurance companies on an equal footing. It was the wrong way to put them on an equal footing by lowering the infant age for friendly societies to the limit which at present obtained in insurance companies. It was a very important question in regard to insurance companies, but it did not touch the
1798
principle of this Bill. He thought they ought to have some explanation of the reason of this provision's being put into the Bill, and some assurance from the Government that an Amendment would be made in Committee. Clause 4 dealt with disputes, and said—
"The expression 'dispute' includes any dispute arising on the question whether a member or person aggrieved is entitled to be or to continue to be a member, or to be reinstated as a member, but save as aforesaid in the case of a person who has ceased to be a member does not include any dispute other than a dispute on a question between him and the society or branch, or an officer thereof, which arose whilst he was a member, or arises out of his previous relation as a member of that society or branch."
It seemed to be an extremely complicated clause, and he did not really understand what it meant. "Dispute" was carefully denned in the main Act, and the method of settling a dispute was very excellent, and he did not follow why this very confused section should be added to the principal Act. Clause 7 added a new subsection to Section 87 of the principal Act. The principal Act laid down certain penalties if an official of a friendly society took the money or property of the society and devoted it to property to which it ought not to be devoted. There was a definition in the principal Act and in this Bill as to how the funds of a friendly society were to be invested, and there was a provision in the principal Act that if an official used these funds for a purpose which was unauthorised, certain penalties should accrue, but he was not to be convicted if he acted without intention to defraud. The Bill limited the power of investment of the funds of the society. If an energetic secretary invested the money in something outside the powers given under this Bill and under the principal Act, not with any intention to defraud, but with the idea that he was making a good investment, and the investment turned out wrong and the money was lost, no penalty would follow. That seemed to open a wide door to very harmful practices, and there should be some alteration in the clause. There was also the point of extending the investments of the society in paragraph 3 of subsection (a). On the whole he was inclined to think that was not a very good clause, but some good would result from passing it because

1799
friendly societies would be allowed to invest their money in the debenture and preference stock of English railways. He was not sure that it would not be for the good of property in this country if some of the friendly societies had a good deal of money in railways; they would not hear so much from hon. Members below the gangway of their desire to be taken fourteen miles for twopence or one penny and bicycles being carried free and other excellent suggestions which they thought shareholders of railway companies ought to carry out. He hoped they would have a considerable amount of support from the friendly societies if this clause passed. Therefore, though he was not at all sure, from the point of view of the friendly societies, that they were wise in desiring this, he did not in any kind of way wish to oppose it.
MR. STAVELEY-HILL,said he welcomed the Bill, but there were some things in it on which he would like some information. He gladly noted paragraph (a) as a most useful addition to the five provisions of the principal Act, and, speaking for himself, with the experience he had had of friendly societies, though he quite agreed that there was a danger in insuring children, still if his memory served him aright, ever since the original Act of 1875, children of members had always been entitled to become members of the society at any age, even immediately after their birth. This was an extension to those whose parents were not members. He thought the investment clause in the Act of 1896 was sufficiently wide for all purposes and he could not quite see, though he fully appreciated what had fallen from the last speaker, that there was really any reason to extend the possibility of investment. He took exception to Clause 7 because it was an absolute alteration of the principles of the English law. He had always been brought up to understand that it was an axiom of English law that the onus of proof should be on the prosecution. In this clause and in the subsection on which the Government proposed to act he found the words "a person charged with such an offence shall not be convicted if he proves that he acted without intention to defraud." In every case tried in a criminal court in this country the onus of proof was upon the Crown. Why
1800
in this little Bill, which was a beneficial addition to beneficent Acts, were they going to put in a subsection which created a great exception to the ordinary principles of the criminal law of the country? As to the other matters with which the Bill dealt, with the exception of the investment clause, which he thought was sufficiently wide, he wished the Bill every success.
MR. C. E. PRICEsaid there were just two points not mentioned in the Bill which were worthy of consideration when it was referred to Committee One was with regard to investments of friendly societies in practically their own companies. Railway servants' societies invested their funds in the railway itself, and if it came to grief all the servants would be likely to suffer as the result of that investment. In all cases they should be compelled to invest in something outside their own particular company, and that would give them greater security that in the event of disturbance in the profitable working of the railway company, the servants would not suffer thereby. Another point was that he thought some provision should be made that all friendly societies should be subject to some audit. A great deal of unnecessary trouble and anxiety, as well as misery, had been caused by the fact that the accounts had not been audited by someone entirely outside the society. There would be greater security if there was an audit by a public accountant who was in the habit of asking for the production of books and seeing that funds were properly invested.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUS,)said the hon. Baronet was fully entitled to draw attention to the sections of the Bill, but he had made the most of the changes the Bill proposed to make, because they were in reality exceedingly simple. The original Bill of 1896 passed through the House with a very brief explanatory statement by Mr. Hanbury, and it was found to be so in accord with public opinion inside and outside the House that no Member on either side of the House thought it necessary to make any further allusion to the contents of the Bill. He hoped the Bill would pass through

1801
the Committee Stage without Amendment. The principal Act itself was taken as representing the opinion of friendly societies at the time, and, so far as he knew, that opinion upon the general merits of the working of the Bill had not changed. But certain difficulties had arisen in the working of the Act, and, consequently, it had been thought advisable to make the changes which now appeared in the Bill before the | House. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, had drawn attention to one or two changes and alterations about which he needed some explanation. The second section of the Bill was one to which he had drawn particular attention. The explanation was really very simple. As the law stood at the present time, members of friendly societies could insure their children in industrial assurance companies, but they could not insure them in friendly societies. The hon. Baronet appeared to be apprehensive that the extension of infantile insurance might lead to greater infantile mortality. He was quite sure that both the hon. Baronet and himself would be in accord in opposing any legislation which might have that result. He could reassure the House on that point, because very careful inquiries had been made and a well-known authority, Dr. Newman, had expressed the opinion that, so long as the insurance was confined to parents insuring their own children, no harm could possibly come. Therefore, there was no such danger as the hon. Baronet anticipated. The object of the alterations to Clause 4 was to try and keep the disputes between members of friendly societies out of the Law Courts and so to speak, within the domestic circle. He was sure that was an object which would have the approval of the hon. Baronet. Clause 4 was really intended to overrule certain decisions which had made the Act very difficult to work. Clause 7 was also intended to get over another legal decision in which it was held that under the corresponding provision of the Act of 1865, to render the treasurer of a friendly society liable for withholding or misapplying monies that came to his hands, it must be shown that he had been guilty of some fraud or misrepresentation. Very considerable difficulties
1802
had been experienced in bringing people to book in face of the decision to which he had referred. In order to get over that difficulty it was intended that in this particular instance the onus of proving that he had not acted fraudently should rest on the defendant. This was no doubt a new departure, but it was a peculiar case, and he hoped the House would think it was satisfactorily met under these peculiar conditions, He trusted hon. Members would allow the Bill to go through without further opposition, all the more so because they proposed to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the Secretary to the Treasury was quite correct in saying that Mr. Hanbury's Bill went through the House almost sub silentio; the discussion was very brief indeed. With regard to Section 2 of the present Bill he would remind the Secretary to the Treasury that the discussion outside this House with regard to Section 36 of Mr. Hanbury's Bill was very considerable indeed. Those interested in this question ten or twelve years ago would recollect the great amount of controversy and newspaper correspondence which Section 36 produced, for there was a widespread feeling that there had been grave abuses in connection with the insurance of infants in arms. The Secretary to the Treasury proposed to revise that section to the extent of allowing any child to be insured in one of these friendly societies. He was not going to oppose this clause, but he thought it was only right to recall to the House the controversy which took place upon the point twelve years ago. It was never alleged then that infantile insurance led to infanticide or, if alleged, it was only in the rarest possible cases. It was very freely stated amongst all classes of society that this system of infantile insurance did undoubtedly produce what one might call a sense of consolation to the parents, and at that time the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children seriously held the view that the system, if not an actual inducement to carelessness, at any rate was some palliation of the result. That was what brought about Section 36. Anybody under this new Bill would be able to

