I have an Instruction on the Paper with regard to this Bill which I understand the promoters are willing to consider favourably. It is to the same effect as the Instructions carried last week with regard to similar Bills, and the object is to secure some necessary amendments in the clause relating to cheap fares for the labouring classes and the hours at which workmen's cars shall run. In this Bill the clause is in about the worst form of any I have seen this session, for it provides that the cars shall not run after 6 a.m. or till after 6 p.m. I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name. Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Welling borough and District Tramroads Bill to inquire whether it is desirable that Clause 44 of the Bill (Cheap fares for the labouring classes) should be amended in respect of the hours at which the cars should be run, the number of cars to be provided, and the maximum and the minimum fares to be charged.—(Mr. Lough.)

I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name, and I do so with the knowledge that not only the Taunton Corporation but the people of the county of Somerset agree to it, and that it will be supported by the hon. Members for Taunton and West Somerset, whose names are on the back of the Bill. On the Second Reading of this Bill^* the Secretary to the Local Government Board objected to the Instruction I am about to move, because the clause, as it stands in the Bill, represents a compromise arrived at on the subject last session between representatives of the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, the municipal corporations, and the Parliamentary Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. But I would point out that the representatives of the County Councils Association were not asked to the conference. And why? Because if they had taken part in it they would undoubtedly have protested against the invasion of their rights which was agreed to. What is proposed by the Bill is an unnecessary interference with the proper and legitimate duties of county councils. Last year the Corporation of Leeds inserted in its Bill a clause similar to the Instruction I am now proposing, and if the Instruction is adopted, the end aimed at by the clause, namely, that of ensuring the supply of uncontaminated milk, will be attained without injustice being done to the farmer. It will be remembered that the Local Government Board objected to the Leeds clause, and the Committee, after hearing Mr. Boyce, their representative, rejected it; but the county councils of the West Riding of Yorkshire felt so strongly about it, and were so cordially supported by the urban and rural local authorities, that they got it re-inserted by the Lords Committee, who held that the model clause of the Local Government Board constituted an unnecessary interference with the local authorities. The Committee also recognised the fairness and justice of taking these cases before two justices instead of one, so as to secure a proper hearing for the farmer. I shall perhaps be met with the argument that it is the duty of the Local Government Board to see after the proper sanitation of dairies, and to secure that the milk sold does not contain the slightest taint. I agree with that, and

^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., p. 1516.

I would point out that under Section 34 of the Diseases of Animals Act they are empowered to act when the local authority fails to do its duty. There is, therefore, not the slightest ground for saying that these clauses are necessary in the interests of the supply of pure milk. All parties are agreed on the main matter, and therefore it simply comes to this, that the Local Government Board wishes to force on the people of Somerset a form of procedure which they object to. The Somerset Chamber of Commerce has expressed an opinion favourable to my Instruction, and to-day the Central Chamber of Agriculture has passed a resolution approving of the clause being inserted. Therefore it resolves itself into this, that the Local Government Board are going to dictate to the people of Taunton what local regulations they shall possess, whether they like them or not.

I have very little to say in seconding this Instruction beyond what has been advanced by the hon. Member for South Somerset. As one of the backers of the Bill I communicated with the Corporation of Taunton, and they readily agreed to the insertion of the clause suggested in the Instruction. As regards the attitude of the Local Government Board, I would ask why that Department, in this case, wishes to deprive the farmers of ordinary justice. The demand is simply that, before the corporation goes outside its own boundary, an order of two justices shall be obtained, and I think that is a perfectly fair and reasonable proposal. In my opinion, this question of the right of municipalities to go outside their own areas ought not to be dealt with by private Bills, but by a public Bill dealing with the whole case. I am afraid that the policy of the Government is to let these clauses be inserted in a lot of private Bills, and then to turn round and say that, since every corporation has them, they shall be the law of the land. That is a very intelligible policy, but not a very honest one. If the Government oppose this Instruction, they will be agreeing to different laws for different counties, since Leeds already has such a clause. Yorkshire is a large, rich, and thickly populated county, while Somersetshire is comparatively small, weak, and poor; but I think that the farmers of Somerset should have at least the same measure of justice meted out to them as those of Yorkshire. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member will go to a division, if only as a protest against this anomaly, against a proposal which would enable a body which is not a judicial body to act as judge and jury in its own case and to close any man's premises. I know of no other business which could be closed in the same way.

I heartily agree with my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Wellington Division in wishing that this subject could be dealt with in a public Bill on broad lines. But I wish to support as wise and on the whole as the best compromise on this question the model clauses which were arrived at last year. I do not know what course the Government propose to take, but I hope the House will support that compromise. How were these model clauses arrived at? Bills were introduced by several most important corporations in the north of England taking the power already enjoyed and exercised by the city of Glasgow to go outside their own areas in order to prevent the inhabitants being supplied with contaminated milk from the rural districts. That was a very wide power, and it was only after consultation between the President of the Local Government Board and representatives of the Board of Agriculture and the Central Chamber of Agriculture that these model clauses were drafted. It seems to me that they go quite far enough in the way of limiting the powers of these communities to protecting the health of the inhabitants, and that if we are to set up the jurisdiction of two county magistrates sitting in petty sessions, who might possibly look solely to the interests of the farmers supplying the milk, we should be taking the serious step of increasing the obstacles which already stand in the way of the authorities protecting the health of the inhabitants of great towns in this matter of milk supply.

suggested that instead of pressing this mandatory Instruction to the Committee, the hon. Member should consent to insert before the words "to provide," the words "to consider whether it is desirable."

I am afraid I cannot accept that.

thought that a very unwise decision, as the Committee would be able with such an Instruction to consider the whole matter.

They considered it last year, and objected to it.

reminded the House that in the agreement that was come to last year it was thought by several that the order of one magistrate in a locality to inspect farm premises would be sufficient, but in the House of Lords it was thought better to require two magistrates. Surely it would be wise so to word the Instruction that the Committee would seriously consider whether the order of one magistrate was sufficient, or whether it would be a greater protection to the farmers if the order of two magistrates was required.

trusted the House would not accept the Instruction. The matter would doubtless be considered fully before the Committee, and the evidence taken would be printed. If after reading the evidence the hon. Gentleman the mover of the Instruction was not satisfied with the action of the Committee, he would still have an opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.

could not understand why, if all the districts concerned were agreed, that agreement should be overthrown or objected to by the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman thought a uniform clause throughout the country was desirable, a public Bill ought to be introduced dealing with this important question. But if he did not consider it worth special legislation in that way the question ought to be settled to a large extent by the opinion of the locality. He ventured to think, however, that the Police and Sanitary Committee was not the best body to deal with the matter, as that Committee was very much in the hands of the Local Government Board. But if the right hon. Gentleman would say that his Department would not interfere with or put pressure upon the Committee he would be inclined to advise the acceptance of the modified Instruction suggested by a previous speaker.

thought that if the Instruction was allowed to pass, it being made perfectly clear that it was not to be regarded as a precedent, it would be a recognition of the unity of interests between the small county boroughs and the district around, and would show the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy with agriculture.

I think this proposed Instruction is to be deprecated on various grounds. The hon. Member who moved the Instruction bases his support of it upon the ground that it is desirable in the interests of agriculture. I am probably as much interested in agriculture as any Member of this House, and my opinion is that even upon that ground alone it would be difficult to show that the Instruction was desirable. The House remembers what has happened with regard to this question in the past. Of late years there has been a very laudable and proper desire to arrest, in the interest of public health, the spread of tuberculosis, and measures which were proposed with this object last year brought me into conflict at once with two great and different interests—the interest of agriculture on the one hand, and the interest represented by medical experts and those interested in public health on the other. A number of private Bills were brought in last year purely in the interests of public health, but were held to be extremely injurious to certain branches of the agricultural interest. As President of the Local Government Board these Bills naturally came before me. In conjunction with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture I resolved to see whether some arrangement could not be made by which these two great interests on this question would be brought to a common understanding. After much trouble and many conferences between representatives of the agricultural interest on the one hand, and medical and sanitary experts on the other, an arrangement was arrived at, and clauses, which have been referred to as model clauses, agreed to. The view, certainly, of my right hon. friend, of myself, and of most of those interested in medical science was that the arrangement was a very desirable one, and one which ought to be adhered to. That, however, is not the view of the hon. Member opposite. He has come forward with a mandatory Instruction, which upon that ground I think is to be highly deprecated, and he seeks to impose upon the Committee upstairs the duty of including this particular clause in the Bill. I think the House will see itself that it is not desirable that such an Instruction should be passed. I have been asked whether the Local Government Board will interfere. My intention with regard to that would be to leave this question entirely for the consideration of the Committee. I would ask the House to remember that a general agreement has been come to between the two parties, and now it is sought to override that arrangement. If such a course is adopted in this particular case, what is to prevent the powerful representatives of the medical and sanitary interests attempting to reverse what has been done in the past, and introducing clauses far more extreme and far more injurious in their character to the agricultural interests than at present exist? If on no other grounds than that of the interest of agriculture itself, I most strongly advise the rejection of this Instruction.

said he was very anxious that a compromise should be arrived at. There was really a great deal to be said on both sides. He himself might perhaps be suspected of being unduly prejudiced in regard to what might be called the count view of the question, because he was intimately connected with the administration of the county, but he had very great sympathy with any effort made by a borough authority to obtain a purer supply of milk within its own district. That effort could not be effective unless a borough authority or the urban council had some power of control immediately outside its own limits, or unless the county authority were thoroughly in earnest with regard to sanitary control and inspection. In the north of England, which was more progresssve than the south, the county authorities might be trusted in the matter, but when a borough authority in the south of England asked for powers to enable it to deal with the causes of sanitary contamination outside its own area the House threw cold water on the demand. A county employing a medical officer of health stood in a different position from that occupied by a county without such an officer. The county of Somerset, although the question was twice discussed, had not appointed a medical officer of health. Not long ago there was a terrible outbreak of infectious disease in Bristol in which many valuable lives were sacrificed, especially in Clifton College, and in the report on that outbreak by the medical officer of health for Bristol, Somerset did not occupy a very strong position. Therefore he hoped that the hon. Member, in view of the large concession to his views which had been made, would not persist in his Instruction.

said he would rather that the House should express an opinion on the Instruction, for it involved a very important matter affecting the public health. If the corporation of Taunton discovered that the residents were being poisoned by infectious matter introduced from outside it was important that it should have the earliest opportunity of finding out the source of that poison. The Instruction would involve very considerable delay. The matter was urgent and he hoped the House would reject the Instruction in the interests of agriculturists no less than of the public health.

asked if the Government agreed to the assent of one justice being obtained.

