laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Judge Advocate General has power to nominate a qualified person to confirm the findings and sentences of general courts martial in South Africa, including sentences of death and penal servitude for not less than five years, and to advise the military authorities upon important questions of law; whether a barrister of less than three years standing is to be appointed to discharge these important duties, or which of them, in South Africa, and at what remuneration: and whether findings of courts martial and sentences upon persons other than soldiers in Her Majesty's service in South Africa will be finally dealt with by anyone so nominated or appointed, and whether with or without right of appeal.

A t the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to send the Deputy Judge Advocate General to the forces in South Africa to advise the confirming officer with regard to the confirmation or not of the findings of general courts martial, and the military authorities with regard to the important questions of law arising, especially as there can be no appeal.

The power to nominate a qualified person to confirm the findings and sentences of general courts martial in South Africa is not included in the functions discharged by the Judge Advocate General. The confirmation of the findings and sentences by military courts is regulated by Section 54 of the Army Act. The Judge Advocate General has the power to delegate qualified persons to represent him in South Africa. Although such persons would not have the power to confirm the findings and sentences of general courts martial, they would be entitled to advise the military authorities on questions of law, to withhold confirmation on the ground of illegality, and generally to advise them on questions of law concerning the legality of the findings of courts martial. A barrister of less than three years standing is not to be appointed to discharge those duties. Colonel Sinclair, of the War Office, received a formal deputation to perform those duties, and he is now performing them in South Africa, aided by Lord Basil Blackwood, who is a barrister of more than three years standing. Military law and courts martial only apply to soldiers in Her Majesty's service or persons accompanying the troops holding passes. Civilians as a general rule do not come under the ordinary military law or the jurisdiction of ordinary courts martial.

As the Judge Advocate General is at present, under the new arrangement, a member of the High Court of Justice, to whom is he responsible for these appointments?

I am afraid that these legal points must be put to the Attorney General.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the large number of troops (Colonial, Volunteer, Yeomanry, and Reserve men, now serving in South Africa) who will be discharged at the conclusion of the war, the Government would have the medal which will be given for the South African campaign prepared so that it could be issued to the troops either in South Africa or immediately on their return, thus giving them an opportunity of wearing it while still in uniform.

I can assure my hon. friend that this matter will not be lost sight of.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Ad- miralty can he explain what are the regulations or customs affecting the publication of despatches from naval officers describing the proceedings of naval brigades when acting ashore under the orders and as part of the force of a military general; is the permission of such general required before the Admiralty is at liberty to publish such despatches; is the permission of the Secretary of State for War also required; and, in the case of the naval despatches describing the part taken by the Naval Brigade in the Battle of Graspan, was it necessary to obtain the permission to publish those despatches of General Lord Methuen alone or any other permission besides; and if so, will he state when the necessary permission was applied for by the Admiralty, and why it has been so long delayed, seeing that the military despatches were published nearly two months ago.

There are no regulations that affect the publication of naval despatches from naval officers describing the proceedings of naval brigades when acting ashore with military forces. The custom has been that reports from naval officers under such circumstances have been sent in duplicate, one to the officer in chief command of the army with which the naval brigade was serving, the other to the Commander-in-Chief on the station to which the ship from which the naval brigade was taken was attached. The permission of the general to publish such reports is not required, but clearly he ought to see them, and to have the opportunity of commenting on them if he saw occasion to do so. In reply to the third question, the term "permission" should not apply to the case. But the Admiralty would not publish reports relating to the conduct of the war, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, without giving him the opportunity of expressing his opinion. In the case of the report describing the Battle of Graspan it appeared doubtful whether a duplicate had been sent to Lord Methuen, as ought to have been done, and I am still uncertain whether Lord Methuen has seen it; but I have now arranged, after consultation with the Secretary of State for War, that these reports shall be published in the next Gazette.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether quantities of explosive and soft-nosed bullets were found concealed in the evacuated encampments of the Boers; and whether many of the British troops have been seriously wounded and maimed by these bullets, and what action he has taken in the matter.

Lord Roberts has reported the discovery of "expansive" bullets in Cronje's laager and elsewhere. There is no doubt that British troops have been wounded by these bullets. In view of the reply of President Kruger and Mr. Steyn to Lord Roberts' protest no further action at the present time would appear possible.

Will the hon. Gentleman state where any explosive bullets were found, and on what authority he makes the statement that there is no doubt that British troops have been wounded by expansive bullets?

I make the statement on the authority of a great number of medical reports. I used the word "expansive," and not "explosive," because a large number of the bullets in question are more properly described as expansive. But there have been some sporting bullets used which might be called explosive.

Will the hon. Gentleman refer me to the medical reports on which he relies?

Were these expansive and explosive bullets manufactured and supplied by British firms?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, during the siege of Kimberley, Colonel Kekewich, as military commander, suppressed a newspaper under the control of Mr. Rhodes; and what was the reason for this action.

We have no official knowledge of any such matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what have been the total casualties from all causes, up to date, in the troops belonging to the Indian garrison which are employed on active service in South Africa.

The figures are as follow:—

	Officers.	N-C. Officers and Men.
Killed	15	135
Died of Wounds	3	20
Wounded	41	465
Missing	—	338
Reported as prisoners, including 15 wounded	19	17
Deaths from disease	2	246
Total	80	1,221

What was the total of the force from India?

Between 7,000 and 8,000.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether if a sufficient amount of warm clothing to supply all the troops serving in South Africa is not provided by private benevolence, the War Office authorities will make good the deficiency.

An amount of warm clothing sufficient for preserving the health of the troops is supplied by the War Office, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no deficiency in that respect. Public benevolence has, however, contributed additional supplies with the view of enhancing the soldier's comfort. The War Office has taken some pains to discover and to publish descriptions of the articles which can best conduce to that end.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the appeal made by the War Office to the public to provide extra warm clothing for the troops in South Africa, the War Office will undertake that any articles sent out shall be expeditiously distributed immediately on arrival in South Africa.

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 16th. I can only repeat that every effort will be made in co-operation with Mr. Gatliff to secure that the troops shall receive such comforts as expeditiously as the movements of the field forces permit.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he state how many first commissions in the Army have been granted without competition in the last six months; and, in particular, how many to each of the following classes:—non-commissioned officers; candidates in recent competitions who qualified but were not successful; from the Militia, and if any of these had not undergone two trainings; on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, and otherwise; how many in the same period have been obtained by cadets from the Royal Military Academy and Royal Military College; and how many direct commissions it is proposed to give to the Militia, the Volunteers, the Yeomanry, the Malta regiment, the colonies, the universities, the public schools, and the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa respectively.

The number of first commissions in the Army granted without competition during the last six months (September to February) was 364. Eighty-four were given to the ranks, sixty-six to university candidates after a qualifying examination, and the remainder to Militia officers, most of whom had served during two trainings. No recommendations have as yet been received from the Commander-in-Chief, South Africa. During the same period 140 commissions have been given to the cadets of the Royal Military Academy and 231 to the cadets of the Royal Military College. The number of direct com- missions to the Regular forces to be offered are:—

To the Militia	…	312
" Volunteers	…	172
" Malta Artillery	…	2
" Malta Militia	…	4
" Yeomanry	…	20
" Colonies	…	276
" Universities	…	345
" Public Schools	…	30
" Lord Roberts	…	50
Total	…	1,211

It must be understood, however, that these numbers are subject to minor variations depending on the way in which our offers are taken up.

May I ask whether these 1,200 commissions will be given in supersession of the cadets' claims?

We have debated that point, and I think I have said all I have to say on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if a number of commissions in the Regular Army have been set apart for the colonies; and if the Colonial Governments have been informed that officers of the Regular Army in England cannot live on their pay, but must be possessed of considerable private means.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. It is believed that colonial candidates are sufficiently informed of the conditions in which British officers live, and no specia communication has been made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an English banking company, with headquarters at Cape Town and Johannesburg, have been affording help to the Pretoria Government in minting operations by the loan of a salaried official of the company, who is employed by them as metallurgist and assayer; and whether such assistance by an Englishman to a foreign govern- ment with which we are at war is legal; and if not, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps in the matter.

