Sitting of 24 May 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAFER took the chair at Fifteen minutes before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Lincolnshire Water Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
West Gloucestershire Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Kilkenny, Castlecomar, and Athy Railway Bill,
Oldham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered, to be read the third time.
Indian Railways (Sinking Funds Investment) Bill [Lords],
Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway Bill [Lords],
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [Lords],
London County Council (Money) Bill. (By Order),
Read a second time, and committed.

INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY BOROUGH OF BURY).
Return ordered, comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an inquiry held in the County Borough of Bury into Endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that County Borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those Endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing whether any, and if any what such Endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the County Borough; and (3) an Index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Reports.—[Mr. Soares.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Sergeant Instructors (Territorial Force).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, in order to enable
  810
  the infantry of the Territorial Force to increase its efficiency, he would raise the establishment of sergeant instructors, including the sergeant-major, to not less than four for each battalion of eight companies?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): This matter has been fully considered, and it has been decided that no increase in the number allowed in the past for a volunteer battalion concentrated in one place—that is three instructors—can be made for Territorial battalions similarly situated. In the case of a battalion with outlying companies, a greater proportion of instructors are allowed, with eight as a. maximum.
  Mr. ASHLEY: If I bring some facts to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will he consider them?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes; I will consider them; but I think this is a question for the general officer commanding primarily.

  Colour-Sergeants (Special Reserve).
  Mr. PHILIP FOSTERasked the Secretary of State for War, whether the pay of colour-sergeants whilst serving with the Special Reserve is 6d. per diem less than whilst serving with their regular battalions, though the work is as great; and, if so, whether he would grant the same rate of pay with the Special Reserve as with the line battalions?
  Mr. HALDANE: The duties of the colour-sergeants of the Special Reserve are not so onerous or so responsible as those of the colour-sergeants of the regular line battalions. It is not proposed to raise the pay of the Special Reserve colour-sergeants in the manner suggested.
  Mr. PHILIP FOSTER: Is it not the fact that if a colour-sergeant, owing to some slight misdemeanour, is sent back to his regiment, he automatically gets an increase of pay?
  Mr. HALDANE: It does not follow that he will be a colour-sergeant if he gets back.

  Sergeant-Major (Special Reserve).
  Mr. PHILIP FOSTERasked whether the pension of the Special Reserve sergeant-major is 3s. 9d. per diem instead of the 4s. per diem of the old depot sergeant-major whom he replaces; and, if so, on what grounds he is not granted the same pension as his predecessor?
  Mr. HALDANE: The pension of a Special Reserve sergeant-major is 3s. 9d. a day after 25 years' qualifying service (with five years as warrant officer), as against 4s. a day awarded to the old depot sergeant-major. As stated by the hon. Member the former now does the work which was performed in the past by the latter, who was a line sergeant-major, and was pensioned as such. The work now devolves upon the Special Reserve sergeant-major, who will be paid and pensioned as such.
  Mr. PHILIP FOSTER: Is not this the only grade that has a reduction in pension? All the other warrant officers get the same pension.
  Mr. HALDANE: No; there is no question of reduction of pension.

  Territorial Army (Independent Cavalry).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked in what manner the selected Yeomanry corps, acting as the independent cavalry of the Territorial Army, and armed as mounted infantry, are to perform the duty of defeating the hostile cavalry, which is the first duty assigned to them in section 144, Cavalry Training, 1907, in view of the fact that the same section states that dismounted action for independent cavalry will at the best have but negative results?
  Mr. HALDANE: The action of Yeomanry in the circumstances mentioned will be the same as that of cavalry, and the principles are laid down in Cavalry Training, 1907. I cannot, however, undertake, within the limits of an answer to a question, to discuss the detailed instructions laid down in Cavalry Training. The hon. Member has omitted, I think, to read to the end of the manual of Cavalry Training. If he will look at it again he will find an appendix 4 at page 313, which shows the modifications to be read into the general instructions laid down in the manual, when these instructions are to be applied to Yeomanry training.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Have we in the Territorial Army any force which is capable of meeting fully equipped hostile cavalry?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think if that fully equipped cavalry is in anything like the same numbers as we are, the Yeomanry of the Territorial Force would not be able to meet them, but the reason is that the training of the Yeomanry of the Territorial Force cannot be as great as the cavalry who are trained for three years, but I
  812
  think it is extremely unlikely that any Power will succeed in bringing this large force of cavalry and horses across the seas.

  British Officers visiting Germany.
  Mr. H. C. GOOCH (for Mr. Staveley-Hill)asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to circulate the amended instructions issued by the Army Council respecting British officers visiting Germany?
  Mr. HALDANE: The instructions for foreign officers travelling in certain parts of Germany, as amended in November, 1908, have been duly circulated to commands. A copy also was laid, as requested, on the Table of this House.

  German Reservists in England.
  Sir JOHN BARLOWasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information showing that there are 66,000 trained German soldiers in England, or that there are, in a cellar within a quarter of a mile of Charing Cross, 50,000 stands of Mauser rifles and 7½ millions of Mauser cartridges, that is, 150 rounds per rifle?
  Mr. HALDANE: My hon. Friend has done well in bringing before the House this illustration of a class of alarmist statements to which credence is too often given by thoughtless persons. To anyone possessing even an elementary knowledge of what mobilisation requirements mean the suggestion is a ludicrous one. Such statements tend to lower our reputation abroad for common sense, and my hon. Friend has done well in exposing this one to the ridicule which it merits.

  Guns at St. Helena.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can assure the House that the guns at St. Helena are in a serviceable condition; whether the official who looks after them is duly qualified; when they were last inspected by an artillery officer; and what is the date of his last report?
  Mr. HALDANE: The latest report states that the guns left in St. Helena were in excellent condition on the 1st November last. The official who looks after them, a retired officer of the Royal Engineers, is fully qualified. I have called ler information as regards the latest inspection by an Artillery officer.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me if the official in question is His Excellency the Governor?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have said the official who looks after the guns is a retired officer of the Royal Engineers and he is fully qualified.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it His Excellency the Governor who answers that description?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not know whether it is the Governor or not.

  Private Soldier's Blankets.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the blankets issued to the private soldier are exchanged once every twelve months; if so, whether that is considered to be sufficient to ensure cleanliness; and whether a private soldier joining a unit receives clean blankets, or must use those of others for the unexpired portion of twelve months?
  Mr. HALDANE: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question, fresh blankets are not issued to men on joining a unit.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve the practice of young boys having to use blankets which have been used for six or nine months by other men?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member was at one time an officer in the Army, and he knows this is a practice which has always prevailed.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve the practice?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have no reason to disapprove of it.

  Territorial Army (Expenditure).
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSONasked what would be the initial and annual expenditures involved were 200,000 men added to the Territorial Army on the basis of the existing force in respect to all arms?
  Mr. HALDANE: It is clear that this large additional force will involve the formation of new units, and the annual expenditure may on this basis be taken at approximately£2,000,000. As regards initial expenditure, some£1,000,000 would cover the cost of clothing and personal equipment, but the cost involved in the provision of extra buildings and the initial
  814
  expenditure on guns, wagons, rifles, ammunition, harness and saddlery, and engineer and medical stores, etc., cannot be given without much labour and trouble.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it in contemplation to add 200,000 men to the Territorial Army?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have not said it is in contemplation.

  Medical Examination (Remuneration).
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked what remuneration is paid to medical men, other than Army surgeons, for cases in which recruits for the Yeomanry do not pass the medical examination?
  Mr. HALDANE: A capitation grant per recruit enlisted is paid to county associations. The remuneration of the doctor who examines candidates for the Territorial Force is paid by the associations from their funds, and is fixed at their discretion.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained what is the usual practice?
  Mr. HALDANE: I imagine it really varies very largely in different districts, and probably in parts of districts. Where a medical officer is very keen about the Territorial Force he probably takes pleasure in doing it for nothing. In other cases he is probably paid. It varies all over.

  Army Service Corps (Vacancies).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what number of vacancies of the rank of lieutenant there are in the Army Service Corps; how many second lieutenants are qualified for this rank; and why the vacancies have not been filled up?
  Mr. HALDANE: The present number of vacancies in the rank of lieutenant is 17. Second lieutenants in the Army Service Corps are not promoted to the rank of lieutenant until they have completed three years' Army service, and have passed the necessary examinations, and also the probationary course in Army Service Corps technical duties. No second lieutenants are at present fully qualified for promotion.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that up till quite recently all lieutenants had to have two years' service for promotion?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member had better put down a question.

  Territorial Army(Cavalry Arms).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (for Sir Samuel Scott)asked the Secretary of State for War whether the present method of arming the cavalry of the Territorial Army as mounted infantry is based upon the assumption that any hostile force which might either raid or invade these shores will be entirely deficient of regular cavalry; and, if so, whether he can state any reasons for such an assumption?
  Mr. HALDANE: The method of arming the Yeomanry is not based on the assumption suggested by the hon. Baronet.

  Canadian Infantry Militia.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether proposals have been made for battalions of Canadian Infantry Militia to visit Aldershot this year and train with the troops there; and what are the views of the military authorities on the suggestion?
  Mr. HALDANE: No definite proposal on this subject from the Canadian Government has reached the War Office.

  Army Short Rifle.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked what progress has been made with experiments with a new and improved short rifle; and when it is expected that the regular troops will be rearmed with the new weapon?
  Mr. HALDANE: No experiments are being made with a new and improved short rifle, nor is it proposed at present to introduce such a weapon. Manufacture is proceeding with the present pattern short rifle.

  H.M.S. "Dreadnought" (Draught).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the draught of the battleship "Dread-ought" on the occasion of her first visit to Sheerness was 31 ft. 6 ins.; and whether he would state how much of the main water-line belt remains above the water at this draught, forward, amidships, and aft?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative. It is undesirable to publish the information asked for in the last part of the question.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the draught of the "Dreadnought" was 31 ft. 6 ins.?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have stated that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

  Ineffective Warships.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether any ships included in the Dilke Return, published on Friday week last, have since the date of that Return been placed upon the sale list or in any other way discarded as ineffective; and, if so, what ships have been so dealt with?
  Mr. McKENNA: It has been decided to dispose of H.M.S. "Hornet," and possibly one other destroyer, but with these exceptions no vessels included in the recent Dilke Return have been discarded as ineffective. With regard to foreign countries, as stated in the reply given on Thursday last to the hon. Member for the Andover Division, all that we know about withdrawals of ships since the date of the Return referred to in the question is that the French Minister of Marine has announced the intended withdrawal from the effective list of four second-class cruisers, three third-class cruisers, one torpedo vessel, and two submarines.

  Destroyer "Falcon" (Repairs).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what was the date on which the destroyer "Falcon" first passed into dockyard hands at Chatham; what was the original date for completion; what was the actual date on which she passed out; and whether the vessel is now as fit for service as was contemplated when the first plans for her refit were drawn up?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is 9th November, 1908; to the second and third parts, 31st March, 1909; and to the last part of the question, in the negative. On 22nd April the "Falcon" grounded off Fort-rose and sustained damage; the consequent repairs are not yet complete.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is it not true that the "Falcon" has been under orders not to proceed at full speed since her repairs were completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; not on the ground of want of repairs, but she has had an accident since she was repaired, and that is the ground of her present incapacity.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: She was thoroughly efficient when completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Thoroughly.

  Torpedo-boat Destroyers (Gunnery Exercise).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many torpedo-boat destroyers there are in the Home Fleet reserve flotillas at Portsmouth, Devonport, and the Nore, respectively; and how many vessels from each division were able to leave their ports last month to carry out gunnery exercises preparatory to battle practice?
  Mr. McKENNA: The strength of the nucleus-crew destroyer flotillas in destroyers last month was as follows:—

  Nore Flotilla

  22 destroyers (excluding "Eden" temporarily completed to full crew for service in the First Flotilla).

  Portsmouth Flotilla

  25 destroyers.

  Devonport Flotilla

  20 destroyers.

  These number exclude coastal destroyers.
  The number which actually left their ports to carry out gunnery exercises was:—

  Nore Flotilla

  9

  Portsmouth Flotilla

  13

  Devonport Flotilla

  4

  The hon. Gentleman must not assume from this that no others were able to leave, as some of them were engaged in instructional duties, and others had their gunnery exercises arranged for a later date.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: As a matter of fact, are not a large number of those which were detained what are colloquially called "lame ducks"?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, not properly described as "lame ducks."

  Destroyers (North Sea Service).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the oldest destroyer in full commission in the First (North Sea) Flotilla is the "Panther" which was launched in 1897; whether the "Panther" is shortly to be replaced by the "Afridi," launched in 1907; whether, after that exchange has taken place, there will be no destroyer in the North Sea flotilla more than six years old from the date of launch; and whether these facts may be taken to indicate that the Admiralty believes that destroyers seven or eight years old are not fit for service in the North Sea and should be relieved as soon as possible?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the "Panther" will shortly be replaced by the "Saracen," a destroyer of the same class as the "Afridi." The statement in the third part is approximately correct; certain of the destroyers in the First Flotilla were launched in the spring of 1903. With regard to the last part of the question, these facts do not indicate that the Admiralty holds the opinion stated; the principle is that, subject to a few exceptions, the latest destroyers are placed in the fully-manned flotillas.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer involve that only high free-board destroyers are efficient for service?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. Destroyers of high free-board are better than destroyers with low free-board for service in the North Sea, but that does not mean that destroyers with low free-boards are not serviceable in the North Sea.

  H.M.S. "Blackwater" (Court Martial).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked do the Admiralty authorities consider that tin officer commanding one of His Majesty's ships is responsible for the safety of the vessel he commands; and, if so, will they state the reason why the officer on the watch in charge of the "Blackwater," on the occasion of her collision, was tried by court-martial in place of the officer commanding the ship?
  Mr. McKENNA: The officer in command is primarily responsible for the safety of his ship. In this case the collision occurred at night, when the officer of the watch was in charge. When the commanding officer was sent for to come on deck it was too late for him then to avert the collision.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Has not the Admiralty readjusted the King's rules in regard to courts martial? Ought not the court martial to have been held primarily at any rate on the commanding officer?
  Mr. McKENNA: Primá facie that would be so, but in the circumstances of the present case the court martial was properly held on the officer in charge of the watch.

  H.M.S. "Gladiator."
  Mr. REMNANTasked if any sum was offered to the Admiralty for H.M.S.
  "Gladiator," after her collision with the liner "St. Paul," before any large expenditure was made by the Admiralty in raising her; and, if so, how much was offered and by whom was the offer made?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot find any trace of the supposed offer referred to in the question.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Was any attempt made by the Admiralty to secure an offer to purchase the ship as she lay on the condition that she was removed from the fairway?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would rather have notice of the question. I could not say off-hand.

  Appointment of Relieving Officers.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in some instances boards of guardians have appointed as relieving officers persons who had had no previous experience of Poor Law work; whether such appointments are considered by the Board as assisting to secure the efficient administration of the Poor Law; and whether he is prepared to consider the propriety of declining to ratify such appointments in any future cases that may be brought to the notice of his department?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am aware that in some instances persons have been appointed as relieving officers who have not had previous experience of Poor Law work. Appointments of the kind are discouraged by the Local Government Board, but it is difficult to say that such appointments should never be made. In dealing with them the Board are guided by their knowledge of the local circumstances, and the occupation and previous history of the person appointed.

  Vaccination Act (Sittingbourne).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been drawn to an announcement recently made by the chairman of the Sittingbourne bench of magistrates to the effect that the justices would in future refuse to grant exemptions from the Vaccination Act unless application was made at the ordinary weekly sittings of the court; whether he could issue a
  820
  circular pointing out to magistrates the nature and intention of the amending Act of 1907; and, if this be of no avail, will he introduce legislation to secure for parents the right to obtain these exemptions on application from individual magistrates?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I beg to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The Secretary of State would refer to the reply which he gave on 10th May to a question on this subject by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Carmarthen-shire, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member. The views which he expressed in that answer have long been well known and widely disseminated. He regrets that he cannot undertake to introduce legislation of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

  Oil Fuel in Royal Navy.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked how many ships and vessels of all classes are wholly or partially fitted to burn oil fuel; whether any ships are fitted to convey oil to vessels at sea, and, if so, how many; and what is the radius of action at 10 knots of the oil-fuel torpedo-boats, originally called coastal destroyers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I am still without the information. If the Noble Lord will postpone the question till Wednesday I will endeavour to obtain the particulars.

  Poor's Furze (Berkshire).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware what are the rights claimed by the lord of the manor over the land known as the Poor's Furze, in East-bury, in Berkshire; and whether the Charity Commissioners have taken any steps to secure to the parishioners of East-bury the full enjoyment of the fuel allotment, or other benefits, originally awarded to them on that land?
  Mr. SOARES: The Commissioners are endeavouring to ascertain exactly what rights the lord of the manor claims, and meanwhile are preparing a scheme for securing to the parishioners the enjoyment of the benefit intended for them by the allotment. The scheme will be published in due course.

  Trincomalee Harbour.
  Mr. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Trincomalee Harbour has been dismantled; and, if so, what use, if any, can be made of its batteries, submarine mines, equipments, stores, and boats?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA): The naval establishment at Trincomalee was reduced to a cadre early in 1905. The submarine mining equipment, stores, and boats were taken over from the War Office, and such of them as were serviceable were appropriated for naval use.
  Mr. REES: Is it permanently dismantled?
  Mr. McKENNA: So far as I have stated.

  British Torpedo-boat Destroyers (Speed).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the designed speed of the British torpedo-boat destroyers of this year's programme?
  Mr. McKENNA: Any statement on this subject is premature at present.

  Captain Bacon's Letters.
  Captain CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any record has been kept of the persons to whom the printed copies of Captain Bacon's letters to the First Sea Lord were issued; how many copies of each letter were printed; whether they were issued as private and confidential; or for the purpose of being made public; how many copies are now in the possession of the First Sea Lord; and can the copies not in his possession, though printed, be accounted for?
  Mr. T. ARNOLD HERBERT: On a point of order with regard to this and a number of subsequent questions on this subject I wish to state that the matter was brought to your attention last week on a question of privilege, and you thereupon suggested that the courts were the proper tribunal for dealing with the matter. It will probably shortly be sub judice, and I desire to ask whether it is in order in these circumstances to ask questions in the interest of one of the parties which, if answered, may prejudice the position of any other party to the litigation?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Of course, if there is any probability of the matter coming before the courts, it would be very undesir
  822
  able to ask questions here. I have not seen any statement or heard any statement to. that effect. It is possible that the hon. Member may have some private information.
  Mr. T. A. HERBERT: I should not have asked the question unless I had seen it stated in the newspapers that the matter had been laid before eminent counsel for their opinion, with the view to proceedings being taken. It is in these circumstances. that I ask your ruling.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Probably the best judge in the matter will be the First Lord of the Admiralty. He would have heard and would know whether steps had been taken or not. Of course, if he declines to answer on that ground, the House will support him.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether there is not involved in this question a matter of great public interest, apart altogether from the interests of individuals and any possible legal proceedings?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly a question of administration arises, but it will be obvious that if, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the matter is coming before the courts immediately it would he undesirable to discuss it here.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no record of any issue of copies of the letters in question, and so far as I am aware no issue in the ordinary meaning of the word took place. Twenty-five copies of one letter were printed, and 50 of the other. Only one copy of each is now in the possession of the First Sea Lord; the remainder were destroyed long ago.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether any proceedings have been taken?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no knowledge regarding that.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether it is a fact that several officers commanding ships abroad received copies of this letter while in active service?
  Mr. McKENNA: So far as I am aware that is not so, but the whole of this happened before I was at the Admiralty, and I do not know very much about it.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether the Admiralty have tendered any apology to the hon. Member for King's Lynn?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise here.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has asked the First Sea Lord whether he circulated any copies of Captain Bacon's letter outside the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I have asked the question, and the First Sea Lord tells me that the matter occurred three years ago when he was hard at work, and that his recollection of the whole circumstances is so dim that he cannot be sure whether he showed the letter to anybody or not, but his impression is that he did not.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Am I to understand that there is no record at the Admiralty of the First Sea Lord having circulated the letter at all after a close inquiry and search has been made?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is so. There is no record of any circulation of this letter at all.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the copies of the letter were destroyed?
  Mr. McKENNA: They were destroyed, long ago—I should say probably two years ago.
  Captain CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Captain Bacon. was requested to report on his brother officers on the active or retired lists, or whether the recent correspondence which has been made public was written on his own initiative; and whether it is in accordance with the regulations and traditions of the Admiralty that such communications should be addressed by a junior officer direct to the First Sea Lord?
  Mr. McKENNA: Captain Bacon did not report on his brother officers; he was not requested so to report. Captain Bacon's private letters have been made public without his knowledge or authority. The imputations sought to be cast on Captain Bacon by the hon. Member are entirely without warrant. I must beg the hon. Gentleman not to couch his questions in a form which must be offensive to a distinguished naval officer.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that I have seen a copy of the letter, which distinctly comments in the way I have mentioned in the question, and, further,
  824
  whether he is aware that one other brother officer has been struck very hard by the action Captain Bacon took?
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: May I ask whether, if this letter of Captain Bacon's has been made public, he has only his friend Sir John Fisher to blame for the fact?
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would explain why it was considered necessary to print 50 copies of one of Captain Bacon's letters and only 25 copies of the other
  Mr. McKENNA: The order for the two letters was given at different times. An order for a few copies, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, might at one time be marked for 25 and at another for 50 copies.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any instructions as to the copies of the letters which were printed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have stated that only one of each was preserved. The rest of the copies were destroyed long ago.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is usual to edit all confidential documents printed for convenience of record at the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no office rule on this subject. The question of editing a document (other than textual corrections) would appear to depend on whether it is to be published or not. It follows, therefore, that there is no obligation to edit a confidential document printed for convenience of record at the Admiralty—though, as I have stated, it is desirable to edit such documents if they contain any personal references.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future private and confidential documents shall be marked "private and confidential"?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think it is a matter of the very gravest importance.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would state how many naval correspondents of the First Sea Lord were now engaged in furnishing reports similar to those written by Captain Bacon, R.N.; and when was this system first instituted?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I can only read the hon. Member's question as intended to make an imputation upon

  825
  Captain Bacon. From answers to questions already given in this House the hon. Members should be aware that such an imputation is without warrant, and its repetition is quite unjustified.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps were taken to ensure the letters being treated as private and confidential?
  Mr. McKENNA: So far as Captain Bacon is concerned he could take no steps. Captain Bacon's name ought not to be brought into this matter at all except that he wrote the letter. If there was a wrong done in printing, Captain Bacon was not in the least responsible for it. So far as he was concerned they were purely private letters written to an old friend, and he had not the slightest knowledge that the letters were to be printed or used in any way whatever.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask why Captain Bacon dragged the name of a Member of this House into the correspondence?
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether the circulated copies of the letter written by Captain Bacon were in each case accompanied by a request for their return.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that any copies of the letter written by Captain Bacon were circulated.
  Lord BALCARRES: Were the copies of this letter which were sent out by the Admiralty accompanied in each case by a request for their return?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have stated the whole of my information on this subject. It all happened long before I was at the Admiralty.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked whether any letters containing reflections on naval officers had been printed and circulated besides the two letters which had been already officially acknowledged; and, if so, whether these letters in all cases contained observations of value to the naval service?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord must understand that the two letters to which he refers were printed three years ago, two years before I was at the Admiralty. All printed correspondence that I have seen contains observations of value to the naval service. I have not read, and I do not propose to read, all the volumes of printed matter recorded at the Admiralty.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman, in the administration for which he is now responsible, taking steps. to eliminate as far as possible the unnecessary printing of documents of this character, and is he also taking steps to see that they are edited in the way he suggested in some of his answers; further, is he taking steps to see that copies of these private and confidential documents are not allowed to get away from the confidential files of the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I will do, my best not to fail in my duty in these particulars.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked on what date Captain Bacon's letter reflecting on an hon. Member of this House was sent to the printer?
  Mr. McKENNA: In April, 1906, immediately, or almost immediately, after its. receipt.

  Proposed Pier at Tawin.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND (for Mr. Duffy)asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Department is aware of the fact that Dr. Sheamus O'Beirne, of Tawin, Oran-more, county Galway, has been compelled, in the interests of the fishing industry at Tawin, to organise an Irish play, which is to be produced at Galway, Dublin, and other centres in the near future, in order to raise funds for the desirable purpose of erecting a pier at Tawin; and whether, seeing the local assistance provided in this way, as well as the proffered grant from the county council of Galway. the Department can now see their way to give some substantial assistance to enable the pier to be constructed
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Mr. T. W. Russell): As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's question of 29th March on this subject, the construction of a suitable pier at Tawin would be a very costly work, and the Department, in the present state of their funds, cannot undertake to cooperate unless a substantial portion of the cost be provided locally. The county council suggested five years ago that a pier costing£600 should be erected, towards which they offered a contribution of£200. The Department are advised that a work costing£600 would not be very satisfactory, as it would only afford shelter for

  827
  hookers and fishing boats in fine weather. No offer of local assistance to a larger or more suitable work has been made.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that locally a strong effort is being made to raise money for this purpose, and in view of the great necessity for this pier, will he reconsider the matter?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: When I spoke of local assistance, I meant assistance from the county council.

  Acreage of Barley (Ireland).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), in reference to the agricultural statistics just issued showing an acreage under the barley crop of 154,596 acres in 1908, as compared with 170,431 in 1907, whether he will state the acreage of that crop for the years 1800, 1885, 1890, 1895, and 1900 respectively?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, publish with to-night's Votes, a statement giving the particulars asked for.

  Holbein's "Duchess of Milan."
  Mr. B. S. STRAUSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the sale of the Holbein picture, "Duchess of Milan," by the Duke of Norfolk, and of the offer of the Government to subscribe£10,000 for the repurchase of the picture in the interests of the nation, he will cause a search to be made in the calendars of the Close Roll to see whether, in the inventory of the Arundel Acts, passed in the third year of the reign of Charles I., this picture was entailed as a heirloom, thus making it illegal for the Duke of Norfolk to dispose of any more than his life interest in it?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Act referred to in this question is a private Act, and operates as a family settlement of the property belonging to the then Earl of Arundel. It makes provision for fixtures and heirlooms only so far as they may happen to be included in a schedule or inventory which the parties might make and enrol in the High Court of Chancery, but the making of the schedule or inventory was not obligatory. No schedule is attached to the Act. It does not appear that the Crown has any legal interest in the property settled or is entitled to intervene, but a search will
  828
  be made for the inventory, and if it is found to exist full consideration will be given to the question whether any proceedings are open to the Crown or the matter is one solely for the parties concerned in the settlement made by the Act.
  Mr. STRAUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this picture was in Arundel at the time, and will he do his utmost to have the matter examined carefully?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said so.

  Agricultural Rates Act Renewal.
  Mr. LANE-FOX (for Viscount Helmsley)asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the Yorkshire Union of Agricultural Clubs urging the Government to renew the Agricultural Rates Act; and, if so, whether he is prepared now to give an undertaking to that effect?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have received a number of resolutions to the effect stated, and the matter is under consideration.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will the Prime Minister say when he hopes to be in a position to make an announcement with regard to this very important matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: At no very distant date.

  Income Tax Proposals.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if he can state what evidence he has that only 1,100,000 persons in the United Kingdom contribute to the income tax; and if he includes in this number all those persons who receive dividends from companies from which the tax is deducted but who make no returns for income tax?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The figures are based on the Estimates given by Sir Henry Primrose, Mr. Bowley, and Mr. Chiozza Money, M.P., before the Select Committee. They include those persons receiving dividends from companies whose total income exceeds£160 per annum.
  Mr. FELL: Are there any records in existence by which the numbers of income taxpayers may be estimated beyond the merest estimate, and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the numbers are very much larger than the numbers stated?
  The PRIME MINISTER: These are the opinions of very great experts, and I must refer the hon. Member to their evidence.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if lie will present to the House the particulars of the figures which prove that 9½d. is the average rate of the income tax paid last year by the people who contribute to the tax, that 10¾d. will be the average rate when the income tax is levied at Is. 2d. in the£,and 11£. when the super-tax of 6d. is added?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The figure of 9½d. is arrived at by dividing the total yield of the tax by the aggregate income of taxable persons coming under review by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The other figures are obtained by multiplying the figure of 9½d. by the estimated yield in a full year of the tax after the proposed alterations have been made, excluding and including the super-tax, and dividing by its estimated yield on the existing basis.
  Mr. FELL: Is not it a fact that these figures which have been quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer depend entirely on the number of the income tax taxpayers being approximately accurate, and that this number is an estimate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Necessarily they depend on an estimate. It is the best estimate which we can secure.

  Housing and Town Planning Bill.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that legislation for the better housing of the working classes has been promised in the Gracious Speeches of the Sovereign for 1907, 1908, and 1909, that hopes of reform have been raised thereby, and that the Bill now before the House has received prolonged and patient investigation in Grand Committee, he can make a statement as to when His Majesty's Government intend to take the further steps necessary for passing it into law?
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement made by him at the end of last Session that the Government hoped to pass the Housing and Town Planning Bill through this House at a very early date this Session, he can now say when time will be given for proceeding with the Committee stage of this measure?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the two questions at the same time. We hope to make provision for the further progress of this Bill when the Finance Bill has been read a second time, and soon after Whitsuntide. The Government certainly intend to press this measure through all its stages this Session.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have the Committee of the whole House, as originally intended, or has any change taken place in the Government plans?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. That already has been done.

  Shipbuilding Programme.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether the Government have decided to lay down eight first-class battleships during the current financial year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing at present to add to previous statements.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement made a few days ago by Lord Charles Beresford that he considered it absolutely necessary to lay down eight battleships this year?

  Lord Reay's Committee.
  Colonel WILLIAMSasked what steps the Government are taking to carry out the recommendations of Lord Reay's Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Report of this Committee, as I stated the other day, is being considered by the various Departments concerned, and I am not in a position to state what steps the Government may decide to take upon its recommendations.

  Whitsuntide Recess.
  Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether, now that the Budget Resolutions are through, and having regard to the probability of the House being required to sit much later in the year than usual, and till all summer is past, he can now see his way to extend the Whitsuntide Recess till 7th June, or, if not, will he put down for Thursday and Friday, 3rd and 4th June, such business as will not necessitate a full attendance of Members.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Budget Resolutions have not yet passed their

  831
  Report stage, but I hope they may all be reported to the House by Wednesday next. I am afraid it will not be practicable to extend the Whitsuntide Recess as my hon. Friend suggests.
  It may, perhaps, be convenient for me to inform the House that Thursday, 3rd June, we propose to allot to Supply, and to put down the Revenue Vote 2 as the First Order. On Friday we hope to secure the second reading of the London Elections Bill, and the second reading of the Finance Bill will be taken on the following Monday. [7th June.]
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As we shall only have the Finance Bill in our hands during the short Whitsuntide recess, can the right hon. Gentleman allow a rather longer time between the reassembling of Parliament and the second reading?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Members will have had the Bill in their hands for ten days.

  Vatersay Island.
  Mr. COCHRANEasked whether the Crofters' Commission visited the island of Vatersay during the month of August last for the purposes of making a Report for the information of the Scottish Office and the Congested Districts Commissioners; and whether the Report will be printed as a Parliamentary Paper?
  The LORD ADVOCATE Mr. Ure): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and to the second part is in the negative.
  Mr. COCHRANE: Can the Lord Advocate not see his way to make public this important Report on the Island of Vatersay, on which a large amount of public money has been expended?
  Mr. URE: It would be highly unusual and very inconvenient.

  Department of Agriculture (Scotland).
  Mr. CATHCART WASON (for Mr. Ainsworth)asked whether, in the proposals which are to be submitted in another place with reference to the creation of a Department of Agriculture for Scotland, provision will be made for the appointment of a Vice-President with a seat in Parliament?
  Mr. URE: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire on 20th May.

  Outdoor Relief Act (Friendly Societies).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that The Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1904, does not extend to Scotland, and that the members of the friendly societies there, when applying for parochial relief have their sick aliment taken into account by the parochial authorities, and are thus placed at a disadvantage as compared with England; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?
  Mr. URE: I am aware that the Act referred to does not extend to Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland does not propose to take any action in the matter pending the issue of the Scottish part of the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners.

  Land Purchase in Syre.
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for the year to 31st March, 1908, in which they state, in answer to an application from the settlers in Syre expressing their desire to become tenants instead of purchasers, that such a course is not competent under the powers given to them by their Act; and whether, in view of this statement, he sees any reason to reconsider his opinion that the Congested Districts Boards have power to purchase and hold land?
  Mr. URE: In the case of the Syre Settlement the settlers who applied to become tenants were already the owners of their holdings, having purchased them from the Congested Districts Board, and the Congested Districts Board were, therefore, only in the position of a secured creditor until the purchase moneys should be paid. This is a different case from the preparation of a scheme of settlement for tenants under the crofting tenure on an estate. I see no reason to reconsider the opinion given by my predecessor in office. in which I concurred, that the Congested Districts Board has power to purchase and hold land.

  Wicklow Farm Stock (Veterinary Attendance).
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNORasked the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that in January, 1908,

  833
  the Wicklow County Committee of Agriculture requested the Department of Agriculture to adopt a scheme for providing veterinary attendance in the case of farm stock on the dispensary medical charities system in the county Wicklow; that he then promised to give a 12 months' trial to a veterinary scheme in force in county Wexford before introducing it into Wicklow; and whether, seeing that the Wexford experiment has worked satisfactorily and is practically self-supporting, he will now initiate the same scheme in the county Wicklow?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The request referred to was received by the Department, who replied that, as they had already approved of an experiment in the working of veterinary dispensaries in county Wexford, they would not be prepared to approve of the extension of the scheme until they had gained sufficient experience of the working of the system, and were fully satisfied as to its soundness, particularly with regard to its financial aspect. The experience gained in county Wexford is not yet sufficient to enable the Department to form a judgment as to whether it would be wise to extend the system to other counties. The experiment is being closely watched. Up to the present it has been far from self-supporting, the cost to the county amounting to about£400 for 12 months.

  Court of Criminal Appeal (Sittings).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Attorney-General on how many days the Lord Chief Justice has during this term sat in the Court of Appeal, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and in the King's Bench Division respectively; and who has taken the place of the Lord Chief Justice in the King's Bench Division while he was sitting in the Courts of Appeal and Criminal Appeal?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans) (for the Attorney-General): During the Easter Sittings the Lord Chief Justice of England has sat in the Court of Appeal on 17 days and in the Court of Criminal Appeal on five clays. His Lordship has not sat at all in the King's Bench Division, and no other judge has taken his place in that division while he has been sitting in the other Courts.
  Lord R. CECIL: Am I to understand that the effect of that will be to reduce the staff by the Lord Chief Justice during the whole of this term?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Yes; that is so.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked on how many days the Court of Criminal Appeal has sat during this term; and of how many judges it was composed on each occasion?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Court of Criminal Appeal has sat on sixteen days—up to and including May 21st—during the present term. The court was composed of three judges on eleven occasions, and of five judges on five occasions.
  Lord R. CECIL: Am I right in saying that the judges who composed the Court of Criminal Appeal have been absent from their civil work during a period of 50 judicial days up to the beginning of last week, and I think, now, 64 judicial days up to the present time?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The arithmetic of the Noble Lord is right. The facts are as stated in the answer to the question.
  Mr. J. F. RAWLINSON: Having regard to the pledges given by the Government during the course of the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, do the Government propose to remedy the prevailing state of affairs by the appointment of fresh judges?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That will be referred to in a subsequent answer.

  King's Bench Division (State of Business).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked whether, including cases to be tried before special juries, common juries, without juries, and in the Divisional Court, there are now upwards of 650 matters awaiting hearing in the King's Bench Division; whether the Civil Paper is five months in arrear; whether a large proportion of His Majesty's judges will shortly be absent from London on circuit; and what steps the Government propose to take to remedy this state of things?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The number of actions awaiting hearing in the King s Bench Division at nisi prius is 688, while the number of cases awaiting hearing in the Divisional Court is 131. The "Civil Paper" is, as the Noble Lord states. in arrear, and a number of judges will shortly be absent from London on circuit. As regards the last part of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday last.
  Lord R. CECIL: May I ask whether the Government propose to repeal that clause 2

  835
  of Magna Charta which provides that to no loan will the Crown deny or delay right or justice?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We have no intention to that effect, but perhaps the Noble Lord will put a question to the Prime Minister on the subject.

  Ballysimon Post Office.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Ballysimon, county Limerick, relative to the closing of the post office in that place; has his attention been called to the hardship that this would entail on the people of this locality; how many miles is it from this place to the nearest post office; how long had the post office been established at Ballysimon; and whether, taking into account the inconvenience and loss to the business people and the hardship it would entail on the aged men and women who are in receipt of old age pensions, he will reconsider the matter with the view of reopening this post office?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I have received the memorial, and am having inquiry made on the subject. I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

  Waterford Post Office.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. John Redmond)asked the Postmaster-General if he can state what is the cause of the delay which has taken place in carrying out the enlargement of the post office premises at Waterford; and whether he can now say at what date it is proposed to start the necessary works?
  Mr. BUXTON: Consideration of the scheme of enlargement has been attended with considerable difficulties, and I fear that the building operations cannot be begun for some considerable time yet.

  Post Office Clerks and Telegraphists (Technical Allowance).
  Mr. B. S. STRAUSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the number of male and female' counter clerks and telegraphists in the Eastern Central district, and how many of these have been successful in obtaining the technical increment by the Hobhouse Committee?
  Mr. BUXTON: There are 190 male and 200 female counter clerks and telegraphists
  836
  in the Eastern Central District of London. Of these, seven men have as yet obtained the special technical allowance to which, I presume, my hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. STRAUS: Is not the proportion very much smaller than was intended by the Hobhouse Committee?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have already been in communication with those who represent the employes as to making the necessity to pass a certain examination somewhat less stringent, and I must have experience of that before I consider any further change.