Yes, Sir. That provision is included in the bill.

said he was inclined to accept the modification.

It is it the request of the Nonconformists of the burgh of Lancaster and of other inhabitants that I move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clauses 90 and 91(Provisions as to tithe in the town of Lancaster)." I may be told that in doing so I am acting contrary to the wishes of a large portion of the inhabitants of Lancaster; but while I admit that the people of Lancaster are in favour of the Bill as a whole, there is yet a strong body of opposition to the clauses to which I wish to call the attention of the House. It is true that a town's meeting held in January last expressed approval of the Bill, but that meeting was held at a time of the day when few of the inhabitants could attend. It was also very imperfectly advertised; the result being that very few were present—not above thirty. At the opening of the meeting the mayor made a statement that the resolution to be submitted in favour of the Bill must be either accepted or rejected as a whole, and that he could accept no amendment. The result was that those who were opposed to these two clauses could not object to them without rejecting the measure as a whole. An opinion was expressed on that occasion that the meeting should be adjourned to the evening, but that was defeated, and the Bill was sanctioned by twenty-one against eight inhabitants. That is the extent to which the clauses are approved of. It may be further objected that the inhabitants might have petitioned against the clauses, but the answer to that is that the inhabitants apart from the corporation have no locus standi. The House will bear in mind that the clergy of this country who receive their incomes from tithe rent-charge do so under the general law of 1836—the Tithe Commutation Act. The House also knows that the amount of the tithe rent-charge received by the clergy is dependent upon the seven years average of the price of corn—with this result, that £100 of tithe rent-charge is now only worth £66 15s. 9¼d. If the vicar of Lancaster were remunerated on the same terms he would be receiving less than a third of the sum which he actually receives. But the vicar of Lancaster is not subject to such vicissitudes as his brother clergy. He has the benefit of an Act of Parliament all to himself—an Act passed in the reign of George IV.—in the days of close and corrupt corporations, before the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1843, when it was possible to perpetrate any job, either in Church or State, with the utmost facility. At that time the tithes were paid in kind almost everywhere, and the Act recites that disputes had arisen in regard to the amounts which were payable. It also contains this curious statement: that several of the townships of the parish of Lancaster are at a considerable distance from the parsonage of Lancaster, and that the collection of the tithes and of the Easter offerings is thereby rendered difficult and made expensive; and so for the convenience of the vicar and the benefit of the occupiers, the tithes and Easter dues were abolished, and a substitute was found for them. It was then enacted that a corn rent of £1,358 should be raised from certain townships in Lancaster, and a special provision was made that the borough of Lancaster should pay £42 10s. a year out of the poor rate, and £167 10s. in a corn rent. The House will be astonished to hear what was the basis of calculation on which the amount of corn rent of £1,358 was fixed in the Act. It was upon the basis that wheat would never be lower than 97s. 6d. per quarter, and it was expressly provided that, however low the price of wheat might be, the corn rent should never be below £1,358. Now wheat in the year 1823,the year before the Act was passed, was sold at the rate of only 53s. 4d. per quarter, and at the present time it is sold at the rate of 26s. 10d. per quarter. I think the House will agree with me that that was a most exorbitant provision at that time; but it has become scandalously exorbitant now. Since the Act was passed a complete change has taken place in the parish of Lancaster. What were then the rural parts of the townships have now been divided into district parishes, with their own churches, their own clergy, and their own parochial machinery, and the inhabitants of most of these townships receive no guidance, no spiritual instruction, no help from the vicar of Lancaster. The clergy of these district parishes are paid out of pew-rents; subscriptions, and a few small endowments; but in addition to the money voluntarily paid for this purpose, the inhabitants of the townships have to pay their share of the £1,358 received by the non-resident vicar of Lancaster. The only point of connection between the vicar and these particular townships is what may be termed a cash nexus. Then, strange to say, the vicar retains the patronage of some of the churches in these townships. All this has been going on for three quarters of a century, and this Bill proposes that, except in a very fragmentary way, it should go on still. There is another point; instead of the vicar collecting the tithe himself, each township must appoint two, three, or four collectors to collect its quota of the amount of £1,358 due. Whatever may have been the case when the Act was passed, the office of collector at the present time has become most disagreeable. Because it was opposed by the Nonconformists, some of them have been compelled by the force of law to undertake what is to them an odious duty; and in the last few weeks, the parish having neglected to appoint collectors, a mandamus has been issued to compel them to do so. Objection is taken not only to the mode of collection, but also to the exaction. If the Lancaster Corporation had made bold attempt to remove this grievance it would have been far better; but instead of doing that they have dealt with the matter in a fragmentary, narrow, and pettifogging manner, the result being to leave untouched the real grievance, which will remain as it is in all the townships not affected by this Bill. It does not even remove the grievance in the district in which it is to operate. In my opinion the House will do a service, not only to the town of Lancaster, but to the Church also, by rejecting these clauses, and thereby compelling the corporation to deal with this subject, not in the spirit of the times of the Georges, but in accordance with the better sentiments of these times.

formally seconded the motion.

The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat anticipated that I should have something to say in this matter, and the sooner I say it the sooner the debate will reach a conclusion. The House is becoming somewhat impatient of instructions to the Committee to do things which the committee can do without Instructions, and I look on all such Instructions with suspicion. I look on mandatory Instructions with grave suspicion, but when those mandatory Instructions are to give powers to the Police and Sanitary Committee, I look upon them with the gravest suspicion. If these two clauses are removed, the effect will be to retain for the Vicar a sum of £76 a year which he is ready to sacrifice. I cannot say if what is proposed is a fair bargain or not, because I have no means of testing the evidence. Under the circumstances, what I shall ask the House to do is not to pursue this question, but to send the matter before a Committee, who, having all the evidence before them, and having heard all sides, will arrive at a conclusion. If they consider the Bill is a fair one they will accept the clauses, if they come to any other conclusion they will reject it.

The Instruction which I have placed upon the Paper appears complicated in form, but it is really very simple in its object. The object of the Instruction is that this House instructs the Committee on the South Metropolitan Gas Bill to insert certain clauses in the Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which considered the metropolitan gas companies. I think it will be agreed that this Instruction, at any rate, is absolutely necessary, because the Select Committee to which reference is made was a very important body appointed by the present Government, moved for by the other side of the House, and which carried on its deliberations for three or four months of last year. Unless such an Instruction as is down on the Paper is agreed to, the Gas Bill which has already passed a Second Reading this year, and other Gas Bills, might go up to Committee after Committee without any regard being had to the important decisions that were arrived at by this very weighty Select Committee, which was presided over by the hon. Baronet Sir James Rankin, whom I see opposite. Therefore, I desire that we should instruct the Committee to have regard to the recommendations that that Select Committee made. Now, there is a good precedent for the course that I ask the House to take. A Select Committee considered the question of Metropolitan Gas in the year 1875, and that Select Committee dealt with just the same objects as are dealt with in this Instruction—namely, the standard price, the sliding scale, and the amalgamation of areas; and the recommendations of that Committee of 1875 were adopted by the subsequent Committees which sat on Gas Bills; in fact, the whole gas law of the metropolis since has been shaped in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. Therefore, I think it is a good precedent for the course that I ask the House to take this afternoon. Although the Instruction looks complicated and technical, in reality it is very simple. It deals with only two subjects, the first being the question of the standard price. It reduces the standard price of gas by 3d. per 1,000, but it gives a new sliding scale, and the effect of this sliding scale is that the reduction in price will not injure the company provided the price is low. That works out in this way. If the price of the gas is over 2s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, the new sliding scale prevents them from obtaining such a large dividend; if it is from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 6d. it will allow them to pay the same dividend; if it is under 2s. 4d. per 1,000 it allows them even a slightly higher dividend than they pay now. Therefore the object of this sliding scale that the Committee has recommended is to give a great inducement to the company to reduce the price of gas, and that is an object which has generally been pursued by this House in dealing with this gas question. That is the first object, to induce the Committee to have regard to the recommendations of the Select Committee with reference to the standard price and the sliding scale. I do not think I need discuss it further, because I believe the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept the Instruction; they recognise the advantage that it will be to them, and therefore I do not think I need delay the House any further on that. The second part of the Instruction may just require a single word. The second part deals with the question of area, and it recommends that effect should be given to the finding of the Committee that a certain district which is now worked by the Gas Light and Coke Company on the south side of the river Thames should be transferred to the South Metropolitan Company. Now at present the South Metropolitan Company exercises great influence in that small area belonging to the other company which is south of the river, for it fixes the price of gas in it, and gas is sold as cheap in this small area as in the larger area of the South Metropolitan Company, but it does so at the expense of the north. The Gas Light and Coke Company explained to the Select Committee that they were only able to sell gas so cheap in that southern area of theirs by throwing a new burden upon the consumers of gas in the north. Now it does not seem fair that the people who consume gas in the north of London should have to pay in addition to the price of their own gas something to enable the people in the south of London to obtain their gas a little more cheaply. Therefore the Select Committee recommended that this anomaly should be done away with by the area being transferred to the South Metropolitan Company. I hope the House will consider that that is a very fair and reasonable recommendation, and that it will be willing to instruct the Committee to insert clauses in the Bill to carry out these two recommendations. The matter has become a very serious one in London, as the price of gas north of the river is quite 10d. per 1,000 feet higher than it is on the south side of the river. The Committee had good reason to hope that if these recommendations were carried into effect a substantial reduction in price would take place, and thus a great burden be taken off the people of the north of London. I think I have made the matter sufficiently clear, and as I understand that the company and the promoters of the Bill will not object to the Instruction, I hope that the House will pass it unanimously.