I have made inquiries, and am informed that the official in question was engaged by the Transvaal Government in October without communication with the board of the bank, or with the general manager at Cape Town. As soon as the facts became known, he was called upon by the board at once to withdraw from his position and leave the enemy's country. Before these directions had reached him the manager at Johannesburg had issued similar instructions. But the State Secretary at Pretoria refused permission to the official to leave, and his connection with the bank was accordingly terminated. I am informed that the State Secretary of the South African Republic has since reconsidered his decision, and it is believed that the person referred to has left the Transvaal. Voluntary assistance of the kind suggested to a foreign government with which we are at war would not be legal, but under the circumstances above detailed, it does not appear necessary to take any steps in this matter.

What is the banking company referred to?

The Bank of Africa.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there exists any valid reason for allowing code messages to be transmitted to Foreign territories, notably to Lorenco Marques, and disallowing them in the case of our own possessions in South Africa; and whether in view of the discontent excited by this discrimination as against our own Colonies, he would undertake to extend to these the privileges in respect of cipher messages promulgated in the recent order.

The discrimination was made on military grounds on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, during the earlier part of the campaign. The Secretary of Stale for War is prepared to consult Lord Roberts on the subject at an early date.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether in regard to the contracts recently made, for the supply of forage to the War Office by Underwood and Co., Limited, under the name of John E. Bennett and Sons, his attention has been called to the provisions of Section 41 of the Companies Act, 1862, which provide for the name of a limited company to be affixed conspicuously on the outside of every place where the business of the company is carried on, and the name of the company to be mentioned in (amongst other documents) all notices, advertisements, and other official publications of the company, and in all bills of parcels, invoices, and receipts of the company; whether the provisions of this section were complied with by Underwood and Co., Limited; if not, whether steps will be taken to enforce against the directors and other officials of the company the penalties prescribed by Section 42 of the Companies Act, 1862: and, whether, in all cases of tenders for the supply of goods being made to the War Office by firms trading under a firm name, the War Office will, with a view to avoiding frauds, insist that the names and addresses of the partners in the firm shall, in every case, be mentioned in such tenders.

The point, raised by the hon. and learned Member in respect of the Companies Act, 1862, has been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. The course suggested in the third paragraph of the question had already been decided upon before the question of the hon. Member appeared upon the Paper.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government would consider the advisability of appointing a small Parliamentary Committee to examine and report upon the alleged cases of fraud in connection with Army and Navy contracts.

In ordinary circumstances I should be reluctant to grant an inquiry which would throw a considerable additional burden on a hardly-pressed office. But a most erroneous idea has gained currency that there are facts to conceal, and that there has been a desire to conceal them. We therefore think, in justice to the War Department, that an inquiry is desirable. The possibility of instituting criminal proceedings against certain defaulting contractors is under consideration, and no inquiry can, of course, take place until this question is determined; but I do not imagine that that will involve any long or serious delay.

Pending the appointment of the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a proclamation offering soldiers protection in the event of their being willing to give evidence before the Committee?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why no Vote is proposed in the Estimates for a Director of Military Education; and why the Department has been placed under the Military Secretary.

The post of Director General of Military Education was abolished in 1898. The work conducted by the two branches of his Department was in many cases subject to the further consideration of the Adjutant General or of the Military Secretary; and it was considered preferable to bring the work more directly under the charge of these officers. This decision was announced and the reasons fully explained by the Secretary of State on 11th July, 1898.^*

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any record is kept of the percentage of boys, educated at the Duke of York's School, Chelsea and Dub-

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxi., page 451.

lin, who, not being bandsmen, subsequently join the Army.

Records are kept at the Royal Military Schools, and the figures for the last twelve months are as follows:—Duke of York's School, Chelsea: 401 left the school; of these 160 entered the Army as other than bandsmen. Royal Hibernian Military School: 255 left the school, and of these 154 joined the Army as other than bandsmen.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government propose to purchase Kinder Scout for a camping ground and rifle range.

It is not desirable to state where it is contemplated to purchase land for ranges.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can now say what has been the result of a year's working of the Countervailing Duties Act passed in March, 1899; what amount of revenue the Act has yielded; and what effect it has had on the importation of cane and beet sugar respectively, as compared with the Returns for the years 1897–8 and 1898–9.

In the telegram from the Viceroy, giving an abstract of the Indian Financial Statement, which was published in the newspapers on Wednesday last, it was mentioned that for the last nine months the imports of beet sugar had fallen off to the extent of 45 per cent., but that the circumstances were such that no conclusion could safely be drawn from the figures. I can add nothing to this, nor can I give as yet the amount of revenue yielded by the countervailing duties. The imports of cane sugar for the same period are not statistically complete, but they are believed to have increased to the extent of about 12 per cent. as compared with the average off the two preceding years.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he sees his way, apart from legal enactment, to make such regulation in the Customs Department as will preclude in future years excessive payments to liberate articles from bond immediately before the introduction of the Budget.

I will inquire into the possibility of doing this; but I do not think it can be done effectually without legislation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a householder resident in any portion of a parish transferred by the Boundary Commission, appointed under the London Government Act of 1899, to another parish is eligible for election on the 1st November, 1900, as a borough councillor for the municipal borough from which he has been transferred, either as a parochial elector or as a resident in the parish twelve months prior to the election.

The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction and no authority to pronounce any opinion with regard to this matter. It is one of the questions which can be dealt with by an Order in Council under Section 27 (1) (c) of the London Government Act, 1899. I have, however, communicated with the Commissioners, and I understand that the subject is being or will be considered by them and the Privy Council.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that in certain parts of the country the number of workhouses is in excess of the requirements; and inasmuch as this entails an unnecessarily large annual expenditure, will he consider the advisability of taking steps to reduce the number of such workhouses.

The workhouse accommodation in some cases appears no doubt to be in excess of requirements, but it must be remembered that in order to maintain proper administration in a workhouse, it is necessary that separate accommodation should be provided for each class of inmates and for the sick, and that there should be some spare accommodation for each class for use in case of need, as besides the sick there are seven different classes for whom separate accommodation should be provided; the spare accommodation is often more apparent than real.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from the London and North-Western Railway Company any scheme for the providing of new dwellings for the inhabitants of the houses in Stanhope Street, Granby Street, and Mornington Road, already acquired by them for the extension of their line, according to the London and North-Western Railway Act, 61 and 62 Vic. c. 234; whether he can state the site of the buildings to be erected, and the number of inhabitants to be provided for; and whether he will take steps to compel the company to perform the conditions of the Act.

No scheme has yet been submitted by the railway company in this case; but I have been in communication with them in regard to their liabilities under the Act, and shall certainly compel them to comply with its provisions, as I have plainly informed them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing interest being shown in labour bureaux by the London local authorities, the Labour Department will prepare and issue for their guidance and information a set of model rules for the conduct of labour bureaux, with such other information on the formation and management of such institutions as would be likely to prove of use to any body intending to institute one.

The Labour Department of the Board of Trade have from time to time published certain information as to the constitution and regulations of labour bureaux in this country and abroad. If the hon. Member will put himself into communication with the Department, he will be able to judge how far the publication of any further information in their possession would answer the purpose of his question. But the Board of Trade are of opinion that before any model code of regulations could be adopted much more experience is necessary of the working of those bureaux than has yet been had.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of aliens arriving in the United Kingdom who are not stated to be en route to other countries; and whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out without further delay the pledge given by them in the Queen's Speech in 1896, by introducing legislation upon the subject.