  Collinstown Post Office.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General if he has received a petition from the inhabitants of Collinstown against the proposal to place the new post office a quarter of a mile outside the town; if he is aware that these premises have lately been used for keeping pigs in, and that there is no footpath in front of the house; and whether, in view of the inconvenience of this site to the majority of the inhabitants, he will say what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received a petition from residents of Collinstown and neighbourhood on the subject of the premises proposed for the post office. The matter is not definitely settled, and it now seems possible that other premises may be available.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether if, on one occasion, the premises were not a pig-stye, they were used as a place to keep pigs?
  Mr. BUXTON: They were not going to be used as a pig-stye. I think the obtaining of accommodation was a question of difficulty.
  Captain CRAIG: And you have selected a pig-stye?
  Mr. BUXTON: My impression is that they were not going to be used as a pig-stye. At any rate they are not going to be occupied as a pig-stye.

  Royal Mail Contractors (Fair Wage Clause).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General whether the inquiry into a complaint made in January of last year respecting the wages paid by Messrs. Charles Webster, Limited, royal mail contractors, to the farriers in their employ

  837
  has yet been completed; if so, whether he is now prepared to call upon the firm to observe the fair wage clause by paying their farriers the current rate of wages; and, if the inquiry has not yet been completed, whether he will state the reason for the delay in inquiring into the matter, the facts as stated by the trade union concerned not appearing by the correspondence that has taken place to be disputed?
  Mr. BUXTON: It has been necessary in the case to which my hon. Friend refers to make full inquiry in regard to the wages not only of farriers but also of other classes of workmen employed by Messrs. Charles Webster, Limited, on work incidental to The performance of the mail service. The ease has presented exceptional difficulties, but I hope to be in a position to arrive at a decision at an early date. The existing contract has not the advantage of the new fair wage clause.

  Sunday Postal Work (Scotland).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his desire to employ the least quantity of labour in post offices and among postmen on Sunday in Scotland, and of the fact that where public feeling is against such Sunday work it will be discontinued, he will state what means he adopts to ascertain public feeling on the matter and the public utility of such Sunday work?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is the practice to consult the local authorities in cases where the circumstances appear to justify a reduction in the Sunday services. The hon. Member may be interested to learn that, with the assent of the local authorities, I have recently been able to effect a considerable reduction in the amount of Sunday labour at the post offices at Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Perth, and Elgin, and that the question of making similar alterations at other places is now receiving attention.

  American Mails (Fishguard Route).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a resolution from the Killarney Urban Council asking that the American mails from the South of England and Wales should be despatched by the shortest and most direct route, that is from Paddington viâ Fishguard and Rosslare to Queenstown, thereby saving four hours of time in any other route and reducing delay to the American liners calling at Queenstown;
  838
  whether this route possesses rail, steamship, and other facilities of a first-class order and if he can see his way to favourably consider the proposal mentioned?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have not yet received the resolution referred to by my hon. Friend, but I may say that the advantages afforded by the Fishguard and Rosslare route for forwarding American mails have from time to time received my careful consideration. This route possesses facility for the conveyance of mails of small bulk, and is already being used for the conveyance of American mails from the South and West of England and from South Wales.

  Dublin Board of Works (Secretary's Salary).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY (for Mr. Delany)asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain the circumstances under which the salary of Mr. Williams, the Secretary of the Board of Works, Dublin, was increased from£700 to£800 per annum, and whether an attempt is being made to further increase this official's salary; and can he state what action the Treasury proposes to take in the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Mr. Williams' salary was specially raised to£800 in 1904 on grounds of special merit. No suggestion for increasing that salary is now under consideration, as far as I know.

  Commissioners of Public Works (Dublin).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY (for Mr. Delany)asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that, although the Commissioners of Public Works, Dublin, state that they have no knowledge of the religious belief of their staff, the secretary has been in the habit of asking the clerks at what school they were educated; and, in view of the fact that the Civil Service Commissioners are supposed only to assign to public departments those whom they consider suitable as to age, health, character, and qualifications, will he see that this practice on the part of the secretary is discontinued?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no knowledge as to the questions which the Secretary of the Board of Works, Ireland, may ask of clerks in the office. It is certainly the case that no attempt of any sort is made to inquire into the religious belief of the staff, and the religious belief of individuals has no bearing whatever either on

  839
  the appointments made to the staff or on the subsequent careers of members of the staff. I see no reason to interfere with the present system of inquiries.

  Pension Committee Clerks (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain the delay in having payments made to the clerks of pension committees in Ireland, as no payments have as yet been made for the quarter ended 31st March last?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Out of the 54 Irish Committees 26 have been paid and six have not sent in their accounts. Several more will be paid immediately. Others require further inquiry.

  Shillelagh Board of Guardians.
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that the Shillelagh Board of Guardians have not yet received a refund of the sum of£11 paid by them out of the funds of the union to the officials who prepared a Parliamentary Return respecting poor relief during the year ended 31st March, 1008; and if he can say when the money will be refunded to the board of guardians?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Ireland's share of the grant from the Treasury towards the expenses of collecting statistical information for the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress will now shortly be distributed among the various Trish unions. The payments will be made on a uniform scale, whether or no the officers have already received remuneration from the rates. I may add that it is not the usual rule for payments to be made by the State for statistical information furnished by local authorities to a Royal Commission, and that the payments are not intended as a reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred.

  University Colleges (Government Grant).
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that inconvenience is being experienced by the various university colleges which participate in the Government grant by reason of the delay in publishing the Report of the Advisory Committee of the Treasury made last year, and the Treasury decisions thereon; and whether he can now state when the Report and Minute, which were promised very shortly in March last, are likely to be published?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The questions raised in the Report of the Committee are still under consideration, but I hope that a conclusion will be arrived at very shortly. The grants for the year have already been issued to the various colleges. and I do not. think that they suffer any inconvenience through the Report not having been published.
  Sir W. COLLINS: Is it not the case that ten months have elapsed since the report of this Committee was presented?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; that is so.

  Steamer "Soudan" (Death of Asiatic Fireman).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state when the Asiatic fireman, Esmail Budlee, who died of consumption at sea, on the 3rd February last, on the steamer "Soudan," was discovered to be suffering from that disease; when the seaman was isolated from the rest of the crew; and, if I he symptoms of the disease were detected before the vessel arrived at Durban, why he was not landed at that port instead of being kept on board when the vessel left for Capetown?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I am not aware of the exact dates on which Esmail Budlee was discovered to be suffering from consumption and isolated from the rest of the crew, but it appears that he was placed on the sick list on 7th January. He was under the care of the ship's surgeon, who wrote in the register of sick crew on 1st February, "The man is very ill; it is more cirrhosis of the lungs than consumption. I am feeding up on milk and eggs. It is not desirable to send him into hospital." I do not know the doctor's reasons for the treatment adopted.

  Whisky Charges (House of Commons).
  Sir ROBERT HOBARTasked the right hon. and gallant Member for West Essex (Epping Division), as acting Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware that the charges in the refreshment rooms of the House of Commons for whisky were recently raised from 3d. to 4d. for the half-glass, and from 6d. to 7d. for the full glass; whether these charges have now been reduced to 3½d. for the half-glass and 6½d. for the full glass: whether he will state on what grounds these charges have been raised and then lowered: whether this whisky has been stored in the House

  841
  of Commons cellars for some years, and, if so, how long and in what quantity; and whether this whisky has paid any additional duty under the Budget Resolutions, or if the price has been advanced before any extra duty has been paid?
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: With the idea of meeting a deficit and a falling revenue by taxing luxuries, and perhaps with the hope of increasing temperance by limiting the alcoholic expenditure of hon. Members, my esteemed colleague the Member for Mid-Derbyshire placed a super-tax on whisky of 1d. per portion, raising the price from:3d. to 4d. and from 6d. to 7d. The increase of ½d on each portion would show a slight profit on the increased duty. There is probably enough whisky—Irish and Scotch—to last this Session. In order, however, to meet the wishes of hon. Members, and in view of an arduous Session, the Committee decided to remit ½d. of the supertax, leaving only an increased price of½d. per measure, leaving the prices at 3½d. and 6½d. respectively. Members can avoid paying the odd ½d. by purchasing two portions instead of one.

  Tobacco Duty (Proposed Increase).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state on what basis of reduced consumption or otherwise the estimated yield of the proposed increase of the tobacco duty is calculated to produce£1,900,000 in 1909-10 and ultimately£2,250,000; and what proportion of this£2,250,000 will be raised in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): In estimating the yield of the proposed increase of the duty at£1,900,000 for the current financial year, as against£2,250,000 in a full year, I have allowed for the fact that the additional duties being imposed as from the 30th ultimo they are applicable only to 11 months of 1909-10. I have also taken into account the forestalments in March and April, and the probability of some decrease in consumption.
  The contributions in a full year from England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland respectively are estimated to be as follows:—

  England and Wales

  £1,799,000

  Scotland

  238,000

  Ireland

  213,000

  £2,250,000

  Liquor Licence Duties.
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the estimated yield of£2,600,000 for 1909-10 arising from the increase of Liquor Licence Duties, whether he will state what proportion it is calculated will be raised in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is anticipated that of the total estimated yield of £2,600,000 about 90 per cent. will be contributed by England and Wales; about 6 per cent. by Scotland, and about 4 per cent. by Ireland; but sufficient data are not available for framing a precise estimate.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman does not give those figures as absolutely correct; they are only an estimate?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is all you can give. There are no precise data for the purpose, as the hon. Member knows very well.

  Stamp Duties, Death Duties and Income Tax.
  Mr. KETTLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion did the yield of the Stamp Duties in Ireland bear to the yield of the Stamp Duties in Great Britain in the years 1907-8 and 1908-9 respectively; and what were the actual figures of the yield?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked: (1) What was the gross and what was the net assessment to Income Tax in Ireland and Great Britain respectively for the years 1894-5 and 1907-8? (2) What proportion did the yield of the Death Duties in Ireland bear to the yield of the Death Duties in Great Britain in the years 1907-8 and 908-9 respectively, and what were the actual figures in each case.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would take some time to read the figures asked for by the hon. Member, but I am causing the particulars, so far as available, to be printed with the Votes. The proportions, however, are as follows: Of Death Duties the yield in Ireland in 1907-8 was 1-28th of the total yield for the United Kingdom, and of stamps 1-27th; while the amount of income on which tax was received in Ireland in the same year was 1-23rd of the total for the United Kingdom.—[See Written. answers this date.]
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Have those proportions been based on the taxable capacity of the two countries?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is rather debatable.

  Pension Officers (Ireland).
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN (for Mr. John Redmond)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the pension officers in Ireland have refused to accept returns obtained by the United Irish League in Dublin from the Record Office as proof of age of applicants for old age pensions in Ireland; whether there is any necessity for the applicant to obtain copies of the record of age personally; and whether the practice of the pension officers has inflicted hardship in Ireland?
  Captain CRAIG: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether he is aware that the pension officers in Ireland, or any other person, is quite right not to accept any reference obtained by the United Irish League in Ireland which are most unreliable?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Under the Statute they are entitled to take information from whatever quarter they may get it. Under the statutory regulations the investigation of the evidence of claimants for old age pensions devolves on the pension officer, and he must be satisfied before forwarding a claim to the pension committee that the applicant is over 70. He cannot therefore accept the evidence of age produced by the United Irish League without first satisfying himself that it is correct, and this he does by reference to the Census Office. If arrangements could be made for the Census Office to give the united Irish League some form of certificate without additional fee in cases of successful search by them, such certificate could be accepted without further investigation. There is no necessity for the claimant to an old age pension to obtain evidence of age from the Census Office. This, if desired, will always be undertaken by the pension officer. I am not aware that any hardship has been inflicted on a pensioner by reason of the action of the pension officers in this matter.

  Empire Day.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War a question, of which have given him private notice, namely,
  844
  on what grounds—after all arrangements have been made—a telegram was sent to the Headmaster of Harrow School forbidding any boys belonging to the Officers', Training Corps joining in the Empire Day parade this afternoon?
  Mr. HALDANE: The answer to the question is on two grounds: The first is that neither this Government nor the late Government has ever recognised Empire Day officially; the second ground is that the Army is a whole, and the Officers' Training Corps is part of, and subject to the same conditions as apply to the Army.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask if Empire Day is a political celebration?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not an urgent question.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask whether, since the Postmaster-General has permitted postal servants in uniform to attend Empire Day celebration why should not the schoolboys be allowed to do so?
  Mr. HALDANE: The Postmaster-General does not run an Army.

  Naval Programme.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice. Is there any justification for the confident statements that are being made in the Press that the Government has now resolved to proceed with the four contingent "Dreadnoughts" in the current year, and, if so, would he communicate to the House the new evidence which has led to that important decision?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I said a few moments ago, in answer to a question from the other side, the Government have nothing to add to their previous statement. Anything which may have appeared in the Press is nothing but conjecture.

  Wreck of "Isle of Erin" (Coast Communication).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a Report of the Board of Trade inquiry into the total loss of the "Isle of Erin" with all hands off North Ronald-shay on 19th October, 1908; if his attention has been directed to the finding of the court that telegraphic communication should be established between North Ronaldshay and Sanday, not only on the ground of the advantage to the 460

  845
  inhabitants of the island, but with reference to the fact that a large part of the shipping between the North Sea and the Atlantic passes the lighthouse at North Ronaldshay, which would form a desirable signal station, so that in the event of any ship being in distress effectual assistance could be promptly rendered from the neighbouring ports in Orkney; and if he will confer with the Postmaster-General and the Secretary for Scotland, representing the Congested Districts Board, with reference to establishing telegraphic communication with Sanday?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: I have received the Report of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the "Isle of Erin." This contains a recommendation that telegraphic communication should be established between the islands of North Ronaldshay and Sanday, and I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that they have addressed the Postmaster-General in support of the petition which the inhabitants of North Ronaldshay have presented to my right hon. Friend in favour of such communication. I am not prepared to say at present whether it is a case in which any substantial part of the expense should be charged upon the General Lighthouse Fund, but the matter will receive careful consideration by the Board of Trade after communicating with the other Departments interested.

  Ladies' Gallery Regulations.
  Mr. B. S. STRAUS: I desire to ask you, Sir, a question of which I have given private notice, that is, whether you cannot see your way to make some change in the way in which Members have to keep their tickets when successful in the ballot for the Ladies' Gallery for two members of their family? Whereas it is a physical impossibility for two ladies to sit through the whole of the sitting, would it not be possible for a Member to transfer those tickets to another member of his family, so that the Gallery might not be left so empty as it is at present without in any way contravening what is, I understand, your decision that the tickets shall only be allowed to be transferable to the members of a family of a Member successful in the ballot?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It has been brought to my notice that the Ladies' Gallery is not used to a very great extent from after dinner to the rising of the House. It has occurred to me that it might be convenient to hon. Members if we gave some further
  846
  facilities for using the Gallery. What I propose to carry out after Whitsuntide will be this: At the present time when lion. Members ballot only the first 18 that come out receive tickets for lady relatives; after Whitsuntide there will be 36 names drawn. The first 18 will receive tickets for their lady relatives which will be available from the meeting of the House up to a quarter past eight o'clock. The second 18 on the list will receive tickets available from a quarter-past eight o'clock to the rising of the House. I hope that will lead to the convenience of hon. Members. By referring also to the Sergeant-at-Arms they can at any time change from one to the other if they obtain the sanction of an hon. Member who is willing to effect an exchange with them.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Would you, Sir, also be good enough to arrange that Members who have succeeded in obtaining places in the Gallery, may, if they so desire, at intervals during the sitting transfer their places to the relatives of other Members, so that if a lady, after being in the Gallery for an hour or two, either before or after dinner, wished to go away, the place might not remain vacant?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be a more doubtful policy. I think that, at all events for the present, what I have suggested ought to suffice. It places on the Member the responsibility for the conduct of those whom he may introduce to the Gallery.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the second 13 be available after dinner only in the event of there being room, or will they be entitled to places?
  Mr. SPEAKER: They will be entitled to go in at a quarter-past eight.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask how far the Government intend to go with the Budget Resolutions to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: As far as we can reasonably get. We shall leave the matter to the House.
Mr. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his idea of reasonableness?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall be guided entirely by the general wish of the House.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask when the Prime Minister intends to move the adjournment for the Whitsuntide recess?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday, and I think it would be for the general convenience that we should have a morning sitting.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: At 10 o'clock?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Mr. BALFOUR: I quite understand the view of the Prime Minister as to the convenience of having an early sitting; but if the Debate begins at 10 o'clock, it can hardly be a Debate in the ordinary sense of the word, and I am afraid the result would be, practically, to deprive the House of its ordinary privilege of raising any matter on the Motion for adjournment. As far as I know, my Friends have nothing particular to raise—at all events, I have nothing to raise; therefore, I am speaking in the general interest of the House. I think it would be undesirable to meet at so early an hour.
The PRIME MINISTER: I quite recognise the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I thought an early sitting would be for the general convenience, so that Members could get away by the afternoon trains; but, of course, if it is generally desired, a later hour can be arranged.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
Mr. WATT—Milk Control (Scotland)—Bill to provide for the better regulation of the sale of Milk in Scotland. (To be read a second time upon 15th June.)
Mr. WATT—Votes by Proxy—Bill to abolish Votes by Proxy at meetings of incorporated companies. (To be read a second time upon 15th June.)
Mr. SOARES—Small Holdings (No. 2)—Bill to amend The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. (To be read a second time upon 4th June.)
Mr. DICINSON—Vagrancy Act Amendment—Bill to amend The Vagrancy Act, 1824, and to facilitate the establishment of labour colonies. (To be read a second time upon 4th June.)

WAYS AND MEANS.

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS. REPORT.
  Resolution reported:—
  Resolution reported

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS. REPORT.

    SPIRITS IMPORTED.
    That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

    s.

    d.

    For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description except perfumed spirits

    3

    9

    For every gallon of perfumed spirits

    6

    0

    For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

    5

    5

    and the duties of Customs on the articles hereafter mentioned, being articles in which spirit is contained, or in the manufacture of which spirit is used, shall be proportionately increased and shall be as follows:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Chloral hydrate

    the 1b.

    0

    1

    9

    Chloroform

    the 1b.

    0

    4

    4

    Collodion

    the gallon

    1

    14

    11

    Ether acetic

    the 1b.

    0

    2

    7

    Ether butyric

    the gallon

    1

    1

    10

    Ether sulphuric

    the gallon

    1

    16

    6

    Ethyl, iodide of

    the gallon

    0

    19

    0

    Ethyl bromide

    the 1b

    0

    1

    5

    Ethyl chloride

    the gallon

    1

    1

    10

    —[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

    Resolution read a second time.
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I understand that it is the Motion to recommit the Resolution in respect of liquor supplied in clubs that is now before the House, and not the Amendment dealing with spirits distilled in the Colonies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to move the Amendment?
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is why I called on the hon. Member.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Would not the Motion to recommit the Resolution take precedence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will kindly look at the Order Paper, he will see that everything is perfectly in order. I called on the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. W. W. Rutherford) because he proposes to move an Amendment to the Resolution which has just been read.
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: That is what I thought. It was in consequence of a suggestion of my hon. Friend that I was out of order that I asked the question.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: If my hon. Friend moves his Amendment, will it not afterwards be too late to move the re-committal of the Resolution?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion for re-committal refers to another Resolution altogether, as the hon. Member will see if he kindly looks at the Order Paper.
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORDmoved to add, after the figures "5.5," the words:" Provided that, asp respects spirits distilled in the Colonies and British dominions, the duties of Customs for each gallon computed at proof shall not exceed the duty of Excise payable on spirits distilled in the United Kingdom."
    I wish to place before the House the point of view of the Colonies with regard to this Resolution. Probably very few Members are aware that at present the Colonies which produce spirits in large quantities are handicapped to the extent of 4d. per proof gallon. The present duty is 11s. per proof gallon of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom, whereas the Customs duty on Colonial spirits is 11s. 4d. If the proposed 3s. 9d. is added to both the result will be that Colonial spirits will have to pay 15s. 1d., whereas homemade spirits will pay only 14s. 9d., and the British Colonies consider this 4d. a very serious handicap. The difference has been in existence for about 40 years, the main ground on which the 4d. was proposed and fixed being to compensate for the grain duty. The grain duty was undoubtedly a tax upon all those who made spirits in the United Kingdom; but the grain duty having been abolished—and I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that from his point of view it has been abolished for ever—it certainly seems unfair to maintain as against our Colonies this handicap of 4d. upon what they produce.
    This 4d., although it is only 4d. out of 15s. 1d., is, when you come to look at the interest and value of the article, which
    850
    varies from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon intrinsically before the duty is paid, will be seen by the House to be a very large tax indeed, and a very substantial handicap. The whole of our West Indian Colonies, almost without exception, have been protesting for the last 30 years against this unfair handicap of 4d. a gallon.
    1 may mention to the House that the subject was carefully inquired into by a Commission in 1898-9. The right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was one of the three Members of that important Commission. The Members went out to the West Inches and took evidence. In addition to that they carefully examined into the affair in England with the Customs authorities. The Commission was unanimously of opinion that the 4d. a gallon should be taken off. I venture to put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no doubt it might have been a difficult matter to bring forth a substantive Bill for the purpose of taking off this 4d., but when an all-round increase is being raised of 3s. 9d. on English spirits and a corresponding sum on Colonial spirits, it does seem to be a favourable opportunity for abolishing this, which is unfair protection. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be one of the first Members of this House to say, "Let us do away with Protection, especially when this protection is an unfair one." Especially when it is against our own Colonies, our own kith and kin, and especially when it was put on for a reason which has disappeared—viz., grain duty. Add to all that that it has been reported upon by one of the ablest Commissions that ever carefully inquired into any Colonial matter, and who unanimously advised that it should be abolished. Of course, I know that it is the wish of the majority of the Members of this House to proceed to the Debate on the general subject. After all, this is to some extent a side issue, though a very important side issue for the Colonies. I can assure the House there is no Colony to-day—on this Empire Day—that is not looking to see what we are going to do with regard to this matter. I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me—although I know that this point has perhaps been sprung upon him—whether he will take it into consideration, and give me some hope that it will be looked into, and especially that he will look into the Report of the Commission. If he will give me the answer I seek, I will be content to ask leave not to proceed with this Amendment further, so as

    851
    not to delay discussion on the general topic. The effect of the Amendment will be simply that when increasing these duties, British and Colonial spirits should be put absolutely on a par without fear, favour, or preference.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I second the Amendment.
    Question proposed: "That the following words be added at the end of the Resolution: Provided that, as respects spirits distilled in the Colonies and British dominions, the duties of Customs for each gallon computed at proof shall not exceed the duty of Excise payable on spirits distilled in the United Kingdom'."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This matter was looked into very carefully by the late Government. They had a correspondence extending over a considerable period of time with the Colonial Governments in respect to it. It is perfectly true that the Commission appointed to inquire into the position of the West Indies did say something that rather supports the view taken by the hon. Member (Mr. W. W. Rutherford). But they did not. include it in their Report.
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: Oh, yes.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not quite. I have now in front of me the letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. There had been a correspondence conducted between the Treasury, Lord St. Aldwyn, and the Colonial Government, and there was a very careful inquiry into the matter by the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was then Colonial Secretary, and he wrote a letter to the West Indian Colonies. I do not think I could do better than quote it. That letter deals very precisely and very effectively with the 'whole point. He says:—
    "In 1897 the question was brought into prominence owing to the appearance of the Report of the West India Royal Commission, in which the surtax was adversely criticised. In their Report the Commissioners summed up their conclusions on the subject as follows: 4'IAre do not wish to attach very much importance to this question of the extra duty on ruin in connection with the present inquiry. The removal of it will not save the sugar industry. nor even materially improve its condition; but it is felt as a hardship. and its levy seems to us to he unsound in principle.'"
    Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on:
    "They, did not, however, treat the matter as urgent, as they did not refer to it in their formal recommendations; and their arrangements did not appear to His Majesty's Government to he conclusive. His Majesty's
    852
    Government therefore decided not to include in the measures of relief which they had settled to propose, in consequence of the Report of the Commissioners, any attempt to deal directly with the surtax."
    That is the view taken by the right hon.. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
    "They. however, took note of the fact that the Commission corroborated tile view that the surtax might, in sonic measure. operate to the disadvantage of the West. Indian Colonies; and they therefore agreed—"
    This point is somewhat important:—
    " that the assistance to be given to the West Indies as a whole should be on a more liberal settle than that recommended by the Commission, in the hope that the various Colonies might, if they so wished, be enabled to deal with the difficulty themselves. The view of the imperial Government was that these Colonies would, if placed on a sounder financial basis, be in a position to tree their exports from tiny fiscal burdens, and, if they chose, to make allowances on the export, of nun, similar to those which are made in the United Kingdome on the export of British spirits."
    So the hon. Member will see that the position is this: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not come to the conclusion that the case had been made out for taking away the surtax. On the contrary, he said that the Government of which he was a Member had decided against it. But he thought that it might be an element in the consideration of the financial assistance which was given the Colonies, and, therefore, he recommended the late Government to increase their subsidy to the West Indies in order to enable the West Indies to make financial arrangements that would get rid of the disadvantage of this extra surtax. Having done so, he went beyond that. He gave the impression that the West Indies. themselves were partly responsible for the difficulties of the situation.
    The letter dealt very fully with the instructions given to Mr. Steele (who was sent over) to enable the West Indians to. rearrange their fiscal system in such a way as to make this surtax less of a burden than it was. Mr. Steele came back and presented his report; the late Government decided that the grievances alleged by the West Indian Committee were not such as to call for any remedies beyond the general improvement in the Excise system of the island, and that they were not such as needed any grant from the Imperial funds. That was the report. We have simply accepted the decision which they came to. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. W. Rutherford) will agree that the case. had careful and sympathetic investigation and treatment by the then Colonial Secretary. He came to the conclusion that nothing could be done. For that reason I think it is quite impossible to depart from the decision of my predecessors.
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: In withdrawing the Amendment I would just like to say that this suggestion that the Colonies should get an export bounty of 4d. was about the best thing the present Chancellor of the Exchequer could have approved of.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORDmoved to insert at the end of the Resolution the words: "Provided always that, there being no duty of Excise on spirits distilled and methylated in the United Kingdom, spirits distilled in the Colonies, whether methylated in the Colonies or in the United Kingdom, after importation, shall be similarly free from duty of Customs."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in moving his Amendment as it stands. He must take out the word "always" and the words from "that "to" spirits," and also the word "similarly." The Amendment will then read: "Provided that spirits distilled in the Colonies, whether methylated in the Colonies or in the United Kingdom, after importation, shall be free from duty of Customs."
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move the Amendment as you have altered it, Sir. I simply desire to say this: That it would probably conic upon this House, and upon the various Members of it, with a great deal of surprise to find that when spirits are manufactured in the United Kingdom and methylated, so as to be used for business purposes, and not to be consumed, there is no duty upon them whatever. Supposing, however, these spirits come from the West Indies or from our other Colonies, if it is intended to methylate them in the United Kingdom there is a duty of 5d. per gallon, and the result of that handicap is that the Colonies, our kith and kin, have very great difficulties in conducting their business in the West Indies. Having regard to these other conditions they find that they are entirely cut out of the market for the purpose of distilling spirits to he used for trade purposes. They have got a climate and they have got the means of growing articles that will produce spirits that can be methylated, and which can be of the greatest possible me for all sorts of trade purposes. These spirits have to come to this country to be dealt with as a matter of business. There is an actual duty of 5c1. per gallon charged against these spirits which come in to be methylated. The
    854
    position is even worse if the Colonies methylate their own spirit. They have to pay 11 s. 4d. per proof gallon, and if this Resolution is carried they will actually be paying duty to the extent of 15s. 1d. I do suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he is making a sweeping change of this kind, such as involved in this Resolution, of putting 3s. 9d. extra on, it is an opportunity for putting right one or two of these very serious anomalies that do so seriously affect our West Indian Colonies. I should have thought it was almost unnecessary to do more than to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the facts which I have fairly stated in order that some reasonable amount of. justice might be given to our Colonial brethren. I beg to move.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to second. the Amendment.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Amendment which the hon. Member has moved is an Amendment intended to give preference to Colonial spirits over foreign spirits. The Government cannot accept an Amendment which would clearly give a preference to Colonial spirits which they have, not at present, and which, we think, ought. not to occur in the future.
    Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: May I be allowed, in withdrawing this Amendment, to say I did expect that the Government would entertain more favourably the suggestion made of doing away with this case of gross injustice. However, I will endeavour to put down this Amendment on Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: As this general Resolution is one which was the least cussed on the night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his financial statement, and as such discussion as there was was confined to a few Members from Ireland below the Gangway, whose patriotism enabled them on the spur of the moment to devise a means of raising discussion, I desire now to say a few. words. Scotland is considerably harder hit than that part of the United Kingdom which is represented by hon. Members, from Ireland, and therefore, as no statement practically has been made, except the very abundant protests which

    855
    have been addressed to hon. Members from Scotland, as to Scotland's attitude on this tax it is necessary that her position should be made clear. It will probably be necessary for me for the last time to trouble the House upon this question, because I have no doubt I shall arouse a protest in the large ranks of the Government's supporters who come from Scotland, and whose absence from the Benches opposite this afternoon when this question which is one of the very first importance for their constituencies is under discussion I ask the House to mark, will no doubt in the future take part in this Debate. Many of those hon. Members have an intimate and a personal acquaintance with the intricacies of the trade which I cannot for the moment attempt to have. They unite that intimate acquaintance and personal interest with this trade with an openness of mind for all the views of the extreme teetotal party, including local option, which proves them to be possessed of at least a very comprehensive toleration. There are some of them who would not for a moment think of helping the trade. They would have no more to do with it than, shall I say, a Member of the present Cabinet would have to do with the National flag if he saw it floating in his neighbourhood on Empire Day. But this is not a question of temperance. I do not think there is any Member in any part of this House who would not support some great movement calculated to make for the promotion of temperance in the country. At the same time if this tax, which has been imposed in the Budget, was intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a temperance move I am sure that I should not support it. I do not believe that you will ever make a nation sober or temperate in the right sense of the word by Act of Parliament. I am still more convinced that you will never make people sober or temperate by a Budget. It is false economy, it is false finance, and it is following a false course of social legislation. This must be dealt with purely and simply as a matter of business, and as a matter of business I intend to deal with it as it affects Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the last of all men who can pretend to turn an indifferent ear to the cries of this trade. Least of all men can he denounce it as an accursed trade with which he will have nothing to do, because of all partners in that trade the right hon. Gentleman is the predominant partner. That is a consideration that hardly occurs
    856
    I think with sufficient force in this country to those who do not carefully examine this tax. Other taxes represent to a very small extent the value of the ordinary purchase. The Chancellor of the Exchequer puts a tax upon them, puts on taxes which are small in amount after all only a trifle as compared with the cost. At this moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a sharer in the whisky trade to more than two-thirds of its actual value. Less than one-third of the whole of the product goes to recoup the capitalist for his outlay and loss of interest, the workman for his work, the farmer for his grain, the lessor for his rent, the middleman for dispensing the article throughout the world. All that must come out of the one miserable sum of one-third, while the exaggerated sum of two-thirds goes, without any reduction from it, into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the present proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a partner in this iniquitous trade, ought, first and foremost, to be abolished in this country. He is a partner to the extent of five-sixths and more of the value of the article. It is useless to talk of this tax as a matter of temperance; it is a matter of business, and as such the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents the largest interest in that particular trade. Now I ask, as a matter of business, is this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer financially sound? Can it be financially sound to impose any tax the result of which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion, instead of raising six millions or seven millions, which it ought to raise if the trade is to stand in its present financial annual value, is only calculated, according to the Chancellor, to raise £1,600,000? Is that sound finance? Is it not doing away with the very source of the revenue itself?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It could not raise seven millions this year on the present basis, even if there was no decrease as the result of the tax. The hon. Member has forgotten that there are only 11 months in the financial year, and, in addition, he has forgotten all the forestalments.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I quite understand the point the right hon. Gentleman has made. I was not speaking only of this year. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a full year when he gave the figure of £1,600,000. I do not think he gave us the figure for the full year, but I do not think it would reach anything like

    857
    the figure which it would if the present output of the trade was preserved. I understand that in his general estimate the right hon. Gentleman allows 10 or 11 per cent. reduction. That is not the estimate I know which is placed upon it outside as the permanent reduction. What are the real facts in Scotland? I am taking now the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a question put upon the Paper by an hon. Member from Ireland. From that answer it appears that in Scotland there are 163 distilleries, in Ireland 30, and in England nine. Roughly, without going into details, Scotland produces about 24 million gallons per yeas on the average of the last three years, England about 13 million gallons, and Ireland about 12—not very far off half is produced in Ireland as compared with Scotland. The total taxation upon that at the rate of 3s. 9d. per gallon would be— I am again taking the right hon. Gentleman's figures—£9,200,000, and as Scotland would pay about half, £4,550,000 is a fair distribution between the other two countries. I tried to raise the other day with the right hon. Gentleman another aspect of the case. I pointed out to him the heavy burden which would fall upon Scotland. He denied that, of course, and he declared the effects of the tax would fall over the whole of the consumers as if the fact that Scotland paid far more as compared with Ireland the whisky sold over the whole world was to be taken as a reason for supposing that the consumers over the whole world would bear the burden of this form of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman told me that I was ignorant of the fact that this tax would fall upon the consumer. I have not the least objection to the right hon. Gentleman ascribing to ignorance what is a well-known difference of opinion between those who hold certain views on this side of the House and those on the other side, and is almost as old as the discussion on primitive man in Debates on fiscal questions. I do not object to the use of the rhetorical figure ascribing ignorance. It does no harm, and it leaves us with our own opinions still. The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the fact that the main burden of this tax must fall upon the producing industry, and that it is the country that produces the most of this article, which has the most financial interests connected with the trade. and owes its economic prosperity to the trade, which is chiefly affected by an abnormally heavy tax like this. The consumer will suffer
    858
    also, but I will challenge any Scottish Member—if he has studied the representations made to him from his Constituency—to deny the fact that this enormous and disproportionate tax, laid upon an industry that is almost the exclusive property of one portion of the kingdom, will fall not upon the consumer but upon those connected with the production of whisky.
    Let the House consider how the manufacture of whisky has become so closely connected with Scotland, and what this connection really means. I am not going to refer at any length to the statistics of old times, but it is not uninteresting to examine how whisky production has arisen in Scotland. Some 150 years ago there was. no very large production of whisky in Scotland at all. About the year 1740 a monopoly was granted to a Mr. Forbes, of Cu1loden, to manufacture whisky free of duty for all time, but he surrendered that right for a sum of £30,000. The fact is that whisky at that time was a drink produced in the extreme Highlands of Scotland, beyond the net of the tax-gatherer, and its consumption did not extend into the Lowlands to any great extent, because they had a very much better drink in pure French brandy—how it got to Scotland we need not ask too many questions about. Anyone who looks at the history of Scotland will find that the chief consumption of spirit was pure French brandy—an article which is now only within the reach of millionaires, and perhaps their consumption of it will have to be reduced under the super-tax proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There was really no export trade in whisky 100 years ago. In the year 1770 or 1774 Dr. Johnson speaks of seeing whisky as a curiosity for the first time which he dare not drink, but which he thought was suitable for the savages he met in the Highlands. Whisky was little known in the Lowlands of Scotland 120 years ago. What led to the great rise in whisky production in Scotland? Forty or fifty years ago what was the ordinary drink in London? The ordinary drink then was a brandy and soda, and it became a sort of phrase which lived in literature, and the curious inquirer wondered how it arose. At the present time in London you scarcely ever hear anyone call for a brandy and soda,. and it is nearly always a whisky and soda, and what has caused this change? Simply the fact that you had to get rid of the vile concoction which was sold under the name of brandy, which was the vilest poison that could pass the lips of man What was

    859
    wanted was a really pure, unadulterated, simple spirit, and that was found in whisky. It was that fact that gave the go to whisky 40 or 50 years ago, and now it is constantly seen on every table and at every bar in every restaurant.
    This brings me to the consumer, because he has an interest in this question as well. Surely the veriest vanity for total abstinence will not contend that I am exaggerating when I say that 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of this country do partake of alcohol in some form or other, and out of that 90 per cent. surely not 1 per cent. are habitual drunkards. If this heavy burden is not being imposed on account of the consumption of whisky by habitual drunkards, what is the conclusion to which we are driven? It is because the vast mass of this product, which has done so much to enrich my own country, has become a valuable product, recognised as valuable by those living south of the Tweed, recognised as a fairly wholesome spirit ordered in thousands of cases by doctors, and consumed by hundreds of thousands and millions of people just as respectable and just as little habitual drunkards as hon. Members I see sitting around me. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that the vast mass of the consumption of whisky is by people who wish to take alcohol in the form of a little whisky and water, which is the most moderate, digestible and wholesome form of taking alcohol. There are thousands of people who cannot afford your cheap claret, and they take whisky and water as their habitual drink, and they get a cheap and fairly wholesome and unadulterated spirit. This spirit is the product which the right hon. Gentleman is taxing to a degree which, I believe, is absolutely unparalleled in the history of taxation. The ordinary price of the cheaper quality of whisky is about 6s. a gallon, and 4s. 9d. of that is going to be taken in duty, which will leave 1s. 3d. per gallon to the manufacturer to pay interest on his capital and to pay his workmen, and buy the barley and also pay the profit which must be absorbed by the middleman. In any case nobody will be able to point to a tax bearing such an enormously exaggerated proportion to the value of the product on which the tax is laid.
    It is only some 50 years since the tax was assimilated in Ireland, Scotland, and England. Before 1860 there was a differential tax in each country, and the tax in
    860
    Ireland and Scotland was less than it is in England. In 50 years you have raised this tax to 3s. 9d. per gallon, and you have absolutely trebled the tax on this product in Scotland. During that 50 years the production of whisky has become an important industry in Scotland, and I want to point out to the House what this means to Scotland. There are 7,000,000 gallons of pure Highland malt whisky produced every year in Scotland, in addition to 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 gallons of other sorts. I am row speaking chiefly of the pure malt whisky, the production of which is connected chiefly with the north of Scotland and is an indigenous manufacture there. It is the finest quality of whisky, and it is known as such all over the world. In order to produce that 7,000,000 gallons of whisky 3,200,000 bushels of barley are annually bought from producers distributed over two or three of the northern counties at a cost of about £500,000. Over and over again the farmers who produce this barley have told me that they dread this tax. It is a well-known fact that the November rent of these farmers is paid out of the cheque they receive for barley from the brewers. In Scotland there is 100,000 acres of land annually under barley-for this object alone. Upon a trade such as this, producing work where employment is hard to find, and giving help to the agricultural industry, for which hon. Members opposite profess themselves anxious to do so much—upon a trade which turns out such a valuable by-product for the feeding of cows, the value of which is acknowledged by every farmer in Scotland—it is upon this industry, in a poor struggling country, that the right hon. Gentleman places a tax which is abnormal in proportion to the value of the product. I ask the House to discredit a tax which I consider to be financially wrong, posing though it does under the guise of temperance legislation. It is also, I believe. financially unsound, and I do not think that it will yield the amount of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates, while it will be disastrous to a Scotch manufacture. It is also most unjust, and I believe that one half of the whole incidence will fall on the smallest, the poorest, and the least populated part of Scotland.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I agree to a large extent with the views which have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I cannot, however,

    861
    agree with him when lie represents that part of Scotland to which he referred as the poorest and least populous part of the United Kingdom. I think that I must make a tragic exception in the case of Ireland, the population of which has decreased by one-half during the last fifty years.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I was speaking solely with reference to Scotland.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then I must modify my statement, but I may say that the party to which I have the honour to belong will oppose the tax. I remember a startling incident in this House which occurred in June, 1885. There was then a combination between the Members above the Gangway on this side of the House, and what was then called the Parnellite party against the proposal of the Liberal Government, of which Mr. Childers was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to increase the duty on whisky. That combination succeeded in putting the Liberal Government in a minority, but the difference between that historical event and the present is that the whisky tax which we succeeded in preventing being imposed, and by preventing it we succeeded in destroying the Government of the day, was that the increase was Is., whereas the present tax is 3s. 9d. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this tax is not only financially unfair, but that it will never succeed in the promotion of temperance. In fact, in my opinion, it will rather promote intemperance. On the question of its financial unsoundness our position is this. We regard the production of whisky in Ireland as a manufacture. I am quite prepared to admit that the difference between whisky drinking and tea drinking is in favour of tea drinking, that is so far as my personal taste is concerned. Our position is this,. that whisky drinking is one of the few Irish manufactures left. Take away shipbuilding, which is confined to Belfast. Take away the manufacture of linen, take away sporadic weaving and we have only one industry left, and that is the manufacture of whisky. Everybody knows that you see a drinking man reformed if at a London dinner he consumes whisky, and that if he consumes champagne he is an unrepentant sinner. This, I believe, is a matter of fact. The medical faculty is of opinion that if a roan takes Scotch whisky, or, much better, Irish whisky, it is far better for him than to drink those gaseous
    862
    Continental wines, which always leave a certain amount of harm behind them. Nakedly, and without any shame, I defend the manufacture of whisky. 1 should like to tell the Government that two-thirds of the Irish whisky manufactured in Ireland are not drunk in Ireland, but are exported, and that, therefore, the proposals of the Government will inflict upon Ireland, upon one of its chief manufactures, an enormous injury, "tat merely as a home trade, but as an export trade. What will be the effect of this upon whisky as a beverage and whisky as an exported manufacture? I am strongly of opinion that a great deal of the worst evils of intemperance are created not so much from the drinking of real alcohol, but from the drinking of bad and poisonous stuff. I have always been astonished and shocked when in Ireland to see the number of people who when going home after a market day were reeling with drink, although they had probably consumed only a small amount of alcohol. What will happen? The publicans in Ireland have met the situation in the way they might have expected. They have increased the price of whisky. I think that three consequences will arise from the present proposals. In the first place, I believe that the proposal will be prejudicial to the prospects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He anticipated a considerable increase in the demand for liquor, but my information is that there will be a decrease. There is no doubt that the reduction will be far beyond his anticipation and that the consumption of whisky will be a great deal smaller. That does not mean that less alcohol will be drunk, but that a different form of alcohol will be consumed. It means that the publicans, in order to meet the diminution of the demand for good whisky, will give their customers bad whisky— some poisonous stuff, which, although it may bear the name of whisky, will not be whisky at all. In the cause of temperance, it is better to drink good whisky than bad whisky. The second point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Government is that there is a new fact in Irish life. It is a fact that Ireland is becoming a beer-drinking more than a whisky-drinking country. Whisky drinking has enormously diminished within our lifetime. Far he it from me to say anything about Guinness's stout. I believe that if taken in moderation it is nutritious. It is recommended in medical books for men and women in a convalescent stage.