In seconding the Instruction that has been proposed, I am not forgetful of the fact that suspicion frequently attaches to such Instructions given to Committees, and that grave suspicion attaches when those Instructions take a mandatory form, but there are circumstances in connection with this particular matter which, I venture to think, differentiate it from almost all other cases that have recently come under the notice of the House. On an ordinary Second Reading of the Bill it would be perfectly competent to suggest, and no doubt it would be suggested, that the matters which are covered in this Instruction and cognate matters could well be threshed out before a Committee upstairs. In this particular case the matters have already been threshed out. The recommendations which are involved in this Instruction are not the opinions of any particular section of men. They are opinions and recommendations evolved by a Select Committee of this House after some four months careful and exhaustive inquiry. Let me remind the House that the Select Committee whose recommendations this Instruction deals with was appointed after no less than six years agitation on the part of gas consumers in various parts of the metropolis. Those consumers allege certain grievances—serious grievances—against the gas companies, and after repeated and the most earnest efforts, with great trouble and against great opposition, a Select Committee was finally appointed to inquire into the matter. That Committee investigated all the grievances, and it prepared a most careful and thorough Report, in which, after summing up all the evidence which had been taken on behalf of the consumers, and the evidence which had been given in public on behalf of the companies, it arrived at certain deliberate conclusions. Those conclusions were embodied in the recommendations of the Committee, and two of those recommendations—those which concern the South Metropolitan Company—form the subject matter of this Instruction. Now it might be urged that there is no necessity to have put this Instruction in such a mandatory form. I anticipate that some such objection may be urged. It may be said, Why not leave it to the Committee to consider these matters? But they have already been investigated by a Committee appointed ad hoc, and before that Committee, as I have said, the consumers appeared. Why should they be put to the necessity of appearing twice? Why should these people, who after five years of earnest effort did finally get a hearing, he compelled after that hearing has elided to come and try their case over again? If the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into what is a public grievance is a serious matter one might naturally assume—at least, a comparatively young Member of this House might be pardoned for assuming—that the Report of that Committee should bear some fruit. This is about the only way in which the Report of the Committee ever can bear any fruit. The recommendations of the Committee were designed to take effect when the companies concerned should come to the House for any extension or alteration of their capital powers. This company now comes to this House for an extension and alteration of its capital powers. The event anticipated by the Committee has arisen, and in seconding this Instruction I do urge the House to give effect to the principles which the Committee has embodied in its very careful and weighty Report: to adhere to the recommendations of its own Committee, and to allow the gas-consuming public of the metropolis to derive the benefits of the investigation finally allowed them.

I rise to move an Amendment to the Instruction which has just been moved by my hon. friend opposite, and it is to the effect of preventing that Instruction being of a mandatory character. Having had the honour of being chairman of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies, I agree to a very great extent with the conclusions at which they arrived, but I do not think it is fair that on the companies coming before the House with their various Bills connected with this matter the South Metropolitan Gas Company and the Gas Light and Coke Company should not have a chance of being heard upon the recommendations of the Committee. Although, no doubt, we had before us very full evidence on the whole of the matter, yet our recommendations were never argued or considered directly by the gas companies. My chief reason in wishing to move this Amendment is this, that although the South Metropolitan Gas Company may agree to the Instruction moved by my hon. friend—and I admit it would have very little effect upon them, because they are a very well-managed gas company and produce gas at a very low rate yet if that Instruction were carried it would equally affect the Gas Light and Coke Company. That company has not agreed to this Instruction, and, I think it is only fair that they should have a hearing on this matter before the Committee upstairs before a conclusion is arrived at. I would point out that it is a very complex matter indeed, although my hon. friend will say it is a very simple one. I doubt very much whether, on once reading it over, any Member would understand exactly the effect which is carried out by this Instruction. With regard to the transfer of the area now belonging to the Gas Light and Coke Company south of the Thames to the South Metropolitan Gas Company a great number of complex arrangements would have to be made before it could be fairly carried out. I would also point out that the mere price of coal would have a very considerable effect upon fixing a standard price. I think all the matters should be heard and should be considered by the Council upstairs before we pass a mandatory Instruction. I would venture to suggest that if after the word "Committee" in the second line of my hon. friend's Instruction the words, "to consider whether it be desirable" were inserted it would make it a perfectly fair Instruction to be carried. I think myself that it is highly desirable that this Committee upstairs should have regard to the various recommendations made by the Select Committee of last year, and in case—which is very improbable, I must say—their attention was not directed to it, I therefore quite agree to an Instruction of that sort; and I rather apprehend that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade would agree to such an Instruction also. I think I have stated sufficient reason upon general grounds—and here I may say I altogether agree with my right hon. friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his views as to what should guide the House in dealing with these matters—I think I have stated enough to show that it would be better to allow the Committee upstairs a free hand rather than tying it by a mandatory Instruction in the House.

I hope the hon. Member who moved this Instruction will agree to the Amendment. I think that it is a practical impossibility for the House, upon an ex parte statement, to take upon themselves to decide whether the Committee to which this Bill should be referred should be ordered to insert in the Bill certain clauses which have been recommended by a Select Committee. Of course, the recommendations of the Select Committee must necessarily carry with them great weight before the Committee on the Bill. They would in any case, I think, have to consider them, but if the Committee decide to accept the recommendations it should be because in their discretion they think the recommendations are reasonable. If we are to instruct definitely the Committee to insert in the Bill these recommendations, it would, practically, be giving the powers of a law to the recommendations of Select Committees; and I do not think it would be advisable for the House to agree to that. My hon. friend the Member for St. George's in the East has said that these companies have been heard. That is quite true; they have been heard before the Committee on the general question; but they have never been heard upon the special recommendations made by the Select Committee, and I think they are entitled to be heard, and I believe the House will so consider. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will be in any way damaging the cause for which he has been five years fighting if he accepts the suggestion of my hon. friend the Member for Leominster, and if he does accept it I think he will be placing the Committee in the position, in which they ought to be placed, of hearing the evidence which will be brought before them on these Bills.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I understand him to say that he would recommend that both Bills should go to the same Committee?

I did not say so, but I assumed that it would be so. I think that both the South Metropolitan and the Gas Light and Coke Companies' Bills ought to go to the same Committee, so that they may both be considered at the same time.

May I ask my right hon. friend if the addition of the words proposed will enable the Committee to add these clauses if they find them desirable?

Most undoubtedly it will.

On the Amendment, I think the words, even if we accept the sense of the hon. Baronet opposite, who has moved them, might be a little improved. We might put it, "to consider, and, if desirable, insert." I am sure that would meet the hon. Baronet's wish, and I think those words are distinctly better. After what has fallen from the President of the Board of Trade, whose assistance in this matter one would naturally desire to secure, if the hon. Baronet would amend his Amendment in that form, I would accept it.

Does that not seem to imply that they should consider, and if they think desirable to put in these clauses, they shall, but they shall not put them in in any form? Would that not seem to be implied? I think that would be unfortunate.

I think I must press my Amendment.

Very well, Sir, I will accept the Amendment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of Boer prisoners of war now in Capetown or its vicinity, excluding the recent capture of General Cronje's force.

In the absence of my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question addressed to his department. Excluding the Boers captured at Paardeberg, and others who were captured in the other engagements connected with Lord Roberts' movements, and who are now at Kimberley, the total prisoners at Simons Town and Wynberg amount to 628.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the name of the ship upon which General Cronje and his family are imprisoned, and how long it is intended to keep them imprisoned on shipboard.

General Cronje and his family will be detained on board the flagship "Doris" I cannot at present say how long they will be kept there.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that as soon as possible General Cronje is provided with a suitable place ashore?