1803
insure a child at the age of two or three days. He did not feel inclined to accept a parallel in this matter from other companies. Because other companies did it he did not admit that it was necessary that a similar right or privilege should be conferred upon friendly societies. Personally he would rather deprive existing companies of the right than extend what was considered ten or twelve years ago to be something which led to an abuse. He thought the hon. Member was wrong about the question of the parent. There was no limitation in this measure to the parent. Anybody, whether a member of a friendly society or not, would be entitled to insure a child and that privilege was not limited to the parents. The question of the parents or guardians was merely a further sub-section of Clause 36 which dealt not with infantile insurance but with minors. He thought it would be an advantage if these societies could have their accounts audited, but he hoped that no hard and fast rule would be drawn up on that point. There were many friendly societies which according to the strict canons laid down by chartered accountants were insolvent, but nevertheless they were fully competent to carry out the work for which they were established and possessed substantial assets which could not be shown by some of the companies under the Company laws. With regard to the railway companies which had been referred to, many of them were managed by extremely competent men, and it would be ridiculous to limit the investment of these funds except under the general limitations of the main Act by forbidding friendly societies to invest their savings in the great concern with which they were connected. No doubt, technically, this Bill was a Treasury Bill, and the Secretary to the Treasury was naturally the proper person to answer for it in the House of Commons. But he submitted that a change in the law of this character was one in regard to which they were entitled to ask the information and the advice which could only be given by a law officer of the Crown. The amendment of the law here proposed was an extraordinary method of getting over a decision of a Court. The principle was that a man was assumed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty. The members of friendly societies had
1804
no right to come to Parliament and endeavour to get over a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence, and to say that a man was to be held guilty until he proved himself to be innocent. He thought this clause was not germane to the main purpose of this amending Act. This change of the law was far too serious a matter to be dealt with without careful consideration. It might be taken as a precedent in other directions. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would take careful counsel with the law officers as to whether it would not be in the interest of general jurisprudence, apart from the convenience of friendly societies, to omit Clause 7 in Committee. If that clause was seriously pressed, it would provoke considerable and long discussion.
MR. WATTdesired to call attention to a point which he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consider when the Bill reached the Committee stage. Cooperative societies were registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and one of the obligations imposed by these Acts was that the societies should send to the Chief Registrar balance sheets made up to within one month of 31st December each year. The co-operative societies found that a very unsuitable time for striking their balance sheets, and particularly so in Scotland, where they found that the end of September was the most suitable date.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): I do not think there is anything in the Bill about balance sheets.
MR. WATTsaid he understood this was a Bill to alter the Friendly Societies Acts. He desired to point out one of the disadvantages of these Acts which might be remedied by the Bill. The Scottish co-operative societies struck their balances on 31st September, one reason for so doing being that the dividends might be paid to members at a time suitable for the paying of rents in November. Instead of striking second balance sheets, the co-operative societies, in order to meet the requirements of the Friendly Societies Acts sent to the Chief Registrar the balance sheets made up to 30th

1805
September after adjusting them by the addition on one side of the purchases, and on the other side of the sales made up to 31st December. Every business man was aware that that was not a proper balance. He suggested that either the date for sending in these balance sheets should be altered so that the co-operative societies would not require to make up more than one balance sheet in the year, or that the Chief Registrar should insist that balance sheets which stood the investigation of chartered accountants should be sent in under the Friendly Societies Acts.
MR. GOULDINGsaid he was a member of a great number of friendly societies, and he had received communications asking him to support this Bill. His observations, therefore, would not be hostile, but rather for the purpose of eliciting a little more information with reference to the measure. He understood that under the present law a member of a friendly society could insure his child above the age of one year, and that it was now proposed to give him the right to insure the child at birth. It was also proposed that a child might when born be made a member of a society. He wished to know whether that Amendment was limited to the parent of the child. He should like to know from the President of the Local Government Board how far this Bill had received the support of the great friendly societies.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I am assured that it is supported by all the great friendly societies.
MR. GOULDINGsaid he was glad to hear that. It was proposed by Clause 3 to empower societies to invest funds "in any investment in which trustees are for the time being by law authorised to invest trust funds." He would rather see power given to invest funds in certain securities which were not trust securities. He could name securities which came under the Trustees Act in which a man of ordinary prudence would consider it unwise to invest funds. He hoped the House would have some more specific statement than had yet been given as to whether the friendly societies
1806
desired the wide scope in regard to investments which this provision was intended to give. He joined the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division in asking an explanation of Clause 7. Why was a change in the law in regard to misapplication of property contemplated? He believed that if this change were made the officials of friendly societies would have scope for negligence which it was absolutely undesirable to give them. He hoped they would receive from the Law Officers of the Crown the reasons for this far reaching change in the law.
MR. CHAELES CRAIGasked whether the Committee Stage of this Bill was to be taken in the Whole House because it was one of first-class national importance, or because the arrangements with reference to the consignment of Bills to Committees upstairs had proved unsatisfactory. No one would maintain that this was a Bill of first-class importance, and he protested against the time of the House being occupied discussing it in Committee, when Bills which were really of very great national importance were sent to Committees upstairs, where the public outside, and the great majority of this House, heard practically nothing about them. When the rules relating to Standing Committees were passed last year he understood that Bills of first-class importance would be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House, while Bills of a non-contentious character would be sent to Committees upstairs. It seemed to him that the principle which undoubtedly led the House to acquiesce in the change in the system with reference to—
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): That is not in order on the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he was stating that the hon. Member had adduced that as a reason for allowing the Bill to go for a Second Reading.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