    863
    Guinness's stout is largely drunk by the poor, while whisky is the drink of the well-to-do. The third point is this. The people who do drink whisky will be taxed enormously beyond anything that they have ever been taxed before. I belong to an association which is in favour of the reform of the scheme of taxation, and I believe that direct taxes should be largely in advance of indirect taxes. My chief reason is that a tax of 2d. or 3d. or 4d. per pound on tea or tobacco, or this extra tax on whisky, will increase enormously the taxation of the poorest of the poor. A man comparatively well-to-do will pay an extra tax of 6d. or ls. or 2s. 6d. on his brand of champagne. That is nothing to him, but it is a matter of enormous importance that a man should be compelled to pay 1d. more on tea, whisky, or tobacco. I regard this tax as unfair and unjust, and I believe that it will bear heavily on the poor all over Ireland. When that memorable scene took place in this House some years ago to which I have referred, we divided on the proposal of Mr. Childers to add 1s. to the whisky duty. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was 2s."] The proposal was 2s., and it was subsequently reduced to ls. I do not regard this Question from the point of view of temperance, but from the point of view of an Irish manufacture and from the point of view of the financial relations between the two countries. I do not think I ever read anything more striking than an article on this subject written by Lord Milner in the "Edinburgh Review."
    That Report, as I am reminded by my hon. Friend, was drawn up by men the majority of whom were Englishmen, only a small minority being Irishmen. It stated that Ireland was taxed about £3,000,000 more annually than she should be. This proposition Lord Milner's article entirely dissented from. But at the same time I would remind the House that it dealt with a period when the taxation on whisky was first increased. What was that period? It was the period immediately preceding the famine years of 1840-1847, when Ireland, through starvation, lost nearly 1,000,000 of her people, and when she had begun to lose 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 up to the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 who have since left her shores. This Report declared it was something like a shameful page in England's treatment of Ireland that this enormous addition should be made in the taxation on an article manufactured in Ireland at a moment when she was thus suffering.
    864
    I think it would not be a breach of confidence if I repeated the conversation which I had with the Vice-President in regard to. what passed between himself and Mr. Goschen. The hon. Gentleman had been explaining to Mr. Goschen the nature of this increase, and he told me that Mr. Goschen shook his head, and said, with something like a shudder, that this increase of taxation in Ireland immediately after a famine was one of the strangest and most tragic things known in the financial relations between the two countries.
    Therefore our position on this question is very plain. In reference to this tax we are occupying an old, historic position, and that position is strengthened in view of the fact that the tax is taking a larger and a more offensive and disastrous form than ever it did before. Why do I say this? What is the condition of whisky manufacture in Ireland? It is a trade which has gone through worse times than almost any trade in the three kingdoms. My hon. Friend who preceded me spoke about the poorer parts of Scotland where the industry flourishes. I accept his description, but lie knows as well as I do the reason the industry in Scotland has gone ahead within the last 30 or 40 years by leaps and bounds. The fault to be found with the whisky industry in Scotland has been that it has gone ahead with such rapidity that it has lead to some disastrous failures. What is the history of the trade in Ireland? One of my earliest recollections of the town of Galway is the black ruin of what was once a most flourishing distillery there belonging to an Irish county family named Burke. I believe there was another distillery in the same state of ruin. I left Galway 40 years ago, and there was then one of the most flourishing distilleries in the three kingdoms there, in the shape of the Persse Distillery, and that was flourishing until two or three years ago. It gave employment to 200 or 300 people in the town of Galway, and its product was supplied not only to Ireland but throughout the greater part of the world, and was a product which was as good as any whisky that was ever sent out. I happened to be an intimate friend of the late Mr. Henry Persse, the owner of the distillery, as stout and staunch a Galway landlord and Tory as ever lived. He, being a man of enterprise, came over here to England and put himself into communication with a late Member of this House (Colonel Webb), one of the best growers of barley in this country, and from him he got some of the

    865
    best kinds of barley, with which he started a new barley industry on the West Coast of Clare for the purpose of supplying his distillery. But the Persse Distillery has gone the way of the other distilleries, and has ceased to exist.
    I now come to the point why I say that Irish whisky is better than Scotch whisky. Scotland has. been selling all the whisky it can produce as fast as it could be produced, and therefore a great deal of the whisky is new, whereas in Ireland our whisky has been lying idle for from 25 to 30 years. It has been lying idle in the cellars and bond-houses, and the result is that whenever we do sell any Irish whisky (which, unfortunately, we do in a very small proportion as compared with Scotland) we sell a healthy and fully-matured liquor which compares most favourably with that turned out at lightning speed in Scotland and put upon the market. Unfortunately, the industry in Ireland has gone on decreasing, and consequently our whisky manufacturers are justified in saying that this is a heavy blow dealt at their trade, and dealt at it at a time that it is a decaying trade. I have myself seen an enormous change in the whisky trade in my lifetime. I remember the time when one asked for whisky in any hotel or public-house in London, and was served, as a matter of course, with Irish whisky. As a matter of fact Scotch whisky in those days was comparatively unknown, and the only time I remember in those days taking Scotch whisky was when I went into an hotel with a Scotch friend and asked for Scotch whisky, whereas he asked for Irish. I asked for Scotch because I believed it would be the nearest approach to Irish, and he asked for Irish because he believed it would be the nearest approach to Scotch. But that is all changed now. When you ask for whisky you rarely get Irish served. It is nearly always Scotch. I remember a point in a speech made in the very Debate on the historical occasion to which I have already alluded. Sir Michael Hicks Beach was, I believe, succeeded by Mr. Childers as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said the Government had selected for increased taxation two important British and Irish industries already heavily taxed, and by no means so prosperous as they were formerly. "What I fear is," he was talking about the increase of 1 s. on the gallon, "that the consumer will feel this new taxation not so much in the increased price of the article, but in the deterioration of its
    866
    wholesomeness." A Member of the Irish party at that time, Mr. W. H. O'Sullivan, suggested that if this tax were put on it should be accompanied by a proviso that the taxation should he increased on new whisky as against whisky which had been a long time in bond.
    The question of barley growing in Ireland is a very important one. I have had some figures supplied to me by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) with regard to the growth of barley; I regret to say that that excellent crop has been steadily diminishing. In 1880 there were 213,000 acres under barley; in 1908 there were 154,950, a decrease of about 50,000 acres. Let me give the reasons why I think it is very undesirable that the Government should have put this enormous increase on the taxation of spirits in Ireland. It is undesirable in the interests of temperance, it is undesirable in the interests of the poorest taxpayers in Ireland, it is undesirable in regard to the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and it is undesirable as hitting hard a poor and struggling and dependent industry. It is also hitting at an article which Ireland exports and will have to export at an enormous disadvantage, owing to increased taxation, and owing to the competition with German and other manufacturers of the worst kinds of alcohol.
    Sir JOHN DEWAR: In offering a few observations on this subject I want to approach the Budget in no unfriendly spirit. I recognise the situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in having to deal with a deficit of £15,000,000 sterling, and I admit that he has produced a courageous Budget. Anything, therefore, I may happen to say with regard to this fact will be said with a view to drawing the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what I believe to be a legitimate grievance both in Scotland and Ireland. I quite agree that the liquor trade ought to be asked to pay its fair share of any increased expenditure necessary in this country. I think it is proper that the luxuries of the table should be taxed if anything is to be taxed. but the question whether 33 per cent. is a fair share of the increased expenditure which the liquor trade should bear, as it. is called to bear under the present proposals of the Government, is another point. I think the taxation should be as nearly as possible equal for all parts of the community. This indirect taxation

    867
    aggravates the situation. There are a certain number of people who do not drink alcohol at all, and they, of course, escape the burden. On the other hand, all classes of users of alcohol should, as far as possible, be taxed equally, and in that point is to be found our grievance. There never was such a large increase of taxation on spirits as 3s. 9d. per gallon, and the effect that that may have on the demand even the Chancellor of the Exchequer him cannot very accurately estimate. Why should not the tax have been shared by other forms of alcohol? Why should not been have been asked to pay a fair share? Why should it not have been placed on foreign wine? We know that in wines that come from Hamburg there is a large per centage of alcohol which escapes with a tax of 4s. per proof gallon, as against 14s. 9d. imposed on spirits. We also know that a large demand has sprung up for this class of stimulant amongst certain people, and we say there is no reason why it should not have been called upon to pay its fair share of the tax instead of putting so large an increased burden upon spirits, the demand for which is steadily diminishing from year to year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to put this tax, a very heavy and unprecedently heavy increase, upon an industry in an article for which the demand is decreasing As has been said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), this penalises a Scotch say, and an Irish industry, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects a reduction of something like 11 per cent. in the demand. That means 11 per cent. less will be sold from the Scotch distilleries. That is a very serious thing to many districts in Scotland. and I think particularly the districts of Morayshire, Nairnshire and Banffshire. Campbeltown, and those other districts where there are only two industries— distilling and agriculture— and one hangs very much upon the other. I do not want to enter into a controversy with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division as to whether the scotch is flourishing more than the Irish, but I may say that the industry in Banffshire is very far from flourishing, and has not flourished of years, and this tax will put the finishing touch to a great many distilleries there. It will also necessarily affect the agricultural industry, because you cannot affect the demand for whisky without affecting the demand for barley. A farmer told me the other day that every acre of
    868
    barley bore from £50 to £60 taxation before it reached the consumer. Now you propose to add to that nearly £20, so that every acre of barley before the product reaches the consumer, will bear some £70, and this tax cannot be put on without affecting that particular industry Of course I know that many people support this tax and I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that it was one of the reasons why he proposed it, because it would promote temperance; but will it promote temperance? I do not think that an increased price of a ½d or a 1d a glass will prevent the immoderate drinker from going on drinking No consideration of the effect either upon himself or upon those belonging to him will prevent him from gratifying his appetite.
    It may divert a certain amount of trade from spirits to beer. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks upon beer and wine as temperance drinks If he does it is very bad business for the Exchequer, because the alcoholic spirit in whisky is taxed seven times more than it is in wine. And I may ask: Are spirit drinking countries always intellectually, morally or physically inferior to beer drinking countries? I do not think so I was surprised to hear that Ireland was largely a beer drinking country but Scotland is still a spirit drinking one and I do not think that anyone can say, that it is intellectually morally, or physically worse than a beer drinking country Of course the intemperate drinker, of either spirits or beer is always a very deplorable citizen, but I have always understood that the popularity of Scotch whisky was largely due to the fact that doctors recommended it as the best stimulant and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the face of all these facts, thinks that by turning the drinkers of spirits into the drinkers of other forms of alcohol, he is going to promote temperance, I am afraid I cannot agree with him One effect of this tax will be that it will penalise the Scotch taxpayer I am not able to give the Irish figures, but the taxpayer in Scotland out of the £1,600,000 which is taken for this year from the users of spirits pays £160,000 more than his fair share and £160,000 is taken from Scotland more than from the other portions of the United Kingdom. Next year Scotland will pay £650,000 more than its fair share to the Exchequer. At present England uses 30

    869
    per cent. more alcohol than Scotland, and pays 40 per cent. less than Scotland. England at present pays 16s. 10d. per head for taxation on alcohol, and Scotland 22s., and the proposed increase of taxation of spirits will make matters infinitely worse, and this £650,000 is to be deliberately taken out of Scotch pockets. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that anything he can take out of Scotch pockets he is entitled to, but I hope Scotch Members will see that it is not taken without aquid pro quo. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this question from a Scotch point of view, and endeavour to meet us by reducing the amount. I think that he has grossly under-estimated the result of this tax, and that 1s. 6d. will give him all he wants, so far as one can make out from the figures in the last report. One and sixpence will give him more than his £1,600,000. But whether he is able to reduce it or not, and if he is not able to reduce it and make it a smaller tax, to meet the circumstances of the case as I have pointed out, that we are suffering unfairly in Scotland, I should suggest that he should consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, that he might graduate the tax according to the age of the spirit. This, I think, would be a far more effective temperance measure than turning the consumers on to beer, and I am of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by reducing the tax on spirits over two years old, would do more to promote temperance than by deliberately endeavouring to turn the consumers of whisky on to beer and wine. I have made these observations in no unfriendly spirit, and I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, but I hope he will be able to meet us in the same spirit in which I have ventured to address the Committee.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am afraid the Government have very little idea of what effect their proposal is having on the mind of the Irish people. I desire to look on the matter, not solely from the narrow point of view of treating whisky as an article of trade, but I wish to treat it from the point of view of a breach of faith of which the Government have been guilty. It is an extraordinary fact that as long as the Tories, who are the maintainers of the Act of Union, are in office they endeavour by their Budgets to respect the terms of the Act of Union as a bargain between two Parliaments and two nations, but when the Liberals get into office, while affecting
    870
    to wish to repeal the terms of the Act of Union, they invariably grossly ignore it. We were promised when the Act of Union was consummated that in your dealings with us we should have certain exemptions and abatements. I ask, where are they? There are none, and if this Budget passes you have placed us as a poor community in exactly the same position as that of a rich community. Take any test you like to apply. The receipts of the London General Omnibus Company are as great as the receipts of our largest railway in Ireland, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. You are dealing with a poor and a small country, and I wish to put it to this House, in the first place, why do not you tax the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? From the fact that you do not tax the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, you must admit that, at all events, there are some communities at least in this group of British communities—there are some countries which are not worth taxing or upon which a tax would be a special grievance.
    Mr. BYLES: Have not they both got Home Rule?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That may be another reason, but there is an Isle of Man Taxation Bill passes this House every year, Take this case of the whisky tax. You tell us that you have given us old age pensions and that the two millions which you are extracting from us under this Budget is well met by the two millions, roughly speaking, which you are giving us for old age pensions. But, if that is so, we have nothing to thank you for for old age pensions. If you are taking the old age pensions out of the pocket of the Irish taxpayer he has nothing to thank you for, and let me say this: I never remember a measure which produced so good an effect in Ireland as that Old Age Pension Bill. For the first time there was a feeling of gratitude to England. For the first time in the history of the country you heard people all round saying, "Well, at last the Englishmen have given us something practical." But what is the effect of this Budget? Why, from end to end of the country you have provoked absolute, universal detestation and discontent. It is not from the Conservative; it is not from the Nationalist; it is not from the Catholic; it is not from the Protestant, but from the entire body of the people, there is nothing but seething and angry discontent, and that discontent will have its fruits in directions which you little calcu

    871
    late upon, because you have not left, as far as I can gauge the country, one loyal citizen in it.
    In England I can well understand the Liberal party or Englishmen generally supporting this Budget and saying it is a splendid Budget. Why? Because England can get some value out of it. Whenever you raise taxation in this country there is always something for it. Take those buildings which you have put up opposite. I never pass them without envy. You have spent, it may be, some twelve millions of money on Whitehall, and that is not merely an expenditure of twelve millions of money. It does not mean that you have employed your architects and stonemasons and builders, and that they have spent this twelve millions, but it means that for all time there will be clerks, caretakers, and officials there, upon whom money will be spent, and if it is only tile price of the cat's meat supplied there will be something paid in London. Take, again, the case of the naval dockyards. Wherever you go you have money being spent there. You have a hail of hammers employed by means of this taxation, but not one single 6d. or is. goes to Ireland. I would ask why, if I drink a glass of whisky, and pay 4½ d for it, I only get for the 4½ d. a ½ d worth of value, and 4d. goes to the Government, but if I drink 4½d. worth of beer I get four pennyworth, and ½ d only goes to the Government? I want to know how that is? Can anyone justify a system of taxation under which an Englishman can satisfy his alcoholic thirst, and out of nine halfpenny worths that he consumes, only one goes to the Government, while the Irish drinker, spending the same sum, and out of it eight halfpennies go into the pockets of the Government and only a halfpenny into the pockets of the manufacturer. How can you defend that? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "I have to get 16 millions; I want 16 millions; I must get it somehow." Is it immaterial to him how he gets it, if so, why does not he renew the tax on coals?
    You tell us it is the consumer who pays everything. These coals which went abroad brought in two millions of money, and it was the foreigner who paid it. Why do not you put a tax upon champagne? Is It that the entente cordial would not admit of it? Why is the rich man who consumes his claret, his port, his sherry and his champagne exempted from all taxation under this Budget? And why
    872
    is it that some miserable Irishmen in Connaught have to pay all these extra taxes?
    Since we started this great co-partner-ship, which was to bring us in so much prosperity, the only trade which has increased is the coffin-making trade. Our taxation was not 3s. on alcohol, and now, if this Budget passes, I understand it is to be 14s. What happened when Mr. Gladstone put on an equalisation tax in the fifties? According to General Dunne's Committee 23 distilleries in Ireland were wiped out. What will happen if this tax is carried? I can only tell the story I hear in my Constituency. A Conservative gentleman in my Constituency has carried on for over 10 years a distillery at a loss. He has kept his men about him, he has paid them their wages, and he has for over 10 years been struggling with adversity. Pass this Budget and he closes up; and who will get the trade? What satisfaction is it to him to know that the people are returning to beer. Why should not a whisky drinker, if he chooses to indulge in this form of beverage, be able to get alcoholic stimulant at the same level of price as the man who is drinking beer? As regards the alcohol section of the Budget, this is a capitalistic Budget. What is happening? Guinness's alone of all the distillers in Ireland have announced that they will not raise their price. Their shares have gone up in value. They know the Tories will come into office at the next General Election. and if these big men can only hold out and last for two or three years more all the smaller breweries and distilleries will disappear, and then you will have one gigantic concern, which will rule the price all over Ireland for barley, for hops, for materials of every kind, and is that what you want to produce by your Budget?
    The truth is you never think of Ireland when you are dealing with taxation. you think because the Irish Party more or less are committed to Liberal principles because of Home Rule—I really do not know of any other principle on which we agree with them—that practically you are. safe to bring in any kind of tax that you like. When this Government goes out of office we shall not have had Home Rule, and we shall have had two millions of extra taxation. Look at the way in which you deal with Ireland in every other respect. With enormous difficulty last year, though I freely acknowledge that the Government certainly were very wholehearted in the matter, and did their best to help us, they passed a University Bill

    873
    for Ireland, to which the Catholics on the one hand and the Presbyterians on the other could resort, but whenever we made a demand for proper teaching facilities, even for money for a college, or for any of the things which have made the English Universities famous, the cry was "Oh, the Treasury will not allow us," and the only thing that you are to be generous to us in is in this question of taxation. You are putting fresh arguments into the minds and hearts of people who do not readily forget. I do not believe if this Budget passes there will be a voice raised in any part of the country for the maintenance of law and order in future, and certainly as far as my voice is concerned I will not raise mine, because I believe you have absolutely and shamefully broken faith with our country. If you had said all round "we must find taxes somehow, and we will put them equally on beer and whisky," we might have grumbled, but, at any rate, we should have had to acknowledge that it was fair play. When we find you exempting the English working man and taxing the Irish working man, instead of giving us abatements and exemptions we say you have given us imposts and exactions.
    Why not tax the Englishman's cheese? We do not eat cheese in Ireland. It is perfectly fair. We do not produce iron enough. It is perfectly fair to tax iron. Why not tax iron? Why do not they tax paper? Need anyone mind the football specials, the sensational collapse of Middlesex, and all this yellow journalism that we see all over the country every morning? Is there anyone who could not afford when he is buying a halfpenny paper to pay something to the State out of it? It is a tax on knowledge it is said. As a rule it is a tax on imbecility for the general run of stuff that we see produced in newspapers, but that is nothing to us. Ireland has done nothing to provoke this enormous increase in the taxation of the country. We have not called out for "Dreadnoughts," we have not called out for increased armaments, we have not called out for increased soldiers, for Volunteers or Yeomanry. We have asked for nothing, and although the Island has remained absolutely pacific and absolutely quiet, with this unexampled Liberal majority the only result will be this extra two millions of taxation. I solemnly protest against this Budget. I believe, to a very large extent, lock, stock and barrel, it is wrong, but as regards English affairs I have nothing to do with it. It does not
    874
    affect us to the great extent that it affects Englishmen, but I believe in many instances its principles are unsound.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSON: As representing a constituency which is very largely interested in the proposals in regard to the increased tax on spirits, I should like to bring before the house some of the points which have been forced on me by letters and representations from my Constituency. The last speaker has referred to the difference which is being meted out in different parts of the United Kingdom, and that is very much felt in the north of Scotland, where it is felt generally that an unfair amount of taxation on the drink consumed by the people is falling on them. There are in my Constituency approaching 20 distilleries, and these distilleries and agriculture are the chief industries of the locality; indeed, the one to a large extent depends upon the other. These distilleries are not, as raw grain distilleries are, situated in large centres of population. There are some of them situated in more or less remote country districts, and the whole neighbourhood is more or less dependent on the sale of the barley which they grow to this distillery which is situated in their midst. Indeed, the farmers sell little else but barley or cattle or sheep. These are the two things which they sell off their farm, and they feel that if this heavy duty is put upon whisky there will be a certain number of distilleries closed down, or those which remain working will produce a smaller quantity of whisky, and there will be less demand for barley. They furthermore feel that if these distilleries are closed they will be deprived of the supply of draught which they now use for the food of their milk cows. They also feel that if the distillery is closed—the distilleries pay at present. the larger portion of the local rates of the parish—the rates which the farmers and others in the district have to pay will necessarily go up. Consequently they are hit all round, or they believe they will be, by this proposed increase of duty. Furthermore, I have received representations not only from distillers, who, after all, are a comparatively small number of people, and farmers, but I receive numerous representations from labourers who fear they will be. thrown out of employment, and that the amount of employment, available, at any rate in the locality, will be reduced owing to the closing of the distilleries. I further receive representations from the shopkeepers in the neighbourhood who be

    875
    lieve that if the distilleries are closed there will be less money in circulation and less will be spent in the local shops. Therefore, this is a matter which concerns not some 20 distilleries and their immediate shareholders, but concerns the whole population who reside in the two counties which I represent.
    It is not a question with me of arguing for or against temperance at the present time, but we feel that the tax which is now proposed to be put upon whisky is an unfair tax as compared with that of other parts of the country. It is unduly heavy, and will result in considerable loss to the Constituents whom I represent. There are two classes of whisky distilleries in Scotland. There is, first of all, what might be called the native product—that is whisky distilled from barley malt, and the number of distilleries which produce that class of whisky is very much greater than the number which produces the raw grain whisky. The barley malt distilleries are scattered throughout Scotland, largely in the Highland districts, and great parts of the Highlands are dependent more or less on them. At the back of these whisky distilleries come the farming class and the local population, who are deeply interested one way or the other. Raw grain distilleries, although large in their output, are much fewer in number, something like 10 or a dozen, as compared with 140 malt grain distilleries. These raw grain distilleries have no farmers at their back. They have no native industry compared with the other. They distil the alcohol which they produce largely from foreign maize, and are therefore situated at ports such as Leith, Glasgow, Alloa and elsewhere. There has been for some time a grievance in Scotland as to the sale under the name of Scotch whisky of a blended article—blended, I am sorry to say, in some cases to such an extent with this alcohol that the percentage of real Scotch whisky has become comparatively small. What we fear in Scotland is this—at least, in my locality —that if the price of whisky is raised by the extra duty of 3s. 9d. per gallon the tendency will be not only that whisky as a whole will be reduced in consumption—about which there may, I admit, be two opinions—but, and this is the important point, there will be less consumption of malt whisky, which is dearer to produce, and a tendency to consume more of the raw grain whisky, which is cheaper to produce. Well, is that good for the people? The statement has often been made—I am not
    876
    an expert myself on the subject, and I would not venture to give my own opinion —but the statement has often been made that if a man gets drunk on good, sound, old malt whisky he may get pleasantly drunk, but if he gets drunk on raw grain, fiery alcohol he gets mad drunk. Whether that be so or not there is certainly a widespread opinion that it would be better for the people of this country if they could be induced to use good whisky, if they use it at all. The tendency of this tax will have exactly the contrary effect. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might get out of what I think is the mistaken policy of putting so high a tax on whisky and switch the tax to something would would really be good policy for the country, and that is to graduate the tax according to the age of the whisky. Let him put a severe increase of taxation upon the new fiery and harmful mixture, and let him reduce the duty according to the age of, say, whisky of five or more years old. The tendency would then be that more of the malt whisky would enter into the blends. Malt whisky would be bought by the blenders and others in a larger percentage than at present, because it has to be kept in any case, and practically the effect of such graduation would be that the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy, so far at least the larger number of distillers in Scotland, that he would satisfy the farmers of Scotland, and that he would, I think, go a long way at the same time to satisfy the general consumers.
    Mr. C. SCOTT-DICKSON: We are aware that a very large preponderance of the Scottish representation sit on the other side of the House. It is curious that the only two Members from Scotland who have spoken on the other side have both condemned this increase in the tax. So far as my knowledge goes from the vast amount of correspondence that I have had on the subject that is the very common feeling in Scotland, and I think it contributed not a little to the return, without opposition, of my hon. and learned Friend for West Edinburgh. A great deal has been said to-day about the question whether this is a temperance proposal or not. I confess for myself that I do not know what that has to do with a Budget Resolution. We are dealing with finance, and there are some temperance proposals which might be very had finance. Before we are done with this Debate I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to satisfy us that that is not

    877
    markedly so on the present occasion. The tax proposed to be put on whisky is, as one hon. Member stated this afternoon, an unparalleled increase. No such increase has ever been proposed before, and everybody recognises, I think, that this tax already is beyond what is fair. What is the justification of putting on an unparalleled increase on a product already over-taxed, and at a time not only when the country is suffering from general depression of trade, but when everybody recognises that the whisky trade in particular is suffering? It has been a declining trade for the last 10 years. Trade generally is bad, and that is the time which the Chancellor of Exchequer selects to put this unparalleled increase on a product already over-taxed.
    To my mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entirely failed to appreciate what a very important part in our manufacturing and commercial life whisky distilling plays. It is a very large business in Scotland. The amount of capital involved is great, and the labour employed, directly or indirectly, is very great. The hon. Member opposite voiced what is the very common feeling in Scotland when he said that if this tax passes, instead of doing anything to mitigate the evil of unemployment we are now suffering from, it will do a great deal to aggravate it. It is not only the manufacture itself which will suffer from the imposition of the tax, but the farmers and shop keepers all over the country will suffer. The feeling is universal that the result of this will be to minimise, if not to kill, the trade. I believe that the figures given by the hon. Member for Inverness were correct. There is no doubt that in Scotland the individual is over-taxed at this moment, and we recognise, just as hon. Members from Ireland do, that in this tax the injustice so far as Irish and Scotch taxation is concerned, is going to be aggravated still more without any justification at all. It will affect particularly that whisky in the shape of good, sound, malt whisky, in the manufacture and distribution of which, as the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Williamson) has pointed out, the distillers, the farmers, shop-keepers, and country labourers have their friend. The increase of the duty is going to put beer in keener and stronger competition with whisky. I have letters from those engaged in the trade saying that even now the competition with beer is coming to tell very severely on whisky. They state that the sale of whisky is going down, while the
    878
    sale of beer is going up, and what is probably still worse is, that you will put sound malt whisky into competition with the newer and worse kinds of whisky, and you will bring about, in my judgment, and in the judgment of many who are well-qualified to deal with this question, a state of intemperance worse than that from which we are now suffering.
    I have submitted to the House that this is not a temperance measure that we are dealing with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, rightly, that he has got to get the money, but I say that in getting the money he should get it with discretion. cannot pretend to have the same lengthened experience of some Members of this House; but, personally, I do not remember ally occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say: "The receipts from Customs and Excise are not so large as they should be; that may be a good thing for the country as a whole, but it is a bad thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer." He tells us he hopes for only £1,600,000 from this increase in the duty. How does he make out his figures? I have figures furnished to me from the distilleries North of Perth— those distilleries to which the hon. Member for Inverness and the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn referred to. They produce seven million gallons, which, at 3s. 9d. per gallon would give a revenue of £1,312,000. If you take the whole of the production of the distilleries of last year, you would get not £1,600,000, but about £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to that? He interrupted the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, and said there were only 11 months in this year, and that there has been an anticipation of whisky taken out of bond before the Budget was produced. I would like very much to see how that estimate of £1,600,000 is to be justified. It cannot be done, even according to temperance anticipations. If it can be done, it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show how it is done. I submit that the figures cannot possibly bring out the results which the right hon. Gentleman has stated as the product of this increase in the tax. Is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to kill the trade? That cannot be his object. Is it that he wants to promote temperance That is not legitimate finance, and it is no part of the Budget. I do submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires to state more definitely and clearly what is

    879
    his justification for this estimate. The correspondence which I have received from those who are acquainted with the trade shows that there has been a monstrous misrepresentation of the amount this tax will yield. Observe if that is so, there can only be one of two results. Either you are going to kill the trade, which some men of experience say you are, or you are going to tax whisky far beyond what is necessary to give you the money you require. You have budgeted for £1,600,000, but you are going to get £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 more. There is no justification at all for that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not entitled to put on burdens which the requirements of the country do not need. There have lately been talks about scares. Some Ministers have produced scares already. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has produced his scare, but it has not been a popular scare, so far as we can judge from electoral results. There have been two or three elections since the Budget has been introduced, and we are well content with them on this side of the House. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be well advised if he reconsiders the Budget and tries to make it not only democratic but fair, and in that way more popular. If he does not I am sure the country will be more dissatisfied than they are now with Radical finance. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give some indication of how the product of this tax has been calculated as amounting to £1,600,000.
    The SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow has proceeded on rather wider lines than those on which the whole discussion has taken place this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman who spoke below the Gangway opposite and some of my hon. Friends behind me confined the discussion to the prospective effect in Ireland and Scotland of the tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed, but the hon. Member for Glasgow has dealt more with the tax as it affects the trade and the country as a whole, and, therefore, perhaps it may not be out of place if, before I reply to the more individual criticisms addressed to the House this afternoon, I deal with the subject for a moment from that aspect. The hon. Gentleman asked us why we particularly chose to place a heavy tax upon a declining industry.
    880
    I think the answer which my right hon. Friend, if he were standing here, would give, and which I give on his behalf, is that, after all, if you are to reach a large part of the population which do not contribute otherwise directly to the taxation and to the expenses of the country, you get at them most easily and best, by laying some impost upon articles which they themselves consume; and, if you have to lay a tax in that way, it is better, I think, to lay an impost upon some object which is not absolutely a necessity of life, however agreeable it may be to the person who consumes it. Then the hon. Member went on to question not merely the laying of the tax upon the particular thing, but the necessity of fixing the tax at so high a rate as 3s. 9d. I think it was the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool who alluded two or three times in the course of the speech to the fact that he and those who acquiesced with him had put out Mr. Gladstone in 1885 upon the proposal of a 1s. extra duty on the whisky. I think from his point of view the success which attended his efforts then was bad. Having succeeded in defeating the tax of 1s in 1885, what was the result? In 1890 a Conservative Government which they had done so much to place in power, imposed a tax of 6d. a gallon on whisky. In 1894 a Liberal Government which succeeded them added another 6d. on whisky, and in 1900 a Conservative Government imposed another 6d. per gallon on whisky, and the result has been that whisky is now taxed an additional Is. 6d., very largely, I think, in consequence of the successful efforts of the Irish party on that occasion in resisting the 1s. duty, which they threw out.
    Sir JOHN DEWAR: The tax is only 11s. now, and it was 10s. then.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Those three imposts have been made as I have described. A remarkable effect of laying 6d a gallon on whisky has been discovered by all Chancellors of the Exchequer. There were two effects in fixing taxation at that figure. The first was, your revenue did not go up correspondingly with the amount of the tax imposed. And the next was that the consumer got less in quality and less in quantity. Thus he benefited in no way. On the contrary, he was worsened, and the revenue was worsened by the tax so imposed. There clearly, therefore, was no inducement for a Government in search of revenue to limit the tax upon whisky to the sum of 6d. or ls. If spirits were to be