That question will be dealt with by the military authorities on the spot.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement that Mr. Bisset, the owner of Magersfontein, was an eyewitness of the battle, and relates that a party of forty Seaforth Highlanders made their way through the Boer lines to the top of a kopje, where some of them were subsequently killed, and others taken prisoners by General Cronje; and will he endeavour to ascertain whether Major Mackenzie, Seaforth Highlanders, who has been missing since the battle, was with this party.

I regret that it has not been possible up to the present to obtain definite information as to the fate of Major Mackenzie, or to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 13th ultimo concerning that officer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the gratuitous transport of private consignments of clothing and other articles to the British troops in South Africa does not guarantee delivery to the addressee, he will recommend a reduction in the parcels post rate to the field force of 9d. per lb., which in many cases is prohibitive.

I understand that the Post Office has not the power, without fresh legislation, to reduce the rate of postage which it is its duty to collect, but the War Office is considering how far it may be possible, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to do something which would meet the wishes of the hon. Member. As, however, it is necessary that the Cape Post Office should also be consulted, it is not yet possible to announce a decision in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Australian troops at the front are paid by the Imperial Government; and, if so, is the pay given to them more than the pay of the men in the Regular Army; and, if so, how much more.

The Australian troops at the front are paid by the Imperial Government at the same rates as the Regular forces.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Imperial Government has applied to Australia for more troops; and, if so, will the cost, including pay of the men, be borne by the home Government.

The Australian Governments have been informed that Her Majesty's Government will be glad to have the services of 2,000 men similar to the "Bushmen" contingent, and all the costs, including the pay of the men, will be borne by this country. I may say that the request of Her Majesty's Government has been received gratefully and with enthusiasm.

What will be the pay in this case?

That is a question for the War Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the first and second sections of Paget's Horse have now been enrolled many weeks; that a large proportion of those forming part of these sections gave up their occupations in order to join the ranks; and that dissatisfaction exists at the delay and uncertainity as to their departure for the front. Whether he can state approximately the date of their departure; whether the War Office has handed over to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee the military arrangements, and what experience the members of that committee have had in organising and transporting large bodies of mounted troops; and will he state why the second section have not yet been furnished with rifles, and when they will be so armed.

The 51st Company Imperial Yeomanry will not be ready for embarkation till the 16th March, and will sail in the "Tagus" on that date. The 52nd Company is ready and will be despatched as soon as transports are available. The Yeomanry Committee have secured the assistance of experienced officers in regard to the organisation and transport of the Yeomanry. As regards the rifles, the 52nd Company have not yet applied for them to the War Office.

Have the War Office, as asked in the third paragraph, handed over the arrangements to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee?

Certain arrangements have been handed over to the committee, and the experiment has so fat been attended with great success.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Way whether he can state in what years respectively the following officers passed the final examination at the Staff College—namely, General Lord Roberts, General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, General French, General Macdonald, and Colonel Lord Dundonald.

None of the officers named passed through the Staff College.

How does my right hon. friend explain their success?

There is no law in the mind of the War Office which suggests that much learning maketh a man mad, but it is possible for a man to be successful even if he has passed through the Staff College.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, before proceeding to discuss Vote A, Army Estimates, in Committee of Supply, a statement will be circulated to Members of the House showing the estimated number of Cavalry, Royal Reserve Battalions, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers respectively to be provided for in the Estimates, under the head of temporary measures for increasing the number and efficiency of the forces in the United Kingdom, and more particularly described on page 4, sub-head (C), in the statement of the Secretary of State for War.

It is not proposed to furnish such a state- ment. A full explanation of the measures will be given on the introduction of Army Estimates in Committee.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, as shown on page 551 of the Report of the Ordnance Select Committee, 1863, the Armstrong gun patented in 1858 embodies the principles contained in a patent taken out in 1855 by the late Captain T. A. Blakely, R.A.; and in view of the fact that the widow of this officer expended the greater part of her fortune in enabling her husband to bring to perfection, in the manufacture of heavy ordnance, a principle which was eventually adopted in guns manufactured for Her Majesty's Government, will he consider Mrs. Blakely's claim to be placed on the Civil List.

I answered a question of the same purport on 28th July, 1898.^* I then informed the hon. Member for Norwood that, according to such inquiries as I had been able to make, Captain Blakely was one of several inventors who at about the same time had independently hit on somewhat similar methods of improving artillery. No guns made on Captain Blakely's design were ever introduced into the service, nor was expenditure incurred at the instigation of the British Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as reported, the usual Easter Manœuvres are not to take place this year; whether he is aware that the London Volunteers look to the Easter training as the only period during the year in which some part of their military training can be carried out; whether he will inquire of the commanding officers of the London Volunteer battalions as to the advantages derived from this training; and whether, considering that these battalions contain many men who have recently joined, and the importance of giving the best training possible to the Volunteers this year, the War Office will reconsider their decision.

^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxiii., p. 311.

There have been no manœuvres for some years, and there will be none at Easter, nor will there be any route marches. In lieu of this it is contemplated to extend the periods of Volunteer camps during this year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the commanding officers of London Volunteers with a view to have military manœuvres at Easter this year?

I am afraid that the decision come to by the authorities cannot be varied this year.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Colchester Rifle Range at Middlewick will be opened.

It is not possible to say when it will be opened. The range is all ready, and the purchase money has been paid into court, not a delay has arisen through a small legal difficulty which it is to be hoped will be shortly settled.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the detailed Return of closed rifle ranges in the eastern district can be issued before Easter.

The Return was distributed to the House yesterday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War to what place the British Central African natives, lately in Mauritius and now said to be at sea, are going, and for what purpose.

The battalion is on its way to Somaliland, where local disorder has rendered its presence desirable.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to circulate any Report on the Naval Manœuvres of last year.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations are in progress between Her Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government with a view to the acquisition by England of Delagoa Bay or some other port in Portuguese East Africa.

No such negotiations are in progress.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the cause and extent of the disturbances in Montreal recently between French and English Canadians.

These unfortunate riots appear to have been begun by students at McGill University on Tuesday last as a demonstration against the offices of French newspapers accused of anti-British feeling. Students of Laval University retaliated by pulling down the flag on the office of the Star, a British paper. Subsequently a mob took part in the rioting. A telegram received last night informs me that no further rioting has occurred.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to obtain a tribunal appointed on non-party lines, he is prepared to recommend that the Committee to whom the Electric energy Bills are to be entrusted shall be exclusively nominated by the Committee of Selection.

I think the House would act wisely if it referred these Bills to a Committee nominated as suggested in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the announcement recently made in the official document known as Registered No. 234, 768/99, is to be taken as a concession of the official recognition of Postal Trade Unions, and if so, will the Postmaster General enlarge, if necessary, such instructions on the subject which he may issue so as to provide for the reception of properly elected trade union representatives without qualification as is customary with private employers

The Postmaster General is not aware of the precise meaning which is intended to be attached to the expression "official recognition." The Postmaster General is at all times ready to consider any representations made, whether collectively or individually, by persons in the employment of the Department, and it is not necessary for any person in order to obtain a hearing to associate himself either formally or informally with others. All classes of Post Office servants have full liberty to form themselves into associations for any legitimate purpose, and any representations from such bodies will be duly considered if conveyed through the usual official channels, provided that all those by whom or on whose behalf the representations are made are in the service of the Department, and that the questions raised are such as directly affect the whole body represented. The Postmaster General does not consider it necessary to issue any special instructions on the subject, nor to enlarge the statement contained in the official communication referred to by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is his intention to remedy the disparity between the cost of postage of periodicals and magazines, published in this country at greater length of time than one week, and the ordinary newspapers; whether his attention has been called to the statement in the last report of the Postmaster General of New Zealand to the effect that a magazine post has been established in that colony, the rates of which are 1d. for the first 8 oz., and ½d. for each succeeding 4 oz.; and whether he can see his way to grant a similar concession to the people of this country.

My hon. friend often sees similarity where none exists. Magazines differ from newspapers in so far as they do not contain news, in their greater weight, and in the longer intervals at winch they appear. Books published at regular intervals might just as well be sent at the newspaper rate as magazines. My hon. friend too frequently changes his views as to the rates to be charged. He now suggests more than double the rate he proposed when he last asked the question. He is aware that there is already a loss on the newspaper post in this country, and that the postal authorities in the United States and in Canada complain that the development of postal facilities is strangled by the large deficits due to the cheap carriage of printed matter in those countries. For packets exceeding 2½lbs. in weight the parcel post in this country is already cheaper than the New Zealand magazine post.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the past fifteen years the Postmaster General has been promising reform on this matter?

Yes, but I have shown that it would be exceedingly unwise to make any such reform.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that since the passing of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, there has been only one case, that at Ixworth, in Suffolk, in which a rural local authority has taken action under Part 3 of the Act to improve the dwellings of the labourers in its district, and in view of the insanitary and overcrowded condition of such dwellings in many cases, as revealed in the Reports of the Assistant Agricultural Commissioners to the Royal Commission on Labour, the Board will consider the desirability of issuing a circular to all rural local authorities throughout the kingdom directing their attention to the powers and duties conferred upon them by that Act.