Yes, Sir, I am aware that there has been an increase in the number of aliens alluded to by the hon. Member, and a much larger one in the number of aliens passing through this country; both these tendencies being, doubtless, encouraged by the activity of trade here and in the United States and the demand for labour. The matter is one the importance of which has not been lost sight of. Legislation on the subject is surrounded with difficulties which I hope may be overcome, but I fear we shall be unable to make any proposals to the House this session. I may say that we hope the census about to be taken may clear up some matters at present obscure.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether any, and, if so, which seaport towns besides Cardiff and Newport have adopted bye-laws regulating seamen's lodging-houses in their districts, under the powers of Section 214 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and, also, in what places an Order in Council, under sub-section 5 of the said section, is in force.

In addition to Cardiff and Newport, the following towns have adopted bye-laws for seamen's lodging-houses under the section referred to in the question:—Middlesbrough, South Shields, Liverpool, Tynemouth, and Barry and Cadoxton. Orders in Council under sub-section 5 are in force at Penarth, Barry and Cadoxton, Cardiff, and Newport.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has been addressed by the Board of Trade to the Great Western Railway Company in connection with the accident at Reading on 27th December, 1899, respecting which the inspector found that it was due to carelessness on the part of certain men, but remarked in his report men who have been for fourteen or fifteen hours on the foot plate could hardly be expected to display that unremitting vigilance which is necessary for safety; and what was the nature of the communication, whether any reply has been received from the railway company, and what was its nature.

Yes, Sir; the report was forwarded to the company on the 20th March—that is, immediately it was issued. The Board of Trade have not heard from the company on the subject; if necessary, a further communication shall be addressed to them. The hon. Member no doubt observed that the inspecting officer himself inferred that the long hours were caused by the Christmas traffic.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any decision has been arrived at to remove the Buckland Collection from the South Kensington Museum, having in view the desirability of utilising it for giving national instruction in fisheries and pisciculture; and whether there is not a sum of £5,000 left to the Buckland Museum; and, if so, in whom is it vested and to what use is it being applied.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. In regard to the second paragraph of the question, there is a sum of about £4,000 in the Chancery Division of the High Court, of which the interest is payable to Mrs. Buckland for her life, and of which the reversion was bequeathed by Mr. Buckland for the establishment of a Chair of Economic Fish Culture.

Has nothing been done up to the present?

Nothing.

Have the Department done anything to put the collection in proper order?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Department has declined to allow the Tottenham School Board to appoint a girl as a pupil teacher on the ground that she has not been vaccinated, although in other respects she satisfies all requirements; and, if so, will he state upon what statutory authority the Education Department professes to base its action.

I have no information as to the particular case of the pupil teacher referred to in the question, but such a refusal would be in accordance with the practice of the department. The Committee of Council have power under Section 97 of the Education Act, 1870, to prescribe the conditions of the grant to Public Elementary Schools.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Trea- sury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps will be taken to carry out the scheme introduced by Mr. Fawcett, and recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee, with reference to the abolition of classification, whereby the many hundreds of telegraphists now only receiving £160 per annum, with no hope of advancement, will be permitted to rise to a salary of £190 per annum, which was the prospect held out to many of them when entering the service.

The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension regarding Mr. Fawcett's scheme and the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee in reference to abolition of classification. So far from recommending abolition of classification, Mr. Fawcett provided in his scheme for first and second classes of telegraphists in London with a maximum of £140 a year for the first class, which subsequently—in 1890—was raised to £160 a year. Lord Tweedmouth's Committee recommended the combination of the first and second classes, but distinctly limited amalgamation to those two classes, and expressed an opinion that the maximum salary of £160 a year affords an adequate remuneration for the work entrusted to a telegraphist in London—an opinion which was subsequently endorsed by the Postmaster General and myself. The prospect of advancement to the class of overseers and senior telegraphists which has a maximum of £190 has not been altered in any respect.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is any regular system for the distribution of relief duty at the Cork Post Office; and if so, is that system always followed in regard to the equal claims of the general body of the employees.

Relief duty at Cork is allotted by regular system, when there are no exceptional circumstances which demand a departure from such system in the interests of the Service; and the claims of all the staff are duly considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a guarantee has been given for the payment of expenses in connection with a telegraph station at Akahista, County Cork; and whether, seeing that a promise of the said station has been made, will he explain what is the cause of delay in connection with it.

A guarantee has not been given for the establishment of a telegraph office at Akahista; and no promise of an office there has been made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether London telegraph clerks are entitled to free medical attendance, and whether the official doctors' officers visit patients who cannot leave their homes; and whether the Postmaster General will take steps to make adequate provision for giving the London telegraphists free medical attendance, in accordance with the statement made in the Parliamentary Return issued on the Motion of the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow in 1898.

There are no persons called telegraph clerks in London. The London telegraphists whose salaries are not over £160 a year are allowed free medical attendance at their offices or at their homes provided the homes are within the prescribed limit of three miles from the head office of the district in which they are employed. If they reside beyond this limit they are entitled to receive advice and medicine on application at the surgery of the medical officer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there are at present three fully qualified female substitutes in the Cork Telegraph Department awaiting appointments in the office for the past six years; and will he undertake that the next vacancies will be filled by one or other of these officers.

Yes; their claims and qualifications will be considered with those of any other eligible officers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in national schools in Ireland other than the model schools, any official arrangement exists for heating the schools in winter; whether the National Board have any power to secure that the schools are properly heated, and take steps to do so, and out of what fund the cost of heating is paid; and whether any distinction exists in this respect between ordinary national schools and the model schools, which are generally attended by the children of well-to-do parents; and, if so, what the reason of this distinction is.

No arrangement such as referred to in the first paragraph exists, but the schools are supposed to be kept by the local managers in a fit state for the reception of pupils at all times of the year. The Commissioners have no power to compel the proper heating of schools other than model schools; they would, however, draw the attention of the manager to any case of serious neglect. The model schools are under the direct control and management of the board, hence the duty of heating these schools devolves upon the board.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board have ordered the Kerry County Council to increase the salaries of their deputy surveyors from £80 to £150 per year.

The reasons which induced the Local Government Board to increase the salary of the county surveyor for Kerry, and which were explained by me in answer to the hon. Member's question of Friday last, are equally applicable to the cases of the assistant surveyors, whose salaries have also been increased by the Board as stated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county council heard the evidence of these gentlemen and came to the conclusion there was no necessity to increase their salaries, as there was no increase of work? On what ground, therefore, did the Local Government Board, without consulting the county council, increase the salaries by 100 per cent?

The Local Government Board disagreed with the decision come to by the county council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the duties have actually decreased?

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot proceed to argue the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary stated in this House this session that the county councils would be consulted in these matters?

Order, order! That is arguing the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the death of Constable Francis Murphy, R.I.C. in the workhouse hospital at Lurgan about a week ago; whether, and on what dates, the constable was transferred from the town of Moira and thereto from Mayo Bridge; by whose directions was he removed to the hospital, and how many hours he lived after his admission to the hospital; whether he is aware that Constable Murphy frequently complained of want of medical attention while in Moira; and whether he is aware that, in the absence of an inquest as to the cause of death, and the circumstances in connection therewith, grave dissatisfaction exists among the people and the friends of deceased, and whether a Local Government Board inquiry will be held into the matter.

My attention has been directed to the circumstances attending the death of this constable. He arrived at Moira, on transfer from Mayo Bridge, on the 15th February. He was exempted from duty on the 17th February, and between that date and the 10th instant, when he died, he was visited six times by the constabulary medical attendant. The constable made no complaints, nor had he any reason for doing so, as the medical attendant was very attentive to him. Up to the time of his removal to the workhouse hospital the deceased walked about the barrack grounds. He died five hours after his admission to the workhouse hospital on the 10th instant. He had previously expressed himself gratified at having been removed to the hospital. The man died from natural causes, collapse through heart disease accelerated by pneumonia and long-standing bronchial attacks. The case does no call for the interference of the Local Government Board, whose functions in the matter relate only to the treatment of the deceased in the workhouse hospital, and I see no reason for directing the Inspector General to hold an inquiry.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Agnew, Local Government Board inspector, recently made an inspection of Carrick-macross workhouse between eight and ten o'clock at night; whether he is aware that this inspector has been in the habit of making an inspection of workhouses in several other places in Ulster at night; and whether he will order the discontinuance of this practice of disturbing the inmates after they have retired for the night.