    881
    selected at all you had therefore to calculate at what rate you would impose your tax so that the producer of the article taxed would be able to recoup himself. We all agree he should be entitled to recoup himself from the persons who consume the article manufactured. There are three conditions to be remembered in making your calculation. You are sure to get a reduction of consumption by the imposition of such a tax due to three associated causes. One is that bad trade and temperance quite apart from anything else have combined to reduce the consumption of spirits in this country, and I think you can put that down as something like two per cent. of the amount consumed. The next is that an increased cost, and consequently a diminishing purchasing power of the habitual consumer also tend to reduce the consumption, and the next and by no means the least, and in some ways at all events from the consumer's point of view the worst of the causes which lead to diminished consumption is the dilution of spirits by the retailer. All those factors therefore have to be taken into account in calculating the amount of tax which is producible from an increased impost placed upon the commodity. The figure therefore of 3s 9d which has been suggested by my right bon Friend, and is proposed to the House has at all events this advantage, that it provides in the first place a substantially increased revenue which is necessary for finance. It is not at all from the temperance but purely from the financial point of view. And I think it prevents avoidance in any way by the producer, the wholesale producer and the retail consumer, and also does enable the trade to do what I think it is legitimately entitled to do—that is, to pass on a very considerable proportion if not quite all—indeed, I may even go further and say more than the whole of the charge imposed upon the persons who consume.
    I venture to say it is just as well that this House should understand quite clearly the position of the retailer and manufacturer in this matter. A great number of Gentlemen in this House have an intimate acquaintance with the production of spirits. I venture to say that a great number are not so familiar with the process of distributing spirit from the producer and manufacturer to the actual consumer. If I take up a few moments of the time of the House in making the position quite clear from the Custom and Revenue point of view it may not be, I hope, altogether wasted. It has to be remembered
    882
    in this connection that things like whisky, brandy, or gin are articles of manufacture which in the technical sense of the word are unknown to the Customs. All they recognise is what is termed plain spirit. Upon the other hand, the trade refuse, to recognise the Customs appellation, and they know nothing of plain spirit, and deal only, as it were, in whisky, gin, and brandy. That leads to some confusion—at least, I found it so in my own case—a confusion of understanding as to what happened in the distribution of spirits from the wholesale manufacturer to the retailer, and it is not unimportant to recollect this distinction in dealing with the incidence of this tax. In the case of gin the distiller makes what is called plain spirit, and he sells it, or disposes of it rather, wholesale to the manufacturer, who makes the plain spirit into gin. But in the case of whisky the process is different. The whisky manufacturer makes his own spirits, which is whisky, and he passes it on, whether it is raw grained whisky, which the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Aberdeen University has referred to, or whether it is malt spirit, to the blender, who puts the two together, and produces a mixture which he considers palatable to the consumer.
    Mr. FLYNN: That is not the case in Ireland.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am dealing with it as a whole. The person who pays duty in these cases is not the distiller, as I am informed. I do not speak, of course, for every possible individual case. It is either the manufacturer in the case of gin or it is the blender in the case of whisky. For the purpose of a discussion of this kind we can leave the case of gin out of account, and deal entirely with the case of whisky, which has been presented to us this afternoon. In this case the person, who blends two kinds of whisky as a rule, though not always, breaks the whisky down to 20 per cent. below proof, and distributes it in that state to the retailer. I understand that in London that is not the case, but that in the case of London and some other large cities the publican breaks the whisky down himself. The retailer then buys the proof gallon at 16s. and retails it at 21s. He generally sells at 20 degrees under proof, but he can sell, if he chooses to ignore the Food and Drugs Act, at 25 per cent. under proof.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: How long has that to be kept?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that you can sell raw grained spirit front which the fusel oil has been entirely excluded by the process of manufacture within a few days of manufacture in a perfectly wholesome state.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I would not like to drink it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the case of malted spirit it may be several years before it can be distributed, and the difference between the age at which you can sell the two kinds of spirit is illustrated by the argument used by my hon. Friend behind me, which I hope to deal with in the course of a few moments. The question of the distribution of the increased charge of 3s 9d. and the possibility of making the consumer r ay the whole of it without receiving a diminution either of quality or of quantity is the crux of the whole question which we are discussing this afternoon. The increased charge of 3s 9d. a gallon is, as I understand at the present moment, distributed—I only deal with the increase to the consumer—over the glass of whisky by the increased charge of a penny a glass. That leaves the retail profit which is distributed over the trade, allowing even for the waste which occurs in distribution and the proportionately higher rate of duty, a profit of about 2s. 10d. This is not an unsubstantial profit after he has paid all the increased charges which are laid upon him by this proposal. It must be remembered—and I have had many careful enquiries made on this point—that there is no general standard of quantity or quality demanded by a consumer or of profit which is made by the retailer. You may have in different streets and in different houses in the same street a different measure given for the same price and you may have on the other hand different charges made for the same quality. There seems to be no fixed standard. The person who purchases spirit in a retail way has no fixed standard either in what he pays or what quantity he expects to receive for his money. The result of all this is that the taxation which is imposed by my right hon. Friend, this new increase, while it is undoubtedly heavy, while it is undoubtedly laid on a trade which to a certain extent is declining—not altogether from the causes suggested by my hon. Friends on this side of the House—can be laid by the producer and by the retailer upon the public at large, and then there will be left a very considerable
    884
    margin of profit which can be spread over the whole trade to recoup it either for the increased amount of capital employed in the larger payment of duty or any other charges which may incidentally fall upon it in the process of distribution. I hope I have said enough from the general point of view, and I will now endeavour to deal with the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik) my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. A. Williamson), and by the Member for Perth. The whole controversy which has arisen this afternoon is really a controversy, not as to the increase of duty which is proposed by this tax, not as to whether it is paid by the consumer or the producer, but it is an internecine point between two schools of thought in the production of whisky, and two systems of manufacture. one of which is modern, and the other of which is antiquated. I venture to say that the more you look at this question of the production of whisky—I am not dealing with Irish whisky at all—the more difficult it is to believe the affecting tales of the destruction of Scottish industry, of the disappearance of the growth of barley, of the non-employment of labour, of the bankruptcy of farmers, and all the rest of the woes which have been related to the Committee by my hon. Friends this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn stated very clearly to the House the different ways of manufacturing raw-grain whisky and malt whisky, and he put the case so clearly to the House that I do not think I need go into the details of the actual process of manufacture. I think it was he who made one point which I really think is not substantial. I think it was he who spoke about the malt whisky being the finest possible whisky that it was possible to put upon the marker. That is the whale contention which is at present before the Royal Commission on Whisky—Is whisky a better material made entirely of malt in the pot still, or is whisky a better material as made from raw grain manufactured by the patent still? The Commission which is inquiring into that question has not definitely reported, or has not finally reported, but it has made an interim report, in which it states that it was impossible to say which of these methods is best, which of them represents purity and which adulteration, and which is most profitable from the point of view of public health. If the Royal Commission, with all the experts who have made inquiry cannot lay down a very clear

    885
    judgment as to that, I do not think it must be accepted from hon. Gentlemen this afternoon that taxation, if it be taxation, which I do not admit, which drives out one form of whisky and gives preference to another kind of whisky, is really doing any harm from the point of view of health, at all events, to the whisky-consuming public. The whole question is this, is it only taxation that is affecting malt whisky? It is not that at all. The hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn said it, was now the habit of Scotland to use more raw grain whisky and less malt whisky than formerly.
    Mr. A WILLIAMSON: It must be under the increased tax.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As a matter of fact, the whole public taste during the last eight or 10 years, at all events I am so informed by some who have the largest interests in the trade, is in favour of malt whisky, which is more or less driving raw grain whisky out of fashion, and, therefore, so far as the public taste goes, there is no likelihood of the disappearance of barley-growing wing and of the other agricultural evils spoken of at the beginning of this afternoon's Debate. On the contrary, given the fact that the tax can be thrown on the consumer, there seems to be no earthly reason why, under these proposals, the malt whisky of the North of Scotland should in any way be ousted by the raw grain whisky produced elsewhere. Another thing in this connection is that raw grain whisky is not composed entirely, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, of foreign maize. It is composed of about 25 per cent. of home-grown barley and 75 per cent. of maize. In Ireland, understand, the same spirit is made without any maize at all, the proportions being about -25 per cent. home-grown barley and the rest raw grain, either oats or barley. Even if the result were to displace the malt spirit in favour of raw grain spirit there would still be all the opportunities which at present exist for the cultivation of home-grown barley. There is another fact which must not be forgotten in this controversy, and it is this: Whatever may be the relative price of home and foreign barley in the South of England and the North of Scotland, I am informed on indisputable evidence that home barley is used in spite of its dearness because of the better quality of whisky which it produces Home-grown barley is actually used, in spite of its higher price, in preference to the foreign barley, because you can make a
    886
    better spirit and get more results from the article. I hope I have not detained the House at too great length in endeavouring to explain that these evils which are anticipated will not arise from what undoubtedly is a heavy tax, a tax which is only laid with reluctance on this particular industry, though, after all, the revenue must be taken. I hope I have shown that it will not extinguish the trade, or extinguish that part of home industry which depends upon the production and consumption of whisky, and that whatever the re luctance of the general consumer may be to contribute to the expenses of the country, he is only mulcted in a manner which is just and equitable.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he arrives at the amount to he realised from the tax?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is attending a Cabinet meeting, will deal with that aspect of the case. I have dealt more particularly with the processes of manufacture.
    Mr. FLYNN: I cannot compliment the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on the most extraordinary speech he has made. He has endeavoured with somewhat clumsy ingenuity to turn this Debate from the question of the duty to an inquiry into processes of manufacture—a sort of Islington Police Court inquiry into what is whisky. That is not the point of debate at all. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman either on his facts or his figures. He reminded the House that in 1885 the Irish party helped to displace the then Liberal Government because they proposed to tax whisky at is. a gallon. The hon. Gentleman told us that since then three sixpences had been added to the whisky duty. We opposed the proposal to increase the duty by is. over 20 years ago, and it was not imposed, and since then there have been only two increases of 6d. each, and not three as the hon. Gentleman stated, so that at any rate it has taken nearly 20 years to obtain an increase of is., the amount which we resisted in 1885. If we opposed a tax of is. at that time surely we are bound to revolt now when it is proposed to increase the tax by nearly four times ls. I should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what this tax means. How much does he anticipate to get out of it? We have had various sets of figures put before us since this discussion began in

    887
    regard to what would be the yield of the spirit duty proposed to be imposed, and from the tobacco duty, and we are no nearer yet to even an approximation of what will be the result. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago was asked to give the figures for 1906, 1907, and 1908. I have the Irish figures, which show that the quantity of spirits consumed in Ireland in 1906 was something like 4,190,000 gallons and that at 11s. per gallon produced £2,304,500. Then the figures for Scotland given to a Scottish Member totalled £2,453,000. In the name of Providence, where does the Chancellor get this figure of £1,600,000 of increased duty? I have puzzled my brain and I have gone over those figures, and I cannot understand, and none of us can understand how or on what basis he arrives at that estimate. We believe it will be three or four or five times that amount. Take the Irish figures alone. The figures given for the last five years are:—For England, £12,289,000 odd; Scotland, £3,791,000; Ireland, £2,043,000. Those are the latest figures. In Ireland alone the extra duty of 3s 9d per gallon, based on the present consumption, would amount in round numbers to £670,000. Making an allowance for a decreased consumption of 20 per cent., which is rather more than that mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose figure was, I think, 11 per cent., and allowing that by a large margin of 20 per cent., the increase in Ireland alone, based upon the figures of the past five years, would amount to £545,000, and if you add to that increase in Ireland on the spirit duty the addition of £213,000 on Tobacco Duty, then in addition to being overtaxed, as we claim to be, you will be putting on us additional taxation to the amount of over three-quarters of a million, or £758,000.
    I do hope when we come to discuss these things in Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those responsible for these figures will look sharp into the matter and give us those figures, without which we are more or less groping in the dark, and without which it is impossible to discuss these very great financial proposals with anything approaching to accuracy or clear-sightedness. Nothing surprises me more since this Budget came up for discussion than the air of mystery in which those figures are wrapped. Every year about July we get a Return of Revenue income and expenditure applied to the three countries, and under different
    888
    headings. This Return is stated to be Customs and Excise, stamps, tobacco, spirits, and so on. We get this Return down into hundreds of pounds, stated, apparently, with accuracy, and so arranged as to bring out the contribution to Imperial expenditure by England, Scotland, and Ireland. With a Budget of this kind, with enormously increased duties on two or three articles of consumption, we cannot get the figures at all. If that be so, and if the Chancellor and his experts cannot give us the figures in connection with the Budget, how do they arrive at those figures of July every year? I must say it is most embarrassing and most difficult to carry on a Debate under such circumstances as these, but I think we are entitled to have those figures with regard to tobacco, with regard to spirits, and with regard to liquor licence duty when we come to discuss the Budget. So much has been said by hon. Friends from Scotland that it is not necessary to labour the points at any greater length, as far as concerns Ireland.
    I think we are entitled to ask the question: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his proposals with regard to the increased duty on spirits, come as a Finance Minister or as a social reformer? If he comes as a social reformer, then I can quite understand his avowedly putting on this enormous increase of 3s. 9d. on 11s.—one-third. on a duty already almost unbearable. If he does that as a temperance reformer, anxious and desirous to crush out the consumption of whisky and spirits, I can then understand him. But that is not the duty of a Finance Minister. If he comes forward as a Finance Minister, has he calculated the possibility that this enormous increase of duty will lead to such a very large reduction in the consumption that he will get very little from it, or he may be impaled on the other horn of a dilemma, namely, that the decrease in the consumption of the superior and better class whisky, as hon. Members for Scotland have pointed out, may lead to a large increase in the inferior class of spirits, and thus cause ruin and destruction to thousands of people. I regret that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury has made no attempt whatever to answer the case made from these Benches or from the Benches opposite. I rather thought he was trifling with the House, and that when we are discussing very important proposals dealing with large finance to treat us to a sort of semi-chemical lecture as to the difference between raw-grained

    889
    whisky and malt whisky was an attempt to befog us and unworthy of his reputation and unworthy of the great issues raised. This is our preliminary canter with regard to this and the tobacco duty. I would not say with the hon. Member for Louth that we are opposed to this Budget lock, stock, and barrel. There are other proposals in this Budget I strongly and heartily approve of as a step forward in the direction of great economic reform and the uplifting of the social condition of the people; but with regard to the present taxes we resist them to-day, we shall resist them on second reading, and at every stage as unfair, unjust, and inequitable.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, while protesting against the Chancellor of the Exchequer having imposed any taxes affecting tea and tobacco, does not object to his taxing other objects, which he says he will discuss at a later stage. As far as I am concerned, my attitude to all these Resolutions must necessarily have relation to my attitude to the Budget as a whole. We are obliged to consider the proposals of the Budget individually; but I, at any rate, have never forgotten that they are part of a great whole, and that we should try and judge them as a whole. I think them bad, and, therefore, as taking that view, I shall vote against them. The summary which the Financial Secretary will supply to the Chancellor of what took place here this afternoon will show him that if he supposes that the reason some of these Resolutions were adopted without discussion on the first night was because they raised no opposition he would be entirely mistaken in that supposition. We have had from every quarter of the House vehement criticism directed against the proposal of the Chancellor which is now before the House. We have had a very interesting speech from the Financial Secretary in reply, but I think the speech had been prepared in view of a different Debate, and that the course the Debate took rather took the hon. Gentleman by surprise. Hon. Members from Ireland have contended in the first place that if you are to take indirect taxes and tax articles of consumption you have chosen one which presses with undue severity upon Ireland, both upon her industry and upon her consumers. Hon. Members from Scotland sitting upon the Government side
    890
    of the House, as well as hon. Friends of mine, have taken up exactly the same attitude in regard to this tax in its application to Scotland, and they have told us that it presses most harshly upon the poorer parts of Scotland, just as hon. Members from Ireland complain that it presses very harshly on Ireland, which, taken as a whole, is a poor country. With those arguments, not unfamiliar to me in the days when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when they were put forward with less provocation, the Financial Secretary has not attempted to deal— he passed them by in silence. It is not that the hon. Gentleman's speech was inadequate, but he deliberately refrained from attempting to make any answer at all.
    It remains for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us his justification for the tax as against those criticisms upon it. There were other criticisms made which the Financial Secretary passed by with equal silence, and it is to them that I want to direct the attention of the Chancellor now. We have said to him at intervals during this discussion that we could not understand his estimate. I do not know that the House is not always right to be suspicious of the estimates of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to, at any rate, examine them critically, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an obvious object in desiring a large and apparently unexpected surplus, and when the Estimates appear to be drawn with a looseness to which we are wholly unaccustomed, and when we are unable to find in the only facts available any sound basis for the conclusions arrived at, then our critical faculties are sharpened and our suspicions very much increased. We want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before we leave this Resolution to-day, to give us a detailed and reasoned explanation of his estimate of the yield of the tax. It is very important financially, it is very important for the industry concerned, because if it he true, as all the representatives of the industry think, that a smaller tax would bring in a larger sum than the Chancellor expects to get, then it is obviously a gross injustice to put a burden on any trade which is not required by the financial necessities of the case; or if it be the decision that under any circumstances this burden is to be put on this trade, then we should have money available to reduce the burden put on people in other taxes. Whether you choose to keep this tax at its level or not we ought to know what the

    891
    produce of the tax will be, and we ought not to raise a great deal more money than we require. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he expects to get in the present year from this tax £1,600,000. That is the figure of which we have had no explanation beyond this contained in these two statements. In the first place, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have but 11 months of the financial year in which to collect the tax, because the duty only came into force a month after the year began; and, in the second place, that in anticipation of the Chancellor's selecting alcohol as one of the things on which to levy new taxation, great withdrawals took place. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what amount was withdrawn? Obviously that information is in his possession. He may not have it with him now, but it is readily accessible. If it is on that information that he has made the estimate, he can let us know what excess of whisky was taken out of bond in immediate anticipation of the Budget compared with what is commonly taken out at similar times in recent years. These are the only two explanations which he has given for putting the yield of his duty so low as £1,600,000. The figure seems to be ridiculous. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Scott-Dickson) said he was informed that the distilleries north of Perth produced last year seven million gallons, and that the additional duty on that alone would work out at over £1,300,000. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Flynn) made an estimate as to what the yield of the additional duty would be on Irish whisky. He allowed for as much as 20 per cent. decrease in the consumption, and yet he produced a figure which is wholly irreconcilable with the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    That is a problem which confronts us, which we are unable to solve, and which we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with in the present Debate, giving us the detailed calculations by which he has arrived at an estimate which, on the face of it, appears to be ridiculous, and which appears to us to be adopted by the Government only for the purpose of calculating the yield of their revenue, but never for the purpose of considering what the effects of their tax is going to be on any of the parties concerned. The Financial Secretary, for instance, entered into a very interesting account of the way in
    892
    which whisky went from its birth till it finally found a haven of rest in the consumer, of the different people's hands it passed through, of the different processes which each applied to it, at what point the whisky paid duty and how the retailer was to get the duty back from the consumer. The hon. Gentleman stated that the retailer would get back not merely the duty, but a considerable addition. I always understood from the party opposite that there was no more fatal flaw in the duties suggested by Tariff Reformers than the fact that they would raise more from the consumer than went into the Exchequer. But now we have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury telling us that it is the great merit of this tax that for every 3s. 9d. the Exchequer gets the retailer and the trade will take another 1s. 3d. from the consumer. That, of course, is to comfort the retailer and the trade, and to explain to them that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fixed upon an undoubtedly declining trade on which to impose additional taxation to an amount never heretofore dreamt of, they will be just as well off in the end as they were in the beginning, and, indeed, rather better off, because they will be able to get so much more out of the consumer. Did the Financial Secretary allow for the injury which is going to be done to the retailer, to the distiller, and to everyone concerned, by the decrease of the trade which they will be able to do? In order to justify the estimate of —1,600,000, after allowing for the month of the year which slipped by, and for the forestalments, whatever they are, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be counting on a tremendous reduction in the amount of whisky consumed. Of course, it is a difficulty that in trying to get 3s. 9d, more out of whisky he loses 11s. on every gallon that does not pass into consumption. Therefore he has got to make out of the whisky which is still drunk, not merely the amount of new revenue, but the tremendous loss of revenue on all the whisky that he prevents being sold. Is that the explanation why he bases his estimate of revenue so low? If it is, what becomes of all the assurances of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) that the trade itself, the retailer, the wholesaler, the manufacturer, and the various industries dependent upon them, are going to he unhurt? If you decrease the turnover of the distillery, you increase the fixed cost relative to the turnover on which the profit has to be made, and you reduce the profit,

    893
    other things being equal, not merely by the amount of the tax, but in proportion to the decrease which you make in the business right through the whole of the turnover.
    And you will do something more. To justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer's anticipation of so small a revenue, you must be doing what hon. Members for Scotland and Ireland have said you are doing. You must be so treating the trade that you will kill a number of distilleries, actually destroy industries now existing, and greviously affect all those who directly or indirectly are dependent upon them. And this is the Budget of which it is the proud boast of the President of the Board of Trade that it at least injures no industry and affects no trade. It is going to take particular traders and extinguish them; it is going to make their business impossible of carrying on. That is not a thing which taxation ought to do. If you want to put down spirit-drinking as a social evil, approach it as such, strike at it as such, forbid it by law; but you have no right to raise taxation to a point at which it makes it impossible for a man to carry on a business which, in every other aspect of your law, you regard as a proper business for him to carry on. In this case it is a business which affects a great number of other industries, and it is a great misfortune that the industry which it affects the most is another suffering industry, namely, agriculture. The Financial Secretary told us that this, after all, was a dispute between pot still and patent still—between two different sections of the trade. I know that pot still versus patent still is a very burning question, and that Ministers, when touching upon it, need to walk warily and be careful how they offend either of these great industries. But if it be, as it is alleged by all those who are interested in the pot-still section, that their whisky can less bear the heavy increase in taxation than the patent still. then you are striking hardest that production which is the most valuable to agriculture, and it is poor consolation to tell the agriculturists who are largely dependent for such prosperity as they enjoy on the production and sale of barley that they need not give up hope, because even where whisky is brewed 75 per cent. from maize a percentage of barley still comes into it. I think it is an unfortunate thing that. restricted as I think by wholly false ideas on the subject of taxation, the Government, when feeling bound, and rightly feeling bound, to raise
    894
    a part of their new revenue by indirect taxation, should have thought it possible only to deal with these particular taxes. It was not worth while giving up the sugar duty last year in order to put a tobacco duty on this year. But I must not go into that; I was branching off to a Resolution to which we are not yet come. If the Government were not restricted by phrases which are largely meaningless, they could have found means by which to raise their revenue without anything like the sense of injustice to two portions of the United Kingdom which these particular taxes impose, without anything like the injury to agriculture and manufactures which they will inflict, and without burdening one particular article with such tremendous duties as those which they now propose.
    I know the answer which right hon. Gentlemen habitually make. They say: "Oh, you would tax the necessaries of the life of the people." I wish they would get behind the phrase and get to the facts. An hon. Member from Ireland the other night asked whether they called meat a necessary of life, because there are thousands of poor cottagers in Ireland who never see meat from year's end to year's end, and where tobacco and tea are the two comforts which they have. Tobacco and tea are consumed every day by them. Is it not a mockery to satisfy yourself with a phrase which has no meaning in the real life of these people to refrain from taxing what they do not eat because you say it is necessary to them, although they cannot afford it, and to tax the things which they do eat and consume? The Prime Minister the other day begged his friends to remember that such proposals as we Tariff Reformers put forward meant taxing bread and cheese. I wish he had been in the House when the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. Healy) asked just now, "Why do you not tax cheese? There is no cheese eaten by the poor in Ireland." It is another of those happy phrases which have so little meaning in fact, but are so useful on the platform.
    Mr. JOHN WARDmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, including some of those articles to which hon. Members have desired to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn his attention, but which he has eschewed because they are contrary to his theories of sound finance — theories which, as is illustrated by every discussion, are breaking down in practice.

    895
    They no longer correspond to the real facts of, our life or the needs of our people. I, for my part, think that the time we have spent over these Resolutions, though to the Chancellor of the Exchequer they may seem long, is not ill-spent, because these discussions are having a wonderfully educative effect in the country.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Chamberlain) in the latter part of his speech, entered into a very wide field of discussion indeed, into which I cannot follow him without transgressing some of the rules of Debate. He invited me to follow him into the discussion of the Fiscal question. Well, one thing I am inclined to say, I do not quite appreciate his point when he talks about bread and cheese as being a sort of a mere phrase, something shadowy, with no substance at all about it. "Bread and cheese!" He poured scorn on the idea of bread and cheese being necessaries of life. His idea of the necessaries of life is whisky and tobacco. Bread and cheese, it is quite an irrelevant consideration. The real sorrows of the poor in Ireland, said the right hon. Gentleman, is that you are depriving them of their whisky. Really, I do not think that even the most industrious advocate of whisky as a beverage ever has regarded it as one of the necessities of life, while as regards tobacco we are completely out of order in discussing it.
    I will come to other parts of his speech. After all, the right hon. Gentleman for the last fortnight or three weeks has been denouncing us because we have been taxing the rich. We have raised all our taxes out of the rich! Now this is a part of the Budget where we are seeking to get a contribution from all parties, and in order to do that we have to tax one or more commodities; we have to take tea, tobacco, beer, or spirits. Wine would produce nothing adequate for the purpose, or wine would have been a fair competitor for this purpose. We wanted to raise three and a-half millions out of indirect taxation, therefore you have to elect between the articles I have named. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sugar."] I beg pardon, I had forgotten sugar. That is the fifth article. It has been asked why do you not put the tax on sugar? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Chamberlain) would have preferred it to be put on sugar rather than whisky. These were the two rival claims. When you come to con
    896
    sider the two rival claims, whether you take Ireland or elsewhere, the majority of the people would infinitely have preferred to have the tax put on whisky to sugar. I shall never forget the speeches from the Irish benches when the tax was put on sugar. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. T. Healy)—
    Mr. T. HEALY: Why do not you put it on beer?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will come to beer by-and-by, but I was going to give what is quite a relevant illustration. Let us take sugar. I shall never forget the strong denunciations from those benches, in which I joined, because they said what an important element in food sugar was, and the poorer the people of Ireland the greater the amount of sugar they consumed. Between the two I do not think anyone who knows the life of the poor would for one moment say that whisky is not a subject for taxation rather than sugar. The right hon. Gentleman places the two in contrast. I am perfectly willing to join issue upon that.
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not put them in contrast.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, someone did, and I thought it was the right hon. Gentleman. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman does not take that view. To come again to the poor. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Louth says why not tax beer? Take beer, first of all from the point of the Exchequer. You want to put a tax on which, if placed on the consumer, will represent something like the amount you want. One halfpenny on a pint of beer will very nearly represent an income of £20,000,000. When you come to consider that a good deal of beer is sold in glasses it will produce a good deal more than would otherwise be the case. I do not want £20,000,000. by indirect taxation. It would throw £20,000,000 upon the worker, and the whole, therefore, of these taxes of the burdens of "Dreadnoughts," old age pensions, and everything else, if put on beer, will be passed on to the worker.
    Mr. T. HEALY: The English worker.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not merely the English worker, but the Irish as well. I think the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) pointed out in the Debate that there is an increased consumption in Ireland of beer,

    897
    and that the manufacture of beer is an increasing industry in Ireland. A tax would be passed on, therefore, not merely to the English and Scottish workmen, but in an increasing proportion to the Irish workmen. May I point out to my hon. Friend that if you take spirits the contribution of the Irish workman will get smaller year by year, whereas if I put it on beer the contribution of the Irish workmen would grow year by year. [Cries of dissent.] Well, that is what I am informed. There is an increasing consumption in Ireland of beer. They are passing from whisky to beer—
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Stout.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, stout. I am including all—black beer and ale. Therefore I cannot possibly put it on beer because I only want a small revenue from indirect taxation, and no part of the House would sanction, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself would support me, if I said I will raise £14,000,000 of what I need by putting a tax on the beer of the workmen. Then come to tea. It is drunk by not merely the poor, but by the very poor. The worst of it is this, that the poorer the quality of tea drunk the higher the percentage of tax it pays. When you come to the quality of tea drunk by the very poor people, whether in Ireland or this country, and compare what is represented by duty you find it is 100 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: 80 per cent.] It is a very high percentage.
    Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: The poor in Ireland drink much better tea than the rich in England.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, I know that the Irish are very good judges of tea. At any rate, when you come to the very poor qualities of tea, I think I will be borne out in saying that the percentage of duty is extraordinary high, that it is something like 100 per cent. When you come to the better classes of tea drunk by Irish, English and Scotch, you find the percentage is very much lower. This, therefore, would be a tax on the very very poor. The reports in connection with the old age pensions in Ireland shows me that tea was the sole beverage of many of the aged poor. A tax on tea would have been a very cruel tax. That disposes of sugar, beer, and tea.
    Now let us take the things we have retained—the tobacco and the whisky. After all they are luxuries. Being
    898
    luxuries I think it is perfectly fair that a contribution should be raised rather out of the spare money that is spent upon luxuries, rather than out of the essentials of life. That is why we have chosen these. I have been challenged a good deal with regard to the estimates. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is very difficult to forecast what you are going to get out of your taxes. He knows it is an operation that takes some time to discover—sometimes a good deal. In nothing is this more true than in spirits. Several Chancellors of Exchequer have tried to raise a revenue out of spirits. Substantially they have failed. Sir Wm. Harcourt tried it. He did not get the money. Lord St. Aldwyn tried it. He did not get the money.
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Except in the first year.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, I am in the first year; my estimate is for the first year. I think the revenue rights itself eventually, but the difficulty is the first year. It is always somewhat of a gamble the first year. What are the elements—to speak quite frankly to the House—when you come to estimate your revenue to be derived out of spirits. First of all, there is forestalment before the end of the financial year. There was still more considerable forestalment during the month of April—very considerable forestalment: so that probably for the next few weeks the spirit trade, speaking as a whole, need not draw anything out of bond.
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Can you tell us what proportion was withdrawn?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can later on. These are elements which no Chancellor of the Exchequer would care to talk very much about, because it looks like sanctioning these things. There are ways of evading the revenue. Lord St. Aldwyn did not get his money, but the trade did. I do not want to indicate these ways, because it looks as if I were speaking of them as if the Exhequer would sanction them; they were referred to in Parliament as the "pump." There are other ways by which the trade at any rate in the first year should be able to reduce their contribution of the revenue. Eventually, I have no doubt it will come right, because the customers will not have it. That is why dining the first year the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not get the full benefit of the txation upon spirits. It is much easier

    899
    to evade a tax on spirits than it is on beer, because beer does not offer the same opportuntities to the publican. What happens? The customer orders his whisky, but he orders it for the purpose of diluting it. Very often the publican says, very well, I might as well begin that process for him, and so he continues until he finds out when he has got to the right pitch of dilution. The tax is on crude spirit. There is a certain amount of dilution allowed by law, and in many cases the publicans put up a notice saying that they are not responsible, and do not guarantee the quality of the whisky. In that case you cannot prosecute them. These are elements of uncertainty in the tax in the first year of its operation. There are other elements. There is just the chance that the publicans may keep their stock down, and a week or a fortnight's stock in hand will make a very considerable difference to the revenue for the first year. If they reduce their stock 10 days or a fortnight it makes an enormous difference to the revenue. You lose not only the extra 3s. 9d. per gallon, but you loose the 11s. as well. These are elements of uncertainty which have to be reckoned with for the first year, and in addition to them we have to consider other things as well. There is the diminuation of consumption. There is a steady diminution in consumption of spirit in this country. We have to reckon that in connection with the diminution in consumption we lose again not only the 3s. 9d. but the 11s. ordinary duty, 15s. per gallon in all. There is an enormous and continuous diminution in consumption. I have no doubt that the increase will have the effect of very considerably diminishing the consumption further. I think it may have that effect in more ways than one. One way is possibility by dilution, and another way is by giving smaller revenues.
    There is no standard measure in the ordinary case. [An HON. MEMBER: There is the half-pint."] Yes, the ordinary half-pint. That is a standard measure, but in whisky you say a "small" or a "large" Scotch, or perhaps you order what—in my part of the world they have a very good name for it—is called a "cropper." These are not standard measures, and I was informed by a gentleman who knows these things very well that they are reducing their measures in some restaurants and public-houses by 20 per cent. If they are going to reduce them by 20 per cent. I will
    900
    not get my £1,600,000 at all, and I do not think any man can forecast with anything like certainty what the yield of taxation of this kind will be during the first year. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester would he be prepared to farm out this revenue? The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition is prepared to make a deal. I think it is a very risky speculation. He might make a lot of money out of it, but he might drop a lot. It is a very risky calculation, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer after all these elements of uncertainty to deal with would be justified in the first year in giving anything but an exceedingly cautious estimate. I agree, before the Debates on the Budget close, I should be in a better position to give a more reliable estimate, but a good deal depends upon what happens. We will know pretty well whether the extra ½d. or 1d. is going to produce diminished consumption. We will know whether the publican is going to take it out in increased dilution or decreased measure. Before these Debates are over we will know fairly well what the income of the tax is going to be, and I am quite prepared to let the House know the facts with very great care, and to tell them what is going on. We shall watch from day to day, and whatever information I get I will put at the disposal of the House. I agree that the House of Commons is entitled to all information we have got at our disposal for the purpose of making an estimate. We have no right to raise more money by taxation than is demanded by the requirements of the State, and if there is any prospect, owing to the working of the tax, of the return being more favourable to the revenue than was anticipated, then the House of Commons is entitled to know not merely what the facts are, but to dispose of whatever surplus the tax will yield in the way which suits it best according to the Committee of Ways and Means.
    At the present moment I am justified, and I certainly think if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) were in my place he would take the same view, that I would not be justified but in giving a very cautious and a very moderate estimate of what the tax is likely to yield, and for that reason I am quite prepared to justify the line which the Government has taken. There is a possibility that we might not get the £1,600,000. Every Chancellor up to the

    901
    present has been disappointed in his estimate of the whisky tax. This is an experiment which enables the retailer to take it off the consumer. I have done that deliberately, because I have not thought it fair in cases of this kind to put on the tax in a way that would embarrass trade and make it very difficult for them to pass it on to the consumer. Here they are able to do it. It is fairer to them, and it not only enables them to pass it on to the consumer, but it enables the retailer to charge practically his increased licence duty upon the whisky in most cases, and he is doing it. I could point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and I could give him figures to show, that by the increased charge which the publicans are making in respect to whisky they are making a profit of —4,000,000 a year, even making a considerable allowance for diminution of consumption.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That illustrates the point to which I wish the right hon. Gentleman to address himself. He says that 1s. 3d. a gallon to the publican is a profit of £4,000,000, though 3s. 9d. a gallon to the Exchequer is only £1,600,000.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The figure I gave was 2s. 7d. per gallon to the publican.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the hon. Gentleman said the retailer would charge 5s. on account of the 3s. 9d. put on by the Budget?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, 6s. 8d.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think lie said 5s. That is how I got my 1s. 3d. for the trade; but suppose the hon. Gentleman said 2s. 3d., how does 2s. 3d. provide £4,000.000 to the trade while 3s. 9d. produced only £1,500,000 to the Exchequer?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was not here when my hon. Friend spoke. As I understand it, his figures were these: He took 80 glasses to the gallon, and he estimates a penny per glass, which would be 6s. 8d., and deducting 3s. 9d. the right hon. Gentleman will see that the difference could not possibly be 1s. 3d., but is 2s. 11d.; but my hon. Friend made certain reductions for wastage, and from that basis a profit is provided of £4,048,000.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the lesser sum for the retailer produces a larger return than the larger sum does for the Exchequer?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I made a very considerable allowance for diminished consumption before estimating it at any figure. Every man in the trade knows perfectly well that the trade is making a considerable margin of profit, and that they are paying with it not merely the 3s. 9d., but in addition to that most of them are making something towards their licence duty as well. That is the process which is going on at the present moment. I may point out, in addition to that, they are charging the full penny in respect to whisky on which they had not paid a single additional penny. Take the millions of gallons which they withdrew from bond and on which they did not pay the 3s. 9d. They are charging the extra penny for that, and they will probably make out of that something like a million. Apart from that charge, they are making in respect of tobacco upon which they never paid the extra duty, so that the trade up to the present have not much to complain of. I think now I have dealt with most of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and with the points raised by the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not propose to detain the House at any length, but I think the House will agree with me that if anything required further to be said aganst this tax than has been said by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland and Scotland that an additional criticism has been passed upon it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I really am absolutely astounded by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has given us. What does it amount to? I think it amounts to an important endowment of the trade. I heard nothing else but endowment of the trade passed on a certain Bill four years ago, but whoever heard of endowing a trade upon the scale which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endowed it? He tells us in the course of his speech, in regard to beer, that he would not put a tax upon beer because the smallest addition to the charge by the retailer would give £20,000,000. In his speech—I am only going to say this in passing, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman—in the speech which he delivered, and in the speech which the Prime Minister delivered on the Committee stage, they told us Licence Duties were going to be thrown upon the public. That was their defence. The only way to throw it upon the public would be that there should be some additional charge, and the smallest additional charge