PUBLIC HEALTH (MARKETS IN RURAL DISTRICTS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that they ought to have some explanation of this Bill. So far as he understood it, the Bill provided that a rural district council might, with the consent of the Local Government Board, exercise any powers which a district council could do now in regard to establishing markets in a market hall or in the streets. He did not think that a rural district council should have power with the consent of the Local Government Board to do that which an urban district council could only do with the consent of the owners and ratepayers. He thought that in these days, when the rates were constantly increasing and when they all knew that people were carried away with the desire to have everything perfect in their district, while the money was to be found by other people, they were sometimes inclined to be more extravagant than was necessary. If he was correct in thinking that the clause was not very clear as to the necessity for obtaining the consent of the owners and ratepayers, would the President of the Local Government Board consent to an Amendment being inserted at the Committee stage to remedy that? If that were done any objection he had to the Bill would disappear.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that this was a Departmental Bill, and he would like the President of the Local Government Board to explain the necessity for it. As had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet, the Bill would expose rural ratepayers to very considerable expense, and some explanation should be given of what abuses existed or what danger to public health was likely to arise which necessitated the measure.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said that the object of the Bill was to enable rural district
1808
councils to establish markets under almost the same conditions as town councils and urban district councils now had the power to do under the Public Health Act of 1875. Under Clause 166 of that Act town councils and urban district councils might provide a market place, construct a market house, acquire land and levy tolls for carrying on the market in their area. The town council could only do that by a three-fourths vote, and the urban district council must get the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the district before the market could be instituted. No direct powers existed which gave rural district councils the same power of acquiring land, borrowing money on a small scale, and instituting markets and regulating the markets after being instituted. Section 276 of the Public Health Act, however, enabled the Local Government Board to invest the rural district council with the powers which an urban district council now enjoyed; but it had been found impracticable to give the rural district council the power as to markets, because Section 166 of the Public Health Act was inapplicable to rural district councils and areas, and there was no machinery for getting in the rural districts the consent of the owners and ratepayers as was the case with urban district councils. Apart from that, it would probably be necessary to get consent of the owners and ratepayers of the whole district when the market was only required for a particular parish. What the Bill did was to substitute for the consent of the owners and ratepayers the consent of the Local Government Board, which would secure the interests of everybody. The hon. Member for South Antrim asked what was the necessity for the Bill. It was because in certain parts of the country the custom was, and in many cases the right was to hold markets on streets and squares of the villages and in small towns under conditions that very frequently led to insanitation, amounting at times to a nuisance. Rural district councils were under their present limited powers unable to spend money where it was the custom to hold markets or fairs, on paving the market place, forming gullies and keeping them clean and in a sanitary condition. It was in order to enable them to do

1809
all this that the Bill had been introduced. Representations in favour of the Bill had been made to the Local Government Board by the Board of Agriculture and by Members interested in the agricultural districts. It was said, quite truly, that it was not fair to have animals of all kinds on the streets and the market places unless the animals could be kept clean and in an advantageous condition to the people who sold them instead of being a nuisance to the villagers.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that as he understood the Bill it apparently gave absolute power for the first time to a rural authority, without the consent of any ratepayer, but simply with the consent of the Local Government Board, to do a thing which urban authorities or town councils could not do without the consent of the ratepayers, viz., establish markets, which entailed not only building halls, but paving streets, and giving the power to charge rents for storage and for stallage. Where a market already existed and was run by a company as some of these country markets were, this Bill for the first time gave the rural district power to buy up the market company and gave the market company power to sell to the rural district council.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member would find that Section 166, to which he had referred, provided that in the establishment of any market no rights, powers, or privileges of any person were to be interfered with without his consent.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid there were two totally distinct powers, one which gave the rural district council power to erect markets where they did not exist, without the consent of the ratepayers, and to exact rents and tolls from anybody who came in to sell their produce, and the other which gave them power where a market already existed, to buy that market without the consent of the ratepayers. The point he wished to make clear to the House was that this Bill gave a considerable extension of powers to the rural district council to act without the. authority of the ratepayers.
MR. RENDALLsaid his friend was making a mountain out of a mole hill. This Bill only referred to two or three small towns in the country, which were under the control of rural district councils.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would be obliged if the hon. Member would point out how the Bill was limited to two or three small towns. Every small town or village could under this Bill have markets established in them without their consent.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Bill applied to every rural district in the country.
MR. RENDALLadmitted that that was so, but said it was not very likely that markets would be established at this time of day where they did not already exist. It only applied to such towns as Thornbury in Gloucestershire, and Axminster in Devonshire. For instance, in Thornbury there was a small market square used for the buying and selling of cattle. The collection of those cattle in that place was extremely inconvenient to the people. He had himself addressed meetings in that market place, and the cattle straying among the people caused a great deal of inconvenience. Then there was the more serious sanitary grievance which would be got rid of if this Bill was passed into law. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for now having taken in hand this Bill, which was the result of a long agitation by three or four small places, and he hoped the House would assent to [the Bill being read a second time so that the long-delayed promise of the Local Government Board might be carried out.
MR. COURTHOPEexpressed the hope that his hon. friends would not persist in their opposition to this Bill. It would probably not apply to many places, yet it would certainly meat an agricultural want. It was supported unanimously by the agricultural, community on that ground, The various agricultural societies had-been most sympathetic in the matter, and for his part he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not only secure the Second Reading but would be successful in placing the Bill upon the Statute-book
MR. GOULDINGsaid the speech of the President of the Local Government Board had been so conciliatory that, had the matter been left there, it would have been difficult for anyone to oppose this measure. But, fortunately, the hon. Member for the Thornbury Division had explained the true reason for the Bill, and had shown that it could be used in a most tyrannous manner. The country might be overtaxed and nobody knew what expenditure would be incurred. The Local Government Board was to be the only authority to be consulted, and, if that body consented, the people were to be rated for a market which was only wanted by a few fussy individuals. It was a most serious innovation. If it was clearly shown that people required a market, by all means let them have it, but let the right hon. Gentleman leave in the Bill the words, "with the consent of the ratepayers." Let the House consider for a moment what might occur. An election might take place in one of these districts without any particular issue having been raised. Some individuals might be successful in getting on to the council and in blarneying their colleagues into the idea that they ought to have a market; that it would cost the people nothing, that the landlord would have to pay the rate. But the members of the council had not any authority from their constituents to vote for such a proposal, yet under this Bill they would be able to carry it. The rural district council could set up an entirely new market, whether it was required or not. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would limit that provision by accepting in Committee the words: "with the consent of the ratepayers." He himself wanted to see people live in country districts and not be drawn into the towns and the only way that that could be encouraged was by showing the people that they had full authority to govern the district in which they lived. There was no limit whatsoever to the rate which might be imposed for this market, no conditions were put down as to whether the people or the owners of property were to be consulted; everything was to be done by the Local Government Board in London, which was to decide as to the requirements of a locality, governed by the votes of a
1812
chance majority on the rural district council. There should be inserted in the Bill a specific provision that the ratepayers should be consulted and their consent obtained before such expenditure was incurred. From how many districts had complaints been made? The only complaint that had come was from Thornbury.
MR. RENDALLsaid he also mentioned Axminster in Devonshire.
MR. GOULDINGsaid in that case it was perfectly clear that the Bill had been introduced on behalf of two rural district councils of England. Who could possibly say there was any desire for these markets? Where such markets were set up expense would be incurred by those who used them. There were a number of rural districts where the people living in the country came to the small towns and other places, where people congregated to sell their poultry and their butter and their produce generally without let or hindrance or inconvenience to the community. If these markets were set up these people would have to pay the rent or toll of the market. If the provision was inserted that the consent of the people must be obtained before these markets were set up the grievance of which he complained would be removed. Supposing markets did not at present exist, were they to be created? Were the district council to decide that they would buy the land and then just get the approval of the President of the Local Government Board whether the owners of the place or the inhabitants wished it or not? The right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate how far-reaching the Bill could be in inflicting great hardship on the people in a locality. The only safeguard which would secure fair play was that the ratepayers should be consulted. Here was a Radical Government, calling itself democratic, whose every single transaction was bureaucratic, and who did everything but trust the people. He was a Tory and a democrat, and he would trust the people to say whether they thought this thing should be done or not. They had had a promise that the Bill should not be sent upstairs, but discussed in the House of Commons, and he hoped there would be

1813
an Amendment put in providing that the consent of the ratepayers should be secured before either any market was bought or any steps taken to provide a market in a locality.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. John Burns.)