I am informed that Mr. Agnew recently visited a couple of the wards of this workhouse between the hours mentioned, but that his visit did not extend to the whole of the establishment. He is not in the habit of making such visits at night, though he has done so occasionally, and the Local Government Board see no reason for interfering with the discretion vested in their inspector in this respect, and, on the contrary, are of opinion that occasional inspection of some of the wards at night is most desirable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to grant the Return as to officers under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, which stands on the Paper for this day.

I do not think a Return such as is suggested would be of sufficient importance to lay on the Table. If, however, the hon. Member wishes to see a list of the names of the officers referred to, with their emoluments, I shall be happy to show it to him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Wicklow County Council, at the suggestion of its secretary, adopted a resolution on 27th February, 1900, directing the secretary to inform the clerks of the several rural district councils that by order of the county council the forms of notice of motion, tender and contractor's bond, as also forms 11, 12, 13, and 14, prescribed by the District Accounts Order, 1899, have been prepared and are supplied free on application to the secretary's office, and that the council will not in future entertain proposals from rural district councils unless made on the forms so provided, etc.; whether a county council can compel a district council to accept forms supplied at higher cost to the ratepayers than the district council itself can procure by contract; and whether it has any power to refuse to accept forms sent up by the district council which are in accordance with the rules laid down by the Local Government Board, merely because they are not the forms supplied by a particular printer.

A resolution to the effect stated in the question was adopted by the Wicklow County Council at their meeting on the 27th ultimo. The direction given would appear to be for the purpose of obtaining uniformity in such matters and does not, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, call for any interference on their part. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the crowded state of the cemetery in connection with the Belfast Union workhouse; and whether he will recommend that additional accommodation for the interment of paupers should be provided elsewhere.

The Local Government Board will suggest to the guardians the propriety of acquiring additional ground for a cemetery.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government will appoint a Commission to continue, complete, and issue a Report upon the tenure and security of improvements to tenants of town holdings in Great Britain and Ireland.

This question is obviously one that should be addressed to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can say what was the last date upon which the Assistant Land Commissioners sat in Kanturk, County Cork; is he aware that upon that occasion not more than half of the cases listed were disposed of; and in view of this fact and of the number of additional applications to fix a fair rent, whether the Land Commission will arrange for an early sitting in Kanturk.

A Sub-Commission last sat in Kanturk in November, 1899. All the cases entered on the list for hearing before this Sub-Commission have been disposed of. There are only sixteen cases from the Kanturk district not yet listed for hearing. A further sitting of a Sub-Commission will be held at as early a date as practicable.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ire- land whether he is aware that six tenants, who made applications to purchase their holdings on the Annaly (Rathclure) Estate, were induced by the receiver to sign agreements to have their fair rents fixed by the land valuers; and why it is that their holdings have neither been visited nor their rents so fixed, and will he cause inquiry to be made as to the cause of the delay.

I understand that a number of tenants from this estate agreed to refer their cases to court valuers to report as to the fair rents of the holdings, that the holdings were duly inspected, and that the rents have long since been fixed in these cases. There are no other cases of this nature, so I am told, at present pending on the estate. If the hon. Member will supply me with the names of the six tenants referred to in the question, together with the names of the town lands upon which their holdings are situate, I will call for a further report in the matter.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether, in view of the importance of Baltimore as a fishing station, and also of the promises made by the Congested Districts Board and the Treasury to contribute towards the cost of the railway extension at Baltimore to deep water, immediate steps will be taken to have this work carried out.

The Congested Districts Board some years ago offered to contribute towards the cost of the construction of a pier at Baltimore on terms which were communicated to the railway company. The railway company, however, have not agreed to the terms of the offer, which has in consequence been withdrawn.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the views of the Baltimore Harbour Board?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland if the Estimates of 1900–1901 contain any provision for the clearing of the site of the new Royal College of Science in Dublin, this site having been purchased last year in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire into the question: and, if not, if it is too late to make such provision.

No such provision has been made. The site in question is occupied by four houses which will mostly be occupied by the new Department. Nothing would be gained, and something would be lost, by clearing the site until the scheme for the reformed college has been settled in its main lines, firstly as regards the subjects to be taught, and secondly as regards the buildings required for teaching those subjects. But the Committee which is to report as to the subjects and the building has been appointed and will hold its first meeting shortly after Easter.

With reference to public business on Thursday I beg to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury is aware that on that night a most important motion is on the Paper with reference to the new Education Code, and whether he can make arrangements to allow that motion to come on, say, at 10 o'clock.

I understand the force of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal. I have not had the opportunity of making myself acquainted with the amount or the importance of the discussion which is likely to arise on the motion to which he refers, but I have no reason to believe that it will take very long. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me to the contrary, I will do what I can to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite. I think, however, that on Thursday we ought to pass not only the reference to the Committee on Municipal Trading, but the Railway Accidents Bill. If those orders are passed I will not ask the House to go on with other Bills after 10 o'clock.

When will the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill be taken? I may say I wish to move an important In- struction to the Committee. The Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill is put down for April 26th—a most inconvenient day for the Irish Members after the Easter recess, and I hope we shall have an assurance that it will not be taken that day.

Before I answer that question may I, referring again to Thursday's business, say it would be useless to stop Government business if the only result is to allow the Bills of private Members to come on. If it is a matter of general agreement that if the Government stop their business at 10 o'clock no attempt will be made to take private Bills on the Paper for Thursday next, then I will make the arrangement. I cannot give a pledge not to take the Irish Charitable Loans Bill on Thursday if there is a good chance, but if it is inconvenient for hon. Gentlemen to discuss the Tithe Rent-charge Bill on the date mentioned, I will engage not to take it on that day.

Cannot the Government put the Code debate immediately after the Railway Accidents Bill on the Orders of the Day?

I will consider that point.

In asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1893, I may briefly explain that it embodies some small amendments which the experience of administration has proved to be necessary in the various Education Acts. Without going through each clause in detail I may say that there is, for instance, an amendment as to the fee grant, providing that the average attendance shall be calculated according to the Code at the time being in force, instead of according to the Code of 1891. Powers are given to guardians to contribute to the expenses of public elementary schools in those cases where the poor law children are to any extent sent to those schools. There is a provision to relieve the parishes in the jurisdiction of the School Board from contributing, as they do now, twice over towards the blind and deaf children in their districts, and in the matter of compulsory attendance the maximum penalty is raised from 5s. to 20s. Finally, there is another important amendment raising the number of attendances for obtaining what is known as the dunces' certificate from 250 to 350; and there is a section empowering the local authorities to make bye-laws affecting the school attendance of children up to the age of fourteen instead of thirteen.

I have to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to burial grounds. It carries out the recommendations of the Committee which in 1898 sat upon the Burial Acts, under the chairmanship of my hon. friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, and which came to a substantially fair agreement on the points which for years had been engaging the attention of the House. I think it would be a great pity if this House did not take the opportunity of endeavouring to settle some of these questions at any rate. During the autumn I had the honour of receiving a deputation composed of what I may call the contending parties, and they were entirely at one in urging the Government to introduce a Bill based on the recommendations of the Committee, and assuring me if it were introduced it would be approached by them with a desire to bring about an amicable settlement. I have therefore to ask leave to introduce this Bill. It does not, as I told the deputation, propose to consolidate or amend the whole law. That would be a rather too ambitious attempt on my part, but I hope it will go a considerable way towards it. Dealing with the two separate parts into which the Burial Acts may be divided, it leaves the whole ecclesiastical side to the Home Office, and the whole sanitary and financial part to the Local Government Board. It is hoped that by that means the present conflict of authority and confusion of interest may be avoided. Substantially, the whole of the recommendations of the Select Committee, with the exception of two or three points which appear to be outside the general tenor of the Report, are embodied in the Bill.