    903
    would give £20,000,000 according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. That is not going into the Exchequer, but to the brewers, and it is not a bad endowment to the brewers. Now I come to what is more strictly germane, namely, the distillers. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to get by this tax £1,600,000 for the Treasury and £4,000,000 for the distillers. Did any human being ever hear a tax defended on those principles? Who are the Gentlemen making this extraordinary profit? As my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out, hon. Gentlemen opposite are always occupying themselves in explaining that any system of taxation proposed from this side of the House has the merit of putting money in the hands of the traders, and not into the Exchequer. I may say that no tax ever proposed from this side of the House put £4,000,000 into the hands of a particular class of traders and £1,500,000 into the Exchequer. [An OPPOSITION Member: "That is democratic finance."] That is one of the strange inconsistencies of the Government, but here is another. Here are hon. Gentlemen opposite who occupied the whole of last autumn endeavouring to impose what they admitted, and what we urged, was an unfair burden upon the trade, coming forward now with proposals which, in the mouth of one of the Members of the Cabinet who spoke no later than Saturday last, are a particular form of taxation which is the second best method of dealing with the trade as compared with what was proposed last year. Last year, by universal admission, they endeavoured to deprive the trade of what the trade thought, at any rate, was their property, and the Government now come forward with what they call the second best method, by which it turns out they are giving the distillers alone £4,000,000 a year. I do not know which is the most astounding, the fiscal inconsistencies or the legislative inconsistencies of the Government.
    There is only one other point I will allude to, because we want to conclude the Debate, but it is a very important one, and I will trouble the House with it for only a moment. What is the broad justification given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this tax? The right hon. Gentleman says with great truth: "If you are going to proceed on the general lines we have
    904
    been going on it would be most unfair to put new and very heavy taxation upon the more wealthy classes of the community and ask the less wealthy classes of the community to contribute nothing substantial to the great deficit which we have to meet." That is a good, broad, general principle with which I entirely agree; but let us examine for a moment the right hon. Gentleman's method of carrying out this policy. He says you will have to throw this burden upon the working classes of the community, and who does it turn out the working classes are? Why, the people who drink whisky in Scotland, Ireland, and England. In Scotland they drink hardly any beer. I believe that the proportion of beer consumed is larger in Ireland than has been stated, but they drink a larger amount relatively of spirits. May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman makes this a fair balance between the different classes when you are turning round to find a poor man's tax, to find that poor man only in Scotland and Ireland? How can you justify that? The right hon. Gentleman says you ought to do your best to bring in all classes of the community, but when you say that in part of your Budget you are throwing a burden on the millionaire, upon the miner, the landowner, and adding to the Death Duties and Income Tax, let us turn round and see in the case of the non-Income Tax paying class, the non-Death Duty paying class, and the non-landowners, how are you going to deal with them? The right hon. Gentleman locks round amongst the 43,000,000 inhabitants of these islands and fixes his eye upon the people who live north of the Tweed and west of St. George's Channel. "There," he says, "is the poor man I need." Is that the proper way to raise this tax, and is that the true method of balancing your Budget? I do not think that will hold water, and I do not think it will be successful. Observe, as if the international unfairness is not enough as between population and population, there is another absurdity. What does the Chancellor the Exchequer say about his Estimate? He says. "I cannot really estimate for a consumption of more than 1,600,000 because there is this and that way of evading the tax." That is quite true, but it should not be forgotten that you will be making too much money next year. Does the right hon. Gentleman see the extraordinary absurdity of putting on a gigantic tax this year because it will not be paid, and then keeping it on next year when it

    905
    will not be wanted? And as if that absurdity were not enough, the right hon. Gentleman openly says that he means to drive or induce the population of these islands who still drink whisky to drink beer.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did not say anything of the kind. I never said a word about it. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: "Yes you did, in your Budget speech."]
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech made that statement.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh! In my Budget speech?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What I did say in my Budget speech was that I had based my estimate upon the probability of an increased consumption of beer; but I never said I had put on the tax to drive people to drinking beer. I had nothing to do with that statement.
    Mr. BALFOUR: But the people who make spirits have a great deal to do with it. It now turns out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly contemplates a thing which is put before us for purely fiscal reasons—although that is an. extremely absurd one—is really going to divert an industry from one channel to another. I think that is a rather rash admission for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make. If you take all these considerations together, in the first place that you are going to endow the trade; in the second place that you are going to tax, in the name of taxation, the poor, and you are going to tax the poor who happen to live in not the richest part of these islands; in the third place you are going to put on a tax which will not be effective this year, and will not be wanted next year; and in the fourth place you are putting on a tax fully conscious that it will divert this industry from one channel to another—considering all these arguments together, I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that the duty of defending his Budget has only just begun.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I wish to find out whether this enormous tax, so revolutionary in its character, is one which can be justified as being necessary. I confess, after listening to what has been said from the Treasury Bench in reply to our speeches, I cannot admit that it has been paved that this tax is either justifiable or
    906
    necessary. No attempt has been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to prove that, as between Ireland and Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, this tax is fair and equitable. It cannot be contended that any tax is justifiable that has a tendency to ruin an existing industry. It is, of course, possible that this rise of 15 or 20 per cent. on the price of whisky may not greatly affect the course of trade, but it certainly seems to me not only possible but very likely that it will divert this industry, and we shall have, as the result, less distillers and more brewers. That is unfair as between Ireland and Scotland on the one side, and England on the other, because you are likely to ruin an industry which exists practically only in Ireland and Scotland. This is only one of two or three industries in Ireland which has survived. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove that this tax is necessary.
    The right hon. Gentleman has put a tax on Ireland and upon Scotland which has not been proved to be necessary from a temperance point of view. I do not consider that he has proved the case that the yield which he anticipates will be forthcoming. Again the defence which he has made for putting on this extraordinary tax is not defensible from the point of view of machinery. The official defence is that you cannot put a small tax upon anything and collect it from the consumer. Surely the Financial Secretary of the Treasury is aware that you cannot tax beer in this way so as to make it produce 20 millions of money. The tax which is supposed to be imposed is neither justifiable nor necessary. I hold that the tax is unfair in its incidence, and excessive in its magnitude. What I ask myself is: How is the tax going to affect Ireland? In my own Constituency we had a most important distillery some three years ago when it was closed. For those number of years it has thrown out of work some 80 to 100 men. There was some attempt to reopen it, but how can this distillery be reopened with this proposed tax of 3s. 9d. a gallon? Before I sit down there is one other point I should like to allude to. It is a point which ought to be considered. That is the enormous encouragement which the increased tax will give to illicit distillation in Ireland. I was brought up in a place where there was illicit distillation, and I know very well the demoralisation which took place from it. It was in the County of Donegal. It is true that the illicit trade was suppressed, but it was not suppressed

    907
    by the police. Of course it is a risky trade, but now that you are going to increase the tax from between 3s. and 4s. a gallon there will be a great increase in illicit distillation all along the West Coast of Ireland. It is for that reason alone that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be well advised to reconsider his proposals if that be possible.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I shall stand between the House and the Division only for a few moments. I wish to explain why I must join with my colleagues in making a protest against the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I ask him whether his attention has been called to the fact that in regard to these proposals, with the exception of the hon. Member for Tyrone and, perhaps, the gentleman who is connected with the Irish Government, every single Irish Member—representatives of all sections of the Irish people—will unite on this question against the Government in the Division Lobby. This question is regarded in Ireland from an Irish point of view. I would like to point out that nothing is to be gained for temperance by the support of this proposal by those who are in favour of temperance legislation. The Irish Members are in favour of temperance reform, and they have shown over and over again that they will support any Bill which has for its object the promotion of temperance in Ireland, but every one of the Irish Members who is in favour of temperance reform will, as far as I know, vote against the proposed increase. Not because it is an impost on the taxation of whisky, but because it is an increase on an Irish manufacture. I am not one of those who take up the position that the proposed tax ought to be supported from a temperance point of view, but this proposal is opposed unanimously over Ireland. The Irish people feel that the country is already overtaxed, and that it is unjust to put further taxation upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we in Ireland should accept this proposed tax because there was no increase in the taxation on tea. Our position is not that you tax our tea or our whisky, or any particular commodity, but we object to it because our country has reached its limit in regard to taxation, and that you have no right to put increased taxation of any kind whatever on it. If this money is to be
    908
    raised, it ought not to be raised at the expense of the Irish people. The Chancellor said that if the tax was put upon beer it would hit the Irish people. That is not the way to look at the matter. Whisky is one of the few remaining industries left in Ireland, and it is unfair that you should select that industry for fresh taxation and leave the beer in Ireland free from any fresh taxation. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done an unfair thing, and an unwise thing. He wants to get £16,000,000. Well, he will get opposition to his Budget far out of proportion to that amount. I strongly recommend him to reconsider this matter before he produces his Financial Bill. He must be prepared for the strongest opposition from all sections of the Irish people in this matter, and I assure him, as one who has worked on these benches with him for many years, that the greatest disappointment is felt in Ireland because of the proposal which he has made. When he used to sit there on these benches I never thought that he would come to the House of Commons as Chancellor of the Exchequer and propose a Budget which would be distinctly unfair to the Irish people. I appeal to him to reconsider this matter and I wish to make it clear to him that the protest from the Irish Members will be unanimous. Hon. Members who never before went into the same Lobby will be united against the Government, not because we look at this matter from a temperance point of view, but simply because we consider the proposal of the Government from a national and an industrial point of view. What do you want this money for? The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister say they want it to pay for the increased naval expenditure, and to build more "Dreadnoughts." I say let those who want the "Dreadnoughts" pay for them. We in Ireland do not want them. We in Ireland derive absolutely no benefit, good, bad, or indifferent, from the enormous increase in the naval expenditure of this country. It is monstrous, it is most unjust and unfair, that this Government or any Government should come to the people of Ireland—the poorest portion of the United Kingdom—and ask them to pay for naval expenditure which they do not approve of. We are told, though, on the other hand, that because the Irish people have joined—and joined only in a fair proportion, according to the circumstances of the country—in the old age pensions

    909
    they should be compelled to pay for them. I say with perfect deliberation that if the old age pension scheme in Ireland is to mean that for every million that goes to the people in old age pensions a fresh additional million burden of taxation is to be put on Ireland then old age pensions will not have been any advantage whatever to the vast majority of the Irish people. The fact of the matter is we are only at the commencement of this struggle. Some people seem to imagine that when the Budget Resolutions are before the House of Commons the whole question is settled. I say that the struggle does not commence until the Finance Bill is in the hands of Members, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no consideration for the happy days when both he and I here used
    to fight the present Opposition—when we were both equally ready to call them Chinamen, and when we helped to put them out of office by calling them Chinamen and denouncing them as Confuscians —no consideration for those days—and I admit they were extremely happy and pleasant days—will prevent me from offering the strongest possible resistance in my power to the present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I frankly and honestly regard as most wantonly unjust to the Irish people and to the poorest part of the United Kingdom.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 126.

    Division No. 127].

    AYES.

    [8.5 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Agnew, George William

    Crooks, William

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Alden, Percy

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jenkins, J.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Kekewick, Sir George

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Barker, Sir John

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Lambert, George

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Erskine, David C.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Beale, W. P.

    Essex, R. W.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Esslemont, George Blrnle

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Bell, Richard

    Falconer, J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Rumford)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Maclean, Donald

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Malden)

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

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Branch, James

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Brodie, H. C.

    Greenwood, G (Peterborough)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Maiks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Massie, J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

    Menzies, Walter

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Byles, William Pollard

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Cameron, Robert

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Mond, A.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Henry, Charles S.

    Morse, L. L.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Myer, Horatio

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Napier, T. B.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Clough, William

    Hodge John

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Nussey, Thomas Williams

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cox, Harold

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Partington, Oswald

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sears, J. E.

    Walton, Joseph

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Pointer, J.

    Seddon, J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Shackleton, David James

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Radford, G. H.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Watt, Henry A.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Snowden; P.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Soares, Ernest J.

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

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Summerbell, T.

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Robinson, S.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Winfrey, R.

    Rogers, F. E. (Newman)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Rose, Charles Day

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Rowlands, J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Joseph Pease and the Master of

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Elibank.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Vivian, Henry

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Haddock, George B.

    O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpol)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hamilton, Marquis of

    Oddy, John James

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Beckett, Hon Gervase

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Boland, John

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hogan, Michael

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

    Burke E. Haviland-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    Ropner. Colonel Sir Robert

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Starkey, John R.

    Clyde, J. A.

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tuke. Sir John Batty

    Dairymple, Viscount

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    M'Calmont, Col. James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wyndham Rt. Hon. George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, George

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Foster, P. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Gardner, Ernest

    Muldoon, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Ginnell, L.

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Valentia.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Resolution reported.

    SPIRITS DISTILLED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
    "That in addition to the duty of Excise now payable for every gallon computed at
    912
    proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duty (that is to say):—

    913

    s.

    d.

    For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

    3

    9

    and so on in proportion for any less quantity."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 243 Noes, 123.

    Division No. 128.]

    AYES

    [8.13 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fenwick Charles

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Agnew, George William

    Ferens, T. R.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Alden, Percy

    Findlay, Alexander

    Morse, L. L.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Myer, Horatio

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

    Napier, T. B.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Glover, Thomas

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Barker, Sir John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

    Partington, Oswald

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Beale, W. P

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Pointer, J.

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bell, Richard

    Henry, Charles S.

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, G. H.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hodge, John

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Branch, James

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Howard, Han. Geoffrey

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Brunner, Rt. Non. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robinson, S.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Jenkins, J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Cameron, Robert

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Chance, Frederick William

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Rowlands, J.

    Channing, Sir Francis Ailston

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R

    Laldlaw, Robert

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Clough, William

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Sears, J. E.

    Cabbold, Felix Thornley

    Lambert, George

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Seddon, J.

    Corbett. C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Shackleton, David James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cox, Harold

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Crooks, William

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Snowden, P.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Davies. Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Straus, B. S. (Mlle End)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Cambarne)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Erskine, David C.

    Massie, J.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Essex, R. W.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Menzies, Walter

    Tomkinson, James

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Falconer, J.

    Mond, A.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Vivian, Henry

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Walton, Joseph

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Winfrey, R.

    Wardle, George J.

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wason, Rt Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Joseph Pease and the Master of

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Elibank.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Gretton, John

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Haddock, George B.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Oddy, John James

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Boland, John

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hogan, Michael

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, John Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Randles, Sir Jahn Scurrah

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ratcliff, Major. R. F.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hunt, Rowland

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    Renwick, George

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Salter, Arthur Clavll

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rusk.

    Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Starkey, John R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Do Cros, Arrthur

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wzirond, Hon Lionel

    Ffrench, Peter

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Ginnell, L.

    Muldoon, John

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

    TOBACCO (IMPORTED).
    3. "That in lieu of the duties of Customs now payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

    s.

    d.

    Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—

    Containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof—

    Unstripped the lb.

    3

    8

    Stripped the lb.

    3

    8½

    Containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every

    916

    s.

    d.

    one hundred pounds weight thereof—

    Unstripped the lb.

    4

    1

    Stripped the lb.

    4

    1½

    Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—

    Cigars the lb.

    7

    0

    Cigarettes the lb.

    5

    8

    Cavendish or Negrohead the lb.

    5

    4

    Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bondper lb.

    4

    8

    Other manufactured tobacco the lb.

    4

    8

    Snuff containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

    4

    5

    917

    s.

    d.

    Snuff not containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

    5

    4."

    —[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved to insert after the words "thereof" the words "if grown without the British Empire." The effect of the rather for able-looking series of Amendments which I have given notice is to give a preference of 25 per cent. to tobacco, whether manufactured or unmanufactured, imported into England from any part of the British Empire. It is quite true that it has not been possible exactly to adjust these figures without running into farthings, but I believe when they are worked out that will be, in round figures, the effect of my Amendment. When the question of Colonial Preference is raised in any form, two principal objections are usually made to any such proposal. It is said, in the first place, that to carry out the scheme of Colonial Preference will involve the creation of a tariff which will bear hardly upon the. home consumer. I may say at once that the effect of this proposal cannot be open to that objection, because the preference is only suggested upon the actual normal Home Tariff, imposed for purposes of revenue. The Government, it is true, propose an increase this year for purposes of revenue—an increase which I think is uncalled for and unjust; but it is purely a revenue duty which they have proposed, and I would suggest this preference even upon the old duties as well as on the new. So much for the first objection. Then the second objection that is raised is that to carry out Colonial Preference will be extremely destructive of the revenue at home. Here again, this proposal I venture to make is quite free from this objection. No doubt if a preference on tea were to be proposed it would have a very serious effect upon the home revenue; but upon tobacco it is not so. It is quite true that tobacco is grown in a great number of Colonies and Dependencies, but with one exception, which I shall allude to later, it is grown in comparatively small quantities, and the effect upon the revenue could not be serious, and even where it is grown
    918
    in large quantities hitherto it has not been imported into England in any very large quantities. As a matter of fact, I have been at some little pains to point out what the effect of this proposal on the revenue would be, and I find that it would result in a loss to the revenue of some £50,000 a year, taking the Board of Trade figures as the basis of calculation. The loss on unmanufactured would come to some £19,400, and the loss on manufactured tobacco, including all kinds of cigars, cigarettes, and snuff would come to £31,000, making a total of just over £50,000 in all.
    This question, although it affects potentially at any rate many Colonies and Dependencies throughout the British Empire, is mainly an Indian and South African question. I was surprised on looking into the figures, and possibly the House may be surprised to know, that in our Indian possessions there. are no fewer than one million acres devoted to tobacco—in fact, rather more, and certainly more if Ceylon is included. It is not very easy to say what. exactly the production of these million acres may be. I believe the only case in which it has been worked out, as far as Government Returns show as to what is the production of tobacco to the acre, is the case of the Colony of Mauritius, and in that case it works out at some £1,500 an acre. I do not know how far that is applicable to India. If it is applicable to India, of course the normal annual production of India will amount to no less than 15,000,000 pounds of tobacco. You have to deal with the great existing capacity of production in India, which I submit under more favourable circumstances might result in a large export into this country, but, as a matter of fact, a very small quantity is exported. The amount on which Customs duties are at present payable in 1907, the last year available, came to some £28,000, a very, very small amount if we consider it in proportion to the amount produced in India. A case of this is not very far to seek. The existing duty on tobacco acts in practice as a preference against India. It is not an ad valorem duty, but a pure duty by weight quite irrespective of the quality of the tobacco, and in India cheaper qualities of tobacco are grown, and if it were possible to make the tobacco duty an ad valorem graduated duty a very substantial benefit would be given to India. How very wide the incidence of this duty is at present will be illustrated if I compare its effect upon various qualities of manufactured tobacco in the form of

    919
    cigars. A very high class cigar worth 2s. 6d. pays no more than 5 per cent., a 1s. cigar pays 10½ per cent., a 6d. cigar pays 16 per cent., and a 2d. cigar pays no less than 36 per cent.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Thirty-six per cent. of what?
    Mr. HOPE: When tobacco is manufactured in cigarettes I am informed it pays 36 per cent. of cost. If we go into the cheaper kind of unmanufactured tobacco the rate becomes prodigious, running up to something like 650 per cent., a tax which I should not think could be justified on the principles of any rational fiscal system. The imports from India consist of the cheaper kinds of tobacco, and India is penalised accordingly. If the Secretary to the Treasury could see his way to promise at once an ad valorem duty no doubt the weight of the special Indian case would be very much taken away, but I plead that tobacco such as is grown in India, in the absence of an ad valorem duty, should at least be released from the very heavy adverse preference from which it at present suffers, and I think there will be sufficient ground for the suggestion I make on the Indian case alone.
    But the Indian case is not the only one. There is the case of South Africa. The Board of Trade figures for the last year available, 1907, show that there were 317,000 lbs. of tobacco imported from South Africa. I do not understand the figures They show a prodigious increase. In the year before there were something like 10,000 lbs. But these are the Board of Trade figures, and unless they are given op by the representative of the Government we must argue upon them. This again, no doubt, is the rather cheaper kind of tobacco, and the value is not very great. I do not pretend that this at the present moment raises a very large case for the Treasury to deal with, but just because it does not raise a large case it is all the easier for the revenue to deal with it. I attach some importance to this matter, although the figures bulk somewhat small, because it was a point very strongly urged by the two representatives of South African Colonies at the Colonial Conference some two years ago. Dr. Jameson, speaking for Cape Colony, and Mr. Moore for Natal attached very considerable importance to this subject. They spoke of the loss Cape Colony
    920
    had sustained in regard to wine by the effect of the Cobden Treaty, which in practice resulted in putting a penalty on Cape wine from which it has never recovered. They asked for some relaxation in this respect, and they also asked that their new and growing industry of tobacco might, at any rate, not be discouraged in the English market. I would submit to the hon. Gentleman, when the result upon the consumer at home cannot but be infinitesimal, if it exists at all, and when the loss to the revenue can but be so slight, whether he cannot see his way to meet the representatives of South Africa in this matter. it is a very small thing for the revenue at home, but it is a very considerable thing to South Africa. Now just at the moment, when South Africa has been consolidated, and when a new era has been entered into, it would be a gracious thing from the South African point of view if the Government could make this very small concession. After all, the Customs Union of South Africa has already made a very considerable concession to us. It is true it does not seem large at first sight. It is a rebate of 3 per cent. of the duties which exist, but as the duties are low duties—on the average, I believe, not more than 10 per cent.—it really amounts already to a very valuable preference of something like 30 per cent. I believe, in fact, if anything, it is slightly over that. When they do so much for us, cannot we do something for them? If this concession be given, it will be an encouragement and a stimulus to a new industry in that country. It cannot affect, I should have thought, the fiscal principles of hon. Gentlemen whom I see before me and of the Government. They ale not asking us to make any new charge or to set up a new tariff; they are only asking us to give them something in return on a basis of the existing tariff, and I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give some reply more than it is against precedent. I would ask him to say in what way either the revenue or the consumer at home can be injured, and unless he can show that, I submit that the case, perfectly temperately put by the South African represenattives, and which applies also to the dependency of India, should be met in a fair and conciliatory spirit, and, if not, the whole of the 25 per cent. which I suggest, at any rate some substantial preference should be given by His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
    Captain CRAIG: In seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I should like to say that if the Government give way in this manner, it will be a very fitting date on which to do so. I am sure that we on this side of the House at least are aware that this is Empire Day, and, in granting this small concession to the Colonies who are interested in the tobacco- growing industry, we will be giving a con- cession which will be received by those Colonies all the more graciously in consideration of the celebrations which have taken place throughout the Empire during the whole of to-day. I think my hon. Friend has put his case as clearly, concisely, and yet as strongly as is possible. I would only like to remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who represents the Government at the moment, that if he gives a preference to those Colonies that are interested in the growing of tobacco he will be following the present Government's own precedent, because in the case of St. Helena they have given a preference to flax growing in the form of a substantial bounty, which amounts practically to the same thing as a remission of the duty charged on some of the imports into this country, and, secondly, the Government have already conceded a preference to Ire- land in the matter of tobacco growing. In the case of the bounty-fed industry of flax growing the Under-Secretary for the Colonies informed us that it had proved a great success, and in the case of the assisting of Irish-grown tobacco we are also assured that that is going to turn out a success. All that is asked by the Amend- ment is that this principle should be ex- tended to meet the great tobacco industry in South Africa and in India. I cannot speak myself from any personal knowledge about Indian tobacco, but I do think that the industry in South Africa deserves all the encouragement this country can give it. Those who are familiar with the manufacture of South African tobacco will be aware that it is a most important and growing industry in that country. It is looked upon by those engaged in it as a mainstay in certain parts of the country. The tobacco grown there is of a rather lower grade than we are accustomed to in this country, and consequently, with the import duties which are proposed to he imposed, it would be a ease of practically smoking all duty and very little tobacco. South African tobacco, especially in the summer time, smoked in this country is really quite refreshing as a change from the ordinary home manufacture.
    922
    It is only because of the extraordinary weight of duty on these lower class tobaccos that they are kept from becoming more popular in this country, and now over and above the duty to which they have been subjected, and which has kept. them out of the country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to place another 8d. per lb. I do hope that we will get some encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman this evening. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have both stated in this House and out of it that if we approach the matter in a business-like way, and not as politicians, we will receive from them the fairest possible consideration. So far in this Debate we have approached this matter with no political heat, but in as strictly a business way as we possibly could. My hon. Friend stopped a little short of where I should like to follow the argument in regard to this particular article imported from the Colonies. If we grant this concession we shall only reciprocate what has been done for us, and if we reciprocate in this small matter, it will be an encouragement to the Colonies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get from this increase of 8d. per lb. all over £50,000. That is the sum involved by my hon. Friend's Amendment. But we cannot measure the benefit to the Colonies or the Empire by thousands of pounds. Not only would the concession mean a gracious recognition by this country of what we have received from the Colonies in the past in the way of preference, but it would also enable them, in my opinion, to obtain better-terms from foreign countries in regard to articles imported from them. Once we allow the principle that where the Colonies are giving us a preference in a matter which affects the trade of this country, and we immediately reciprocate, as the right, hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of doing this evening, the Colonies will be able to treat for better terms with those foreign countries with which they are in business negotiations.
    The next point I should like to make is this. The representatives of the Government have so far shown no great encouragement. They at the last Colonial Conference, as has been stated rather curtly, "banged and barred the door." [Laughter.] I am only quoting what was said in regard to their action. Here is a chance for the right hon. Gentleman to place the key in the door and open it slightly, where he would be doing immense benefit not only to the two Colonies concerned, but to.

    923
    the whole of the British Empire. I do hope that he will not in this case hold out for the sake of only £15,000 a year against the appeal made by my hon. Friend. At all events, I feel confident that he will never regret on this Empire Day conceding what would be, though small, a very much appreciated benefit to the Colonies as a whole.
    Mr. J. SEDDON: I wish to say a few words about this Tobacco Tax. I have an objection to it, but not for the reason given by the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. I give the Seconder of this Amendment credit for being sincere when he spoke of this as a very favourable method of recognising Empire Day in this House; but so far as I am opposing the tax I want Empire Day to be recognised on behalf of the class whom I represent in this House, and whom it has just been said we all represent. I heard a remark during the speech of the Mover of this Amendment when he made a slight slip with reference to what we have done for the Colonies, and asked us to do something more. The interjection was, "What have we done for the Colonies?" That is an astounding interjection, so far as I am concerned. The great burden of protection is on the back of the people of this country. I believe the figure is something like 30s. per head for the defence of the Empire. The Consular service is at the disposal of every member of the British Empire, and outside these islands there is no contribution, or at least it is infinitesimal.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Four cruisers.
    Mr. SEDDON: I do not want to belittle what is being done by the Colonies, but I certainly want to have a just appreciation given to that which is done by the workers of this country. With reference to this Tobacco Tax I am not objecting personally. I am paying my share. It is costing me something like 10d. a month, which is 10s. a year. But what I object to is that when I buy a pound of tobacco I get 4s. 2d. in tax and I get 1s. 2d. in tobacco. If there is going to be any preference or alteration I think the alteration ought to he that the tax should be on value and not upon weight, and that the finished article should be the article taxed and not the raw product, because with the tax in its present condition the workmen pay out of all proportion to the tobacco they smoke. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment gave some interesting figures. The increase on my purchase is
    924
    17 per cent., but when I come to the amount I actually pay in taxes— and I buy a slightly better grade than the ordinary working man— I pay something like 170 per cent. The ordinary working man who buys 3d. twist— that is all he can afford with his low wages— pays about 400 per cent., but the gentleman who buys 1s. 6d. cigars pays considerably less in taxes than the ordinary working man. Every time the working man buys 1s. worth of tobacco he gets 10d. worth of tax and 2d. worth of tobacco. Every time a gentleman buys a 1s. 6d. cigar he gets 1s. 3d. worth of tobacco and 3d. worth of taxes. I do not think that is a fair way of taxing a commodity. This tax falls most heavily on the working man. I have no quarrel with this Budget. I believe it is a fine Budget and a just Budget; but I think that justice would have been more approximately secured if the right hon. Gentleman, in formulating his new duties, had put the tax on the finished article, and taxed it according to its value and not taxed according to weight. Another item, I regret, in dealing with the tobacco question, is that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to revise the charges of the manufacturer. If I am correctly informed, the licence paid by the tobacco manufacturer has not been revised since the year 1841.
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): We are now discussing an Amendment which relates simply to preference. A general discussion of the Tobacco Tax ought to come in when I put the Question that this House agree with the Committee, but now we are confined to the Amendment.
    Mr. SEDDON: I will content myself with making my protest against the tax being placed on bulk and not upon value. There is a rankling sense of injustice in the minds of the workers that they are being unfairly taxed by this tax. They do not object to pay for their share of the revenue, but they do feel that the situation would have been better met if, instead of paying 400 to 500 per cent. tax on the tobacco which they have to buy, on account of their small wages, the tax were put on according to value and not according to weight.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment moved it, no doubt, in view of raising the larger question of preference, but he also, at the same time, rather gave the House to

    925
    understand that the immediate effect on the revenue would be inconsiderable, and I think he mentioned the sum of £50,000, made up of £19,000 of unmanufactured tobacco and £31,000 for manufactured. I confess I have not worked this out. I did not know that his argument would take the particular form that it did; but I did ascertain the relative quantities of Colonial tobacco and of the rest of the tobacco coming into the country. I do not want in any way to suggest that there is any necessary relation between the quantity of tobacco coming in and the amount of duty paid as between Colonial and non-Colonial tobacco. But supposing they do— and I know of no particular reason at this moment why they do not— supposing they do, as a matter of fact, bear a true relation to each other, then the percentage on the quantity of tobacco would be represented by something like £460,000 of duty actually paid under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the hon. Gentleman likes I can give exactly how it has been arrived at.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not present it in any way to the House as being worth any more than I have just said. I have not had time to examine the figures carefully, but whether or not the revenue loss would be as small as the hon. Gentleman says, or as large as my calculations on the basis that I have suggested would result in, the hon. Gentleman himself realises fully that a very much larger question underlies his modest proposal than appears on the face of it. What was the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman? He said there is a certain amount of Colonial tobacco coming into this country from West Africa, West Indies, South Africa, and from India, and in one particular case— I think he mentioned the case of South Africa— there has been a large increase of the import into this country of South African tobacco; and he rather led the House to understand, if only you give a preference to this South African tobacco, that one of the results would be an enormous development of this trade, that there would be an extension of the bounds of empire and of the prosperity of empire, and that altogether a great impetus would be given to the trade in relation to the amount of trade done.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think all I said was that Dr. Jameson and Mr. Moore attached great importance to it.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: It was a most moderate speech.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I do not see why he should interrupt me. That was the suggestion underlying it. If that suggestion was not underlying it, what was the use of the suggesting that Colonial tobacco should have this preference? What are the facts as regards the increased importation of Colonial tobacco? It consisted, so I am informed, of one shipment of tobacco from Rhodesia of the value of £7,000. It was of so poor a quality and was so perfectly unmarketable for any purpose whatever that the persons to whom it was sent refused to pay the duty upon it; it was never taken out of bond even, and the whole amount of stuff was allowed to perish. What is the good of giving any amount of preference to tobacco of that sort? The hon. Member who seconded this proposal admitted that in the case of most Colonial tobacco it was of very low grade indeed. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion suggested that we should make a gracious gift to South Africa in return for the rebate of 3 per cent. on tobacco which we import into this country. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has looked into the rates of duties which are levied upon British manufactured tobacco in South Africa? I think if he had done so he would have found that the advantage was greatly in favour of the producer of tobacca in South Africa and of Colonial tobacco generally as against the British manufacturer of tobacco in the Colonial market; and he would have seen further that there is no necessity, even from that point of view, for giving a further preference to the Colonial manufacturer in a market which is as free to him to-day as it is to every other manufacturer at home, and in which, while he not only gets equality with the foreigner, he also gets equality with our own manufacturer in our own market here. There is undoubtedly a difference between the Customs and the Excise duty on tobacco, but that difference was originally laid down by Mr. Gladstone in 1863, and has ever since been maintained at a difference which allows for the extra cost of manufacture in this country entailed by the strictness of the Excise regulations under which the tobacco is manufactured here.
    Mr. PR ETYMAN: Does that apply to Ireland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The fact of the matter is that Colonial tobacco, like any other tobacco, must for its market depend upon its goodness and its suitability to the taste of the persons who consume it. Tried by that standard, which, after all, is a reasonable standard, Colonial tobacco at the present moment unfortunately falls short of the standard which is expected by the tobacco-consuming people of this country. Take the well-known case of Borneo tobacco. That tobacco, I understand, at the present moment has no reason at all to complain of the market it finds in this country. But eight or 10 years ago it had a great deal to complain of. It has, however, gained its way in the British market, not by reason of any preference given to it over any other foreign tobacco, but because the manufacturers of Borneo tobacco have learned to suit their article to the taste of the consumer here, and having suited his taste, they find that the consumer takes a great deal of their tobacco. Thus, from our point of view, at all events, any tobacco product, whether Colonial or foreign, depends for its market in this country on its suitability to the requirements of the people of this country. I do not go into the large question of preference which might have been raised in connection with this Debate, but I confine myself merely to saying that if from what the Seconder of the Resolution said we are merely reciprocating the good offices of the Colonies, I think we have clone quite as much as one trading community, however closely bound to another by links of friendship and alliance, can be reasonably expected to do. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Seddon) objected to this tax, not because, he said, it was not fair to contribute to the expenses of the country, but because he felt that when he bought the cheaper kind of tobacco he contributed to this expenditure in a far greater ratio to his capacity for spending, than do those who purchase more expensive tobaccos and cigars. I would ask the House to remember that ever since the year 1898 there has been what is called a luxury tax upon cigars, and more particularly upon the more expensive class of cigars. On all the more expensive kinds of tobacco introduced into this country there has been a distinct luxury tax. That was imposed in this House by Lord St. Aldwyn in 1898, and it was increased again I think in 1900, certainly in 1904; and the proposals of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer are again to increase the luxury tax by putting up the tax on cigars to a
    928
    higher ratio than would be allowable if the strict relation was observed between the tax on tobacco which comes in for the purpose of anything but cigars and cigarettes, and which is for smoking in pipes, and so forth.
    Mr. SEDDON: It does not approximate.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It does not approximate, but there is a distinct luxury tax imposed by the present proposal, which is a continuation of the tax imposed formerly. In this case the difference is between 8d. and 1s., and therefore it does raise the luxury tax on this kind of tobacco to the extent of 1s. 4d. a pound. Even if the tax is not of the kind which the hon. Gentleman would desire, he must remember that a difference has been made in regard to the cheaper and more expensive tobaccos in respect of the duty which is respectively laid upon them.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having interrupted him. It is not, however, an uncommon thing in this House for a Member when he does not agree with the statement made by a Minister which he considers to be inaccurate to make objection.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am very sorry.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: My interjection concerned a statement made by the hon. Gentleman behind me. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that my hon. Friend said that the advantages would be "enormous." I objected to that because it was not the word my hon. Friend used in a speech which was extremely moderate. I do not, however, wish to pursue that point when we are engaged on such an extremely important matter, not by virtue of the sums of money involved, but by virtue of the principle. My hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) suggested that the cost to the Treasury would be very small if some preference were given to Colonial tobacco and at the same time that the wishes of the Colonies who have shown their desire to give benefits to English work would be met. The Colonies have believed in the principle of preference, and they have put that principle into operation. I have only to quote from the words of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Colonial Conference to show that they both regarded the preference which was given by the Colonies of great advantage — I do not exaggerate the adjective—to the British worker.