I introduced a Bill a few days since which, among other things, would simplify the procedure for the adoption of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, in rural districts. I hope that it may become law during the session, and it would be more advisable, I think, to wait till then before issuing a circular to the local authorities again on this subject, which the Department has done already on a former occasion.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can explain the causes of the delay on the part of his Department in issuing reglations based upon the recommendations of the Committee on Workhouse Dietaries in the year 1898; and whether he is able to name the date when such regulations will be issued.

:I am afraid there has been some delay in this matter, but it is not quite so simple as it might seem at first sight. The delay has been mainly caused by the great care that has been requisite in framing the model dietary scales which the Committee recommended should be issued. I am unable to name the date when the regulations will be ready, but they are being pressed forward, and there will be no avoidable delay in their issue.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government propose this session to introduce any Bill to carry out the recommendations in regard to the Poor Law unanimously made by the Select Committee appointed last session to consider the Cottage Homes Bill.

I beg at the same time to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps, by order or otherwise, he proposes to take in order to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill of last year, with reference to the treatment of the aged and deserving poor as regards indoor and outdoor relief.

I will answer these questions together. I should be very glad to introduce a Bill on the subject referred to if it is found to be practicable during this session. The matter is under consideration, but I am not able to give any more definite pledge on the subject at present.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to issue any instructions to the Board of Guardians?

Well, Sir, I have said that I should be glad to introduce a Bill, and that the question was under consideration, and the hon. Member must, I think, be aware that any regulations I might make upon the subject must be dependent, in great measure, on the introduction and passing of a Bill.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the grounds upon which the Local Government Board propose to base their decision to divide the Stourbridge Poor Law Union into two parts; and if they have any reason for disregarding the expressed wishes of the union and its representatives; and, if so, if he will make that reason public.

The workhouse accommodation of the Stourbridge Union is very unsatisfactory, and the Local Government Board have for many years past been urging on the guardians the necessity for its improvement. The union, however, is partly in Staffordshire and partly in Worcestershire, and the workhouse, which is situate almost at one end of the union, is not conveniently placed as regards many of the Worcestershire parishes, and a petition was presented to the Board from some of the guardians of the Worcestershire parishes and others, asking that unless a workhouse on a central site was erected the union might be divided. In 1897 the Board received a deputation on this question, and subsequently an exhaustive local inquiry was held with regard to it. In April last the Board informed the guardians that in their opinion the evidence taken at the inquiry clearly showed that a now workhouse should be built on a central site, and that failing such a site being obtained within a reason- able time, they considered that the Worcestershire parishes should be formed into a separate union. A central site has not been obtained, and the Board have accordingly decided that a division of the union should take place.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board of Guardians of St. Matthew's, Bethnal Green, applied some months ago for sanction for the appointment and salaries of the nursing staff for the new Bethnal Green Infirmary, and that, although that institution is completed and ready to receive patients, and was formally opened yesterday, the sanction has not been accorded; and, if so, will he take immediate steps to comply with the request of the guardians.

The Local Government Board have received the application referred to, and there has been considerable correspondence on the subject. The Board's decision in the matter has been communicated to the guardians. They have sanctioned the number of nurses required, and I hope that the matter may now be regarded as settled or far advanced towards settlement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the police magistrate at Westminster on 26th February, in the case of Margaret Devine, an habitual inebriate, to the effect that although the Inebriates Act of 1898 had been in force fourteen months there was no place to which he could send a female inebriate, and his statement that excluding Roman Catholics there were only fifteen women in homes, and that the Act was practically a dead letter; and if he would state how many persons, male and female, have been committed under the Act, and what steps are being taken to increase the accommodation for the class of cases with which the Act is intended to deal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other magistrates are making the same complaint?

If so, they are in the same case as the magistrate referred to in the question. I have seen a report of the remarks referred to, and I can only say that if it is accurate the magistrate is under a misapprehension as to the facts of the matter. And I regret that statements so inaccurate as those attributed to him should be circulated on apparently high authority. In reality, 100 females and two males have been committed to and received in certified reformatories, and of these fifty-nine are Protestants. Further accommodation is no doubt needed, and action is being taken by many local authorities with the view of providing it; but the arrangements necessarily take time. Perhaps the best account of the progress which is being made is given in a letter from the inspector under the Act which appeared in The Times on the 6th February. I have sent the hon. Baronet a copy.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the formal assent given by Her Majesty's Government in 1890 to the proposal made at the International Labour Congress, held in Berlin, that the age at which children might be permitted to work underground should be raised from twelve to fourteen, any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to give effect to that proposal; and, if not, whether the Government contemplate legislation upon the subject during the current session; and whether he can state which Continental Powers represented at the Berlin Congress assented to the proposal, and what steps have been taken by them to give effect to their pledges.

No steps have been taken in this country since 1890 in the direction of raising the age below which children may not work underground; and the Government does not contemplate legislation on the subject this session. The resolution of the Congress was, I think, practically unanimous; but as far as I can ascertain, France and Norway are the only countries where there has been legislation on the subject since 1890; and even in those countries the employment underground of children of twelve years of age and upwards, though placed under restrictions, has not been actually prohibited.

Is it not the case that in France child labour under thirteen years of age is entirely prohibited? Will the Government give favourable consideration to a Bill raising the age to thirteen?

I understand the right hon. Baronet has introduced a Bill extending the age to thirteen. Of course the Government will be prepared to give the Bill full consideration, and I dare say that it may be a favourable one, but I cannot pledge myself.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the storm of 18th February last resulted in a serious loss to the fishermen of Avoch, Ross-shire, nearly a dozen fishing boats being damaged against the pier, and eighty entirely destroyed; and, in view of this loss, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a grant-in-aid for a harbour at Avoch.

The Secretary for Scotland is aware that on 18th February, during a gale of exceptional violence, five boats were totally wrecked and five damaged in Avoch harbour. Avoch is not within the area falling under the administration of the Congested Districts Board, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot therefore hold out hope of a grant-in-aid. He is, moreover, informed by the Fishery Board that any effective improvement of the harbour would involve a large expenditure.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state at what intervals assessors in Scotland require the proprietors of deer forests to furnish the acreage and other information which may be necessary for the purposes of valuation; and will he say what are the penalties attaching to proprietors for a misstatement of facts.

As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the acreage is not a factor in the valuation of a deer forest. The other information which may be necessary for the purposes of valuation is already required yearly. As regards the last portion of his question, I must refer the hon. Member to Section 7 of the Lands Valuation Act, 1854.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Congested Districts Board, with a view to encourage and improve the breed of poultry, sent an expert last autumn to lecture in Sutherland and Caithness, will he state whether the Island of Lewis and the outlying congested districts in other crofting counties outside the line of railway will be visited at an early date; and will he say in what districts sittings of eggs have been distributed.

I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they cannot at present say whether an expert will be sent, but they are considering how best to convey instruction to crofters in outlying districts. Sittings of eggs have been distributed—In Argyll: Coll and Mull; in Inverness: Barra, Duirinish, Harris, Kilmuir, and North Uist; in Ross: Gairloch, Lochs, and Ullapool; in Shetland: Cunningsburgh, Hillswick, Vaila and Whalsay.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the difficulty there is in collecting the poor rate from tenants whose valuation is not more than £4 owing to the inability of such tenants to pay these rates, he will consider the advisability of levying these rates as before on the immediate landlords.

I am not aware that any difficulty is experienced such as indicated in the question. The alteration in the law suggested would be entirely opposed to the principle on which the local Government Act was founded, namely, that the burden of the rates should fall on those to whom the electoral power is given.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the very late hours at which the morning mail arrives at Kilrush and Kilkee, County Clare; and will he take steps to see that the mails are made to keep their schedule time, which is 8 o'clock in the morning.

The delay has occurred on the West Clare Railway, and representations on the subject have been addressed to the company, who have promised to take measures for improving the working of the service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Local Government Board have taken steps to remove Mr. P. K. O'Halloran from acting as district councillor on the council of the Kildysart Union, seeing that Mr. Halloran represents the Labour party in that district, for which he was elected by a large majority.

The Board have not taken steps to remove Mr. O'Halloran from the office of district councillor. His election as a representative of the Labour party would not, of course, disqualify him from acting as councillor, but it having been ascertained that he is a tenant of a labourer's cottage, held from the district council, the Local Government Board have expressed the opinion that, as such, he is disqualified by the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 4 (e) of the Application of Enactments Order from being a member of the district council to which he is tenant. The Board are about to obtain ajudicial decision in order to test the validity of this opinion, and in the meantime no further proceedings will be taken against Mr. O'Halloran.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in consequence of the recently introduced quarantine regulations between England and Ireland, sporting and show dogs are debarred from being used for sporting purposes, competition in field trials, or for exhibition, entailing a monetary loss on owners of well-conducted kennels; and whether performing dogs are free from restrictions, and greyhounds are allowed to pass for the purposes of taking part in coursing meetings, while setters, pointers, and spaniels are excluded from taking part in field trial meetings. I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether cattle drovers and dealers are now prevented taking their dogs with them when crossing to England, thereby experiencing trouble in disembarking and managing the cattle; and whether, if the English Board of Agriculture considers it necessary to retain the quarantine regulations in any form, exemption will be granted to sporting, show, and cattle dealers' dogs, provided they are certified by the owner and by a duly qualified veterinary surgeon not to be suffering from rabies and not to have been exposed to any risk of contagion for a period of three months, and that in these cases a licence without any restrictions be granted.