I have to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to sea fisheries. I may explain that the Bill is one which has been before the House under another designation, which was open to considerable criticism. I think the present title is more appropriate. The object is to prevent the present destruction of small and immature fish, which, according to the Report of the Sea Fisheries Committees, can be used for no other purpose except that of manure. This object the Bill proposes to effect by prohibiting the sale of such fish, in accordance not only with the representation of the Fishmongers' Company, but with the recommendation of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. A law of this kind is in existence in nearly all the great European countries, and I am satisfied that if the supply of a very valuable food for the people is to be increased, it is necessary to follow the example of Continental Legislatures by limiting the size of fish that may be sold. At the same time it will put a stop to operations which are causing much injury to the various fisheries.

Will the Bill apply to Ireland?

Yes.

Does the Bill propose to place any restriction on the operations of trawlers within a certain distance of our coasts?

No, except so far as it prevents them selling fish below a certain size.

May I——

Order, order!

I only want to put a question.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire has already spoken since the question was put. Further questions are very apt to develop into debate.

Is it not allowable to ask a question?

Only, as the hon. Member for Cork did, while the right hon. Gentleman introducing the Bill sat down.

The object of the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper, and which I now move, is to exempt Ireland from the reimposition of the tea duty. In the first instance, the history of this tea duty in Ireland is rather interesting. Before 1817 the tea duty in Ireland was, compared with that of England, very small indeed. As well as my recollection serves me, it was four or five times as large in England as in Ireland, but in 1817, as part of the scheme of robbing Ireland, as we believe, this tax was equalised in the two countries. In 1890 the tax was reduced to 4d., and now it is proposed to increase the existing taxation 50 per cent., and raise it to 6d. As well as we can estimate, the additional amount raised from Ireland will be £250,000. The production from this tax in the year ending 31st March, 1899, in Ireland was £564,000, and therefore it is a fair estimate to say that the amount produced in Ireland from this addition to the taxation on tea may be about £250,000. I am glad to have an opportunity of very briefly alluding to one or two matters raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate upon this Irish financial question the other night. At the close of the debate, and without any warning or notice whatever, he put forward a number of entirely new statements and quoted a number of figures which, on the spur of the moment, it was impossible for us on these benches without examination and inquiry to deal with. On this question the right hon. Gentleman laid it down that the English consumption was 5¼lb. per head of the population, producing a tax of 1s. 9d., and that the Irish consumption was 6½ lb. per head, producing 2s. 2d.^* That is to say, that, taking the case of an Irish family, say, of six persons, the amount paid under the old tax would be 13s., and now, under this proposal, that tax is to be raised on the Irish family to 19s. 6d. The right hon. Gentleman laid down, I think, an extraordinary proposition when he argued that the larger consumption of tea in Ireland was, forsooth, something in the nature of an argument in favour of Irish prosperity and Irish ability to pay the tax. The large consumption of tea in Ireland is a proof of the poverty of the people instead of a proof of their prosperity. It is the very cheapest drink they can obtain—something like 2d. a gallon—and it is probably the cheapest food upon which any human being can maintain life. It does seem to me that the argument is entirely the other way, and that the large consumption of tea in Ireland is a proof of the poverty and not the prosperity of the people, and of their inability rather than their ability to bear this additional impost. The right hon. Gentleman laid down and elaborated the principle which underlies really the whole or a very large part of the financial injustice under which Ireland suffers, when he propounded the old doctrine that identity of impost is the same as identity of burden. That was the fallacy underlying Mr. Gladstone's policy in 1853. It is the policy which underlies the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. In his speech he declared that anything in the nature of differential taxation of the same articles as between England and Ireland was a principle which could never be accepted. He went on to say—

"That is a demand on the part of Ireland to occupy the position and to exercise the power of a governing part of this great Empire, and

^* See page 123 of this Volume.

not to bear an equal share in its burdens. That is a demand which strikes at the root of our whole system of common taxation… that system is essential to our common welfare."

He then went on to make the utterly erroneous statement that the principle of identity of taxation, under the Act of this Parliament in 1816, had been agreed to, forsooth, by the Irish people through their representatives. Let me ask upon that question, first of all, what was the contract—if it can be dignified by the name—entered into under the Act of Union? It was that Ireland, with a population of about one-half as large as that of Great Britain, was to pay two-seventeenths of the total taxation, or about one against three and a half per head paid by the inhabitants of Great Britain. That was a ridiculously unfair proportion to fix, and every financial authority who has spoken or given evidence on this question—even those against our claim at the present moment—admits that that was an unfair proportion when it was fixed. As a matter of fact, Ireland was never able to pay it. But let us imagine for a moment that it was a fair proportion. Having regard to the change in the number of the population of the two countries, we are paying very much more than that proportion to-day. Taking into account the population of Ireland, the proportion, which was one against three and a half at the time of the Union, had altered by 1859 to one against two, while in 1897 it was one against 1·6. If the Irish demand to-day were strictly limited to that contract, which was admittedly an absurdly unjust and unfair one, our position to-day would be that we are treated even on the standard of that contract unfairly and unjustly. Could anything have been more ridiculous than the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the imposition of identical taxation in 1816 had the consent of Ireland? As was pointed out on the spur of the moment by one of the Irish Members, in 1816 we had not Catholic emancipation. That was answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with an allusion to something done in the sixties. But Ireland in the sixties was not represented in this House any more fairly than she was before Catholic emancipation. It was not until 1885 that the masses of the Irish people were really represented in this House. The right hon. Gentleman would lead the House to believe from his argument that the assent of Ireland to this arrangement in 1816 was an essential condition of the contract. If it was, we have a right to withdraw from the contract now, when we find that it is unjust and oppressive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that this was an attempt of the Irish people to fix the taxation on Great Britain. He denounced that as a ridiculous and unjust thing. But what is he doing? He is allowing Great Britain to fix the taxation of Ireland. If one is unjust, I contend the other is equally so. Let me say one word in continuation of this point. What has been the result of this imposition of identical taxation upon Ireland? It has been absolutely ruinous. I never heard a more superficial and unsatisfactory speech than was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman upon this point. He attempted, forsooth, to prove that Ireland is to-day rapidly increasing in prosperity and wealth, when it is common knowledge that by comparison with any other nation in the world, Ireland has been retrograding instead of advancing. The right hon. Gentleman alluded with pride and satisfaction to the fact that emigration from Ireland was diminishing. Yes, thank God, it is. The emigration cannot go on for ever at the rate it has been going on for many decades past. Naturally it must, to some extent, diminish in volume, because the population left in the country has diminished by one half. But even this consolation the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to. He quoted the emigration figures for 1898, and pointed to the fact that only 32,000 had emigrated in that year, fie did not give the figures for 1899, which show an increase of emigration from 32,000 to 42,000. So that even upon that point the right hon. Gentleman's figures were misleading and inadequate. In talking of this question of depopulation, he alluded to some rural parts of England in which he knew the agricultural population was diminishing. Did he really put that forward as a reasonable argument? We are not talking about the depopulation of any particular district in Ireland. We are talking of the depopulation of the country taken as a whole. The country taken as a whole shows a terribly diminishing population, and to say because in England, where the population is increasing from year to year by leaps and bounds, there may be a particular rural district the population of which is diminishing, that that is any answer, is really unworthy as an argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke also of the receipts from railway traffic——

Order, order! The hon. Member must be aware that the rules of the House preclude references to previous debates in the same session. The hon. Member must also understand that in strictness he is bound by the limits of the present Amendment to the position of Great Britain and Ireland with regard to the increase of the tea duty.

To take the second point first, I am arguing that this additional impost upon tea should not be put upon Ireland, because of the poverty of her people which makes them unable to bear it. With regard to the other point, I will not further allude to the right hon. Gentleman, but I will say that a distinguished financier has recently made these statements. A distinguished gentleman recently stated that the railway receipts in Ireland had increased by 25 per cent. in ten years.

I rise to order. What on earth has this to do with the tea duty?

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to evade my ruling by so transparent an artifice.