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time"
MR. COURTHOPE*MR. COURTHOPE, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said that the Bill would do serious mischief to the rural districts. In order to make his reasons clear he would very briefly explain the steps which had led up to the Bill. The Telegraphs Act of 1863 gave power, subject to certain conditions and provisions, to the Postmaster-General to carry wires across land and over streets and buildings in boroughs and towns of not less than 30,000 inhabitants, and the Act of 1878 extended the powers to urban sanitary districts and included in the term "street," main roads, bridlepaths and private roads which were also public footpaths. So far he did not think there was any objection to the extension. They all agreed that the extension of telegraphic and telephonic communications was a good thing for the community, and that anything which promoted it should be supported. For that reason he had no fault to find with Clause 3 of the Bill now under discussion, which provided that where the Postmaster-General and the Railway and Canal Commissioners were satisfied that, owing to the refusal or failure of any occupier, owner, or lessor of any building, to give the necessary facilities, telegraphic communication could not be supplied except at unreasonable cost and under unreasonable conditions, steps might be taken without the consent of the person to establish the communication. The fault he found
1814
with the Bill was that it invested the Postmaster-General with powers with regard to the lopping and felling of trees. It proposed to extend to the rural districts the powers which at present only applied to towns and urban sanitary districts; and the clauses in the Acts of 1863 and 1878 which referred to streets would in future refer to country roads and lanes. In order to carry out those provisions with the least possible inconvenience to those constructing the lines the Postmaster-General sought very wide powers in the way of lopping trees and so on. The provisions with regard to the carrying of wires over land and buildings would, when applied to rural districts, enable the wires to cut off corners and to go straight across the curves of a bending road. In doing so they must inevitably come into contact with a great many trees that would not be touched under present conditions. The saving would be very small, but there would be a great risk of spoiling rural scenery and destroying fine avenues of trees which were the pride of the country neighbourhood. He did not suggest that the Bill sought to give power to cut the trees without some notice being given. Notice must be given to the owner or occupier of the land on which the trees were growing, but, unless within three weeks the owner or occupier gave a counter notice, the servants of the Postmaster-General might cut the trees down. If counter notice were given, then a difference would be held to have been set up between the Postmaster General and the owner or occupier, and the affair would go to the County Court Judge or to various other officials to decide. There was a danger that the notice might not necessarily be given to the owner; it might be given to the occupier, who in the vast majority of cases was not the owner of the trees, had no power to touch them, and was under no obligation to forward notices concerning them. Notwithstanding that, the Postmaster-General might serve the notice on him, and, if he, by any chance, failed to inform his landlord that the notice had been received, the owner would have no opportunity of serving a notice of objection. The trees would be removed

1815
and a very great hardship would be inflicted on the owner. He feared that by default of notice of objections arising in this way, the engineers of the Post Office would have the power placed in their hands to use the axe on avenues of trees of great beauty. The owner might indeed be abroad when the Postmaster-General sent him the notice, and he might suddenly discover that it was too late to stop interference with his trees by taking the matter before the County Court. He did not want to obstruct the extension of telegraphic communication. As a rule, by a little consideration and tact, a line could be taken through any avenue without damaging the trees and creating blots on the scenery, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to foreshadow some Amendment to meet the point and secure that it should have consideration in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman knew as well as, and probably much better than he did, that the telegraph engineers were not the best judges of what was valued and effective scenery, and, if they were given this power, they would make the line as easy as possible from the point of view of construction and strike out every other consideration. It was with the object of securing some promise from the right hon. Gentleman that he moved the rejection.
MR. GOULDINGsaid that in seconding the Amendment he wanted to draw attention to Clause 4, which seemed to him to be very dangerous. An occupier who had a notice given to him might disregard it altogether, and it might not come to the knowledge of the owner that any notice had been sent. If notice was sent to the owner, he might be abroad at the time, and the twenty-one days might pass, and the trees be lopped or cut down without his knowledge or consent. Moreover, the Postmaster-General's servants were in no sense of the word woodmen, and they would not in any way treat the trees as they would be treated by the person to whom the property belonged. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to modify the clause in some respects so that that danger could not arise. Nobody desired
1816
the beauty of the country to be depreciated in any respect simply because by accident the notice was thrown on one side by the owner or was not brought to his notice when received by the occupier.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Courthope.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am glad the principle of the Bill is not objected to, as I understand, namely, that the Post Office should have greater powers of obtaining way leaves against unreasonable individuals That is really the pith of the Bill. I agree with every single word the two hon. Members who have spoken have Said, and when we get into Committee I will, with the greatest pleasure, accept any Amendment which meets the view I hold equally with them, that in erecting these telephone and telegraph poles we should preserve as far as we can the local amenities. I can assure hon. Members that there is no intention whatever on the part of the Post Office to ride roughshod over any local feeling or opinion or any individual interest in regard to this matter. What we have found in regard to telegraph and telephone poles is that, while the local authority have full power to force an unreasonable individual to meet their convenience and their views, the Government Department has no power whatever. The whole object of the Bill is this. Where there is really unreasonable obstruction on the part of an individual we shall be able to override it, always subject to an appeal, in some cases to a stipendiary magistrate, and in others to the Railway Commissioners. I think it is not unreasonable under these circumstances that a public department should be able to take action in regard to this matter. The question of the lopping of trees is a difficult one, I admit, because naturally very few people like their trees lopped. A lopped tree is not so pretty as a tree that is not lopped. But where wires

1817
have to be carried along a public road it is necessary in many cages to lop the branches of the trees, and this clause was drawn with care in order to protect the interests of the individual. As we have always done, we shall ask the individual to do it himself, and if he prefers that we should do it, it will be done at our cost, and not at his, and it will be done with the utmost moderation and in the best possible way. I quite see the point of the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill in regard to notice to the owner, and I agree with him that the owner ought to have proper notice. It might happen that during the twenty-one days to which he has referred the owner might be away, or a letter might miscarry or be delayed, and there might not be proper notice, though the owner was perfectly willing to do it in a proper way, and he might come back and find his trees lopped in a way he would not desire. I shall be very glad to meet the hon. Member in regard to some Amendment so as to make it clear that the owner himself will have a full opportunity of considering the matter and discussing it, I hope, in a friendly way, with the postal authorities. I am sorry to have to point out that we have had cases in which an individual simply obstructs the whole of the telephone or telegraph lines, and entirely declines to lop his trees, and at very great expense to the country we have had, in some cases at a cost of many hundreds of pounds, to move a whole telegraph line. I am willing to give the promise the hon. Member desires in regard to that Amendment and any others in regard to the Bill which can be shown really to be for the good of the public interest or for the protection of the rights of private individuals. I take great interest in the matter, and have on more than one occasion taken a considerable amount of trouble to obtain way-leaves another way in order to avoid places of beauty or to preserve the amenities of the locality, and the same interest and desire will actuate any successor of mine at the Post Office. I am very willing to give the promise the hon. Member desires, and I do not think there will be much difficulty in meeting his views for with every word the hon. Member said I cordially agree.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he was aware that the Postmaster-General was a lover of nature and an admirer of trees. His difficulty, however, was in regard not so much to the ideals and views of the Postmaster-General as to the attitude which had recently been adopted by one of his officials. He was not one of those who would stand in the way of a public improvement in a service of this character, but he had himself known cases where the Post Office authorities had alleged this very obstruction which had, when examined, proved to be quite unfounded, and where a little tact and judgment had solved the difficulty. The fact was that the official who had to work these telegraph and telephone wires was primarily a man of mechanical or engineering attainments, who could not be expected to show very much sympathy towards a line of trees overhanging a thoroughfare. There were cases where the lopping of trees was necessary, but an Amendment of the clause would not be of so much service. The best solution, apart from certain Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had promised, was that by a system of rules issued in his name, the right hon. Gentleman should give instructions to his officials. Under Clause 4 as it stood, the Post Office authorities would be entitled to lop cedar trees in June, which would kill them at once, while in the case of other trees, switches could be cut off any day in the year without injury. The issue of rules subsidiary to the Act would obviate a number of difficulties which could not be met by Amendments to the Bill. He would not like to trust his timber to the average telegraph engineer.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had shown such a readiness to meet expressions of opinion which had been given that he felt sure if he made a utilitarian suggestion, it would receive careful consideration. He thought the definition clause as it stood might endanger some very important works. It read—
"The expression hedge or bank is to include any ditch adjoining a hedge or bank as if it was part of the hedge or bank."