In reply to these questions I would say that in view of the fact that rabies continues to exist in Ireland, whilst it may be said to be practically extinguished in Great Britain, I felt it necessary to impose restrictions on the landing of dogs brought from Ireland until such time as the disease may have been stamped out there. The restrictions have been somewhat relaxed in a few cases of performing dogs and greyhounds where we were satisfied that a concession could safely be made, but it would not be practicable to extend a similar relaxation to so large a class of dogs as that referred to without serious risk of the reintroduction of the disease—a result which, after all we have gone through to secure our present most satisfactory position, I am sure the House would wish me to take every possible means to avoid.

May I ask if the reason why performing dogs are exempted is simply because they are English?

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to allow drovers' dogs, which are almost necessary to the Irish cattle trade, to be relieved of these restrictions?

I have carefully considered that point, and I think that these restrictions are necessary, because, inall probability, greater risks attach to drovers' dogs than to other animals.

There were fifty Italian dogs in Dublin last week or the week before.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is now ina position to state the cause, and effect on the property of Roman Catholics in Portadown, of the Orange riot which took place there in celebration of the relief of Ladysmith on Wednesday last.

The streets of Portadown, like those of other towns in Ulster, were the scene of considerable enthusiasm and excitement when it became known on Wednesday last that Ladysmith had been relieved. It is much to be regretted, however, that amongst the crowds of loyalists who assembled on the occasion in Portadown, there were, unfortunately, a number of persons, mainly boys, who indulged in stone-throwing and breaking the windows in houses the property of Roman Catholics. Windows in the houses of Protestants were afterwards broken by Roman Catholics. The extent of damage done to the houses of Roman Catholics was about £10. No person, I am happy to say, was injured on the occasion, and the respectable inhabitants of the town, in order to mark their disapproval of the reprehensible conduct of these individuals, intend, so I am informed, to have the damage done to windows repaired at their own expense. For some years past every celebration in Portadown has passed off without unpleasant incident. Some eight or nine of the persons who threw the stones on this occasion have been identified, and will be rigorously proceeded against by the police.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, in view of the recentbehaviour of Orange mobs in Belfast, who did damage to Roman Catholic property under cover of celebrations for the relief of Ladysmith, what provision has been made to protect the Roman Catholic inhabitants from still further injury in the event of other victories being gained over the Boers; has it come to his knowledge that, in the recent occurrences, the premises of over twenty-five Roman Catholic traders were damaged, the schools of the Christian Brothers attacked, and an assault made on St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church when the congregation was leaving after evening Lenten devotions; and, in future, will the police be permitted to disperse riotous mobs appearing in the streets of Belfast.

There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that the disturbances in Belfast on Wednesday last were participated in by Orange or riotous mobs under cover of celebrations for the relief of Ladysmith. I have already stated, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, that the regrettable and reprehensible occurrences of Wednesday were the work of a few individuals only out of the many thousands of loyal citizens of all classes who paraded the streets on the occasion in a perfectly peaceable and orderly manner. The police of Belfast are fully alive to their duty in preserving the public peace, and this duty they will continue to perform notwithstanding the difficulties which they may have to encounter and irrespective of who may be the aggressors.

Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that these outrages have also occurred on occasions like the defeat of Stormberg, and can he give any assurance that at times when news comes of either a defeat or a victory, due protection will be afforded to the property of Catholics?

I am not aware of any riots on the occasion of the alleged defeats, but, of course, the police will be proper protection in all cases.

At the time the three generals were defeated the same thing occurred.

Order, order!

I bog to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen the verdict of a coroner's jury in the case of a life convict named Thomas Casey, who died of pulmonary tuberculosis in Mountjoy prison on Wednesday last, in which a strong opinion is expressed that the man, when found to be hopelessly ill, should have been released; whether he can say when the disease of which Casey died was first diagnosed by the medical officer, and in what prison; is it usual to remove prisoners suffering from this and other serious diseases to Maryborough prison, where the system is less severe and more suitable to invalids than Mountjoy; was Casey in Maryborough prison; why was he sent there, and when; and why was he taken back to Mountjoy, and when.

I beg at the same time to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the report of the inquest on the prisoner John Casey in Mountjoy prison, on Wednesday, 28th February ultimo, at what time was it discovered that he was suffering from tuberculosis of the lungs; will he explain why, when Dr. O'Keefe stated that the case was hopeless, Casey was not discharged; and, if a similar case should occur in Ireland, if the authorities will take steps to offer the prisoner his liberty directly.

My attention has been directed to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of John Casey, lately a convict in Mountjoy prison. The deceased suffered from chronic phthisis since the year 1886, when he was confined in Downpatrick prison. In the same year he was removed to Maryborough invalid prison, where he remained until about eighteen months ago, when, owing to structural alterations in that prison, it became necessary to remove him to Mountjoy prison. In both of these prisons he was classed as a hospital patient, and treated accordingly. His case was under consideration in October, 1897, and October, 1898, and again so recently as October, 1899, but on neither of these occasions was there any reason for exceptional treatment of his case by the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. On the 19th January of this year the prisoner's disease suddenly and unexpectedly became acute, and his case was at once brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant, who gave directions that every care should be taken of the man, and that Dr. Wodehouse, the medical member of the Prisons Board, should have full discretion as to his treatment. Dr. Wodehouse frequently saw the deceased since the 19th January, but the man was never since that date fit for removal or discharge, and on his being asked whether in the event of his illness taking a favourable turn he would wish to be transferred to a hospital outside, Casey replied that he would not unless he was likely to recover.

May I ask how it comes to pass that the opinion of Dr. Wodehouse is now quoted. Is it not the case that Dr. O'Keefe, the medical officer in charge of the prison, a most capable and extremely humane gentleman, diagnosed this case, and why was his report withheld, and only obtained eventually by putting a question in this House?

I am not responsible for the conduct of the proceedings.

Is it a fact that this man was over seventeen years in prison, and is it not usual, in cases of sickness which threaten to result in death, to at once release the prisoner?

The moment sickness threatens loss of life, the question of discharge is considered. As I have explained, it was not until 19th January that this man's case appeared serious.

How many prisoners have died recently in Mountjoy prison?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Is not this the man for whose release Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir Edward Clarke both voted some years ago?

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to ask that question.

Surely I am entitled to ask whether this man has been dying for many years, and why he was not released?

The hon. Member is not entitled to ask an argumentative question.

I shall put further questions on this.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee appointed, under the presidency of Lord Justice Henn Collins, to inquire into the administration of the various funds administered by the Patriotic Commissioners and others has arranged to hold its sittings in the evening, namely, from half-past four until half-past six o'clock; whether such hours are customary; and whether they have been selected to meet the convenience of those who will be invited to attend and offer evidence, or whether they have been arranged to suit the professional and other engagements of the Committee itself.

Every Committee regulates its own hours of meeting according to its own discretion. I understand the Committee in question is to meet at four o'clock. Of course, I have no control over their proceedings nor any power of criticising it.

May I ask whether any protest has been made by the English Bar Committee against the withdrawal of Lord Justice Collins from his judicial duties to preside over a packed Committee of this kind?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what the business will be on Thursday and Friday, and also next week?

With regard to Thursday, I propose to take, first, the report of the Budget resolutions and the First Reading of the Finance Bill, if we are not fortunate enough to get these tomorrow.

To-morrow?

Yes; after half-past five they might easily come on. Any hon. Gentleman can object if he likes.

I shall object.

I shall put down second the Soldiers' Enfranchisement Bill, and then the Navy Estimates, Votes 8 to 12. On Friday I shall continue the Navy Estimates, and on Monday I hope to get the Speaker out of the chair on the Army Estimates.

The right, hon. Gentleman spoke of the Soldiers Enfranchisement Bill. Do the Government intend that it shall include soldiers who are now excluded by the terms of their service?

I referred to the Electoral Disabilities (Military Service) Bill, the nature of which no doubt the hon. Member is acquainted with. I was not intending to describe the provisions of the measure, but only to indicate when it would be taken.

May I ask if the report in the papers that General Buller has stated that Natal is quite clear of Boers is correct? Can the First Lord give us any information?

No telegram has reached the War Office later than that already known to hon. Members. I think I should be given notice of a question like this.