    929
    An hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Seddon) said that we have in this country done an immense deal for the Colonies. I admit that, and, of course, his reference is in particular to the cost of the Navy. I cannot enter into that question now, and I will say no more than this, that to preserve your present trade and commerce with all the world you could not lower the cost of your Navy by one penny if you had not a single Colony. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not contribute."] I will not be led into a further discussion on the subject, but they do contribute to the Navy and contribute to our mutual welfare by preference to British goods. Whether we can give preference to Colonial products or not is the question before us now, and the article under discussion is tobacco. I ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry if he can object to the principle of granting preference to Colonial tobacco when he grants a preference to Irish tobacco? There is at the present time a preference granted to Irish tobacco within the bounds of the United Kingdom, and a principle of preference has been accepted by the Government in other directions. Thus at the present time the Government give a concession to the growing of cotton in Nigeria by a free passage to cotton grown in that country over the Nigerian railways. The principle is also acknowledged by the practical subsidising of flax in St. Helena and the principle of subsidies which we have given in grants in aid to Jamaica, and which have thus assisted in the sugar industry. At the present time the Government have under consideration whether they should subsidise steamships to East Africa.
    The principle has been acknowledged and accepted. What you give to Ireland you cannot refuse on principle to give to South Africa. What you give to Jamaica by grants in aid, you cannot refuse, in principle, to give to Rhodesia. What you have given by advantage on the railways of Nigeria, you cannot refuse to give to India. I think that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) made a very unsubstantial— as well as an extremely unsatisfactory— reply to my hon. Friend. He doubted the figures produced by my hon. Friend, and it is his duty, as representing the Treasury, to produce the Treasury figures and show that my hon. Friend was wrong. My hon. Friend suggested that at the present time the whole duty of 3s. 8d. in the pound on unmanufactured tobacco from British Possessions in 1907 was £77,000. He
    930
    asked on that a rebate of 25 per cent., which would correspond to the preference now given by South Africa to British productions. That rebate would amount to £19,425 on tobacco from British Possessions. That is a very small matter for this Government, which is throwing away millions, for a Government which calculates that they will receive £1,600,000 on a tax on whisky. Under such circumstances the consideration of £19,000 is really of not any importance. They think in millions, and we are thinking for the moment in thousands.
    The President of the Board of Trade is one of those who supported and strongly advocated while he was Member for Manchester the subsidising of cotton grow in
    Nigeria. By that subsidy over the Nigerian Railways he believed, as many in this House on both sides believe, that such a course would result in encouraging the cotton industry in that country. We gave help in that proposal. What is the difference between giving help by preference of duty and giving help by a grant in aid or by cheaper rates in railways or by any other form? Now we believe that if we were to give an advantage to Rhodesia on its tobacco, it would be of immense importance to that country in the future. Every country has its particular products, which are peculiarly its own, and which, naturally, will express in its future its prosperity. In the Transvaal you have gold and in the Cape you have wine. My hon. Friend sitting opposite knows as well as any man in the Empire that if we had not conferred the preference on French wines as against South African wines that to-day, instead of having about £1,000 in Cape wines we would have about a million imported. When the advantage was given to French wines over the products of our own Colonies by Mr. Gladstone by the Cobden Treaty we had an importation of over £100,000 worth of Cape wines to this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Does the hon. Gentleman dispute those figures? I have quoted them before in the House, and they have never been disputed. If we had not preferred French wines as against South African wines today we might have a million pounds worth of South African wines coming to this country.
    Surely the hon. Gentleman opposite will not suggest that a good Cape wine to-day is not better than the cheap and nasty French wines which we get now, and which are largely composed of cheap Californian wines, cheap Algerian wines, and cheap

    931
    Spanish wines made in France. I am speaking of what we all know to be the truth, and I am giving Cape wines as an example of what the effect of preference would be on an industry of the kind, and how important it would be for a country like Rhodesia that we should give a preference to tobacco. You would thereby have the foundations laid of a great industry. I have visited Rhodesia, I have seen the beginning of the work of tobacco growing there, and I venture to say that the efforts being made in Ireland do not begin to compare with the scientific treatment of tobacco in Rhodesia to-day. They mean business there; they want help. We think a great deal of Canada and of Australia, but so far we have rather despised South Africa, because we think that the only thing she gives us is gold. The Trans vaal, Rhodesia, and India can, in the cheaper forms of tobacco, make us independent of foreign states and countries, which show us no favour, but which at every point of the compass treat us with what you may call commercial oppression. What we ask for is nothing that will lower the financial position of the Treasury, but something which from the sentimental side will give great encouragement to those who are endeavouring to build up industries in Australia and South Africa. [A laugh.] I ask hon. Members if it is a right thing to laugh at Rhodesia when she wants a preference—
    Mr. JOHN WARD: They do not want a preference.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: And the right thing to applaud when Ireland desires a preference? The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me gave his support to the Irish preference. Why prefer Ireland to Rhodesia? We are all citizens of the Crown; we are all under the same flag. I ask only for equality of treatment with Ireland. If we get that equality of treatment for the Colonies the Secretary of the Treasury will have the satisfaction of knowing that he has corrected one of the abuses belonging to the operation of the proposals of this Budget. He may say that it is an abuse which has existed under past Governments, and might have been corrected by past Governments. Certainly— I do not except any Government; I do not except my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). But we have come to a time in the development of our com
    932
    mercial relations with our Colonies when public opinion is behind us. It would. have been impossible for my right hon. Friend or his predecessor to have acted ten years ago with effect, because public opinion would not have been behind him. To-day, if you were to put it to the people of this country, if we were to have a referendum as to whether we should give Rhodesian and Indian tobacco, Cape wine, and other products of the Colonies an advantage of this kind, which does not touch the food of the people, according to the theories of hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite, they would say generously, broadly, "Give these industries in the Colonies a chance; it will cost us little." But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not yield an inch to the Colonies. When they yield they yield not to 12,000,000 or 14,000,000 of people outside this country, but to a handful of gentlemen sitting below the Gangway. They yield then fast enough; but they are not prepared to do the fair thing with our Colonies.
    I have no doubt the Secretary to the Treasury has not been speaking to-night on his own responsibility. He has had the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I have no doubt would give the same reply as the hon. Gentleman has given to-night. But we on this side of the House believe that we are expressing the views of the majority of the people, not only of this Kingdom, but of this Empire, when we say that the principle which we have advocated would be a great advantage to the future of our commercial and industrial development. We think that to hesitate to grant this advantage is a short-sighted policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give in concession to the opinion of the Colonies an advantage in regard to fairer borrowings. I believe the provincial legislatures— this is the suggestion— are to be put in the same position as New Zealand and Australia in regard to borrowings. But if the Government gives that concession, what earthly excuse can they have for not giving this? If these provinces say, "It is a burden upon us to have to pay this tax, from which the Dominion or the Commonwealth is exempt, it is legislation against us, and a preference is given to the larger organisation," what excuse can the Government give except a purely theoretical and academic excuse for not granting to the Colonies the same advantages? As my hon. Friend, Mr. James Hope, has pointed out, Colonial and

    933
    Indian tobacco is at a disadvantage. There is practically a preference against it. But we want the Colonies to be put in a position of equality. The Secretary to the Treasury says that it is not possible. It does not matter if it is a subsidy; that is all right. It does not matter if it is a grant in aid: that is all right. But if you touch flat sacred word "duty" and propose any concession or rebate with regard to a duty or tax upon foreign or Colonial manufactured material, then you are touching the Ark of the Covenant, and they will not have it at any price. It is the policy of the high-and-dry theorist, and that is what is going to ruin this Government in the end. They will not be generous; they will not be just; and we are making a plea to-night more for justice than for generosity. I only regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. No doubt he would have smiled at our arguments, because he has been fascinated by the ferocity of his own finance. No doubt he would have smiled and smiled, as Shakespeare says, and still have been the financial villain. But, nevertheless, the policy which we advocate is a policy which is not represented by Members upon the Benches of this House, but it is represented by hundreds of thousands of people in the country, and by those who matter; who, when the time comes at the next election, will prove their faith by giving us an opportunity to do that which the present Government refuse to do.
    Mr. J. P. NANNETTI: The speech to which we have just listened seems to me more like a speech which should have been made by General Botha or some of the patriots in South Africa. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's appeal for preference for this great country of South Africa, while at the same time he drew a comparison with the preference grudgingly given by this House for the resuscitation of an industry which is doing something to fill up the gap of those industries which have been destroyed by your legislation. I have no objection to preference to South Africa or anywhere else, but as an Irish representative I must resent it when I hear any Member speak in jealous tones of any little concession which has been granted to my country. [Ail Rex. MEMBER: "Hear, bear."] I am glad to hear the hon. Member say that he approved of the concession. All I can say is that his approval has been greatly marred by the manner in which he compared Ireland with South
    934
    Africa. There is one portion of this question which I want to touch upon. That is to protest against the fact that the Government in this Budget have not given preference to Ireland in the protection of their tobacco. What is the result—
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. That comes on the Excise Resolution; the next Resolution, not the one we are discussing.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Then I will not take up the time of the House. I will reserve what I have to say, but I hope and trust I will not have to listen to any Members of the Opposition in the House making speeches above the Gangway and finding fault with any concession made for the purpose of resuscitating the industries of my country.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I would not have risen, but evidently someone is required to fill the gap. I have sat here for a considerable time listening to speeches and quotations from the Leaders of the Opposition, in which it is intimated that the House is a seething cauldron where the Opposition are thirsting for an opportunity to attack the Budget, generally and in detail. If those who got that impression had been here for the last two hours they would have found the Opposition Benches occupied by three solitary figures. They then would have understood the difference between the imaginary and the real. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) must have thanked me for my interruption, for it afforded him the opportunity for the only really serious part of his speech which he has just delivered to us. It just inflamed his passion sufficiently to enable us to at least believe that it was real. With reference to this question which we are discussing now as to whether or not preference is to be given to the Colonies, I take it for granted that such has been suggested in the speeches already delivered from this side of the House, and that it is not so much a question of tobacco as the initiation of a principle with reference to the Colonies. It seems just as if it was a new principle which had never been tried. I was looking through the library to-day and glanced at the Old Almanac for 1832. I noticed that the identical preference on tobacco which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman behind me as a new idea was adopted and carried into execution so early as the first part of the last century.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Oh, for a long time before.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Then it is not new at all this question. I understood Tariff Reform Preference for the Colonies was an absolute invention from Birmingham or somewhere— [cries of "No, no"] — during the last two or three or half-dozen years. Evidently it is as old as the hills. We may take it for granted if our country adopted this policy in the early part of last century, and after a full trial discarded it, it is not worth while our taking it on again. However, it is peculiar to listen to the statements which have been made with reference to this subject, for it is an illustration of the difference between the general policy with reference to preference in other matters. For instance, we are informed by those who have advocated the proposal to-night that we are to give preference to Colonial tobacco, and especially Rhodesian tobacco. I understand there was many years ago— or whether it was recently the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary did not say— a cargo of Rhodesian tobacco which arrived in one of our ports. Those who were interested in the tobacco, or at least who were going to give it a trial, had a look at the stuff, and decided under no circumstances would it be useful except for a bonfire, and refused to pay any duty at all upon the article. If that is the kind of stuff we are going to give preference to; if this is the beginning of a Colonial preference policy, I should think that the policy, if it is to be gauged by the article to which the preference is to be given, is clearly shoddy from beginning to end. Then we are told at the present the Colonies are asking for this right. I do not think that any right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway has given us any information that Rhodesia wants this preference, or that any other part of the Colonies want it. Dr. Jameson — who is not South Africa, lucidly for South Africa— has had very little to do with it recently. When he had considerable power there South Africa was in a very bad way. Hence I shall want some official representative of the Governments of the Colonies, or any other State, to make a bar-gain of that description. The mere word of any important politician, however important he may be or whatever party he may belong to, would not be sufficient for the House of Commons to proceed to give preference to a Colony or any other part of the world. We should certainly, even if
    936
    we agreed to the principle, want to know something more than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend has been able to tell us with reference to this subject. I do not think that the suggestion has been made out or justified, or the policy suggested in this Amendment. There may be reasons— good reasons— for this policy, but clearly the hon. Gentleman who has spoken in favour of the Motion has not been able to discover them yet. Hence I certainly, unless I had some better reason than have been given this evening, certainly— even if I held their views on Colonial preference— would not be agreeable to adopt the policy without there was a more justifiable reason shown by hon. Members than has hitherto been shown. I think at present, as has already been suggested by the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire (Mr. J. R. Seddon), we give our Colonies fair preference by the general defence of the Empire— except for a recent suggestion or two of a "Dreadnought," this country has borne the general burden of Imperial defence. The British taxpayer is taxed quite enough for the maintenance of the Empire, which Gentlemen above the Gangway are celebrating to-day, and evidently somewhere this evening, but not in the House.
    Secondly, I do not think we ought to be asked to support this unless there is some reason far better than has been shown hitherto on this subject. So far as I am concerned, I am going to support the Government in the Tobacco Tax, because that is part of the Budget. And I am in favour of the Budget, taken as a whole. I am not going to support guerilla attacks, from whatever direction they come. I am going to take it for granted that the Government are going to stick to their policy. Until they desert it I, as a supporter of the principles involved in the Budget, am not going to desert it. There have been arguments put forward in the Debate. arguments that are serious and that were real, and that really added something to them that required explanation, and required being dealt with. But certainly there has not been an argument advanced in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway that will weigh with anyone for five minutes. For that reason alone I shall vote against the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just sat down has told us that he is going to support the Government because he approved of the Budget as a whole.

    937
    Then he has told us that the arguments which have been advanced towards the Amendment were of no particular consequence. There had been some arguments advanced earlier in the discussion which demanded answers and consideration. These latter arguments do not seem to have weighed much with the hon. Member, because the only result of them has been that he tells us that he is going to vote for the Government. We all know perfectly well that the hon. Member for Stoke and other hon. Members below the Gangway intend to vote for this Socialistic Budget, and that whatever argument is brought forward will not matter for them, because they know perfectly well this is the beginning of the end. Further argument with these hon. Gentlemen would be useless; they have made up their minds before now. The hon. Member was very witty on the subject of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House above the Gangway celebrating Empire Day. Does the hon. Member mean to say that it is only Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side who celebrate Empire Day? I was not aware, but I am very glad to hear from such an authority as he is that that is the case. The hon. Member said there were very few Members in the house for the last few hours, but I would remind him that it was only 20 minutes past eight— an hour and 10 minutes ago— that the last division took place, and that then the House was filled, and that the Opposition sent 123 Members into the Lobby. Even Members of Parliament must dine, and I do not think the hon. Member has much to complain of, if between 8.30 and 9 o'clock the House is not as full as it generally is, but even now its emptiness is not conspicuous on the Opposition side of the House, but is on the Ministerial side. At the present moment above the Gangway opposite there are only five members and on the Front Treasury Bench there is only one hon. Member and another who is sitting far away behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. It is that which the hon. Member should deplore, and not the absence of hon. Members upon this side. Members of the Government are paid to be present; we are not. Now the question before us is, I think, an extremely simple one. The hon. Member for Stoke talked a good deal about South Africa and Rhodesia, but I believe that one of the objects of this Amendment would be to exclude India from the payment of the increased taxation.
    938
    I do not suppose the hon. Member is against India, and I do not suppose that even hon. Members will deny that a large amount of tobacco is grown in India, and if the working classes can get their tobacco from India without paying the increased duty I should be extremely surprised if these working classes would thank the hon. Member for his intervention this afternoon.
    I understand the only effect of this Amendment would be that trade within the Empire would have a certain preference. All that is asked is that the increased duty should not be levied on tobacco from India and Ceylon, and these are the principal countries, and incidentally South Africa and other countries belonging to the British Crown where tobacco is grown. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Mr. James Hope), who moved the Amendment, said that the loss of this if carried to the Exchequer would not be more than £50,000. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he had not gone into the figures, but he believed the loss would be £400,000. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is on the paper. What right has the Financial Secretary to say that he has not taken the trouble to go into the figures, and that he does not know what the result would be? The hon. Member ought to be able to say "I cannot accept this Amendment, because it means a loss of such and such a description and amounting to such and such a figure to the Treasury." I venture to say that if any hon. Gentleman sitting on this side of the House when we go over to the Treasury Bench were to make such a statement he would be assailed by hon. Members opposite who would then be sitting on this side with great invective because he had not taken the trouble to estimate what the actual result would be of the proposal of my hon. Friend which has been on the Paper for the last couple of days.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: For a fortnight.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: For a fortnight, and that should have given the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury plenty of time to find out what the actual result in loss would be to the Treasury. I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member the Financial Secretary before dinner, and I took down a few words of his, because I thought them worthy of consideration. He told us the object of these indirect taxes were to get at people who did not contribute in other

    939
    ways to the revenue. Now, what way will he avoid getting at those people who he desires to get at if the Amendment of my hon. Friend is carried. There would still be an increase in the price of tobacco and all those who smoke tobacco would have to pay a certain increased price. The result would be that the trade in India and the other parts of the Empire would be increased and that manufacturers here who deal directly with India and other parts of the Empire where tobacco is grown would not be hit. I think I am right in saying that I have seen statements in the newspapers. I do not always believe everything I read in the newspapers— and I hope Gentlemen in the Gallery will not take that in any offensive sense— but I have seen the statement that tobacco manufacturers have closed their establishments in Bristol and elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] Am I wrong then? —[An HON. MEMBER "Absolutely."] Well, I was not sure, but I thought they closed in Bristol. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Northampton."] I saw it. in certain newspapers that in certain towns in England certain factories had been closed. I do not want to press that point. Here is an opportunity for altering that state of things, and giving a preference to India and some other of our dependencies. If that was done it would not be necessary to close these particular works. The hon. Member for Stoke talked about South Africa, but the Amendment includes India, where a large quantity of first-class tobacco is grown, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester, says it would also include Jamaica, where the very best tobacco is grown.
    I think this is an extremely important question. and as far as I can ascertain— and I am bound to take the figures given by my hon Friend the Member for Sheffield— the loss to the revenue would be
    extremely slight. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the statement which he made, and which is to be had in the Vote Office showed that the increase next year will be very much larger than this year, £4,000,000, I think, he estimates on the whole of the taxation. My point is that if next year there is going to be an increase of four millions it will be perfectly easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even supposing the figures of the hon. Member the Financial Secretary were correct, that there would be a loss of £400,000, it would be perfectly easy to grant this preference to India and our Colonies in order to increase the trade of the Empire.
    We have heard a great deal about unemployment, and there is no one sitting on this side of the House who regrets more than I do the fact that there is a great deal of unemployment in the country. Here is an opportunity of increasing the trade within the Empire, without doing any harm to anybody, and why not try it? If the Secretary to the Treasury was able to say that the carrying out of this Amendment would cause a great loss to the Revenue, and that the Government would not be able to make both ends meet, it would be quite a different thing. I might have replied that, after all, we have to meet this deficit although we on this side of the House did not create it. [Cries of "Yes," and "Old Age Pensions."] It was created by old age pensions, but I voted against the Old Age Pensions Bill both on the second and the third reading. But, even if the Opposition are responsible that is no answer, and the Secretary to the Treasury cannot say that this particular Amendment is going to cause any great. loss to the Exchequer. Therefore, I shall have very great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 185.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Tuke, Sir John Batt'y

    Rateliff, Major R. F.

    Rutherford W. W. (Liverpool)

    Walrond Hon Lionel

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Renwick, George

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    TELLER FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Staveley-Hill, (Staffordshire)

    James Hope and Captain Craig.

    Division No. 129.]

    AYES.

    [9.50 p. m

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fell, Arthur

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyttelton, Rt Hon Alfred

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Fletcher, J. S.

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Bull, Sir William James

    Forester, Henry William

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M

    Foster, P. S.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Gardner, Ernest

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Cave, George

    Gordon, J.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Oddy, John James

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Helmsey Viscount

    Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Hazel Dr. A. E. W.

    Pointer. J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Alden, Percy

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

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

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Barker, Sir John

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolerhampton, W.)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Hodge, John

    Ridsdale, E. A

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hopper, A. G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Beale, W. P.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hornlman, Emstle John

    Robertsons, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Robinsons, S.

    Bell, Richard

    Hudson, Walter

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hyde, Clarendon G

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Black, Arthur W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rogers, F E Newman

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Jackson, Sir J

    Rose, Charles Day

    Branch, James

    Jardine, Sir J

    Rowlands, J

    Brigg, John

    Jenkins, J

    Russell, Rt. Hon T. W

    Brodie, H. C.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L (Cleveland)

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

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Sears, J. E.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Seddon, J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Joyce, Michael

    Shackleton, David James

    Cameron, Robert

    Kekewich, Sir. George

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lamb Edmund G.(Leominster)

    Slicock, Thomas Ball

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Clough, William

    Lambert, George

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon David

    Steadman, W. C

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Stewart-Smith, Sir Edward

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Macdonald, J R. (Leister)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Maclean, Donald

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cox, Harold

    MacVeagh, Jermiah (Down, s)

    Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E)

    Crocks, William

    Macveigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Crosfield, A. H.

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    M'Micking, major G.

    Tomkinson, James

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Marnham, F. J

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Masterman, C. F. G

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Watson, Rt Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Mond, A

    Watt, Henry A

    Essex, R. W.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Essiemont, George Birnle

    Morrell, Philip

    White, J Dundas (Dumbertonshire)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morse, L.L.

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

    Fenwick, Charles

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C (Kincard.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E)

    Wiles, Alexander

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Glover, Thomas

    Newness, F (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nortan, Captain Cecil William

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    O'Connor, John (kildare, N)

    Winfrey, R.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O, Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Wood, T. 'M'Kinnon

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

    Parker, James (Hailfax)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Partington, Oswald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Question put: "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Re-solution."
    The House divided; Ayes, 169; Noes, 75

    Division No. 130.]

    AYES.

    [9.58 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Beale, W. P.

    Agnew, George William

    Barker, Sir John

    Beauchamp, E.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Bell, Richard

    Bennett, E. N.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Richard, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Richard, T.F.(Wolverhampton, W)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Ridsdale, E. A

    Branch, James

    Hodge, John

    Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

    Bilge, John

    Hooper, A. G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H.(Denbighs)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

    Hornlman, Emslie John

    Robinson, S.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roch, Walter F. (Perbroke)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cameron, Robert

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jenkins, J.

    Rowlands, J.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Clough, William

    Johnson, W.(Nuneaton)

    Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford)

    Cobbold, Felix Thorniey

    Kekewich, Sir Georage

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Sears, J. E.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J. S

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Shackleton, David James

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E.(Stafford)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lambert, George

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sllock, Thomas Ball

    Cox, Harold

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Crooks, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Tomkinson, James

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Marnham, F. J

    Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Massie, J

    Ward, W. Dudley (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Masterman, C. F. G

    Ward, W Dudley (Southampton)

    Essex, R. W.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Waring, Walter

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Mond, A

    Wasson, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Morrell, Phillip

    Watt, Henry A.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Morse, L. L.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Nicholson, Charies N.(Doncaster)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Harcourt, fit. Hon. L. (Rosendale)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norton, Capt. Cell William

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Partington, Oswald

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

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Pearce, William (Oswald)

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Winfrey, R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Joseph Peace and Mr. Herbert Lewis

    Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    NOES

    Abraham, W (Cork, N.E.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pointer, J.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Heimsley, Viscount

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hills, Sir Clement

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hudson, Walter

    Renwick, George

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kennaway. Rt. Hon. Sir john H.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cave, George

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A (Worc'r.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Seddon, J.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Macveigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Smith, F. E, (Liverpool, Walton)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Straveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Steadman, W. C.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Summerbell, T

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Douglas, fit. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fell, Arthur

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nannetti, Joseph P

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Fletcher, J. S.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Foster, P. S.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Oddy, John James

    Glover, Thomas

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    TELLER FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Gordon, J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    H.W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to.

    Resolution reported.

    TOBACCO (GROWN IN IRELAND).
    4. "That in lieu of the duties of Excise now payable on tobacco grown in Ireland there shall on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

    Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.:—

    s.

    d.

    Tobacco containing 10 1bs. or more of moisture in every100 1bs. weight thereof, the pound

    3

    6

    Tobacco containing less than 10 1bs. of moisture in every 100 1bs. weight thereof, the pound

    3

    11

    Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—

    Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond, the pound

    4

    8

    and that duties of Excise at the same rates shall be charged on tobacco grown in England or Scotland, and that there shall be charged on a licence to be taken out annually by every person growing, cultivating, or curing tobacco in England or Scotland an Excise duty of 5s."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Resolution read a second time.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire, in moving the Amendment on the Paper to reduce the duty from 3s..6d to 1s. 9d., to raise a protest against the doctrine of counter vailing Excise duties. I hare never had a scientific explanation of the foundation of that doctrine, and I shall be glad to have one to-night. It has not been universally held by Free Traders— for instance, Mr. Cobden accepted the registration duty of 1s. as a Customs duty, but he never argued that it should be followed by a countervailing duty to the same amount. I understand it orginated purely for the protection of the Revenue. I can well understand the necessity for the application of a countervailing Excise as against goods manufactured abroad, but it is absolutely and entirely opposed to common sense where a new industry is growing up which you wish to encourage and do not wish to penalise by a heavy duty. In this case of tobacco you have a case in point, and surely you do not wish to strangle it in the first few days of its existence. Surely it would be better to allow the industry to develop and to allow the Revenue to place on it such duties as it will bear until it is at last considered to be in a condition to pay the full amount of the ordinary
    946
    Revenue duty. Apply this principle to tobacco. Prohibitive duties were imposed in the time of Charles II., but the severity of that policy was mitigated in Ireland in the following century, and from that time tobacco was allowed to be grown in that country. I remember reading a book written by Mr. Mitchell Henry, a former Member of this House, in which he talks of having seen in his boyhood days the fires of the Excise burning the tobacco in Ireland. It was a substantial industry, and it was only the ruthless policy of the Government which crushed it out. Within the last few years experimental work has been carried on with a view to the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland. We have it on the highest authority that it is only in the nature of an experiment, but we are also told gnat while a subsidy is given to it at the present time, immediately it is able to stand on its own legs the full severity of the Excise duty will be applied to it. This matter came up for discussion in the course of the Colonial Conference, and Colonial Premiers quoted the case of Ireland upon it. The present Prime Minister said it was a mere experiment to see whether tobacco could be grown in Ireland. He added that they had allowed 100 acres to be used for the purpose, and if the experiment proved successful the same duty would be applied in that case as in others. What does that mean? He first encourages an experiment. and fosters the growth of an industry, and when he has succeeded he comes down upon it with overwhelming weight to. gather the duty. I might quote the equally disastrous effect of this policy on the growth of such products as tea and sugar, and we have simply stifled the birth of the industry. Take the case of Indian tobacco. The duty presses on the cheaper kinds, and we shall find the same effect will be produced in the growth of Irish tobacco; the imposition of a bulk duty instead of an ad valorem duty may crush out the industry. There are hon. Members. from Ireland who know the details of this question, and much as I differ from them on general questions of policy I think they deserve a good deal of sympathy for the treatment of Ireland on economic grounds through the selfish policy of the eighteenth century. Here is a new industry which has already achieved a great measure of success, and I trust it will not be crushed out of existence for the sake of a duty which will bear equally hard on similar enterprises in Scotland and in this country, and for this reason I propose my Amendment.
    Mr. A. FELL: I rise to second, and in doing so I will give some reasons for my action. It appears to me that the relief proposed to be given by this Budget is totally inadequate. If that is the way in which we encourage an industry, which it is admitted was crushed out in days gone by in Ireland, and which does not now exist but may be revived, then I say that the offer of the Government is totally inadequate, and I trust my hon. Friend may get the general support of the House to his Amendment. Before I was a Member of this House I had a friend here, who was one of the Members for Kent, and he took the greatest interest in tobacco growing and conducted experiments in Kent and made cigars and tobacco there. He went to the Government of that time and obtained permission, as he could not grow it without some permit, and in the small field in which he grew his tobacco—perhaps some two or three acres—they put up a hut and there was a Government official there all the time. The officials counted all the plants and kept a record of every one, whether it grew up or not or whether it was destroyed by worms. He continued the experiment for one year and he said the conditions placed upon him were intolerable and no man could grow tobacco under them. We have now another attempt and I hope it will meet with better encouragement. But what is the en-encouragement which is offered? Two-pence in the pound. What do they do in foreign countries when they want to establish a new industry? They give prizes, and in one case they gave £500 for the first crop of smoking tobacco that was grown, and it was worth their while to do it. It is necessary in Ireland to get some experience in the maturing of tobacco, and I believe they are having some men over from Virginia who will assist in curing it. I hope that may be so and that these men who come over from Virginia to help in curing tobacco may be able to do so, but they will have no experience as to the conditions which prevail in Ireland, which may be different from those to which they are accustomed. It is one of the most difficult processes in the world and although they may have in Ireland highly skilled men, it is very certain that they will not produce such an article as if they were allowed to proceed for some years with the assistance of the State. It is a question for us all. It was suggested that people might be allowed to grow it in Scotland,
    948
    and I should have thought we might have ventured to grow it in England. We were told that we had not the same Bill that they had in Ireland, under which they get this miserable rebate of two pence in the pound.
    I hope when there is a Bill for England it will be in very different terms from this one as regards Ireland, and that when we get the Development Grant, that not only will two pence be given for a new industry like this, but that they will give prizes and high premiums to the first man who can produce tobacco and cigars. He will be a benefactor to his country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer laughs, but a man who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before is said to be a benefactor, and if a man can make tobacco grow in Ireland is he not also a benefactor to his country. I hope, notwithstanding the laughter, that we shall see many Members opposite who will do their best to help us and give the Irish on this occasion such a system as will enable them to start this industry, which in the future may attain to great dimensions. May I mention a parallel case— I would only just refer to it as it may be out of order— but it is the parallel case when sugar beet was grown in England. Two years ago the farmers in Suffolk were prepared to grow beet if there was a factory, and people were prepared to put up a factory if the farmers would grow beet. The two depend entirely upon one another. It is no use to put up a factory unless you get a large amount of beet grown, and it is no use growing beet unless you have a factory. I asked the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when there was a Id. duty on sugar, "Is there any duty upon sugar if you produce it in this country?" and he replied, "No." I said: "Then you can grow sugar in England free of duty?" and he replied, "If you do we shall be obliged to put 1d. Excise duty on it, so that it shall not have any benefit over foreign grown sugar." That killed the proposal. The money was ready, and the farmers had made their contracts, but the action of the Government killed it. I say they will kill this tobacco industry and any other new industry if they do not give it something over and above what other people get. The pioneers of industry ought to be encouraged, and I shall never give my vote more heartily than I shall on this question that the duty be reduced by half for the benefit of the Irishmen who grow tobacco under present circumstances.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have an Amendment on the Paper which I suppose, under the Rules, I shall not be able now to move. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment could see his way to withdraw it and allow me to move mine?
    Mr. HOPE: What I wish to do is to protest against the 3s. 6d., and the question you have put is that 3s. 6d. stand part. If the 3s. 6d. disappears I shall be quite ready to insert 2s. 10d. instead of 1s. 9d. If the hon. Member thinks it more convenient that I should withdraw my Amendment now I shall be extremely glad to do it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDmoved to leave out "3s. 6d." and to insert "2s. 10d." I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his kindness. I asked him to withdraw his Amendment, not indeed because I think he went too far in seeking to reduce the tax on Irish-grown tobacco by half, but because I think it will be possible to make out a more reasonable and more sensible case for the Amendment which I had down. I say that not in disparagement of my hon. Friend, but simply for this reason. He proposed to reduce the tax by half, and that, whether we agree with it or disagree with it, we must all admit to be a large proposal. My Amendment simply asks that the additional tax of 8d. shall not be levied upon this new industry in Ireland. I do not ask you to reduce by: ½d. the tax at present levied, which is 2s. 10d.
    Leave that tax there as it is. The growers will endeavour to pay it, but do not in the name of common fair play and justice put eight pence of fresh taxation upon this young industry, which has only been a few years in existence. Whether hon. Gentlemen agree with me or not, I am sure they must all admit at least that it is a more moderate and reasonable proposition to ask that you shall not put fresh taxation upon Irish-grown tobacco than to ask, as hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway ask, not merely that you should not put fresh taxation on, but that you should considerably reduce the present taxation of Irish-grown tobacco. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will endeavour to meet our demand in this matter. I know perfectly well hon. Gentlemen opposite are wedded to the principle of Free Trade in every way. I know perfectly well that directly a man gets up in this House and says that any
    950
    proposition is contrary to the principles of. Free Trade it is almost sure to secure a strong majority against the proposition made. But I do appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that there may be an exception even to the most rigid rule, and that even to the principle of Free Trade objection may occasionally well be taken even by those who are convinced Free Traders. I submit, with all deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that really the principle of Free Trade or Protection does not arise in this small matter of Irish-grown tobacco at all. In the first place, it is perfectly nonsensical for anyone to pretend for a moment that this is a question of large commercial concern, or that the Treasury are in any danger of losing any considerable amount of revenue if they meet us in this matter. Nobody can say that the tobacco industry in Ireland has assumed commercial proportions at all at the present time worth speaking of, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am certain, will not contend that this tax is put upon Irish-grown tobacco for the purpose of revenue, because everybody knows that the amount of revenue is so very small in connection with Irish-grown tobacco as hardly to be worthy of consideration at all. On the other hand, I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as earnestly as I can that lie is really doing something to injure what in future may be a very fruitful and considerable source of revenue if he prevents this industry from growing up in Ireland. I am not going to delay the House by going into the history of the tobacco industry in Ireland, but this much I will ask leave to say, that many Trish industries were deliberately put out of existence by this House and the Government of this country. I am not going to enumerate all the industries which were deliberately destroyed through the action of the British Government, but one of those industries, a small one but nevertheless a very promising one, was the Irish tobacco industry. My hon. Friend above the Gangway said that he had smoked some Irish tobacco, and everybody laughed. They seemed to think that it was a good joke, and that they were very glad they themselves had riot smoked it. But, after all, some hon. Members may be surprised to hear, those who are disposed to regard this matter more in the light of a jest than of anything else, that in the beginning of last century the tobacco in

    951
    dustry in Ireland was a very considerable industry, and gave a large amount of employment. In the county of Wexford between 500 and 1,000 acres were planted with tobacco. At that time, early in the thirties, there was very great distress in Ireland. The people suffered very much, and there was almost a famine in the country, but in those districts where there were tobacco plantations there was absolutely no distress. I would refer any hon. Member who is interested in this matter to the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, which sat and considered the Irish Tobacco Question in 1830, and was presided over by a very celebrated man, namely, Sir Henry Parnell, and the evidence which was given before the Committee, and which may be found in a moment in the library by any hon. Member anxious to inquire into the subject, was that the tobacco industry as far as it had grown in Ireland had given great employment, and in some districts where the plantations were largest the planters and those concerned in the industry came forward, and before a Committee of this House said that the wave of distress which was going over Ireland had left entirely untouched those districts where the tobacco was grown. Men, women, and children of all ages were constantly employed, and the results were of the very best character. Nobody contended that the tobacco industry was not firmly rooted. It was proved beyond all question that tobacco could be splendidly grown in Ireland. People have the idea that in order to grow tobacco successfully there must be almost a tropical country. Nothing of the kind is the case. What is really wanted more than anything, as anybody who knows anything about it will admit, is moisture, and in Ireland there is something in the atmosphere and climate which enables tobacco to grow perhaps better than in any other country in the world. There is then the question of curing and drying. It is the greatest mistake for anyone to imagine that you must have a blazing tropical sun in order to grow tobacco. In many of the great tobacco-growing countries of the world their complaint is that the sun is too strong, and if you go to these countries you will find that they have to spread awnings, and their trouble is to protect the tobacco from the too great heat of the sun. In Ireland tobacco has been most successfully grown. It has been well cured, it has been manufactured, and it
    952
    has been proved to be a most promising industry.
    It was suppressed in the year 1831 by an Act of this House for no earthly reason in the world, except that those in the tobacco industry in this country complained that their business arrangements were deranged by a certain amount of tobacco being smuggled from Ireland into this country. Nobody denied that employment was given; nobody alleged that tobacco could not be successfully grown in Ireland. The only reason given was that it interfered somewhat with the Inland Revenue authorities of this country, and that in Ireland a difficulty was found in locating and registering the areas under tobacco. I am glad to say that the year before last, after very many years' struggle, a Bill was passed through this House doing away with the old injustice and legalising the growth of tobacco once more. I introduced the Bill twelve years ago into this House. Every hon. Member who is a private Member knows what becomes of a. private Member's Bill. Year after year it was blocked, talked out, or objected to. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) year after year found fault with this Bill, and at last I found him in an amiable moment and in a complacent mood, and he was good enough to allow this Bill to pass. I believe it was called an Act of Edward VII. passed by this House. I always regard it as an Act passed by the hon. Member for the City of London, because but for him it certainly never would have become law. Perhaps the hon. Member for the City of London will later on remind me of the Bills which I assisted in getting passed in return, but that is neither here nor there. The Government are paid the full duty on the Irish-grown tobacco, and made merely a rebate of 2d. to meet any extra expense that might be put on the growers on account of the new Excise regulations. That was until last year, and now the proposal is to put 8d. a lb. on this new industry. I submit that this is a perfectly unjust, unfair, and unreasonable proposition. The Irish tobacco growers do not want exceptional treatment. ["Oh."] They do not. They have told me over and over again that they would not have gone into the matter at all if they had not sincerely believed that when well established they will he able to compete with foreign tobacco, and that within a certain number of years they will be able to pay any tax which you impose on foreign

    953
    grown tobacco. The gentlemen who have taken up this industry in Ireland have spent large sums of money out of their own pockets. They have brought expert tobacco growers from different parts of the world, and they are seriously engaged in the industry. What do they ask? They simply ask that while the whole thing is being built up you shall not crush it down and destroy it by an extra burden of taxation. Is there anything unreasonable in that demand? Is there anything really contrary to the principle of Free Trade in that demand? Remember, this industry was deliberately broken down and abolished in Ireland by an Act of this House. We are now, long afterwards, having had that Act repealed, endeavouring to build this little industry up again. We say, "Though you be opposed to Protection, we think you are bound in justice to make some reparation to help us to build up this industry which you yourselves wanted to destroy by Act of Parliament."
    I do not deny for a moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone some way to help us in this matter. He has given for a number of years a grant to certain of those who grow tobacco in Ireland. Lord Ritchie was the first to recognise the claim of this industry, and the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), who I am glad to see in his place, followed the policy of Lord Ritchie by also recognising that something must be done, and he gave a rebate of 1s. per 1b. while this industry was in its experimental stage. The present growers, as the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department can tell us, has undoubtedly received the substantial grant given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. We acknowledge that we are quite ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards recognising our claim; but at the same time the old growers of tobacco, and those who are anxious to embark in the industry, and who have been encouraged by the success of the old growers, say, and I believe say with absolute truth, that in spite of the grant which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and which was very good last year with the then taxation, will not be sufficient now if you are going to impose an additional tax of 8d. per 1b. on the tobacco they grow. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to reduce the tax which was put on last year and the year before, not to take a penny off, but to leave it exactly as it is; only
    954
    do not put an additional burden of 8d. per 1b. upon this struggling country. If you do, in spite of the grant you have given tobacco planting in Ireland will not spread, and the industry, I fear, will fall out of existence. I would like to say to the right hon. Gentleman, and to any Member of the House, that my hon. Friends and myself would be delighted during the summer months to bring any of them to the tobacco-growing districts in Ireland. I am sure any of them who come will be delighted by what they will see. They will observe the tobacco not only most successfully grown, but what will give them greater pleasure still, they will see hundreds of men women, and children busily employed. I know one gentleman in Meath who has grown tobacco, the Lieutenant of the County, Colonel Nugent Everard, who employs over 150 men. He stated on many occasions to me and in the public press: —
    "The emigration danger and difficulty does not exist in my district at all. Wherever labour is to be had or people wish to work I can find them employment."
    It is a busy hive of industry. You might imagine yourself in any country, no sign of poverty, no sign of discontent, a busy, contented, and happy people, working many of them, families together, fathers and mothers and their children engaged in this healthy occupation, keeping the homes together, avoiding the emigrant ship, and at the same time carrying on a considerable and young industry. That applies to many parts of Ireland. It applies to Limerick, where Lord Dunraven has spent much time and money to this matter. It applies to County Wexford, where the matter has been taken up by a number of farmers who have clubbed together, and in a co-operative society have grown tobacco. In many other parts it is like that.
    Unfortunately it is not in my power or in the power of any Member to influence this House or to change the decisions of the Government, but I do say here most earnestly that it will be a heart-breaking thing; it will really be a shame and a disgrace to this great and powerful country, and to this great and powerful Government, if they allow any prejudice whatever to lead them into a course of action which will throw men and women in Ireland out of employment, and which will strangle an industry which promises to grow, and which in the years to come some of the most responsible men in the country predict will give employment to hundreds and thousands of the people.