1819
There were thousands of oases where important irrigation cuts ran alongside the road parallel with the hedge or bank, any interference with which would be necessarily fatal. It was not likely, but interference might take place through the stupidity of some local official. The Bill excepted canals used for purposes of navigation, and it was worth while to take into consideration the question of irrigation canals.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to desire to injure trees or interfere with rural amenities, but he would not always be at the Post Office, and they might have somebody there who did not share his views. Further, he could not overlook every case that arose, but must leave a large number of cases to be decided by his subordinate, who would probably take a wrong view of the situation. The ordinary official might say that it was necessary, in order to save money, to extend the wires in such and such a direction, and that might necessitate the destruction of a certain number of trees. He did not see that there was any appeal at all in this matter, because Clause 3 did not apply to the lopping of trees.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is provided for in subsection 2 of Clause 4.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not think that point was made very clear in the Bill. What was the real reason why it was necessary to bring in this Bill? The Post Office had got on all right for a good many years without it. It was sixteen years ago since the last Act was passed dealing with the subject, and the country had got on extremely well under that Act. He wished to know why it was necessary now to bring in a Bill giving extended powers to the Postmaster-General. Apparently the great power given to the Postmaster-General under the Act of 1892 in cities and towns having a population of 30,000 inhabitants was to be extended practically all over the country. He had heard no reason given why this should be done. On the contrary he saw
1820
on the Paper a very strong reason why it should not be done, and it was contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston. He presumed that at this stage it would not be in order to move a similar Amendment. The Amendment he alluded to was—
"That it is undesirable to give larger powers to the Post Office until the House has been placed in possession of fuller information as to the financial results of the management of telegraphs and telephones by the Post Office."
He objected to the Second Reading of this Bill on the grounds stated in that Amendment.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he saw no reason for the Bill. It was sixteen years since a measure dealing with telegraphs was passed, and they had got on perfectly well since then without requiring another Bill. On 10th May, 1906, this or a similar Bill reached a First Reading, and on 12th December, the order for a Second Reading was read, and the Bill withdrawn. On 14th February, 1907, it was again introduced, and on 29th June withdrawn. These facts spoke eloquently for the assumption that the Bill was not required, and that the Postmaster-General asked for powers which in his opinion he ought not to have and was hoping that the Bill would slip through the House. The whole secret of the introduction of the Bill seemed to be that the Postmaster-General should be allowed to do away with underground wires. It was clear that under the Bill proper notice would not be given to the owners of private property on which it was proposed that wires should be fixed. He suggested that the interests of such owners as might be abroad at the time the notices were served should be protected, and that they should be given the opportunity of preventing unsightly telegraph poles being fixed on their property. An owner might return to his estate and find that telegraph poles had been erected upon upon his property without any notice whatever from the Postmaster-General. He would like to know to what Committee the Bill was going to be referred. Was it to be sent upstairs like the Universities Bill where it would be hidden from public sight and where there would be no record of the proceedings?
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would take into consideration the points to which his attention had been called by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 20. (Division List No. 112).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Agnew, George William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hedges, A. Paget

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Armitage, R.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W)

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

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

Pullar, Sir Robert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Radford, G. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hodge, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Rendall, Athelstan

Beale, W. P.

Horniman, Emslie John

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

Bell, Richard

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Idris, T. H. W.

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

Bennett, E. N.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Jenkins, J.

Robinson, S.

Boland, John

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Boulton, A. C. F.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rowlands, J.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Brodie, H. C.

Kekewich, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Seddon, J.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lamont, Norman

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Byles, William Pollard

Lehmann, R. C.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N. W.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Chance, Frederick William

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Steadman, W. C.

Cherry, Et. Hon. R. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Clough, William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Clynes, J. R.

Macpherson, J. T.

Sutherland, J. E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Cremer, Sir William Randal

M'Crae, George

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Devlin, Joseph

M'Killop, W.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

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

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

Tomkinson, James

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

Maddison, Frederick

Toulmin, George

Dillon, John

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dobson, Thomas W.

Marnham, F. J.

Wadsworth, J.

Duckworth, James

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Middlebrook, William

Walsh, Stephen

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Montgomery, H. G.

Walton, Joseph

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mooney, J. J.

Waring, Walter

Essex, R. W.

Morse, L. L.

Waterlow, D. S.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Watt, Henry, A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Murray, Capt. Hn A C.(Kincard)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Everett, R. Lacey

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Myer, Horatio

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Ferens, T. R.

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Wiles, Thomas

Flynn, James Christopher

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Williamson, A.

Glover, Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Norman, Sir Henry

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

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nuttall, Harry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhough on)

Hall, Frederick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Master of Elibank and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

O'Grady, J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Cave, George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Goulding.