I do not understand. The point put to you, Sir, as a point of order, is, whether I am entitled to discuss the question of the receipts for railway rates. On that point I would submit to you that anything which shows the inability of Ireland to bear taxation is a relevant argument on the proposal to increase her taxation.

The hon. Member is entitled to argue the general poverty of the resources of Ireland.

Then, Sir, if anyone says that these receipts from railway traffic have increased in the last ten years by 25 per cent., I should call attention to the fact that mileage has increased by 12½ per cent., and that the rate of increase per mile has in ten years been only 4 per cent.—a smaller increase than will be found in any other country in Europe or in the world. Take the case of joint-stock companies in Ireland. It is said as a proof of the prosperity of Ireland that they have doubled in number in the last ten years, but it is left out of account altogether that included in that category are those innumerable co-operative societies which have been established in Ireland, the establishment of which, though they may be most useful in their way, cannot be regarded as in themselves a proof of the increased prosperity of the people. Savings bank deposits have been alluded to as a proof of increased prosperity and of Ireland's ability to bear taxation. Savings bank deposits show in ten years an increase of 4¼ millions, but in the same ten years there has been a decrease of 6½ millions in Government funds and Indian stocks, so that if you take the question of the prosperity of the country as a whole, the decrease in this kind of investments may be set against the increase with regard to savings banks. I content myself with this general statement: that the picture which was recently put before this House and the country of Ireland as a rapidly improving and prosperous country is a grossly exaggerated one, and by every test which the ingenuity of man may suggest Ireland is unable to bear this additional taxation which is proposed. This Budget, even if it were a fair one for Great Britain, is a glaringly unfair one for Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has defended this Budget on the ground that he is raising £8,000,000 from direct taxation and only £6,000,000 from indirect. This is 57 per cent. from direct and 43 per cent. from indirect taxation. I admit candidly that for a War Budget that is a very plausible statement to be able to make. If the right hon. Gentleman has to provide a War Budget, then I think the proportion of direct to indirect taxation which he lays down is a reasonable one. But so far as the application of this Budget to Ireland is concerned, that statement is an absolute and complete misrepresentation. In Ireland the application of the Budget will work out in this way. The direct taxation raised will be only 33 per cent. of the whole, and the indirect taxation will be 67 per cent. of the whole. I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to get accurate figures and accurate estimates. The income tax produced in Ireland last year £704,000. It is proposed to increase it by 50 per cent., producing £300,000. The tea duty produced last year £564,000; the increase of 50 per cent. will be £250,000. Tobacco produced £1,201,000, and the increase of 12½ per cent. will produce £150,000. Beer produced £773,000; an increase of 15 per cent. gives £100,000, and an increase of 5 per cent. on spirits gives £100,000 more, making in all about £900,000 as a result of this increased budget upon Ireland. These figures, if they are correct, show that Ireland will be paying £300,000, or 33 per cent., of direct taxation, and £600,000, or 67 per cent. of indirect taxation, whereas in Great Britain the proportions are reversed, and Great Britain will be paying only 43 per cent., of indirect and 57 per cent. of direct. So that the main argument upon which the right hon. Gentleman defended this Budget, namely, that there was a fair and equitable distinction between the amount to be borne by indirect and direct taxation, falls to the ground altogether when you apply it to the case of Ireland. It seems to me that in itself is a strong argument why this increase of the duty on tea should be omitted. I would suggest what would be a fair thing for him to do. Why cannot Ireland be treated the same as Great Britain in this Budget? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be content to raise only the same proportion of direct and indirect taxation that he is raising in Great Britain? If he would be content to do that, he would to some extent at any rate mitigate the injustice which I think he is perpetrating on the country. If he did that, he could do it by levying direct taxation in Ireland as it is under his proposal at £300,000, and by keeping only the beer and spirit duties—£200,000 more—and confining his demand upon Ireland to these three items. Then the taxation upon Ireland would fall in exactly the same proportion as he proposes it should fall upon England, and he would in that way save Ireland from the imposition on her poor people of this harsh additional tax on tea and on tobacco. Of course we take the position that we object to pay a single penny of additional taxation, for the double reason that we think we are overtaxed already, and that we object to the object to which the money is to be devoted. Of course, we know as practical politicians we cannot defeat this Budget. We are powerless to do so. All we are able to do is to register our protest in the division lobby. If we, as practical men, can get any alleviation for Ireland, I think we ought to do our best, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do what I think is a reasonable thing, let the taxation direct and indirect fall in the same proportion as in England, that will be a relief to our country. It will diminish the total amount of the additional taxation, and it will remove to some extent the sense of injustice under which we suffer. For these reasons, I beg to move this Amendment, and I invite the serious and sympathetic attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said that having no special knowledge in matters of finance he should not have intervened in the debate except for the fact that the increase on the duty upon tea very greatly affected a large number of the inhabitants of Donegal, to whom tea was not so much a luxury as an actual article of food. The class of people whom he represented were the poorest in the world. In this question of finance he noticed one of the most cruel instances of the injustice which was done to Ireland by the Government, as was shown by the fact that the whole of the Irish representatives were voting against the extra taxation of their own country, and being out-voted by the majority of the House, who would not have to pay the tax which they were imposing. With regard to the way in which it affected his constituency, he drew attention to the fact that in 1896 a Committee sat to consider the incidence of taxation between the two countries, and in the Majority Report, which was signed by Mr. Childers, one of the greatest financial authorities of his day, it was stated that the same system of taxation falling on the two countries had the effect of making Ireland contribute about £2,500,000 in excess of what she ought to contribute. The Report pointed out that, if the wealth per head of one country was much less than that of the other, the tax upon taxable articles would fall very heavily upon the poorer country of the two. The main cause of the inequality of taxation between Great Britain and Ireland might be said to be tea, tobacco, and spirits, which were all heavily taxed, and the consumption of which in Ireland was equal to the consumption in Great Britain, except in the case of tea, which was consumed to a larger extent in Ireland than here, and in the case of all these articles, while the tax remained the same in both countries, the wealth with which to purchase them was less in Ireland than in Great Britain. To refer to the effect of the tea duty in Donegal, he called attention to the fact that Mr. O'Donnell gave evidence before the Commission, and he insisted strongly on the fact that tea was the food of the Donegal peasant, and that it was cruel to exact a large duty in regard to it. His evidence showed that there was a large increase in the consumption of tea even in the congested districts, and that it was not unusual for the peasants to have tea and bread at two out of their three daily meals. How could the Chancellor of the Exchequer tax those unfortunate people by an additional two pence a pound on tea? They had heard a good deal about the scarcity of milk in Kimberley during the siege, but the peasants of Ireland could not get milk because it had to be sold for the benefit of the landlord. The evidence proved that the poor people of Ireland did not have meat more than two or three times a year, while in Great Britain the great mass of the population habitually consumed butcher's meat, and even in Scotland the food of the poor was much superior to what it was in Ireland. Those poor peasants were the persons who were to be the victims of the extra taxes in order to support the stockjobbers in the City. Tea was absolutely vital to the very existence of the poor in Ireland, and Dr. O'Donnell was not the only person who bore testimony to this fact. Sir Edward Hamilton was examined by Mr. Sexton, and he was asked, if Irishmen were unable to indulge in luxuries which paid no taxes such as beef and bacon, and had to resort to tea and dry bread, how could that be proof of the taxable capacity of Irishmen, and he replied that he hardly thought that tea was a substitute for beef or bacon, and that although he would not say that tea and alcoholic drinks were luxuries yet they were rather expensive tastes in which Irishmen indulged. With what heart could men who in the whole course of a long life never knew what it was to be hungry, increase the burdens on those poor people who were in a chronic state of want—a condition, too, which was the direct result of English misgovernment? To gentlemen in easy circumstances of life it was, he knew, very difficult to realise that one shilling, sixpence, or even one penny made a vast difference with these poor peasants. An increase of two pence in one pound of tea was of far more consequence than £10,000 to many Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They were taxing these peasants with a high hand as much against their wishes as if all the Irishmen were expelled from the House. To talk of the grievances of the money-grubbing Uitlanders in the Transvaal in the same breath when they were imposing this additional taxation on the poor Irish peasants was cruel hypocrisy. He never spoke in a debate of this kind without recollecting reading of the historic scenes when Daniel O'Connell—who was praised now so much for his moderation and loyalty—made his last speech in the House. By the courtesy of the House he was permitted in his weakness to address the House from the seat on the Treasury Bench where the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now sitting, and, in accents nearly inaudible, he said, on the eve of the famine, that he was asking for bread for his people. And now the Government, whose members never knew what want was, had the face to prey on the vitals of the Irish poor to pay for a vile and infamous war.