    955
    I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all the force I can command, at any rate to-night, to give us some encouragement, to say that he will, between this and the consideration of his Finance Bill, consider whether it is not possible, consistently with his Free Trade principles and the principles of his Friends behind him, to help us to build up this industry which, remember, was broken down wantonly by this House. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he will remember that this matter is still in the experimental stage he will find no difficulty, without outraging any Free Trade principle, in at least for a period of years saying, "We will impose no heavy burden on this young industry, we will allow it to stand erect and upright, and then when it is able to hold its own with its long-established competitors we will call upon it to bear the burden which we put in accordance with our principles upon the imported article from foreign countries. "There is no breach of Free Trade in that; there is only justice. I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider what I have said, and I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: In seconding this Amendment I desire to disclaim any intention whatever of supporting any action contrary to the principle of Free Trade. I have no desire whatever to see established in my country any industry that will not stand the test of time and circumstance, or is not indigenous to the place and soil. I have read what occurred to the industries of Ireland in the past, and he would be indeed a poor friend of Ireland who sought to see established in that country industries that might suffer in the future by any change in the fiscal circumstances of this country. It may be that industries would be established if the policy of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway prevailed, but in the changefulness of time we have no certainty that this country will be consistent with any fiscal policy whatever. I know that in the early part of the last century flourishing industries in Ireland were destroyed by reason of a change of fiscal policy in England. If I thought that the tobacco industry established in Ireland by the false assistance of Protection would depend for its existence in the future upon a continuance of that policy, I would not support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I believe the support which
    956
    he seeks is sincerely asked for by him. merely as a tentative and fleeting protection of an infant and experimental industry. If that were not so, I would, indeed resist the proposal with all the power at my command. It may be said that what is asked for amounts to a subsidy of this. infant industry. Well, it is only a very small one. I believe that that suggestion has been made before. But even though it be but a small one, I would resist it on principle if it were to be permanent.
    I can bear out what my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Redmond) has said with regard to the suitability of the climate of Ireland for the successful production of tobacco. I remember in my young days having it from my grandfather, who himself early last century was a tobacco grower, that never in the course of his manhood and old age could he find a foreign manufactured or foreign-grown tobacco equal to that which he produced upon his own small plantation in the South of Ireland. Whenever he smoked foreign manufactured tobacco he gravely complained about its quality, and compared it disadvantageously with that which he had himself produced in his early days. I am, therefore, convinced upon this first - hand authority, that it is possible to grow the plant successfully in Ireland. With regard to its. preparation, I know from experience that the Irish people can be taught any manufacture in which the exercise of either strength or intelligence is needed to produce and prepare the article for export or consumption at home. My hon. Friend has referred to the treatment of Irish manufactures in the past. It is very deplorable to read of the many manufactures which Ireland had in the early part of the last century— manufactures which had survived for a short time the Union of the two Parliaments. This House has often heard how, say a couple of centuries ago, the manufactures of Ireland were destroyed, but we do not need to go so far back as that. Ireland has suffered with her industries by reason of the Act of Union, when there was taken from the industries of Ireland that foster-care which Parliament alone can give. I will not trouble the House at this late hour with many facts or figures relating to those manufactures. There is no sadder reading for Irishmen than that of the early part of last century, that speaks of these flourishing manufactures, and that relates their cruel and unutterable destruction. I will not weary the House by referring further

    957
    to them. But I do desire to enforce the argument put forward that this House and this country is under an obligation to Ireland, which it may to some small extent discharge by passing the Motion of my hon. Friend; and I should like in an especial manner to appeal to the Gentlemen above the Gangway on this side of the House. I should like to tell them of a man who once entertained a great desire to encourage Ireland. He sat upon those Opposition Benches. I allude to the late Mr. Hanbury, who occupied the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury many years ago. He came to me in the Library. It was after the great debacle of 1886, when the party now sitting opposite were so sorely defeated. Mr. Hanbury said to me: "O'Connor, I have been reading the history of your country during the Recess. I have read of the great success of your manufactures. I have read how they have been so cruelly destroyed by the legislation of this country; and I have come to the conclusion that if it should ever be in my power I will give my convictions a chance. I have come to the conclusion that this country can never tax itself sufficiently to make compensation for our cruel conduct towards your industries in the past." That was the opinion of Mr. Hanbury. I do say this, as having some experience of his conduct when he had the power, and when he filled a responsible position in the Government, that he never failed to avail himself of every opportunity that his great position gave him to help Ireland in every substantial way that he could and that his position enabled him to do.
    That is the conduct that we ask the whole House to follow. That is the attitude, the sympathetic attitude that we ask this House to assume towards Ireland. That is the obligation that we say that this House is under to Ireland—by sympathy and exceptional treatment—because my Friend asks for exceptional treatment —to undo, if possible, in some slight degree, the injury of the past by doing not only justice, but a little more than justice.
    Question put: "That 3s. 6d. stand part of the Question."
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I cannot speak upon this matter like my hon. Friend the Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond) with the authority of a tobacco grower, because he is, as the House knows,
    958
    interested in a plantation, although his financial interest in the matter is. Limited—
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: No, no; I am not one of the growers.
    Mr. GWYNN: I know that; but I mean that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in a small plantation in Ireland. I was glad to hear an hon. Member say that what was wanted in Ireland was to make two blades of grass grow now where only one grew before. What we really want in Ireland is a man who will make something else grow where grass grows now, such as Colonel Everard is doing. My hon. Friend the Member for East Clare spoke of the peace that reigned in the neighbourhood of Colonel Everard's property — I think he is the only landlord in the county Meath whose cattle has not been driven in the course of the last two years. I am glad to know that Colonel Everard is carrying on this tobacco growing industry in a pretty extensive way. He is specialising now, and he is growing in the South of Ireland a kind of Turkish tobacco for cigarettes, which, so far, has gone exceedingly well, and which it is hard to distinguish from the ordinary Turkish. I saw them on sale some time ago in this House, so that hon. Members can take a practical opportunity of testing for themselves their excellence. We understand the preference of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Free Trade, but in this case Free Trade is not at stake. Free Trade assumes that trade has had its chance in the open market. We are not coming to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to help us to revive one of the industries that has been killed by the legitimate or semi-legitimate war of commerce. This is an industry that was smashed and ended suddenly by an Act of Parliament, and, therefore, it had not the commercial chance that foreign tobacco has had. The industry of growing tobacco it Ireland cannot be compared with the industry in the West Indies or in any of the tropical countries; it is comparable with the industry in America. It is worth while knowing that tobacco is essentially a small-man crop in America. It is not a speciality of one man. The parcels of tobacco grown in this way in America do not go to the manufacturer direct; they go to the rehandler, and then to the manufacturer. In Ireland we have the grower and the manufacturer, but we have not got the rehandler— the man who deals with the moisture and the sweating and so forth

    959
    I think we are entitled to say that until the industry is fully developed, and until the area in cultivation is considerably larger than at present, that the question of Free Trade does not arise. I think my hon. Friend has made out a good case for giving Ireland exceptional treatment, and I add my supplications to those which he has put forward on behalf of the cause which he has always so strenuously supported.
    Mr. CARLILE: I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    The SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): All those hon. Members who have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Clare in moving this Amendment must have recognised how completely he has made this subject his own, and they must also have recognised the great depth of feeling and sincerity of purpose he has put into the good work he has accomplished not only for Ireland, but more particularly for that part of the country which he represents. Anyone who was present during the discussion upon an earlier Amendment, which was withdrawn, by the hon. Member opposite, and who listened also to the Debate upon a previous Amendment, must have been struck by the way in which the appetite for preference grows. We started with a preference for Colonial tobacco under the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite over foreign and home-grown tobacco.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: No; not homegrown tobacco.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; over foreign tobacco and home-grown. [Cries of "No."] I assert that the effect of the original Amendment would have been to give a preference to Colonial tobacco over home and foreign tobacco. Then we came to the proposal in regard to which the Mover made a speech but did not press his Amendment, which would have given a preference to home-grown tobacco over Colonial and foreign tobacco, and that is the second kind of preference which has been put forward to-night. Now we come to the third kind of preference, which would give a preference to Irish tobacco over Scotch, colonial, and foreign tobacco.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: If the hon. Member will look at my Amendment he will see that its effect would be to deal with tobacco grown in Scotland and England as well if it were thought desirable.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member proposes to take out the duties now existing and to put in other duties.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, but the duties which are fixed by my Amendment will be applicable to tobacco grown in England and Scotland, as well as Ireland.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the effect of the Amendment is as I have already stated, but whatever difference there may be between us upon that small point there can be no possible doubt that the hon. Member's proposal would give a very large measure of protection to tobacco principally grown in Ireland and grown in the United Kingdom over foreign and colonial tobacco. That may meet the views of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House, but it is quite unthinkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could accept a proposal of that sort, however beneficial it might be to the local industries of Ireland, having regard to the views he has so often and so successfully stated in this House, and to protect which the Ministerial party were returned to power four years ago. The question arises whether if all this protection were given it would promote not the growth, but the sale of tobacco. A great deal has been said about making two blades of grass grow where one grew before. Some hon. Members behind me remind me that the result might be not the growth of two blades of grass but of two weeds.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Two fragrant weeds.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question is not how many blades you can grow, but how many you can sell. If you gain all the protection asked for the question will arise whether there will be any increase in the sale of the tobacco that might be grown and cured in Ireland. I suggest to the hon. Member that he and his friends who are so vitally interested in this question should turn their attention not to a deferential duty, but to induce the Irish Agricultural Department to greatly improve the soil and the quality of the tobacco produced. Efforts in that direction would help the growth of tobacco in Ireland infinitely more than any protection. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the assistance which has been given by the Government to the industry. When the Bill of which he was the author was passed the immediate effect was to procure for Irish

    961
    tobacco a rebate of a shilling. That rebate was withdrawn, and there was substituted a preference of two pence a pound on the Excise duty. The Government were not content to stop even at that point. They gave a substantial grant of £6,000 a year until 1913, in order to encourage the experimental growth of tobacco in Ireland, and have provided for buildings for the storing and curing of Irish tobacco. So that really a substantial concession has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the promotion of the growth of tobacco in Ireland.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: My suggestion is this, that you are really undoing a great deal of the good by putting 8d. additional tax on. if you had left the tax as it was there would have been no reason to complain.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Had the proposal of the Government been to put a tax on Irish tobacco, which it was not proposed to put on tobacco grown in the Colonies or abroad, it might have been considered that we were putting a heavy and unfair penalty; but seeing that we are imposing on Irish tobacco the same duty as upon that grown elsewhere, all I can say is that while it may be a heavy blow on tobacco, it is not a blow which can possibly hurt the growth of Irish tobacco as distinguished from other tobacco. For the reasons I have given and in view of the particular help which we have given to Irish tobacco during the last year, my right lion. Friend regrets he is unable to accept the Amendment.
    Question proposed: "That '3s. 6d.' stand part of the Resolution:"—Debate arising;
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow (25th May).

    TRADE BOARDS [EXPENSES.]
    Resolution reported;
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of remuneration and expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of Trade Boards for certain trades."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): As the House is aware, this Bill passed its second reading without a Division, and it was largely supported on both sides of the House. It is now before the Grand Committee upstairs, and very satisfactory progress has been made. That will be liable to be interrupted and delayed quite unnecessarily if the Financial Resolution which is necessary is not assented to by the House. The Financial Resolution is not of a very serious character, and the total expenditure involved which we propose is between £12,000 and £15,000 a year for the administration of the Trade Boards in the trades which we propose in the Bill. It is possible that the schedule may be extended, and that Parliament may by Provisional Order add to the number of trades, and that would make some small increase—though a very small increase—in the cost of the administration of the measure. The trades to which we propose to apply the measure, as the House knows, are four in number, and appear in the schedule—(1) Ready made and wholesale bespoke tailoring; (2) cardboard box making; (3) machine-made lace and net finishing; and (4) ready-made blouse-making. But Amendments are pro-posed widening the area of the first, substituting paper box for cardboard box making in the second, extending the third to include lace curtain, and substituting for the fourth the hammered and tommied or dollied chainmaking industry. How far these and other Amendments to the Bill will affect the ultimate cost of putting it into operation I cannot say, but I think I shall be well within the mark if I say that £15,000 a year will cover the salaries and expenses of official members and inspectors, expenses of representative members, and incidentals such as postage, printing, light, heat, etc. I should like to point out to the House that by utilising the premises of the Labour Exchanges, and having those as the places in which the Trade Boards would meet there will only be a small expenditure on rent and staff, because a great deal of the expenditure on the rent and the staff of the Labour Exchanges would be available to aid to a certain extent in the work of the Trade Boards for the purposes of this Bill. That being so, I would ask the House if they would not think fit to let us have this Resolution to-night, because we are getting

    963
    on very rapidly in the Grand Committee, and we may conceivably get through the Bill to-morrow, and only be stopped by the fact that we have not obtained the Financial Resolution.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I did not object to the Committee stage of this Resolution being taken a night or two ago, because it was stated that if we would allow the Committee stage to go through an opportunity would be given for the Report stage to be discussed. I do not call twenty minutes past eleven an opportunity for the Report stage being discussed. especially after what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the extension of the scope of the Bill to various industries which are not scheduled in the measure. Therefore in order that we may have an opportunity according to the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
    The PATRONAGE SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I recognise an arrangement was made with regard to giving the House some opportunity for discussing this Resolution on the Report stage, and I mentioned this afternoon to the right hon. Baronet who sits for Somersetshire (Sir Alexander Acland Hood) that as the Committee meets to-morrow it was rather important that this Resolution should be proceeded with. When that was pointed out I think he concurred that possibly there was a special reason why this matter should be dealt with to-night rather than possibly to-morrow night or the night after. I presume the House does not desire to postpone until after Whitsun the Report of the money Resolution. Having regard to the fact that it is only just after 11 o'clock I thought it was not unreasonable that we might press the Report stage of the Resolution tonight, and I still hope there will be ample time for any reasonable discussion.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I certainly did not understand, when I allowed the Committee stage to be taken, that we were going to get it after 11 o'clock. I should never have allowed it to go through, except on the understanding that we were going to have the Report in Government time. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want in any way to break any pledge or understanding which has been arrived at, and under these circumstances I hope he will put this down after Whitsuntide at a proper time when we can discuss it.
    Mr. E. H. CARLILE: This is a most important Motion, which involves a very large sum of money. When the Bill was before us we were led to understand that the schedule would be definitely and clearly defined, but that at some future date it might he found desirable to add to the schedule other trades which might be concerned. Now we find even before the Bill has gone through Committee the right hon. Gentleman has begun to rearrange and vary the schedules. So far from the Bill itself passing this House with anything like universal support, it is true that no decision was taken, but there was nothing like a unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill. It is a bad Socialist Bill.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If I may interrupt, the alterations to the schedule are not substantial. They are only more precise and more careful definitions. They are very difficult to define with precision, and as the Committee proceeds the definitions are shaped and modified.
    Mr. CARLILE: The right hon. Gentleman has actually brought in the whole iron industry, to which there was no kind of reference when the schedule was before us. I know quite well the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, spoke in favour of the Bill, but he was at pains to explain that he did so on his own account, and did not commit Members sitting behind him. The Bill is thoroughly objectionable, and we have already got a foretaste by the way in which the schedule has been handled by the right hon. Gentleman of the sort of thing we are to expect for the future. All sorts of trades may he brought in. The right hon Gentleman says all he asks is £15.000 a:ear. It may be £120,000 a year in a short time, and the schedules extended to any amount. This is no suitable time to ask for a grant, especially under the most suspicious circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman asks for it. I trust the House will decline at this late hour of the night, when there is no opportunity to debate it, when practically we have had no opportunity of applying our minds to the subject, to proceed with the Resolution. Many of us have grave and serious objections to it, until we have some opportunity in Government time of considering the Resolution in all its bearings.
    Question proposed: "That the Debate he now adjourned."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
    Lord BALCARRES: I certainly was surprised that this Debate was raised after

    965
    11 o'clock. Of course, the Government have the right to take it after 11 o'clock, but it was not expected that they would do so in view of the understanding that was come to. I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that it was necessary to have this Resolution passed through the Report stage in order that progress made be made with the Bill in the Grand Committee upstairs. That is not the case, because the Bill could be passed through Committee without this Resolution having been passed through the Report stage in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is not prevented from passing the Bill through Committee so long as he has not got the Report stage of the Resolution. Of course, a Supplementary Estimate will have to be introduced. I will not discuss that further than to say that he can pass the Bill through Committee, though it cannot be reported to the House until the Report stage of the finance Resolution has been passed. I presume a Supplementary Estimate must be placed before the House dealing with this £15.000. The Patronage Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade promised that the Supplementary Estimate would be presented in good time this Session or next Session in order to allow the whole question of administration to be discussed. That being so, it might be possible to withdraw the Resolution. It went through the Committee stage without opposition on the ground that an opportunity for subsequent discussion should be given. It has come on to-night at a very tiresome moment, which, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, precludes the possibility of much discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman gets the Resolution now, will he promise that due time will be given for adequate discussion on the Supplementary Estimate?
    Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might arrange to have this put down as the first order on the Friday when we reassemble after Whitsuntide? If he could do that, I think my hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion. We could discuss the Resolution on that day, but not, I hope, at undue length.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I recognise that hon. Gentlemen opposite have it in their power to arrest procedure on this matter. They were good enough to allow the Committee stage to go through, and they seem to have understood that time for the Report
    966
    stage would be given before 11 o'clock. That is not admitted on this side of the House, but, I think, in all the circumstances, the Government desire to meet the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite and come to an arrangement. I would certainly not like to profit by putting an unfair construction on the understanding which was come to. I do very much regret that the hon. Baronet does not allow it to go through now. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Pease) informs me that he will put the Resolution down on the Friday after Whitsuntide as the First Order on the understanding that it is not to take an undue amount of time on that day, and that this will not prevent the proceedings of the Grand Committee being gone on with.
    Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 4th June.
    And, it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Thirty minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Gratuities to Pension Officers.
  Gratuities to Pension Officers.
  Stamp Duties, Death Duties, and Income Tax.
  Stamp Duties, Death Duties, and Income Tax.
  Duty on Spirits (Rebate to Hospitals).
  Duty on Spirits (Rebate to Hospitals).
  Beer Duty.
  Beer Duty.
  Ireland's Taxable Capacity.
  Ireland's Taxable Capacity.
  Income Tax (British and Irish Proportions).
  Income Tax (British and Irish Proportions).
  Undeveloped Land (Middlesex).
  Undeveloped Land (Middlesex).
  Motor Car Tax (Abatements).
  Motor Car Tax (Abatements).
  Dog Licences (Ireland).
  Dog Licences (Ireland).
  National Debt Conversion.
  National Debt Conversion.
  Increased Duties (Estimate).
  Increased Duties (Estimate).
  Income Tax (Dividend Deductions).
  Income Tax (Dividend Deductions).
  Admiralty Works Department (Joiners' Petition).
  Admiralty Works Department (Joiners' Petition).
  His Majesty's Dockyards (Skilled Labourers).
  His Majesty's Dockyards (Skilled Labourers).
  Admiralty (Confidential Official Document).
  Admiralty (Confidential Official Document).
  Granite (British and Norwegian).
  Granite (British and Norwegian).
  New Battleships (Contract Price).
  New Battleships (Contract Price).
  Trading Passes (Kinsale Barracks).
  Trading Passes (Kinsale Barracks).
  King's Colour.
  King's Colour.
  British Foreign-going Ships (Failure to Join).
  British Foreign-going Ships (Failure to Join).
  Steamship "Bencliff" (Engaging Crew at Sunderland).
  Steamship "Bencliff" (Engaging Crew at Sunderland).
  Mercantile Marine Offices.
  Mercantile Marine Offices.
  Merchant Shipping Act (Exemptions).
  Merchant Shipping Act (Exemptions).
  Death of Asiatic Fireman at Hong Kong.
  Death of Asiatic Fireman at Hong Kong.
  Trade Boards.
  Trade Boards.
  Evicted Tenant's Claims.
  Evicted Tenant's Claims.
  Carriage of Buttermilk (Belfast).
  Carriage of Buttermilk (Belfast).
  Mrs. Owen's Property (Kilgrena).
  Mrs. Owen's Property (Kilgrena).
  Visits to Prisoners (Galway).
  Visits to Prisoners (Galway).
  Gort Petty Sessions (Deely's Case).
  Gort Petty Sessions (Deely's Case).
  Gaelic Athletic Association.
  Gaelic Athletic Association.
  Alleged Outrage on Police Patrol.
  Alleged Outrage on Police Patrol.
  Irish Land Bill.
  Irish Land Bill.
  Cloughbanley Farm (Mayo).
  Cloughbanley Farm (Mayo).
  Lessons in Civic Duties (Ireland).
  Lessons in Civic Duties (Ireland).
  Ballybrack (Lysaght Estate).
  Ballybrack (Lysaght Estate).
  Purchase of Estates (Ireland).
  Purchase of Estates (Ireland).
  Hopkins' Estate, Errill, Queen's County.
  Hopkins' Estate, Errill, Queen's County.
  Poor Law (Ireland).
  Poor Law (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (Mr. J. Reidy, Killeentierna).
  Reinstatement Application (Mr. J. Reidy, Killeentierna).
  Irish Land Bill.
  Irish Land Bill.
  Sheriff's Bailiff's Charge, Ballygar (County Galway).
  Sheriff's Bailiff's Charge, Ballygar (County Galway).
  Removal of Prisoners (Ireland).
  Removal of Prisoners (Ireland).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (Lisgarr, County Roscommon).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (Lisgarr, County Roscommon).
  Purchase of Lands at Kilcarron and Kilquast (North Tipperary).
  Purchase of Lands at Kilcarron and Kilquast (North Tipperary).
  Police Patrol, Long Island (County Roscommon).
  Police Patrol, Long Island (County Roscommon).
  West Riding Rivers Board.
  West Riding Rivers Board.
  Public Health Acts.
  Public Health Acts.
  Children Act (Alterations in Licensed Premises).
  Children Act (Alterations in Licensed Premises).
  Old Street Police Court (Charge Dismissed).
  Old Street Police Court (Charge Dismissed).
  Convictions (First Division).
  Convictions (First Division).
  Board of Agriculture (Scotland).
  Board of Agriculture (Scotland).
  Sunday Delivery of Letters (England and Wales).
  Sunday Delivery of Letters (England and Wales).
  Post Office (Earlier Closing.)
  Post Office (Earlier Closing.)
  Hobhouse Committee's Report (Depart-mental Interpretation).
  Hobhouse Committee's Report (Depart-mental Interpretation).
  Postal Arrangements, Dunlewy (County Donegal).
  Postal Arrangements, Dunlewy (County Donegal).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Credit Balances).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Credit Balances).
  European Troops in India (Sickness).
  European Troops in India (Sickness).
  Magistrate's Heroism (Midnapore).
  Magistrate's Heroism (Midnapore).
  Flax Growing (Ireland).
  Flax Growing (Ireland).
  Motor Fishing Boats.
  Motor Fishing Boats.
  Irish Exports and Imports.
  Irish Exports and Imports.
  Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).
  Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).
  Trinidad (Telephone System).
  Trinidad (Telephone System).
TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional Provision; of the Torquay Tramways Company, Limited, under their Common Seal, together with the proposed clauses and amendment annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
BRISTOL UNIVERSITY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  WEST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EASTBOURNE GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HARROGATE GAS BILL.
  PONTYPRIDD WATER BILL.
    WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LISKEARD AND LOOE AND LISKEARD AND CARADON RAILWAYS (VESTING, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
  WELLS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CONWAY GAS BILL.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
INDIAN COUNCILS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, agreed to.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Llynvi Valley Gas Order and the Coatbridge Gas Order.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Statute for— The National University of Ireland; University College, Dublin; University College, Cork; University College, Galway;
Queen's University, Belfast (made by the Belfast Commissioners:)
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 60.)

MERCANTILE MARINE.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of Wednesday last), and to be printed. (No. 61.)
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, last year I introduced a similar Bill with which I did not proceed because a very large portion of it was in process of being dealt with in a Government measure, which, I think, has met with almost universal acceptance in the country—I refer to the Children Act. That Act dealt with the question of the education of

  1111
  children who live in movable dwellings, and dealt with it in a much more thorough way than I or the County Councils Association could have ventured to propose. What is contained in the Bill now before your Lordships is the remainder of that Bill after deleting the part that related to education.
  I am quite aware that on this question there is a good deal of sentiment, and I am very far from decrying that sentiment. I am, perhaps, one of the last persons who ought to decry it, for in common with a noble Lord who is not here, Lord Poltimore, I happen to have had a first cousin some five or six generations ago who was elected king of the gipsies. Therefore, I have some sympathy with a gipsy's life. There is a great deal to be said for a free life in the open air, sleeping beneath the starry canopy of heaven, free from the interference of a socialistic world and with all the pleasures of constant change of scene; and there are times, I confess, particularly in the month of August, when we are discussing very doubtful legislation in the somewhat vitiated atmosphere of this House, when I sigh for such a life. There is also the old historic sentiment. The nomad tribes of Europe, driven by a relentless civilisation to wander into every country, invading every country and conquering none, afford a melancholy instance of the proverb that no nation that did not build ever became great.
  But we must not be carried away too much by sentiment in these days. There are many of your Lordships who are descended from those who came over to England with the Norman Conqueror, but I venture to think that if any of your Lordships were to endeavour to live in a Norman castle, with the hygienic conditions which were common in those days, you would rapidly fall into difficulties with the local authority, and that is a position the hardihood of which is so great that I do not think in these days any one would attempt it, except, perhaps, members of the Judicial bench. We are all bound by sanitary and hygienic rules, and it is impossible to contend that it is justifiable that any body of the community should be entirely free from them in these days.
  It has been argued, however, and perhaps some of your Lordships have received a memorial from the Showmen's Society to this effect, that these people are already
  1112
  under the Public Health Act of 1875, which gives special powers to sanitary authorities to make rules and regulations and pass by-laws, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, to deal with dwellers in vans and tents. It has been pointed out to me, and I daresay will be argued by the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, that these rules and regulations are quite sufficient to meet the case. But the fact is that, although the powers possessed by the sanitary authorities differ very little from those which by this Bill your Lordships are asked to approve, there is this difference. In the first place, we maintain that a wandering community like those who live in movable dwellings should not, as at present, be subject to ever-varying and ever-changing by-laws, but should be subject to one set of by-laws, and that wherever they go they should carry these regulations with them. The other point is this. Granted that the powers of sanitary authorities are sufficient there still lies this great difficulty, that they take no account whatever of the mobility of the van dwellers, and that is at the bottom of the whole trouble.
  The van dweller settles in a sanitary district. He breaks every law and regulation, it may be, of the sanitary district, but the moment that the sanitary authority begin to move to keep him in order he puts in his horse and leaves for another sanitary district, and the sanitary authority, like Dog-berry, allow him to go and thank the Lord they are rid of him. The sanitary authority have no machinery whereby they can pursue him when he is out of their district, and he proceeds to follow the same course within the new sanitary district. This Bill proposes that these wandering dwellers shall be given some kind of local habitation. They are, in the first place, to be registered, and, secondly, the power of controlling them is placed in the larger bodies of the community—namely, the county councils and the borough authorities.
  I will touch very briefly on the various points raised in the Bill. Every temporary erection which is not intended to be moved and is not naturally moved is left where it is under the regulations, which almost invariably deal with temporary structures, of the local sanitary authority. There is no possible reason why such an erection, however temporary, however in-

  1113
  sufficient in its kind it may be, should not be left under the existing sanitary authority. The difficulties I have pointed out only commence when the temporary dwelling partakes of a movable nature. It has been urged that a movable dwelling should not include tents and light structures of that kind; but after very careful consideration, after trying many alterations and finding all of them more or less unworkable, I am afraid they must be included.
  If the Bill were limited to vans and only to tents and temporary structures so far as might be necessary to bring the accommodation up to the hygienic requirements for the number of people occupying them, you might have the Act entirely evaded by persons living exclusively in tents which they could convey in a vehicle which in no way was used for the purpose of residence. It was for this reason that in drafting the Bill I felt bound to include tents as well as vans; and I am sorry to have to do so, because it renders it necessary to deal with several classes of tents which one would gladly leave out. To make the Bill symmetrical it is absolutely necessary that every dwelling which is designed to be and is liable to be constantly moved should have some place to which you may refer to find out its antecedents and the persons who are responsible for it. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 10 provides that nothing in the Bill shall apply to any movable dwelling used by any portion of His Majesty's naval or military forces or to any encampment which may be certified as under proper supervision by the Territorial Force Association of a county. You will also note that not only canal boats but house boats of all descriptions are expressly excluded from the action of the Bill.
  Clause 1 merely provides for the registration of movable dwellings. Then by Clause 2 the Local Government Board are empowered to make regulations with regard to the registration. It is to be a condition precedent to registration that the registering authority should be satisfied that on sanitary and hygienic grounds these places are fit places for persons to live in, taking into consideration the number of people who will live in them, the question whether they are children or adults, and the question of the sexes. This is a regulation which is common to both urban and rural authorities, and I can see nothing whatever to
  1114
  complain of in it. This kind of regulation is made every day with regard to houses. The regulations as a whole, with this exception, go very little beyond the model by-laws of the Local Government Board. The matters dealt with in Clauses 4 and 5—certificate of registry and power to prohibit encampment—are exactly the class of things provided for in the model by-laws, with the exception, perhaps, of the prevention of fire. Anyone who has any knowledge of these wandering residences knows what a very great danger they are in the matter of fires. Half the fires which devastate moors and woods are due to people living this kind of life, and the necessity for some regulation is very great. In towns the regulation with regard to the sweeping of chimneys to prevent fire is a very analogous kind of regulation. Clause 3 provides that for the purpose of the registration of movable dwellings the registration authorities shall be the county and county borough councils.
  Clause 5 is, perhaps, the one which introduces the most debatable matter into the Bill. That clause provides that—
  Where it appears to any registration authority that the presence of movable dwellings on any specified place or places within their area would be dangerous to the public health or constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood the registration authority may by by-law prohibit such movable dwellings being on such specified place or places and any person acting in contravention of any by-law made under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
  That is, I admit, a very large power, but it is a power much sought by county councils. None of the smaller authorities are willing to take the trouble or go to the expense of dealing with these persons, and the county councils think that they should be under their control. They consider that the county council would be the better authority to deal with them because, being the larger authority, they would be less likely to be swayed by any local or personal feeling, and would be better able to deal with the question as to whether a certain place was or was not suitable for the resort of movable dwellings. Although the camping of one movable dwelling on a certain spot for a short time may create no very great nuisance, yet the constant succession of such movable dwellings may very well constitute a considerable nuisance. The county and county borough councils

  1115
  are given power to deal with the encampment of movable dwellings even on land which is not waste and common land but the property of private individuals.
  Clause 6 provides that it shall be the duty of the sanitary authority having jurisdiction in the place where a movable dwelling is for the time being situate to assist any registration authority concerned in carrying out the objects of the Bill by giving information and otherwise. It has been found by experiment that sanitary authorities are in most cases unwilling to act in matters of this kind on account of the difficulty of following movable dwellings and the expense that would be incurred; but if the work could be done by some other authority the local authority would be only too glad, in many instances, to assist. The proposal in the Bill, therefore, is that the authorities to control movable dwellings shall be the larger authorities, and that the smaller sanitary authorities should assist in the regulation of these dwellings. It is not by any means desired to take away from local sanitary authorities the power they exercise at present, but the fact is they exercise this power so very rarely that it is taking away from them nothing which they ever use. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 merely provide the machinery for carrying out the Bill.
  I sincerely hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I am not prepared to argue that the details contained in it are incapable of amendment, and I am not going to say that they do not, perhaps, suggest the desirability of considerable investigation as to the necessity there is for them and the effect they would have if put into force. But I do say it is very strongly felt by county councils that this is a matter which decidedly needs regulation of some kind, and I think it will be to the advantage of everybody that this question should be ventilated and the matter carefully gone into. I hope, therefore, that whatever happens to the Bill in the future it may at least be allowed to pass this stage.
  As I said at the commencement of my remarks, a portion of my original Bill has been rendered unnecessary by the legislation promoted by the Government. I have hopes that in this case, too, some future Government measure may work a cure. The Local Government Board have at this
  1116
  moment a Bill before Parliament for town planning, and here we have a class of individuals who are daily, almost hourly, planning towns and buildings of their own, varying from day to day and hour to hour, and they do it without any regulation whatever. I do not know whether it will be possible to bring this question within the four corners of such a Bill as that, but I do ask your Lordships to agree that this is a matter which needs consideration, and that it is only equitable and just that people who wander about and live in movable buildings of a very doubtful kind which could not possibly comply with the regulations appertaining to buildings inhabited by any other class of the community should be under some kind of regulations. That they should be entirely free from the regulations necessary both for health and sanitation is a matter which, I think, needs consideration, and which I recommend to the consideration of your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHMy Lords, I should like to say two or three words on this Bill. It seems to me that the principal point in the Bill is that for securing the registration of the occupiers of these movable dwellings, and I have no doubt that is a sensible and good provision; but there seems to me no reason why, when an occupier of a movable dwelling obtains registration, he should not be required to obtain at the same time a licence and pay a certain sum for it. I see no machinery in the Bill for his being obliged to take out a licence and to pay a fee for it. It must be remembered that these people have a considerable advantage over other members of the community, for they roam about where they please and pay no rates and taxes. So long as they are favoured with pretty good weather they have a distinct advantage over other people, and it does seem fair that if they are to be dealt with in the manner suggested by the Bill they should be called upon to pay a reasonable sum for a licence to occupy these buildings. The money arising from these licences should be handed over to the councils who have jurisdiction in this matter. I have risen merely to throw out that suggestion. I do not wish to criticise anything in the Bill, and I venture to hope it may receive a Second Reading.
  LORD ALLENDALEMy Lords, as your Lordships were reminded by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, an almost identical Bill was introduced by him last year. It was then my duty to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government and to point out some of the difficulties in the provisions as they presented themselves to the Local Government Board, the Department that would be principally concerned in administering the Bill should it become law. I was then told by some noble Lords that I had displayed lukewarmness in support of the Bill. If I showed a certain amount of caution, it was not, nor will anything I may say to-day be, from any feeling on my part, or on that of the Local Government Board, that the question with which the Bill proposes to deal is not deserving of the attention of Parliament. But whilst fully realising that persons who live the existence which has been described ought not to be a nuisance to other people and a source of risk to themselves, it is found somewhat difficult to frame regulations for their control and to understand how the provisions in the Bill would quite have the effect that is desired by the noble Lord.
  The general object of the Bill, as Lord Clifford has explained, is to provide for the registration and regulation of movable dwellings. These dwellings, I need hardly point out, are already subject to specific legislation under Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, and the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act of 1889. The two main features of the Bill are, first, the registration and control of movable dwellings by general regulations; and, secondly, the proposal to give power to local authorities prohibiting encampments in specified places in their districts. The existing law enables local authorities to make by-laws on some of the subjects dealt with in Cause 2, and many local authorities have already availed themselves of this power. The Bill proposes that there should be some general regulations instead of local regulations, and that their scope should be considerably extended. As I had occasion to point out last year, the Bill in this respect seems to go rather fluffier than is reasonably practicable or desirable, and the Department that I represent are of opinion that the scope of such general regulations will require very careful consideration. I gathered last year that amongst those of your Lordships who supported the Bill there was a general feeling that the people affected
  1118
  should be registered rather than that their existence should be destroyed, and I am afraid that some of the provisions of the Bill, if passed in their present form, would have the effect of altogether exterminating gipsies and others who would come within the scope of the Bill. Therefore I think the Bill will require a good deal of modification in that respect.
  The noble Lord has, I am pleased to say, indicated that he would be prepared to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, to which motion I hope your Lordships would agree; and if that course is to be adopted it will certainly save me a good deal of trouble in pointing out difficulties in the Bill at this stage. The intention of the noble Lord apparently is that the Local Government Board shall make regulations with respect to movable dwellings which shall prescribe some sort of standard of fitness, and that the local authorities who register shall have the right to refuse registration to dwellings that they consider insufficient or unsuitable. As I have said, I rather think the result of that would be that those gipsies who do not move about in a van but with a small equipment, perhaps in a small cart with rough material for putting up tents at night, would probably altogether disappear.
  Then I should like to say a word on Clause 5, which, as Lord Clifford said, seems to contain the most debatable provision in the Bill. I question whether it is desirable to give local authorities a free hand in such a matter as prohibiting the encampment of gipsies and others in their districts. Local authorities have, I am informed, sometimes proposed by-laws on this subject, but I understand that the Home Office, to whom these by-laws have been referred, have been averse to approving them, and the same view has been taken in relation to similar proposals which have been made in private Bills. As I have said, the question of registration is certainly not an easy one to deal with; indeed, from the very nature of the case it cannot be easy, these dwellings being movable and it being difficult to trace them and to follow them about. In many cases registration would only be valuable in assisting identification. I think there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion made just now by Lord Zouche that these people when they are registered should be compelled to pay for a licence. As the noble Lord very