Hills, J. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Magnus, Sir Philip

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES [EXPENSES] REPORT.
Order read for further consideration of Resolution:—
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision with respect to University education in Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—(a) of the remuneration of the Secretary to the Commissioners, and of any persons appointed or employed by them, and of any Expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the execution of such Act; and (b) of grants for the purposes of either of the new Universities, or of the constituent colleges of the new University at Dublin, or of the governing bodies thereof."
MR. CHARLES CRAIG, in moving a provisso that no part of the moneys authorised to be spent by this Resolution should be used or applied for the purposes of denominational education, said that four or five weeks ago when the Irish Universities Bill, was under discussion, the Chief Secretary, in his First Reading speech, left hon. Members in every part of the House, with the exception of the Ulster Members, under the impression that the Universities proposed to be set up were to be not only absolutely academic Universities, but, as far as possible under the circumstances of Ireland, undenominational in their character. It was quite true, as the Chief Secretary had pointed out the previous day, that he mentioned that under the charter it would be possible to affiliate to such Universities, colleges like Magee and Maynooth. Since the First Reading speech of the right hon. Gentleman a great deal had happened. In the first place, the Bill with which this Resolution dealt had been sent upstairs to a Grand Committee, but very little had been
1824
heard of what had happened in the Committee-Room. He might point out that two Bills, non-contentious and comparatively unimportant, had since been sent to a Committee of the Whole House in direct contradiction to the understanding of last year as to the appointment of Standing Committees. In the Standing Committee on the Irish Universities Bill it had been the duty of the Ulster Members, including himself, to endeavour to safeguard the intersts of undenominational education in Ireland. He regretted to-gay that their efforts up till now had been entirely unsuccessful, and the Bill as it stood, and he was afraid as it would leave the Committee, would permit to grow up in Ireland a system of denominational and sectarian education of the most advanced type. His object in moving the Amendment was once more to draw the attention of the House to that cardinal fact in the Bill If the British House of Commons said clearly and distinctly that it was prepared once and for all to set up in Ireland a University which in all respects answered to the general description of a purely sectarian and denominational University he had little more to say on the subject. He fully recognised the fact that it rested with the House to make up its mind to what he had indicated, and if so, all the protest he could make would have no-effect on the Bill in the long run. However, he had still hopes that when hon. Members on the other side of the House fully realised what they were lending themselves to, and what effect the Bill would have in Ireland if passed, they might raise some feeble protest against the reversal of the policy they professed to have pursued for so many years. The ground of his argument was that, either by this sectarian and denominational Bill or directly or indirectly by means of a charter, the great Roman Catholic seminary of Maynooth would be incorporated in the Dublin University as soon as the present Royal University of Ireland was done away with and the new Dublin University set up. He did not know whether the House fully realised what

1825
that meant. Maynooth College, he might tell the House if they did not know it already, was a purely ecclesiastical institution where a large proportion, at any rate, of the persons who subsequently entered the Roman Catholic Church as priests received their education.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether it was in order on the Report of a Resolution to discuss the merits of the Bill, or the merits of a draft charter which was before neither the House nor the Stending Committee.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALD-WELL,)said that the ton. Member was going rather widely into the Bill. The Resolution was simply an enabling one, while the application of the money would have to be dealt with and discussed subsequently in a Bill. He must refer to the Resolution or confine himself to his Amendment. To go into the details as the hon. Member was now doing was going beyond the scope of the Resolution or Amendment.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he would endeavour to confine himself to the Amendment, but he thought it necessary for the purpose of convincing the House to show that if the Resolution was passed the money authorised would be used for denominational purposes, and that Maynooth College, which was a purely sectarian institution, would be incorporated as part of the Dublin University.
MR. JOHN REDMONDpointed out that there was nothing in the Bill about Maynooth or about the use of the money sanctioned by the Resolution for denominational purposes. If the hon. Gentleman man was in order he would be entitled to canvass the whole merits of the Bill.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was only entitled to deal with the Resolution as regarded the money in a general way, and not to anticipate a discussion which would be appropriate to the Bill.
SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY, on the point of order, said that the reason for the Amendment was that the money to be
1826
voted should not be applied to any denominational purpose. As the hon. Member for Waterford had said, there was nothing in the Bill about Maynooth, and it was just because of that that the Amendment had been moved.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must deal with the general question in the Resolution, and may combine with, it the Amendment, that the money should not be applied for denominational purposes.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he would argue as generally as he could. If he could show that the inclusion of Maynooth or any denominational institutions like the numerous Roman Catholic diocesan colleges which existed in Ireland, could be affiliated to either the University to be set up in Belfast or to the University in Dublin, and derive all the benefits from the money proposed to be granted by the Resolution, then, he submitted, he would have proved that this was setting up a denominational system of education. Maynooth College had almost as many students as the three Queen's Colleges to be incorporated by the Bill. The Chief Secretary informed them on the First Reading of the Bill that there were 760 students in the three Queen's Colleges, and there were 600 students in this one sectarian institution at Maynooth. He only took Maynooth because it happened to be the most striking example he could adduce. If Maynooth were affiliated, they would actually have a greater number of students in the affiliated institutions than there were in the parent University at Dublin. Not only did this proposed affiliation include the granting of degrees to the students of the affiliated colleges, but it also proposed to give to them the benefits of matriculated students of the University. If, therefore, Maynooth College were affiliated, its students would have practically the use of all the buildings, the libraries and the laboratories, of every part of the University, thus placing them to all intents and purposes on the same footing as the ordinary matriculated students of the University. Maynooth College was put up for the express pur-

1827
pose of students who were to become Roman Catholic priests, and Magee College for students who were to become clergy of the Presbyterian Church, and if these and similar sectarian institutions were to become practically part and parcel of the new University, then it could not be called by any other name than a denominational institution, and as such it would be contrary to the policy pursued in this country for many years, and especially and loudly advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that no public money should be voted for the purpose of denominational education either in the elementary or higher branches. He did not know that he had any reason to hope that he might carry the Amendment, but for the reasons he had mentioned he thought it his duty to bring before the House of Commons once more the fact that they were setting up two Universities, one of which would be as denominational as, and the other, probably, more denominational than any other University on the face of the globe.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he was very glad to have the opportunity of seconding the Amendment, and he trusted the Government would be willing to accept it. There was nothing in it in any way contradictory to the declarations which were made by the Chief Secretary when introducing the Bill. He had always supported the Bill because he believed that it was intended to set up undenominational Universities in Ireland, and there was nothing in it to indicate that they would be of a denominational character. He, therefore, saw no reason whatever why the Government should not accept the Amendment. It would make it perfectly clear that no part of the money to be spent would be used for denominational purposes. He did not second the Amendment altogether in the same spirit in which it was moved. He had no reason to believe there was any intention on the part of the Chief Secretary to set up denominational Universities in Ireland; he accepted his word that they were to be thoroughly undenominational; and for that reason he trusted the Government would accept the Amendment. There was nothing in the
1828
Bill to suggest that Maynooth College would become an affiliated college to the University, but, even if it should ultimately become an affiliated college, he assumed it would only be affiliated in its arts faculty and not in its theological faculty. They would have something to say as to the terms on which any college or institution should be affiliated to the new University; and he hoped and believed they would be able to safeguard the undenominational character of the Universities; but he saw no reason, having regard to the distinct statements of the Chief Secretary, why the Government should hesitate for a moment to accept the Amendments proposed. If they accepted it, they would show distinctly that they confirmed the statement already made by the Chief Secretary; but, if they refused to accept it, it would be somewhat impossible for those who had hitherto supported the Bill to continue to do so to the same extent. They would suspect that all sorts of changes might be introduced in the charters which they would have no opportunity of discussing and which were not in the Bill. He, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He had every reason to believe the statement made by the Chief Secretary that these Universities were to be of a thoroughly undenominational character, and his faith in that statement was confirmed by the fact that the Universities contained no faculty for theology in connection with which the Maynooth or Magee Colleges could be affiliated.
Amendment proposed:—
In line 9, at end, to add the words 'Provided that no part of the moneys authorised by this Resolution shall be used or applied for the purposes of denominational education.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. DILLONsaid he desired to emphasise the fact that the hon Member for London University had seconded the Amendment, as he said himself, in a spirit totally different from that in which it was moved, but at the same time he would venture to express his astonishment