said it had been proved to demonstration that tea was a necessity of the Irish people. It could not be called an expensive taste or, least of all, a luxury. If there was one axiom in regard to general taxation more than another conceded by all authorities, it was that, as far as possible, the indirect taxation on commodities which were necessaries of life should be reduced, and on the other hand that direct taxation on property and wealth should be increased, so far as consistent with justice. That principle was grossly violated in the present Budget, and, in regard to Ireland, violated in the most unconscionable manner. It had been proved that the increase of 2d. in the lb. on the tea duty would amount in Ireland to £250,000, which was a startling sum to levy from the very poorest of the poor. If tea was a necessary to the poor washerwoman and the factory hand in this country, it was an article of still greater necessity to a much larger proportion of the population of Ireland at the present moment. Milk was scarcer in Ireland than in London, because the great portion of it was exported or converted into butter, and the consumption of tea was therefore cheaper than milk, and it had become the staple food of the people eked out with potatoes and Indian meal. It was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the enormous consumption of tea in Ireland was a proof of the prosperity of the country; but he had never heard a more fallacious argument from an intelligent statesman. Instead of that, it was a proof directly the other way—that the poor people had been driven to the use of tea as a substitute for other things. If they could eat their own bacon, or beef, or mutton, as the prosperous working classes in Great Britain did, tea would not form such a large item in the expenditure of the households of Ireland. Sir Edward Hamilton had furnished some figures to the Royal Commission as to taxation from 1819 to 1894; and these figures had been scrutinised by Treasury experts, who could not be accused of sympathy with Irish views on the matter. These figures proved that the indirect taxation on commodities had increased from about 11s. per head of the population in 1819 to something like £1 2s. at the present day; whereas there was an enormous decrease during the same period in the taxation levied on commodities in Great Britain. How could they with any justice or sense of fair play ask an increase of 100 per cent. on the indirect taxation of the poor people of Ireland? It might be said that if they were not to impose the tea duty in Ireland they would have to establish a Customs barrier between the two countries. Well, why not? That was, one of the things Irish Members were contending for. Their complaint was, when the old Customs regulations were abolished in the twenties, Ireland was deprived of the great part of the trade between Great Britain and Ireland. They could not at present tell whether Irish exports were or were not progressing. The argument might be used that the abolition of the duty on tea in Ireland would involve a separate Irish Custom House or department, but at present Customs officers in Ireland were underworked, their duties were light, and their hours were short, and there ought to be no difficulty whatever in the way of establishing regulations which would permit of a higher duty on tea in Great Britain than in Ireland. He thought an unanswerable case had been made out as regarded that aspect of the case. If there were one thing more striking than another in the Budget it was that the present time should have been selected in order to increase the duty on tea. Not long ago one of the great principles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to give a free breakfast table; instead of that he now proposed to increase its cost. But, of course, they could not have their cake and eat it—they could not go to war and expect not to pay for it. What had become of all the economic reformers who were so earnest for the reform of finance ten or twelve years ago? Was no protest to be raised except by the Irish Members against this system of taxation? They might naturally expect the help of their friends the Irish Unionists, who a year or two ago with commendable public spirit joined them in an endeavour to reform the financial relations. Surely they ought to come forward and join in protesting against all the increases, not least against the increase of duty on an article which was a necessary article of food to the great bulk of the Irish people.

The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who moved this Amendment, has paid me a very high compliment, because he occupied practically the whole of his speech not with reasons in support of the Amendment, but in replying to some observations which it was my duty to address to the House on Thursday last on the debate on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland. The hon. and learned Member did not reply on that occasion, although possibly his reply might have influenced the result of the debate, so that I can only suppose that my statements were so difficult to answer that he postponed replying until this evening. I will not follow the hon. and learned Member for Waterford into the subject, which is indirectly connected no doubt—but only indirectly connected—with the Amendment before the Committee. The standpoint from which he and hon. Members below the gangway approach this matter is utterly different from mine. They persist in all matters of taxation in treating Ireland as a separate country. I treat it as part of the United Kingdom, and from that point of view I am utterly unable to see why the poor man in Ireland should pay less duty on tea than the poor man in either England or Scotland. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford was good enough to make a proposal to me. He said that result of this increased taxation Ireland would have to pay £900,000. I think it is extremely difficult to tell exactly how much will fall on Ireland, or, as I would prefer to say, on the Irish taxpayers, but that is not an unfair estimate. The hon. and learned Member says that this additional taxation is too much for Ireland, but he is good enough to offer me £300,000 from the income tax, and £200,000 from indirect taxation, reducing the contribution of Ireland to £400,000. The total additional taxation levied in the United Kingdom would then be £13,800,000, and of that Ireland would pay about one-twenty-seventh or considerably less than according even to the much quoted Report of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations her taxable capacity would enable her to pay. I do not think I need dwell; on the fairness or unfairness of that proposal. The hon. Member for South Donegal said that as his constituents were exceptionally poor and excessively fond of tea the tax was exceptionally hard on them. I said on Thursday last that the amount of tea consumed in Ireland per head of the population was very considerably greater than in England and Scotland, and that that was no proof of the poverty of Ireland. That view is, I think, one that would have been accepted by the framers of the Act of Union, because it is a curious fact that among the alternatives which the framers of the Seventh Article of the Act of Union suggested to the proportion of 2 to 15 as the respective contributions of Ireland and Great Britain was a calcu- lation based on the amount of tobacco, tea, spirits, wine, beer, and sugar consumed in the respective countries, and therefore obviously at that time they did consider that the amount of the consumption of these articles was a test of the taxable capacities of the two countries.

They were a more meat-eating population.

I cannot agree in that opinion of the hon. Member. I did not quote the extra consumption of tea in Ireland as a proof of the prosperity of Ireland. What I said, if I remember aright, was that the fact that a greater amount of tea per head was consumed in Ireland was certainly, as far as it went, a proof that the tax upon it did not fall harder on Irishmen than on Englishmen or Scotchmen. I think that is a perfectly fair argument, to deduce from the fact to which hon. Gentlemen have referred. There is one part of this question which was not referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, though it was referred to by the hon. Member for North Cork. The hon. and learned Member did not refer to the fact that if we were to have one rate of duty on tea in Great Britain and another rate in Ireland, we must have a system of custom houses between the two countries. The hon. Member for North Cork suggested that the old system of separate custom houses should be restored in order that more accurate statistics might be obtained of the commerce of Ireland. But under that system it is perfectly obvious that, Ireland, as far as trade was concerned, would be a foreign country as compared with Great Britain, and that the trade between Ireland and Great Britain would have to be dealt with as a foreign trade. That we should have to establish custom houses between the two countries is not, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, an objection at all. For my part I think that no more fatal proposal either for Ireland or Great Britain could be suggested. It may be felt by the poorer classes in Ireland that the addition of 2d. per lb. to the duty on tea is a serious burden, but it would be an infinitely worse thing for them to have separate custom houses.

Why?

Because separate custom houses between the two countries were found intolerable in days when communication and trade between them were as nothing compared to what they are now. We have now all kinds of facilities by railways, steamships, and other means of communication between the two countries which did not then exist, and nothing could be more destructive of Irish commerce and industry than separate custom houses between Great Britain and Ireland. I am told, for example, there is an important establishment in Belfast, a great part of whose business is concerned in the distribution of tea in small quantities in Scotland as well as in Ireland. Separate custom houses would absolutely stop this, and really I am unable to understand the desire which some hon. Members from Ireland seem to entertain to establish what, from my point of view, would be a far worse thing for Ireland than any of the increased taxation proposed in this Budget. I think if hon. Gentlemen from Ireland object to this additional tea duty, their simpler course is to divide against the clause. Their proposal is absolutely impracticable, and would be an injury and not a benefit to Ireland.