  1119
  properly pointed out, they have a great many advantages and are free from rates and taxes, and a small fee for a licence, if it is practicable—and I do not commit myself in the least to it, because I do not know whether it is practicable or not—is certainly a suggestion well worthy of consideration.
  Another matter dealt with in the Bill is that of overcrowding. Local authorities already have power to take proceedings in the cases of tents, vans, and other structures which are so overcrowded as to be injurious to health, and it is questionable whether it would be practicable to go further than this and give them powers beyond what they already possess. The meaning of Clause 6, which makes it the duty of the sanitary authority to assist the registration authority in carrying out the objects of the Bill, does not seem to me to be very clear. The Bill contemplates, apparently, that the registration will be performed by county and county borough councils, but the enforcement of the Bill would lie with the police and local authorities in whose area the van and tent dwellers were found. I would, therefore, suggest that Clause 6 should be omitted, and that in its place a provision should be inserted making it the duty of the county and county borough councils and the police authorities to enforce the provisions of the regulations. Clause 8 provides that every registration authority under the Bill shall, not later than January 21 in every year make a report to the Local Government Board as to the execution of the Act within their area. It seems to me that it would probably be better that every medical officer of health should in his annual report refer to the execution of the Bill in his district. That would be, I think, a better way of dealing with it than that defined in Clause 8.
  To go back to Clause 2, that clause refers to the renewal of registration from time to time. It seems to me that this also would be a very difficult matter to enforce. It would be impossible for a man who had registered in some northern county, for instance, and had removed, perhaps, to the other end of England, to go back to be registered afresh. This, however, is a matter with which, if the Bill goes to a Select Committee, the Committee would have an opportunity of dealing, and I need say any more regarding it. I hope that
  1120
  after the remarks I have made I shall not be accused of having shown lukewarmness in support of the Bill. I have merely endeavoured to point out some of the directions in which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, the Bill calls for amendment before it can be satisfactorily administered by them; and, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to use the words which fell last year from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in your Lordships' House, but who is unfortunately not in his place this evening. The noble Marquess said—
  I hope we shall not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading this evening. By doing so we commit ourselves only to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is, I conceive, this, that we do not desire that persons who adopt a nomadic mode of life should thereby emancipate themselves from the laws and regulations to which other members of the community are subject.
  I venture to think that that is the view of your Lordships and if the House is agreed generally on the principle of the Bill and will consent to refer it to a Select Committee, that Committee will have an opportunity of putting the Bill into shape, and of making it more workable, on the lines which I have indicated.
  LORD BELPERMy Lords, I do not wish to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken for the Government into any of the details, because I understand from him that the Government are perfectly willing that the Bill should be read a second time, and that its details should be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of full consideration. If that is done by the general consent of the House I should certainly advise my noble friend to accept the suggestion. I may say that the County Councils Association, in promoting this Bill, have no idea that the details of the Bill could be passed in anything like the form in which they now are. It is clear that, in regard to a delicate matter of this kind, the first legislation should have the fullest consideration that can be given to it by a Select Committee, and if the Bill can be amended in any of the details to which tho noble Lord referred we shall be only too glad to do anything to facilitate that, in order that there may be some legislation which may meet the difficulties that have constantly arisen with regard to these nomad classes. I did not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord

  1121
  Allendale, with regard to Clause 5. No doubt that clause gives certain powers to county councils. Those powers are guarded in this way, that it is only in cases within their area where it would be dangerous to the public health or constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood for people to put their dwellings in these particular districts that they have this power to actually prohibit encampment. I think a county council is competent to exercise discretion of that sort. But, as I say, if there is any objection to the particular wording of this clause and it can be modified, we shall be only too happy that it should be considered. The Bill was read a second time last year, and I conclude from what the noble Lord has said that the Government are perfectly willing that it should be read a second time to-day before being referred t o a Select Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, the course suggested is the one which was recommended last year by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it is the course, therefore, which we should desire respectfully to recommend to your Lordships to-day. We are very glad to hear that the measure is to be referred to a Select Committee. We think that the matter does require very careful inquiry. The scope of this Bill is a good deal wider, I think, than some noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships have indicated. Most of the speakers have spoken of gipsies as if the Bill only referred to gipsies, but it is far wider in its effect. The whole class of showmen, all those who cater for the innocent amusement of the countryside, come within the scope of this Bill. There is no reason, of course, why they should not be under proper regulations, but there is reason for caution in dealing with a matter of this kind. As your Lordships are aware, the association which showmen have formed is very much alarmed at the proposed legislation, and has made representations to your Lordships asking that Parliament should be very careful in what it does in this matter. The Bill would also include the summer encampments of working boys. All those are very wide powers, and when we find that these encampments are to be legislated for, not merely when they are in public places, but also when on private property—
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHIn the case of camps of that kind there
  1122
  would be power to get out of the Bill altogether by obtaining a certificate from the Territorial Association that they were under proper supervision.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI understand that the Territorial Association would only operate in the case of military or quasi-military encampments. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that the Territorial Association is such an admirable body that it might be entrusted with the power of dealing with all encampments. But the point I wish to emphasise is that the scope of the Bill is extremely wide. Of course, if the evils which have to be met are great the Bill ought to be passed and ought to have a wide scope; but the question is, Are the evils great? Are there great objections from a sanitary point of view and from the point of view of fire and disease? It may be so, and we shall, therefore, await with the greatest interest the investigations of the Select Committee which your Lordships will, no doubt, appoint. Personally—and I believe my noble friends behind me agree—I think that is precisely the course which ought to be adopted with this Bill, and when we have the Report of the Select Committee in our hands we shall be able to judge how far the Bill ought further to proceed.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  Moved, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION.
LORD SALTOUNrose to call attention to the work of the Agricultural Research Association and to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he would reconsider his refusal to continue the grant which had been given for many years. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like, in the first place, to tell your Lordships briefly the origin and objects of this association. It was originally established as the Aberdeenshire Agricultural Association in 1875, but in the course of a very few years it undertook other duties and became known under its present name. The subscribers to the association number under a hundred, chiefly in the northern

1123
counties, amongst whom are the Lord-Lieutenant of Aberdeenshire, the Earl of Aberdeen, and the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House, but who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place to-day. But by far the greater number of those interested in this association are farmers. There are some 200 associates who take the keenest and liveliest interest in the proceedings and in the results obtained. The total subscriptions come to somewhere about £145 annually, and to this has been added a grant from the Board of Agriculture, which began in 1891 and up to 1893 was £150 a year and after that was reduced to £100, but in 1900 it was discontinued altogether. I will, however, allude to that again, as the then Minister reconsidered the matter and renewed the grant, which has been continued since that date until 1906.
I know that the noble Earl who is going to reply to me is deeply interested in all farming operations and is keen for the interests of farmers, and I can assure him that it is for their sake that I am calling attention to this matter to-day. I can imagine that one of the arguments which the noble Earl will use, in reply, is that in the course of the last two or three years colleges have been founded for the purpose of experimenting in agriculture, and that these agricultural colleges now carry out this work. But I can assure your Lordships that these colleges, at all events the college in Aberdeen, do not in any way go into research work. The colleges are purely educational and do no research work but only experimental work. They do not in any way attempt to undertake the duties of this association. The objects of this association are—
To obtain reliable and useful information on agricultural subjects by means of scientific investigation and practical experiments and to disseminate information; and to advance and aid in such way as may be deemed expedient the knowledge and the application of agricultural science.
This will show your Lordships that the objects of the association are entirely different from those of the agricultural colleges.
I will in a moment point out some of the chief results which have been accomplished by Mr. Jamieson, the director of research and chief experimenter of the association. I do not know him personally, but I believe that in scientific research work he
1124
is quite a genius. Mr. Arthur Balfour, speaking the other day at Glasgow, described two kinds of geniuses in the course of his speech, and he was speaking on this very subject of research. One kind he described as follows—
Then there was the rarer class of those who seemed born for research, to whom the penetration into the secrets of nature or into the secrets of history was an absorbing and overmastering passion from which they would not be diverted except by the absolute necessity of earning their daily bread. To those men it was all important—not for the sake of the men but for the sake of the community—that they should have a chance of devoting their rare talents to that great work for which God undoubtedly intended them.
That, I believe, is a very accurate description of Mr. Jamieson in regard to his genius for this particular kind of work.
Now let me call your Lordships' attention to some of the principal results which have been obtained by this association. One of the leading results was this, "that insoluble mineral phosphate is utilised by plants, and, if sufficiently ground, increases the produce equally as well as soluble phosphate, which is double the price." About 1,000,000 tons of insoluble phosphatic manures are now used in the United Kingdom yearly, of which 50,000 tons are used in the north of Scotland, where there has been a saving of £50,000 annually. Therefore, in respect of the 1,000,000 tons of these manures now used in the United Kingdom yearly there is a saving to farmers of £1,000,000 annually. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a most important result to have secured.
Another result secured—and it was this that led to the grant being dropped in the year 1900—was the discovery that natural (or self) cross-fertilisation takes place in the gramineœ family, which includes the cereals and the grasses. The reason for withdrawing the grant in 1900 was a mistaken report of the Board's expert. What the association claimed in the last-mentioned discovery was that two kinds of oats sown together crossed, and that the crossed seed could next year be sown and yield larger produce. The expert thought the association alluded to the well-known practice of mixing wheat with oats and grass in order to provide green food for cattle, which is a very different thing; and when this was pointed out Mr. Hanbury, who was then the Minister, reconsidered his decision and continued the grant. Another

1125
result well known to your Lordships was the "primary cause of finger and toe in turnips and the means for its prevention."
Now I come to the last and latest work to which I am going to allude, and that is the discovery that nitrogen of air is directly absorbed and fixed by plants—largely by many plants, in smaller degree by other plants such as cereals and grasses. This is a subject of the greatest importance, and already a tremendous storm of opposition and inquiry has been raised. But from all I hear there are in this country an increasing number coming round to the views of the association in regard to this point. There is an old proverb to the effect that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country, and I have in my hand a great number of appreciations and criticisms from different parts of the world of the work done by this association. There is an appreciation from America. In France the work of the association has been appreciated to such an extent that there was published in the Annales de la Science A gronomique, under the auspices of the Minister of Agriculture, two of the reports of the association in extenso. The work of the association has been recognised also by Professor Grandeau, Director of Experimental Stations in France; by Professor Franck, of Berlin; and by Professor Roerdan, of Denmark; while in Holland the pamphlets have been translated in the Flemish language, and in Brazil the Government Department of Agriculture have issued publications on the subject. And last, but not least, there is the confirmation of two scientists, professors in Government experimental stations in Hungary, who have tested the investigations of the association and who say—
Our researches—we mention it in every place of our essay—are based on your pioneer explorations and our results justify your theory.
I will not trouble your Lordships further on this point, but I think that what I have said shows the great appreciation in which the work that has been done by this association is regarded in all parts of the globe.
I confess that I do not know why this grant was refused, but I understand that the only reason given was that the Board did not approve of our investigations. I understand that an interview was had with Earl Carrington, who, I think, recalled that expression and said that the grant
1126
would only be given "if the results accorded with the opinion of the expert." The grant is not now given, and, therefore, I presume the results do not accord with the opinion of the expert. I do not know who the expert is or on what he bases his opinion. I have not the slightest doubt that he may be an excellent expert in educational and in experimental agricultural matters, but I am told that he is not recognised as an authority on agricultural research. It is quite clear that the Board have advanced money for many years to aid in this research, and I do not understand how they can now argue that this aid is dependent on the results harmonising with the opinion of the expert when the results can only be obtained after the outlay has been made. The sum is only a small one and the work that has been accomplished is very important. I would, therefore, ask the noble Earl to reconsider his decision. The noble Earl the other day appealed to your Lordships to give him "his little Bill." I would earnestly ask him to give me my little grant.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYMy Lords, as I have been president of this association since it was started thirty-three years ago, I desire to support my noble friend in the action he has taken and to make an appeal to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture that in this matter he should reconsider his decision. I say unhesitatingly that I regard the noble Earl's action as a most retrograde step. This association is, I believe I am right in saying, the only research association in the British Isles which devotes itself solely to original investigation, and it appears to be held by the Board of Agriculture that because one of its experiments is disputed therefore it is to be condemned. I do not intend to go through the list of the good work that the association has done, but there is hardly anyone connected with agriculture who does not know the great results obtained by this body.
The business, of course, of a research association is not always to go on hard and fast facts. It pursues its investigations, it publishes results, it invites criticism, and it is by that means that the truth is arrived at. The grants given for agriculture in this country are given to colleges and educational establishments, but where would these institutions be if it had not been for the research of the past? It is

1127
through the original investigation that has been conducted that you are able to arrive at the truth and at facts which you can afterwards teach to the rising generation of agriculturists. But here you have the disgracefully small grant of £100 a year to this association stopped because one of the experts of the Board of Agriculture disagrees with the chemist who is directing these research experiments. That was the explanation given, and it has not been withdrawn.
Compare what has been done in this country with what is being done on the Continent. Every other country in Europe is studded with State-aided institutions. In France, Germany, Denmark, and every other country the institutions are supported out of the funds of the State—not only institutions for research and original investigations, but also qualified officials for checking the results that are obtained by these institutions. Then these are tabulated and transmitted to the educational establishments for their benefit. I presume that the policy of the President of the Board of Agriculture is not to stifle all research work in this country. But the Universities have not time for research work. I would call attention to the extraordinary interest that is being taken on the Continent in the latest discovery of this association—namely, the utilisation of nitrogen by plants from the air. Mr. Jamieson was the first person to demonstrate how much nitrogen plants have the power of absorbing from the air. This discovery led to a storm of criticism and comment; but what has been the result of the investigations of one of the greatest institutions in Hungary? The professor at the Royal Hungarian High School of Forestry and also the professor at the Royal Hungarian Central Experimental Station of Forestry wrote—
Our researches—we mention it in every place of our essay—are based on your pioneer explorations; our results justify your theory.
That is a Report from the Government Department in Hungary addressed to our association confirming and acknowledging the great results attained. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who, we know, has the interests of agriculture at heart, will not seek to stifle our work by withholding such a small grant as £100.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)My Lords, I regret it, but I am afraid I am unable to meet the wishes of the two noble Lords who have so eloquently pleaded the cause of the institution in which they take so great an interest. I have been a great nuisance to my colleagues in the Government in advocating the cause of agriculture and in asking for money, and I am bound to say that they have been very generous. I have been more successful than I had any reason to anticipate; but, having obtained promises of money, it behoves, me to be extremely careful how that money is spent. I should be blamed, and rightly so, if any expenditure of public money was made to an institution which it was afterwards rather difficult to justify.
The institution referred to is the Agricultural Research Association. The noble Lord has described its inception and the grants that were made to it up to last year, when the grant was discontinued. Looking at the financial statement for the year ended December 31, 1908, I find that, although only one-half of the "direction"—I speak under correction, but I suppose "direction" is Gaelic for "salary"—although only-one-half of the salary, namely, £100, was paid, yet there is a deficit of £260. That, of course, is to me as an agriculturist a matter of great regret, and all the more so as the noble Lord told us that the farmers are deeply interested in this agricultural research work. The noble Lord also stated that the association was entirely different in its aims from the agricultural colleges because the latter did not undertake research work. I am unable to follow the noble Lord there. The agricultural colleges do undertake research, and with very beneficial results.
That this association did very good work in days gone by I entirely admit, and it was supported and received a grant in consequence; but at the present moment I am afraid I am unable to recommend the continuance of the grant for the reason which I shall state to your Lordships. I do not know what his official title is, but the chemist of this association, as has been said, has theories. I had an interview on July 4, 1907, with Mr. Jamieson, who has been rightly described as a genius. He was kind enough to spend an hour and a half with me, and he explained at very considerable length the absorption

1129
of nitrogen by the hairs of plants. Though a number of qualitative tests show that albumen is present in the hairs of certain plants, there is no proof whatever that the nitrogen comes from the air outside. On the contrary, it comes in the ordinary way through the root of the plant.
The noble Lord who called attention to this matter to-day said that an increasing number of people were coming round to the view of this association, and he quoted the report of two Hungarians confirming and acknowledging what had been done. I have here the Report of these Hungarians. It is perfectly true that in their Report these two scientific gentlemen say—
Our investigations and studies support, for the most part, the opinions of Mr. Jamieson in according to these hairs of specialised form a physiological significance of great importance."
They add—
We are persuaded that Jamieson's theory will prevail, for evidently it is these hairs and club-hairs that produce the albumen of plants, and it is these organs that enable the plants to profit from the immense quantity of nitrogen in the air.
It is perfectly true that they believe in it themselves, but they submit no proof whatever that this theory is correct.
Naturally I had to take the opinion of people who know a great deal more about these scientific matters than I do myself. Mr. Baillie Balfour, Professor of Botany at Edinburgh, said, in a lecture on March 16 two years ago, that—
Not a semblance of proof of the fixation of nitrogen was advanced by Mr. Jamieson.
He went on to say—
Mr. Jamieson's discovery was not a discovery at all.
What is the opinion of Professor Middleton, who was professor of Agriculture at Cambridge and whose valuable services I have been fortunate enough to secure at the Board of Agriculture? He advised that—
Mr. Jamieson's work was of an unsatisfactory character.
Then I come to the opinion of Mr. A. D. Hall, Professor of Botany at Rothamsted. Mr. Hall on March 31, 1906, said—
The speculations of Mr. Jamieson on the subject of the fixation of nitrogen are not accepted by any scientific man with whom I am acquainted;
1130
and Mr. Trail, Professor of Botany at Aberdeen, on February 27, 1907, after a most careful and unbiased examination of the evidence, declared that—
Mr. Jamieson has failed to prove his case, and he has so completely misunderstood the structures examined by him as to make impossible a true interpretation of their functions.
The action of the Board, or rather my action, for I take the whole blame of it if there is any blame, has been described by Mr. Jamieson in a speech delivered to his supporters as "ridiculous." But I will ask the noble Lord one question. In the face of the decided opinions of these learned and scientific gentlemen, would he himself have increased the grant? I quite acknowledge the good work that has been done in the past, and I go further and say that should Mr. Jamieson be fortunate enough to make any fresh discoveries or be able to produce any further evidence as to the value of his agricultural work, it will, of course, be most carefully considered; but on the evidence at present available I do honestly think, in the interests of my Department, that it is impossible to sanction a grant from the public funds at my disposal. I very much regret that I am, therefore, unable to meet the wishes of the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I confess that most of us have listened to the noble Earl's answer with feelings of considerable surprise. Here is an institution engaged upon very interesting agricultural research work—a subject in which in this country we are vitally interested. The association apparently enjoys a reputation not confined to the United Kingdom but world wide, and testimonials to their good work have been received from many European countries and some from America. In the face of a position of that kind we find that the Government have suddenly deprived this association of its grant. The noble Earl took to himself great credit in his efforts in the direction of economy. What economy has he effected by the withdrawal of this grant? He has saved the taxpayers of this country the stupendous sum of £100 a year! And the noble Earl effects an economy of £100 at a time when one of his colleagues, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is taking untold sums for a development grant to make experiments of this kind. Could anything be more amazing than that an association which

1131
apparently does first-rate work should be deprived of this paltry sum by a Government who believe in a development grant?
Let us look for a moment at the noble Earl's reasons. It appears that his reasons turn entirely upon the qualifications of the particular scientific gentleman who advises this association. He is admitted to be a genius. The noble Earl himself says he is a genius. That is something in these days of mediocrity. Well, what has he done wrong that the association should be deprived of this £100? Apparently all his theories have not been proved. Are we never to give money for investigation to associations unless they can immediately prove all their theories? That is verdict first and trial afterwards. I confess I never heard a reason so ill-founded as that for depriving an association of a grant. But there is this one great subject of dispute—a question that I am afraid I am not qualified to deal with—as to the fixation of nitrogen. That is not the only theory of the association. The other great discoveries made by the association are admitted. Yet because in one particular case the theory has not been proved their work in every other direction is, so far as the Government are concerned, to be put an end to. Lastly, the case of the association does not and cannot rest on the reputation of one gentleman. The noble Earl seems to me to have failed lamentably to prove anything against the association itself, and in these days when agricultural science is so important I would respectfully ask the Government—this economical Government—to be considerate and see whether they cannot find it in their heart to provide this £100.
LORD HENEAGEI should like to ask whether it is not the fact that the expert opinions quoted by the noble Earl were given some four years ago, and that during the last three years, while the theory has been in course of being perfected, not one single word has been said by any of these experts against it?
VISCOUNT RIDLEYMy Lords, this seems to me to be purely Departmental interference with scientific investigations, which I should have thought the noble Earl would have been the last person to have encouraged. The Board of Agriculture is surely, under his rule, interested
1132
in developing investigations into every branch of science connected with agriculture, and agriculturists had reason to hope that, whatever might be the economic opinion of the new development grant which was to absorb the old Sinking Fund, at any rate some of it might be devoted to purposes that would assist the cultivators of the land. But the noble Earl at this juncture, when his pockets are going to be filled with the stream from the old Sinking Fund even refuses money to an existing institution which has been in receipt of a Government grant even under the old system when those grants were less liberally given. I hope the noble Earl will reconsider the position and see whether he cannot give this paltry sum out of the large funds at his disposal.
EARL CARRINGTONWhat I could do if I had more money is a different question. I have only a certain amount at the present time, and that ought to be expended to the best possible public advantage. There are other societies and colleges that have a prior claim as doing more practical work.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI would like to ask whether this is the sort of purpose to which the money to be derived from the old Sinking Fund might be devoted?
EARL CARRINGTONThis is not the only society engaged in research work. All the agricultural colleges are pursuing exactly the same work, and, in my humble opinion, doing it a peat deal better.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYThat was not the question I asked. Is the noble Earl in a position to say if work of this kind will come within the purposes of the development grant? If so, he might be in a position in another year to comply with the request of my noble friend for a grant for this particular institution.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)We will answer the noble Viscount's question when we have got the new fund.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment at the answer I have received from the noble Earl. No notice was given that the grant was to be withdrawn, and the

1133
result of its withdrawal has been to land the association heavily in debt. As this debt will have to be met, the future work of the association will be seriously crippled. I earnestly hope the noble Earl will, out of kindness of heart, reconsider his decision in this matter.

THE ARMY.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEMy Lords, I rise to move for a Return showing the total (a) combatant (b) non-combatant establishment of the Expeditionary Force; the number of officers and men of the Regular Army at present available included in this force; the number of officers and men who will be drawn from the Special Reserve (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; the number of men, if any, who will be sent abroad under twenty years of age; the number of officers and men over twenty years of age at present on the strength of the Regular Army who will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war after the Expeditionary Force has left (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; the force which could be mobilised at home of men of not less than one year's service after the Expeditionary Force has been despatched, dividing (a) Regulars from (b) Special Reserve, as the existing strength of these forces.
I trust the noble Lord who represents the War Office will understand that, in moving for this Return, I do not wish him to publish any information the disclosing of which may be detrimental to the national interest; but as he stated the other day that a good deal of this information could be derived from official publications, I think we are fully justified in asking the noble Lord to lay this Return on the Table. No one, I think, can fail to appreciate the fact, stated by the noble Lord during the course of the military debate last week, that until the scheme of the Secretary of State had had time to mature there were bound to be certain gaps. I am glad to think that the noble Lord now admits the truth of our contention that there are serious gaps, especially amongst officers. The question is, how soon do the Government anticipate that those gaps are likely to be filled up? Nearly three years have elapsed since the Secretary of State for War said in the House of Commons—
As the result of the Government's proposals we shall be in a position to readily mobilise 150,000 officers and men. Of this total, 50,000
1134
will be regulars serving with the Colours, about 70,000 wi11 be Reservists, and about 30,000 men employed and trained on a Militia basis.
The right hon. gentleman went on to state that:—
An Army so organised would be, in point of numbers, available for taking the field over seas nearly fifty per cent. stronger than any Expeditionary Force which we have ever hitherto attempted to organise in this country.
A War Office Return subsequently issued showed an even more encouraging statement—namely, 159,620 officers and men. After the very clear statement made during the course of the debate last week by the Duke of Bedford, which was fully endorsed by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, it is difficult for any of us to imagine that that number is ever likely to be forthcoming. I say this for this reason, that neither the noble Lord nor any member on the Government side attempted to discredit or seriously to dispute the many hard facts and proofs produced by my noble friend the Duke of Bedford. In fact, if I may say so, they evaded all these points in every detail, and adopted the somewhat extraordinary attitude of appealing to us on this side as to what alternative scheme we had to suggest for this purpose.
Because the noble Duke, myself, and others have thought fit to criticise the military policy of His Majesty's Government, I fail to understand—I say it with all respect—why the noble Earl the Leader of the House should think that we have imparted unusual animus into our criticisms or that we have been actuated by any party motives. I can assure him that the criticisms we have made have been made purely for the good of the service, and more especially that particular branch of the service to which many of us belong. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary told the House last week that he did not see that any good could accrue from having a special inquiry into the state of the Special Reserve, but that if such a Commission should sit, which he did not anticipate, the result of their deliberations would, he believed, be to ask for the heads of the Ministers in the late Government. I can assure him, whether he thinks that or not, that in asking him for this Return I am not in any way actuated by motives of that kind with respect to himself. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be more responsive than he has been on two former occasions, and will not be content to

1135
shelter himself behind the well-known official statement that it is contrary to precedent to give the information.
Moved, That an humble, Address be presented to His Majesty for a return of—

1. The total (a) combatant (b) noncombatant establishment of the Expeditionary Force; the number of officers and men of the Regular Army at present available included in this force;

2. The number of officers and men who will be drawn from the Special Reserve (a) combatant (b) non-combatant;

3. The number of men, if any, who will be sent abroad under 20 years of age;

4. The number of officers and men over twenty years of age at present on the strength of the Regular Army who will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war after the Expeditionary Force has left (a) combatant (b) non-combatant;

5. The force which could be mobilised at home of men of not less than one year's service after the Expeditionary Force has been despatched, dividing (a) Regulars from (b) Special Reserve, as the existing strength of these Forces.—(Viscount Hardinge.)

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)My Lords, I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Viscount for his statement that he does not desire anything which it is contrary to the public interest should be published. I can assure him that in all our answers to him we will bear that carefully in mind, and that nothing that is in the least likely to be prejudicial shall be made public. For that reason I am afraid I am unable to give any other answers to these Questions than I have already given on two occasions. But shortly after Whitsuntide we propose to lay Papers on the Table of your Lordships' House showing the full effect of the reforms that we have up to now carried out in the Army. I think there is some need for that, because the debate of last week showed pretty clearly that the result of those reforms is not so well understood as it might be. The Papers that we shall present will show all that can legitimately be made public in the way of elucidating the points upon which the noble Viscount asks for information, and anything beyond what will be contained in the Papers the noble Viscount can only, I am afraid, get by
1136
coming to the War Office as I have proposed to him on previous occasions. That is all I have to say on the Motion of the noble Viscount. But there is another Question on the Paper standing in the name of Lord Lovat. I would like to say, with regard to that Question, that it deals entirely with our mobilisation arrangements. It amounts to asking for our mobilisation plans in detail, and therefore——
LORD LOVATThe noble Lord is proceeding to answer a Question which I have on the Paper, but which I have not yet asked. I should like to inquire if the noble Lord is in order in answering a Question which has not been put.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, we may congratulate my noble friend behind me who has moved this Motion that, directly, I think, as the result of his perseverance, we are going to get something out of the Government after Whitsuntide. I think it is a pity that we were not told that when my noble friend asked these Questions the first time. I suppose most of us will be ready to possess ourselves in patience and see what we are going to get from the promised Papers. But I would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the late Government gave certain particulars to this House which, as regards matters at that time, gave a good deal of the information that my noble friend desires to obtain as regards matters at the present moment. Mr. Arnold-Forster, when he made certain proposals regarding the reorganisation of the Army in 1904, gave a statement showing the composition of a battalion on mobilisation, the number under and over twenty years of age, the number of Reservists required to complete war establishment, and the number in excess. That only gave the figure for one battalion, but obviously a small sum in multiplication would give it for the whole Army. I ask specifically that a similar return should be included among the Papers we are to see. The Secretary of State for War is going round the country almost conducting an election campaign in his own favour, and it is right that we should know the facts about the optimistic statements he is making.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEI am content to withdraw my Motion and to wait and see what the Return we are promised divulges.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LOVATMy Lords, in asking the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War the Question standing in my name the Paper—namely, what is the total number of combatants of all ranks in organised units available for the Central Home Defence Force after the Expeditionary Force and the garrisons of naval bases and defence areas have been deducted—I intend to adopt a rather different method of procedure. I have asked this Question on more than one occasion already and have not had a satisfactory answer. I Propose on this occasion to answer it myself.
It has been clearly stated by Mr. Haldane that the military forces of this country are divided into the Expeditionary Force and the Home Defence Force, and that the Home Defence Force is divided into two definite parts—those troops that are allocated for fixed defences and those which Mr. Haldane has stated are to form the Central Home Defence Force. Now with regard to the Expeditionary Force, we have, I think, passed out of debatable ground. It has been admitted that the Expeditionary Force will consist of 165,000 men, and Mr. Balfour laid down in 1905 that for this force would be required six divisions in certain cases for the defence of India. The Secretary of State for War has more than once stated the number of men required for the Expeditionary Force, and our friends across the water have laid it down in their military reviews that if the entente cordiale is to be worth anything at all we must have a force capable of going over to that side. Every military writer in the French Press says that if there is to be any real understanding there must be a possibility in England of six divisions, or some large number, and a Cavalry division being able, in certain circumstances, to cross the sea. Our Colonies have in no less certain terms declared that the central police force of the Empire must have a real power of mobility to go oversea. Therefore I think I may say that we are agreed that the Expeditionary Force should number something approaching six Infantry divisions and one Cavalry division —167,000 men in all.
As to the question of fixed defences, we are also well in agreement. The number was defined by Mr. Balfour as 142,000 men, plus Garrison Artillery. The figure of 168,000 has been repeatedly used throughout the country by our leading military
1138
writers as the number to defend our ports, naval arsenals, and other posts which must be held from the purely naval point of view. I am not going to say that 168,000 is the figure to-day, but I say it is not less than that number, because the limited raid theory which held the field until a year ago was definitely abandoned by Lord Crewe in November last; and, in addition, we know that in a few years time the number of ships which a certain Power will have will upset the present proportion.
THE EARL OF CREWEI do not desire to interrupt the noble Lord, but I rather object to being quoted in that way. I wish the noble Lord would quote my words.
LORD LOVATI am afraid I have not the noble Earl's words, but I shall be happy to read what Mr. Haldane said, and he went further than the noble Earl. After all, the force required for the defence of our naval ports is dependent on the number of men who can be brought against us. The Secretary of State for War said on March 8 last in the House of Commons—
I have never said that invasion of these islands was impossible, but there is great ambiguity about what is meant by an invasion. A small raid might take place or an invasion upon a considerably larger scale might well be possible. What you have to consider is what is the size of the invading force which the Navy can make sure of intercepting? That is a problem you cannot answer with exactitude, but investigation and consideration make it pretty plain that a force somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 is the force you must guard against by keeping your home defence army sufficiently strong to prevent the enemy coming in larger numbers than the Navy can deal with with something like certainty.
Therefore it is now admitted that invasion by a force of between 70,000 and 100,000 is possible. That brings me back to my point—namely, that as the number of possible invaders is greater the number of the fixed defence force cannot be less. The noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, pointed out clearly the other day that a portion of the defenders of fixed places—the Special Reserve—were not better for their work than the troops they had succeeded. Consequently the number of men required may be considerably more than 168,000.
From there we go to the question of the Central Home Defence Force, and here there is agreement. May I for a moment show exactly how the train of thought on this

1139
particular subject has altered in the last few years? In 1905 we had the limited raid theory—that is to say, a raid by a force of from 5,000 to 10,000; and therefore we had no Central Home Defence Force except the defence force by commands. In 1907 Lord Roberts instituted an inquiry into this matter and brought certain evidence before the Defence Committee, and in 1908 a mobilisation plan was begun for a Central Home Defence Force. In March of this year the Secretary of State made the statement which I have read to the House—that we had to make preparations for a possible invasion by between 70,000 and 100,000 men. This great Central Defence Force then became a thing of vital necessity to the defence of this country. How many men have we to fill these three rôles—the Expeditionary Force, the garrisons of naval bases and defence areas, and the Central Home Defence Force. We require for our Expeditionary Force over seas, as Lord Lucas said, the whole of the men over twenty and the Reservists.
LORD LUCASI never said the whole of the men over twenty.
LORD LOVATThen I will take back that statement. There are so very few over twenty that it really does not matter. The noble Lord stated that in order to mobilise the home battalions you would require the whole of the Reserves, with a negligible quantity over of a few thousand. That being so, we have, for the mobolisation of the 160,000 men, the whole of the Reserve used up with the exception of these few thousand, all the men over twenty with a few exceptions, and also—this was mentioned in the noble Lord's statement the other day—in order to complete the mobilisation of the ammunition columns and the Army Service Corps, a certain number of men, not specified, from the Special Reserve. On the Expeditionary Force quitting these shores we should be left with a certain number of half-trained Regular soldiers, of whom 30,000 might be recruits under one year's service, a proportion of the Special Reserve, and a negligible quantity of really trained Reserves.
I know it is very often argued that a certain portion of our Expeditionary Force might be left at home in the event of an expedition overseas; but I am unable to follow this argument. I am told by those who have been responsible for making some
1140
of our plans for oversea campaigns that it would be inconceivable, if four divisions went abroad and received a reverse, that the other two divisions should not immediately follow; and, in case the four divisions had a success, it is impossible to think that the other two divisions would be refused to the General in command, who would naturally wish to extend the lines of communication and the results of victory. There is no doubt that plans will be made by the General Staff to have the whole of the men who are earmarked the Expeditionary Force ready to be sent abroad if required, and it is no use for Ministers to tell us that only four divisions will be sent out of the country.
The value of the curiously mixed mass of men to whom I referred a moment ago and who would be left over I put down as not more than 70,000 fighting men. They will have no junior officers, and the men, according to the Duke of Bedford, will not be as efficient as the old Militia. They will be jammed together in cadres of which they have no knowledge; they will be serving, many of them, in works of which they have no previous knowledge, and I think if there is one thing which the South African war proved to the hilt it was that mixed details who do not know their officers are not more than a third the value of other troops. As I say, I put down the total value of these men as not more than 70,000 fighting men. That means that we must have another 100,000 men to fill the fixed defences. Where are these to be obtained? They will obviously have to be found from the Territorial Army. To-day the Territorial Army is 260,000 strong. In the near future we may have 313,000 in that force, but this will not mean 313,000 men capable of taking the field. A large number of them will never have shot their musketry course, and it would not be possible to take them out against trained Continental soldiers over twenty years of age and of two years service.
There is also the point that the whole of our ammunition column and other subsidiary corps are not even armed with a rifle. You must, therefore, make an allowance of 250 per 1,000—in other words, you must deduct one-fourth before beginning to count the fighting strength. I think from 200,000 to 220,000 men would be the outside number of really efficient men. That gives you 100,000 for the fixed de-

1141
fences and 120,000 to take into the field as the great Central Defence Force. These men might have to face 100,000 trained conscripts. Are you, therefore, not asking the Territorial Army to carry out work which they are incapable of doing? I think one has a right, as a Territorial officer, to put this question. I do not think it is fair to ask troops to do work which they certainly could not do. Therefore I make this protest. I have been driven to bring up this question by the Secretary of State going about the country making absurdly optimistic speeches about the state of our defences.
The statement of the number of men available for the defence of the country is greatly exaggerated, because the ammunition corps and the Army Service Corps are not only not trained to the use of the rifle, but do not possess rifles; whereas it is laid down in the latest German regulations that the men in these branches are to be thoroughly trained in their arms in every particular and made efficient as soldiers, as upon them will largely devolve the duties of adequately protecting convoys. I take another point. Lord Roberts stated, in your Lordships' House, that the Central Defence Force would not exceed 40,000 men, and the Secretary of state, referring to that statement, said—
Lord Roberts, in the House of Lords, thought 200,000 men would be locked up in the defence of ports, and only 40,000 would be available. That was really absurd, because the men relegated for port defence, if their number were 200,000, would still be available to draw upon.
We could not afford the destruction of one single Dreadnought slip anywhere. How is it possible, therefore, to draw upon the men who are responsible for these local defences? How could they be taken sway and sent to the South of Scotland, it may be, to join the great Central Defence Force? The statement is not less than absurd. I feel that this matter is one which it is very necessary for us to consider at the present time. There are many here who wish for the continuance of the voluntary system and who wish to get the full amount out of the magnificent work Mr. Haldane has done in organising our forces but who are driven into the other camp because Mr. Haldane claims at the same time to have provided the men and the training. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD LUCASMy Lords, the noble Lord has asked a Question which he knew perfectly well at the time he put it down was one which it was impossible for the Government to answer. The Question goes to the very heart of the whole of our mobilisation arrangements, and would be impossible to answer without practically explaining in detail what those arrangements are. Therefore, the noble Lord knew the answer would be a definite refusal to give any information on the subject. Nor am I going to follow Lord Lovat into the fantastic figures which he has given to-night. I cannot see what good raising this question and making speeches of this kind can possibly do. These figures, which the Government are debarred from answering, and debarred from correcting where they are wrong, as they are in most cases, can only create a false impression upon the minds of people who read these debates in the newspapers. If such a false impression has been created, it has been created by noble Lords opposite, and it is beyond the power of the Government to correct it, for we do not intend to give the information.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI think it right to point out that the Under-Secretary has used extremely strong language, and has applied the word "fantastic" to the figures given by Lord Lovat.
LORD LUCASHear, hear.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORELet us accept that word, for the figures were all taken out of the speeches of the Government.

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884—Was presented by The Lord Nunburnholme; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 23rd of June next. (No. 62.)

MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to ensure the purity of milk supplies, and to regulate dairies in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith —Was presented by The Lord Pentland; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 63.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.