1829
that the hon Gentleman had seconded it at all. He had been a constant attendant at the meetings of the Committee, he knew the character of the Bill, he had listened to the statements made by the Chief Secretary, and he admitted that neither in the charters nor in the Bill was there anything to which he objected on the ground of the use of public money for denominational purposes. Was it fair therefore to bring forward an Amendment of this character, absolutely without precedent, and insulting to the Chief Secretary in his absence, because he naturally and rightly supposed the Resolution would go through without any opposition.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Amendment was on the Paper.
MR. DILLONsaid that was so, but the Chief Secretary had no idea that any opposition would come from any other than Members who were determined, if they could, to wreck the Bill on its merits, and who up to this had not obtained any support of a serious character in their campaign against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore entitled to treat a notice coining from that quarter as not of a very serious character. The hon. Member who seconded recognised that the Chief Secretary had given distinct pledges on the matter, and he said he trusted his word and had no fault to find with the discussion in Committee or with the text of the charters or of the Bill. Yet he said that if the Amendment were not accepted they would suspect all sorts of things. Was it fair or reasonable to treat a Minister in charge of a Bill in that way—to say they thoroughly trusted his word, that they had no fault to find with the Bill or with the discussion which had taken place in Committee, and still to say that if an Amendment, absolutely without parallel in the history of similar Resolutions, was not accepted by the Government, all kinds of suspicions would arise? Suspicions of what? Suspicions that the Chief Secretary would go back upon his word, suspicions that in the speeches they made on the First and Second Reading they were, in
1830
conspiracy with the Chief Secretary, concealing the purpose which they intended carrying into effect after the Bill had been passed by altering the charters? That was the only ground on which the Amendment had been supported. He thought they had some cause to resent it. The Amendment was part of the campaign to wreck the Bill.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Not on my part.
MR. DILLONsaid he had drawn the distinction between the mover and seconder of the Amendment because the hon. Member was friendly to the Bill and supported it; but the Amendment was grossly insulting to the Chief Secretary, and the Irish Party, because they had acted honourably by the House and meant all they said. The hon. Member in making a desperate effort to enlist the sympathies of hon. Members opposite had drawn an absolutely false picture of the effect of the Bill and the charter. Even if Maynooth were affiliated not a farthing of public money would go to its benefit. The only effect would be to put Maynooth in regard to the new University on exactly the same footing as it stood in regard to the Royal University to-day, a University which was in the enjoyment of public endowments, but nobody had found fault with the fact that the Maynooth students were at this moment enjoying the advantages of the Royal University in Ireland. But the affiliation of Maynooth had not been determined on in the Committee, and he did not believe it would be discussed except by hon. Gentlemen who discussed every point under the sun. All they asked was that the same liberty which they had given to the Universities of Birmingham, Liverpool, and London should be accorded to the new University of Dublin. Was it to be tolerated that an hon. Gentleman in the name of religious liberty should propose by this insulting and utterly unprecedented Amendment that this University should be subjected to restrictions of its liberty to which no modern University in this country was subjected? He was an advocate of liberty, and he would be no party to asking for any privilege which was not enjoyed to the fullest extent by

1831
the Universities of this country, and he thought the hon. Member would find that he was approaching an unsympathetic audience in imposing restrictions of this character. This was a wrecking Amendment, an Amendment of insult. He believed that if it were passed it would have no effect of any sort on the Bill; it was simply an Amendment designed for the purpose of insulting them.
MR. CHARLES CRAIG: On a point of order. The hon. Member has used the word "insulting" on three separate occasions. He applied it twice to the Amendment and now he has applied it directly to me. I ask you if that is right.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL): The use of the word "insulting" applied to the Amendment is in order. Used towards a Member of the House it would be rather out of order:
MR. DILLON: I withdraw and apologise as far as I used it towards the hon. Member. I retain it as regards the Amendment.
MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I am sure the House will allow me to say that in moving the Amendment I had no intention of insulting hon. Members below the gangway or any member of their Church.
MR. DILLONsaid he accepted the hon. Member's statement, but he adhered to his description of the Amendment. The hon. Member had no right to convey the entirely false impression that under the Bill and the charters as they stood it was possible to apply public money and use it for denominational institutions. It was absolutely untrue.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that under the Charter and under the Bill it was open to the governing body of the University to affiliate Maynooth to-morrow, and once Maynooth was affiliated it would get the advantage of the new University and necessarily the advantage of the money.
MR. DILLONsaid it would get, as affiliated, precisely the same advantage it now got in the Royal University, and
1832
not an atom more. It was absolutely false to suppose that if it were affiliated the Government would be using public money for the purpose of endowing denominational institutions any more than public money was now used for that purpose. The only advantage that could be offered would be the power to take degrees, and no man, he thought, would say that was using public money for the advantage of denominational institutions. What he desired particularly to impress upon the House was that neither under the charters nor under the Bill as it stood, was there a single privilege or liberty towards endowing or giving any advantage to a denominational college that was not enjoyed by all the Universities of this country. There was not a shadow of justification for this Amendment, which was one without precedent in his experience of the House, and he earnestly appealed to Members opposite to vote against it, remembering the spirit in which it was moved.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he desired to reassure hon. Members below the gangway in one respect at all events. They had quite misconceived the idea of the Amendment. There was no mention of one denomination more than another. There was nothing in the Amendment which applied to one Church more than another. It was simply to carry out the promise made by the Chief Secretary that the Bill was undenominational. Why, therefore, should the House be asked to apply money for any other purpose than to carry out an undenominational system of University education in Ireland? That was the whole point. The hon. Member had tried to confuse the House. Hon. Members were strictly muzzled and dared not say a word, when they were asked whether they were in favour of undenominational education or not. The hon. Member twitted them with attacking the Chief Secretary in his absence. But the Chief Secretary had run away. Were they to go looking for him? The Amendment was on the Paper that morning, but this was the very part of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman himself did not like, and he had determined, therefore, to keep out of the discussion. He said the Bill was undenominational.

1833
Would he vote, if he were present, for an Amendment which said that money was only to go towards undenominational teaching? He could not do that, and therefore had gone away, fearing that he would be in rather an awkward position. It was not their fault that he had gone. It was his duty to stay there and defend his position, which he could not do. It was a very simple Amendment. There was nothing complicated about it. Everyone could understand what it meant, and know exactly what he was going to vote for, and if he voted against the Amendment he was voting for denominational teaching in this University. No distinction was drawn in favour of and no privileges were claimed for Protestants above their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. What they desired was to secure for the Roman Catholic laity the same education as they desired for the Protestant laity. What they feared was that all the money voted by the House of Commons would not be devoted towards the education of the laity whether Roman Catholic or Protestant in Ireland. If hon. Members below the gangway would declare themselves and say that they wanted the laity of their faith educated then they would clear the air. The Nationalist Party wanted a particular denominational education, not only in Ireland, but in England as well, in regard to its elementary branches, and therefore their attitude was one in favour of denominational education all through the higher grades of education. If the Resolution passed without this Amendment the money might be used in the way he had suggested. The laity were suffering from too much clericalism; they should allow themselves to be educated and then they could march in the light of day. There was a cloud of clericalism resting over all branches of education in Ireland, and it was clogging the advancement of the people. He was speaking with reference to all denominations in Ireland. All
1834
religions were pushing forward so much that there was too much of the clerical element. He could not conceive why any hon. Member should object to this Amendment. It was necessary to have this matter threshed out in the House of Commons, and not allow it to be hidden away in a Committee upstairs. The Opposition were now doing their best to secure undenominational teaching in Ireland. This Amendment afforded the House an opportunity not of granting a. special favour but of affirming what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said in the House.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHEERY,)said it occurred to him that the matters which had been discussed for the last half-hour wars matters which ought not to be discussed at all at this stage, because they were distinctly matters for the Committee. This Amendment was of a very unusual character; it was almost unprecedented; he had not been able to find a single instance where any such Amendment had been added to a financial Resolution. Why was it being done now? What was the special reason for it? He could understand the attitude of the hon. Member for East Antrim, who was anxious to destroy the Bill and was consequently anxious to introduce an embarrassing addition to the financial Resolution, but he could not understand why the hon. Member for London University had seconded the Amendment. The hon. Member had given them very great assistance on the Committee upstairs; he was a true friend of the Bill and had shown himself most anxious that the business of the Committee should be facilitated as much as possible. The hon. Member had said there was nothing in the Amendment which was contradictory to the declaration of the Chief Secretary when he said that no portion of this money