Though I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to this resolution, I think the House must be aware that it is about as serious a financial motion as could be presented to the House of Commons. It is now half a century since so large an addition was proposed to the debt of this country. For nearly fifty years we have been occupied in a process much more satisfactory to the country—namely, in reducing the debt, and in reducing the interest upon that debt. I know that as to any particulars of the provision to be made for this loan they will more properly belong to the discussion upon the Bill; but I do not think that, even in the initial stage of proposing to add £35,000,000 to the Debt of the country—to which, indeed, you have to add £8,000,000 raised in the last session of Parliament, though not within this resolution—you should leave out of consideration the fact that you are suspending also—and of that I do not complain—the Sinking Fund by which the old Debt would have been reduced to the amount of £5,000,000;so that, in point of fact, you are really dealing with the question of increasing the Debt of the country by a sum of nearly £50,000,000 sterling. We have heard, I am sure, with approval in sentiment and admiration in expression the financial doctrines preached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night. He appealed to the patriotism of the House and of the country not to rely simply upon loans for dealing with the necessities of this war. He reminded us of the sacrifices that were made by our fathers before us in the great French war, and afterwards in the Crimean War. No doubt those sacrifices were great. We had an income tax in the great war of 2s. in the £. We had an income tax in the Crimean War, with large other additions to taxation, of 1s. 4d. in the £. I referred briefly last night to what was the result of dealing with the expenses of that war. The Crimean War cost £76,000,000, but only £32,000,000 was added to the Debt of the country, as against the £48,000,000 now already contemplated in the case of the present war. Even supposing the expenditure is not larger than is now contemplated, we are already committed to an expenditure of—I don't know what, but at all events not less than £65,000,000. How much more it will be no man can say. If you get off with £76,000,000 as the cost of this war you may consider yourselves extremely fortunate. But in the Crimean War, which cost £76,000,000, there were £40,000,000 raised out of taxation, and only £32,000,000 by addition to the Debt. The fact was that taxation so increased the balances that it reduced the added Debt to £32,000,000. The doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an admirable one, but it has happened to the right hon. Gentleman and to other Chancellors of the Exchequer that their practice does not always come up to the standard of their doctrine. What is the situation now? The provision we have to make is not for £76,000,000, as in the Crimean War, but for £60,000,000 odd, and the provision we are going to make for this war out of taxation is £12,000,000 out of this smaller total, as against £41,000,000 so raised for the Crimean War, and the Debt is to be increased from that smaller sum by £48,000,000, instead of being increased as it was at that time by £32,000,000. Well, I am afraid that may be described as financial degeneracy. What is the situation? As the right hon. Gentleman very graphically and eloquently told us, since that time there has been a vast increase in the wealth of this country, an enormous increase in income, capital, and population. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not care for unpopularity, but if to attempt the exertions of which our fathers were capable leads to unpopularity it does not indicate a very wholesome state of the public opinion of this country. The sacrifices made fifty years ago in the Crimean War, by a people much less rich and much less capable of bearing taxation than we are to-day, amounted to more than one-half of the sum that had to be met, while that which we now think it possible to call upon the people to pay amounts to one-fifth of the sum that has to be met. There is, I believe, a popular melody very much recited with enthusiasm in the metropolis. It is what may be called, I think, a music-hall ballad, the refrain of which is "Pay, pay, pay." But I am afraid that does not express the real sentiment of the people. The persons who sing the song with the greatest gusto really mean "Borrow, borrow borrow." Though the precepts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer art faultless, I cannot pay him an equal compliment on the scheme he has founded upon them. At all events, if I have to criticise that which is, perhaps, rather the fault of the people for whom he has to provide than his own fault, I do rejoice in the gallant stand which he has made for the existing financial system of this country—a system so sound and beneficial that he was enabled to announce a wonderful financial result in the Revenue, of which the country would have enjoyed the benefit but for this war. That system, which was begun by Sir Robert Peel and continued by Mr. Gladstone, and which is the inheritance of their successors, has been the source of the splendid financial harvests which the right hon. Gentleman has had the good fortune to reap in his surpluses year after year. I have heard with satisfaction of the great increase which has been made on the death duties. Of course we all regret very much the loss of the estimable gentleman to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred last night, who lived upon 15s. a day, and bequeathed to the country on his decease nearly a million of money. At least it can be said of him that, if he did not live like a lord, at all events he died like agentleman. I know that all lords do not do the same. There are occasions on which people take measures to defeat the Exchequer; and indeed there are traders, of whom the right hon. Gentleman complained, who also indulge in such practices. There is a ballad well known, I should say, to most hon. Gentlemen, in that admirable publication, "The Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin." I refer to a poem entitled, "Chevy Chase." It begins "Duke Smithson of Northumberland," and goes on to describe his immense property and how he succeeded in preventing the Exchequer obtaining its due. Of course, Dukes in the present day are incapable of such devices. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the way in which the trade rush in on the days previous to the Budget, may I throw out a suggestion to him for his consideration? We have succeeded in the case of the death duties in preventing evasion to a considerable extent by making it impossible during a certain period before death to defeat the revenue. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not by some sort of retrospective action he could not prevent the evasion of the customs and excise duties. If he could see his way to do that he would have at least my support. It is a satisfaction to know that we have no cause to fear, in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any departure from the established framework and skeleton of the finance of this country. I heard him with great satisfaction denounce the theories put for ward in an intelligent journal of the present day. We are invited to reform our finance upon the model of the worst period of the early part of this century—a sort of Budget that Mr. Vansittart might have produced. We have outlived all that. I was extremely happy to hear the language of the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject. I will only refer in one sentence to what the right hon. Gentleman said with reference to the relative allotment between direct and indirect taxation. I do not, however, concur in those remarks; but I will reserve what has to be said upon that subject until we come to the Finance Bill. I do not believe that the resources of direct taxation are exhausted; and, in my opinion, at the rate we are going, we shall have to make great demands upon all forms of taxation—much larger demands than those that are made to-day. What is the scope of this loan bill? I agree very much that it would not be advisable to raise anything like this sum of money upon Treasury bills or floating debt. We should have to pay pretty smartly for Treasury bills. We had to pay for the last issue, which was not a very large one, not far short of 4 per cent. on some of them. [An Hon. MEMBER: Four and a half.] Four and a half per cent.? That is not a pleasant prospect to people who are now accustomed to 2¾ per cent., and nobody knows what may be the market price of the securities that will have to be offered. I do not venture to offer any opinion upon the subject.

That was in January.

But you never know what it may be in June. But I offer no opinion upon the subject. Of course the Treasury has means of information which no one else possesses. When you endeavour to obtain information as to matters of this kind I have always observed that the experts of the City are admirable authorities for twenty-four hours, but if you endeavour to extend your vision beyond that I do not find that they know much more about it than anybody else. That is my experience, at least, of what you may call high City authorities. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do what is best for the country, and make the best bargain he can. I quite understand why he does not wish to commit himself with regard to the exact form in which he will raise this money. I am happy to see in the resolution that this loan is to be redeemed within ten years, whether it is raised by Exchequer bonds or in some other form. But we may take it, at all events, that this is to be a short loan, to be redeemed within a limited time. I think that is a great improvement upon the practice of raising a loan and allowing it to be lost in the mass of Consols, because it ear-marks the loan, it reminds the country that this is a war loan, and I hope that in better days it will lead to the liquidation of the loan, which, perhaps, would not take place if it was hid away in the mass of Consols. The right hon. Gentleman refers to "bonds." I suppose he means Exchequer bonds.

Not necessarily Exchequer bonds.

Exchequer bonds have not been popular securities, but the right hon. Gentleman may mean bonds of other kinds; I do not know what is in his mind. Exchequer bonds have generally been in large sums, and you cannot have a general market for them as you could have in stock of any kind. But I understand the right hon. Gentleman contemplates the possibility of having what is known on the Continent as a popular loan, which is to be raised from the people at large. At the time of the Crimean War that idea was rejected for what was considered to be a good reason—namely, that it might affect the Savings Bank deposits, and so operate prejudicially upon the market of Consols. I do not know that the circumstances of the present day militate against such an experiment, which certainly everybody would watch with much interest. What is much more important, however, is how is this loan to be discharged? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has held out to us the pleasant prospect of an early peace. I hope he is not too sanguine. There is no man but will pray for an early cessation of this terrible war, not only on account of the immense waste of treasure, but still more the terrible effusion of blood. But supposing the right hon. Gentleman's expectation is well founded, let us see what he proposes to do. I understand that though this resolution talks of redeeming the Debt, he does not make any proposal at present as to the method by which it is to be redeemed. I can understand that, and I agree, because Mr. Pitt's financial genius, which in the early period of his administration I think the right hon. Gentleman criticised very well, was still more defective in his latter administration, for he created a sinking fund which was an admirable moral principle; but unfortunately his sinking fund was provided for by more borrowing, so that it turned out to be a very unsuccessful operation. No sinking fund, of course, is of any value unless it is derived from surplus revenue. Raising more revenue than your expenditure is the only sound financial basis of a sinking fund. I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying, "It would be absurd for me to propose a sinking fund when I am borrowing money." That is obviously the fact. But we must not lose sight of the pledge which this resolution gives, that the loan is to be redeemed within ten years. Let us reflect, at all events, upon what is the probability of that being done in the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. The characteristic of former great wars—of the great French war and of the Crimean War—was that there was a well-grounded confidence that when the wars were over a period of peace would arrive, and that expenditure, instead of increasing, would diminish. Have you that prospect now? What is your faith and expectation that when you have made peace in September the expenditure of the country will be reduced? That is a main condition in the prospect of redeeming the debt you are creating. After the great French war the people were exhausted, they had learned what the cost of war was, and there was a determination to reduce establishments and to cultivate economy. There was then tranquillity for fifty years. After the Crimean War the same thing took place. For a time, at least, after the great struggle with Russia was over and peace was restored there was a demand at once for a reduction of expenditure. A statesman who will carry great weight with Gentlemen opposite immediately after the Crimean War declared that the first duty was that expenditure should be diminished. In 1856 Mr. Disraeli took occasion to impress on the Government the importance of giving their best attention to measures of wise, and at the same time rigid, economy. He said—^*

"I am convinced that this is the only spirit in which we can confirm the principles of finance upon which our system is now generally established, and that will enable us to prepare those resources for the future which, whenever an emergency arises, will enable us to show the same power we have recently displayed."