1835
would be applied to denominational purposes in Ireland. That declaration was binding upon the Chief Secretary and the Government. It had not been suggested that the Government intended to introduce any clause or alter any clause so as to give the colleges dealt with a denominational character. He wished to point out that every penny of the money voted went to those colleges. The only other money covered by the Resolution was the expenses of the Commissioners, and that was necessary to put these two Universities on their legs and give them a start. It was utterly impossible that there could be any attempt to apply this money for denominational purposes. Maynooth, as the hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out, would not get any grant of money under the Bill. The only advantage which the affiliated colleges or institutions would get was that residence within their walls would be accepted by the University as equivalent to residence and attendance upon lectures in one of the colleges of the University. That was really a burden rather than an advantage, because the institutions would have the expense of maintaining them and providing lectures for which no public grant of money whatever was made. Whether that was a foolish arrangement or not was not a question which should be discussed now. It might be discussed in Committee upstairs, or when the Bill came back to the House on Report. He asked the House to reject the Amendment as being unusual, unprecedented, and unnecessary.
MR. RAWLINSONasked why the right hon. and learned Gentleman had called this an embarrassing Amendment.
MR. CHERRYsaid that what he stated was that the hon. Gentleman who introduced it thought it was an embarrassing Amendment.
MR. RAWLINSONasked why the Government did not accept it if it was not embarrassing. The Amendment was in identical terms with one handed in when the financial Resolution was before the Committee of the House. Directly the hon. Member get up to move it the closure was moved by a Member of the Government, so that the question was not discussed on the Committee Stage at all. If, as the Attorney-General for Ireland had suggested, there was really no harm in the Amendment, the Government ought to accept it at once. The point was that it should be made plain that no part of the money would be used for denominational teaching in Ireland. Rightly or wrongly a large number of people thought that the Bill would involve subsidising denominational teaching in Ireland. If it did not, why should the Government hesitate to accept the Amendment which put into exact parlance what the Attorney-General for Ireland said was the intention of the Government? On Thursday morning The Times made the announcement that an arrangement had been come to by the Government by which Maynooth should be affiliated with Dublin University, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had not contradicted that. Assuming that such an arrangement existed, they had this position—that it was quite conceivable that the affiliated colleges would have voting power and all the privileges of matriculated students in the Universities. The religious question over here was not in such an acute stage as in Ireland, and if a member of one denomination had voting power in the London University, or any of the other great English Universities, it was exceedingly unlikely that it would be used for denominational purposes.
MR. HOLTasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that Oxford and

1837
Cambridge were free from religious influences.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was perfectly correct in stating that there had not been the slightest religious difficulty during years past in Oxford, Cambridge, or London, and, so far from their being controlled in any way at all by one denomination, he maintained that there had been absolute freedom for the member of any denomination to come into these Universities. The argument of the hon. Member for East Mayo was that the English Universities were on an undenominational basis. He thought the Government had given short shrift to hon. Members who objected to public funds being devoted to the formation of denominational Universities in Ireland.
MR. ADKINShoped that after the statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. He understood his right hon. friend to say that the Government undertook that no money would be spent on denominational education under this Bill. If that was intended to include also what might be done under the charter, then those who thought that these Universities should not be devoted to the promotion of denominational education out of public funds might be satisfied. He should vote for the Government without hesitation.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that it was a very serious question. The answer given by the Attorney-General for Ireland was most unsatisfactory. It was that this question should be considered in Committee; but the Committee consisted of only seventy or eighty Members, whereas at the present moment it was in the power of the whole House to decide whether this money should or should not be devoted to denominational purposes. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no clause in the
1838
Bill which gave a denominational character to the education to be provided in the Universities; but there was no guarantee that such a clause might not be introduced in Committee later on. At the present moment they were the guardians of the taxpayers' money, and they were deciding to what purposes this sum of money was to be devoted. If the Amendment was carried they would decide that the money should not be devoted to any denominational purpose. If the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General for Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman opposite desired what they said they desired, why did not the Chief Secretary accept the Amendment? If the Chief Secretary did not accept the Amendment, he asked the hon. Gentleman opposite how he could with any decency refuse to vote for it. During the last four years they had taken every possible means to deprive education in England of any sectarian character, and English taxpayers would have to provide part of the money now to be voted; yet the only reasons why hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to accept the plain and simple Amendment which defined their own desires was that there was an understanding between the Chief Secretary and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and that the Nonconformist consciences were rather desirous of shutting their eyes in order to support the Government. Under these circumstances he would have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and he would look with interest to see how those who called themselves Nonconformists voted upon it.
MR. CHERRYsaid that he understood, as he believed all the House understood, that the pledge which his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary gave on a previous occasion applied both to the Charter and to the Bill, both to the colleges and to the University itself. There was no intention in the remotest degree on the part of the Government to violate that pledge.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 22; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 113.)

AYES.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Younger, George

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Hedges, A. Paget

Cochrane, Non. Thos. H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Sir Philip Magnus.

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Courthope, G. Loyd

Rawlinson, John Frederick Feel

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Robinson, S.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Gulland, John W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Agnew, George William

Hall, Frederick

Nuttall, Harry.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Armitags, R.

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barnes, G. N.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Haworth, Arther A.

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

Barry Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Beale, W. P.

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

Radford, G. H.

Bennett, E. N.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Berridge T. H. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Boland John

Hills, J. W.

Rendall, Athelstan)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hodge, John

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Richardson, A.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Brigg John

Hudson, Walter

Roe, Sir Thomas

Brodie, H. C.

Idris, T. H. W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seaverns, J. H.

Burt Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Seddon, J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Kekewich, Sir George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Chance, Frederick William

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lambert, George

Simon, John Allsebrook

Clough, William

Lamont, Norman

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Clynes, J. R.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Summerbell, T.

Dillon John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Duckworth, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macpherson, J. T.

Tomkinson, James

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Crae, George

Verney, F. W.

Essex, R. W.

M'Killop, W.

Wadsworth, J.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maddison, Frederick

Walsh, Stepehn

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Waring, Walter

Everett, R. Lacey

Marnham, F. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Fenwick Charles

Micklem, Nathaniel

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Ferens, T. R.

Middlebrook, William

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Flynn, James Christopher

Montgomery, H. G.

Williamson, A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Mooney, J. J.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

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

Morrell, Philip

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

Glover, Thomas

Morse, L. L.

Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Myer, Horatio

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

Grant, Corrie

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nolan, Joseph

Resolution agreed to.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.