He pointed out the mistake of supposing that the mischances and disappointments which had marked the commencement of the late war would be prevented on a future occasion by the maintenance during peace of an army much larger than the needs of the country required, and the only result that we should reap from the support of unduly large military establishments in times of peace would probably be that we should enter upon another struggle without those reserves which, having been accumulated by the wise economy of former years, had enabled the country to face its recent difficulties with comparative ease. That was the Tory doctrine of those days, and I should add one other sentence from the same authority, in which, speaking a few years later on a resolution that the war taxation should be reduced, he laid it down that "we should in the most significant manner express our opinion that it is not advisable that England should become what is called a great military nation." Those are the sentiments of fifty years ago. They met taxation, they cultivated economy. When peace came then they reduced the expenditure. Is that your prospect now? What is the judgment that is passed on the Crimean War and upon the expenditure on that war? Only a year or two ago, reviewing that history and that contest, the Prime Minister said that we had put our money on the wrong horse. Seventy-six millions of the taxation of the people of this country was put upon the wrong horse. I am not quite certain that after the experience of some years we shall be certain that we have put their £60,000,000 on the right horse. I am old enough to remember the fervour with which the people entered upon that expenditure on the wrong horse in the case

^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cxlii., page 362.

of the Crimean War. What do they think of it now? Since that period, and in consequence of that war, the people of this country have been more or less sober, and for nearly half a century we have had peace. God grant that the result of this present conflict may be similar to that. I believe even after all the passion and excitement which attaches to a war, that when the war is over there will be a sobering effect produced on the national mind. That effect has been operative after the two great wars of the last century. Since that time we have, I believe, liquidated nearly £200,000,000 of debt; but at present what is your prospect of the reduction of debt or of the reduction of taxation? The right hon. Gentleman has held out an expectation—I daresay he believes it—that the £12,500,000 of taxation which he is about to put on the people this session will cease with the conclusion of peace. I wish I could feel confident of that. Looking at the rate at which our Estimates increase every year I doubt very much whether this will not be permanent taxation. More than that. I see nothing, at all events, in the temper of these times that points to diminished expenditure. On the contrary, the result of all wars, wars here and on the Continent, has been a large increase of military establishments throughout the world, and certainly all the demands of the present day are in that direction. No, Sir, economy such as was spoken of by Mr. Disraeli does not belong to the temper of the times—I do not mean the newspaper—but of the times in which we live. Everything seems to be in this direction—greater expenditure but less taxation. What is the result of these two desires on the part of the people? Every demand in favour of expenditure is received with alacrity, but when it is a question of raising the taxation upon the wealth of the people to meet that expenditure, then there is no man in greater difficulties than a Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the prospect which you have before you, and when in this Resolution you speak of redeeming the Debt, I hope, at all events, in the House of Commons and by those people who can influence the judgment of the country the seriousness of the financial situation will be fully recognised. Everywhere I see a disposition to spend more and to pay less. That may be called the fashionable doctrine at the end of the century to which we belong. I take note, however, of the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is to be sincerely hoped that he may long occupy the position he now fills. I hope and believe in his firmness and ability: I have confidence in both, and that he will redeem that pledge. The debt necessarily belongs to the future, and it is that future which, if we have any qualities of statesmen in the House, we are bound to look at. It is not the fashion of to-day; it concerns not the fortunes of the nation to-day, but the fortunes of the people hereafter. Those who went before us have made provision for those who came after them, and we are bound to do the same. Though I call attention to these matters I do not belong, myself, to the noble army of panic-mongers. I was extremely happy to hear in the House, which has charge of the finances of the country, that these panic-stricken doctrines were repudiated by the leaders on both sides. It was a matter of great importance, because there is no condition in which people lose their heads so much as when they are in a state of panic. They do strange things under those circumstances, but I hope that here, at least, we shall keep our heads, and that we shall do what we can to resist a policy which leads to vast expenditure, which is that spirit which the Prime Minister described as proposing "to fight everybody in order to take everything." We have had a little taste of what a little war in a little part of your Empire will cost you. It costs you £60,000,000, and perhaps a great deal more. It will cost you as much as it did to fight Russia fifty years ago; and these are things which ultimately—I do not say to-day—will give the English people pause, and lead them to think that perhaps, after all, they have as much to take care of as they can afford to discharge. This will be a very valuable after-thought if it should arise out of this war. When people get alarmed they even begin to hint at conscription. When we have got aggravated debt, and we add to it conscription, then indeed the twentieth century will not be an improvement upon the century which preceded it. If you want to strike a blow at the industry of this country, if you desire to destroy your finance, then "conscribe" your people. Of all financial operations I should say that was the most disastrous. The right hon. Gentleman has held out to us a prospect with refer- ence to the redemption of this debt. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was able to give us much enlightenment on that subject last night, but his disposition is admirable. He thinks that the greater part of this debt is to come from the sources which are a main factor in the production of this war. I admit at this moment it is premature to determine how that is to be done until you get control of the Transvaal. I was highly satisfied with that pledge, and I say again, "Long life to the Chancellor of the Exchequer!" that he may redeem the pledge. There are difficulties about it, and I am not sure that anyone will envy him the task that will fall upon him. But there is an old proverb which says that it is a difficult thing to get a bone out of the mouth of a dog; and whether he will succeed in extracting this money out of the gold diggings in the Transvaal, I cannot say. But I was extremely glad to observe for his encouragement that his remark on that subject seemed to receive approbation from both sides of the House, and, therefore, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in his own mind is well disposed on the subject, will feel that he has general support in making those pay who ought to pay. On that subject I would venture to express an opinion which I hope may commend itself to the House and to the country. This £30,000,000 which it is contemplated to raise by a loan is not too great a contribution within the ten years to which it is limited to expect from the Transvaal. That would be about half the expense of the war. We are about to bear a taxation of £12,000,000 this year, and, as I have said, I believe it will be a very long time before we get rid of that taxation. But with regard to this loan which is limited to ten years, I can see nothing unjust or unfair in expecting that it should be raised upon the wealth of the people in the Transvaal. We have had them promising their shareholders £4,000,000 a year out of the savings to be effected as the result of the war. Why are the English taxpayers to pay £60,000,000 in order to raise the price of these shares on the Stock Exchange? They have not concealed their object at all. They have discounted all this money, and have announced that the result of this war will be the enhancement of the value of their shares, and they have esti- mated that enhancement of value at millions of pounds sterling. The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to deal with the question to-night, but we ought to make that a condition of the loan, which is to be redeemed within ton years. I have not entered upon this discussion at all in an alarmist spirit. I believe in the enormous and inexhaustible wealth of this country, because I have had experience of it. The deeper you drive into this reef the more gold you find. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn predicted in 1899 that we should not get anything from the death duties. But who Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that I should be astonished at their yield; and so I was. The resources of this country, if they are only handled prudently, are really inexhaustible. But, I say, let them be handled for the benefit of the people. Do not let them be frittered away. How many plans of reform have been swept away by the war? How many of these plans are to be paralysed and destroyed for years to come by the debt you are incurring to-day and the taxes you are imposing? I say you are diminishing in that way resources that ought to be administered for the advantage of the people at large. I hope I shall be excused for having so imperfectly called the attention of the House and the country to the perils that may be before them in the future in the adoption of unsound principles of finance.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the references to myself which he has been good enough to make, and I do not rise, I assure him, to comment in any hostile manner on the observations he has made. But I really fail to see the precise motive of his speech.

It was not addressed to you.

The right hon. Gentleman looks upon me as a worthy and well-meaning person who belongs to a party which has thwarted all his efforts.

I was not talking of parties.

That, at any rate, is what I gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He ended his speech with a very eloquent sentence, in which he prophesied all sorts of evils that magnificent plans of reform would be paralysed; that the country would be ruined by increase of taxation, and all the rest of it. But why? Because of the increased expenditure which he foresees as a result of the debt we are about to incur.

I meant a good deal more than the debt of to-day. I meant the spread of expenditure in the future in naval and military establishments, and in other things.

I am sure anyone in my position would thank the right hon. Gentleman for all the support that he could give him to resist any unnecessary expenditure. He is quite right in saying that these demands for increased expenditure come not from one side of the House alone, but generally from the nation at large; and though in many cases the increased expenditure we have seen in recent years has been absolutely necessary—as, for instance, that for the naval defence of the country and also in other ways which I need not particularise—I should welcome any aid in checking the tendency to expenditure which makes the position of any Chancellor of the Exchequer one of extreme difficulty. But I wish to address myself to the particular situation in which we now find ourselves, and the particular matter actually before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that I was struggling at the present moment against this great difficulty—that though I had, in a manner for which he was good enough to commend me, proposed that a very considerable portion of this war expenditure should be met by increased taxation, yet that I was met by a sort of feeling—I think the right hon. Gentleman intimated it existed mainly on this side of the House—that there ought to be no such contribution from increased taxation, and that instead of "pay, pay, pay," it should be "borrow, borrow, borrow." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was fair to those who sit on this side of the House. Anyone who listened to the debate last night, anyone who has observed the general comments to-day upon the proposals which I have ventured to place before the Committee—disagreeable as those proposals must necessarily be—will have seen that even with regard to the income tax, which, perhaps, is not likely to be a popular tax on this side of the House, there was a general feeling that we were bound to make provision by increased taxation for the necessities of the moment; and, therefore, it is not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to charge those who sit on this side of the House with a reluctance to make that provision.