I confess that although I am going to support this clause and this duty in the Budget proposal, I support it most unwillingly. But this is part of a war taxation, and it seems to me essential that all classes of the community should contribute towards it. It would be a very great encouragement to war if you exempted a large class of the community from all the burden of the war, and that being so it is quite plain that there would be a very large class in this country who would not pay income tax, who would not pay beer and spirit duty, and who would not pay tobacco duty. It is no doubt a misfortune, but one of the misfortunes that accompanies this war is that this tax falls upon the poorest class of the community, both in Ireland and in England. I have always recognised the fact that Ireland is a poor community. You may say of it that it is part of the same nation, but you must distinguish it as a poor community. We have poor communities of the same kind, though more scattered, in England, but you are unable to make a differential taxation for a poor community in England, or, for the same reason, for a poor community such as Ireland. But no doubt it is much more easy where you have a poor community collected as it is collected in Ireland. There are large bodies quite as poor in the metropolis and in other towns in England who would equally deserve exemption; I have stated that reasoning before, and I will not enlarge on it now. I was very much struck with the argument stated this afternoon by the hon. Member for Waterford as to the contrast between the relative incidence of direct and indirect taxation in England and in Ireland. I have always attributed great importance to the keeping up of a due proportion between direct and indirect taxation. We have been labouring in that direction and not without success in England for many years. I do not say that we have accomplished all that is to be done in that direction in England; but there is not the smallest doubt that from the character of the population of Ireland indirect taxation falls there with a much heavier proportionate weight, and if I saw any method of correcting that in Ireland I should be very much disposed to support it. But I have always felt exactly what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, that you could not create a differential duty on tea or any other commodity in England and in Ireland without bringing back the old customs system between the two countries. The removal of that inconvenience did not go as far back as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. It was only removed when the English and Irish duty on spirits was finally equalised in 1858, followed by what was done by Mr. Gladstone in previous years. Therefore, down to that date there did exist a customs barrier between England and Ireland. I admit that this is a very great fiscal inconvenience, and until you can arrive at some method by which you can relieve the poorer classes of the community from the weight of indirect taxation that falls upon them as a much heavier burden, both in England and Ireland, we must seek some remedy which has not yet been proposed. Therefore, I should have been very glad if, both for the sake of the poorer classes in England and Ireland, I could have voted against the increase of the tea duty, but for the reason I have stated, this being a war tax, which must press, and which ought to press, upon all classes of the community, I feel bound to support the proposed increase in the duty.

said the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated that this was a war tax, and that the imposition of a war tax upon all classes of the community was necessary in order to inculcate upon them a proper sense of the responsibilities of war. They wanted no such stimulus in Ireland in regard to this war. They were not responsible for the war. They did not believe in it. There was an old maxim that said, "He that calls the tune must pay the piper." This was a case of making the party pay the piper who had no voice whatever in calling the tune. The right hon. Gentleman must not expect that those at any rate in that quarter of the House would regard it as any consolation for the increase of the tea duty that it was calculated to impress upon individual Irishmen a proper sense of responsibility in connection with this war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had found out a new consolation for the injustice of this tax. He told them that it was a tax not upon Ireland but upon Irishmen. That was the sum and substance of the argument upon which he had founded his refusal to recognise Ireland as a separate fiscal entity. He said that to raise this question of the fiscal separation of Ireland in this debate was to renew the question of the financial relations between the two countries. If this tax was unjust, he could hardly expect them to be reconciled to it when he told them that it was not Ireland that was being unjustly taxed, but that it was individual Irishmen who had the burden to bear. He could wish no worse fate to the Unionists in that House than that they should be compelled to acknowledge that they could not maintain the Union except in the manner in which this tax had been inflicted upon Ireland. That was what the right hon. Gentleman's argument came to on this point. He said that as long as Ireland was a portion of the Empire they could not differentiate England and Ireland in this matter. It had been demonstrated that this, amongst other incidents of their fiscal system, was unjust to Ireland. It certainly would not in the least reconcile them to that state of things to be told that injustice was a necessary incident of the relations between the two countries. On the contrary, they believed that this fiscal injustice which was inflicted upon them was one of the strongest reasons for impressing upon the House and the country the demand they had made in regard to the relations existing between the two countries both in point of finance and in point of legislation. He did not quite understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in respect to the question raised by the hon. Member for Waterford. The hon. Member for Waterford took occasion, as was inevitable, to reply to some observations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in a previous debate. Whatever the rules of the House might be, it was almost impossible to debate the question raised by this Amendment, without referring to topics dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night. He did not understand whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer that night did or did not continue to maintain the view that the increased consumption of tea in Ireland, and the increased proportion in which tea was consumed in Ireland as compared with England was a proof that Ireland had become more prosperous, and was not in a position to refuse to pay the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the makers of the union would have recognised that argument, and he said that one of the alternatives proposed by the authors of the Act of Union was to take a number of articles and estimate the relative consumption of those articles in the two countries, and base the fiscal system on the relative consumption. The hon. Member could understand that that would be a fair and proper method of calculating taxation, because it would take a very large number of different articles, or at any rate more than one, and the fallacy——

All these articles were subjects of taxation previous to the present Budget.

said the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the point he was making. He was demonstrating the fact that the consumption of tea in Ireland had increased, and that its consumption in Ireland was relatively greater than the consumption in Great Britain. He believed it was a fact that the consumption of tea had increased in Ireland. Perhaps it was also true that the increase in the consumption of tea had been coincident with somewhat increased prosperity amongst the labouring class in Ireland, but he did not think there had been any increase in the rate of wages amongst the labouring class in Ireland if they took the last twenty years. If they took the last fifty years there had been a substantial increase in the rate at which the labouring class had been paid, but was it just to connect these two phenomena—the increase in wages within the last fifty years, and the increase in the consumption of tea—and argue that the one was the result of the other? The fact was quite the opposite. The increased consumption of tea by the Irish labourer indicated a worse condition of the people. It meant a transition from a healthy diet to an unhealthy diet. Now the food of the Irish labourer was very largely bread and tea. Could anyone argue that this state of things represented an improvement in diet. Any doctor, and any man who had studied the subject of diet, would say that a diet of potatoes and milk aided by meal was a far more healthy diet than a diet of white bread supplemented by tea. The past fifty years had seen an entire change in the conditions of local life. Increased facilities of transit enabled farmers to get much better prices for milk, eggs and butter. As long as the farmer was not able to get these better prices, milk was a common article of diet with the labouring people, but that was no longer the case. The same might be said with regard to eggs and butter. The general diet now was bread and tea, and that could only result in the deterioration of the mental and physical capacities of the Irish labouring population. Tea was the vulnerable point of the Budget. Less could be said in favour of this tax than of any other which it was proposed to increase, and if the Budget in this particular was unjust and mischievous to the poorer classes in England, it was much more so when it came to be applied to the poorer classes in Ireland. No one could read the evidence given before the Financial Relations Commission without being struck by the enormous proportion of the population of Ireland who lived in a condition of abject poverty such as was not known in England. Tea entered into the domestic life in Ireland to a degree not at all equalled in any other part of the United Kingdom. It might be argued that if the people abstained from drinking tea or whisky they would be relieved of these taxes, and it might be better for them, but these financial questions had to be argued with regard not to the moral results produced by the taxes, but to the fiscal effects. This increased tea duty would further impoverish the people of Ireland, especially the poorer classes. The Irish Nationalist representatives would never regard as a reason for not protesting against such a tax, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not redress the injustice without changing his fiscal system, or without ceasing to regard Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. If such an injustice as that against which he was protesting could be remedied only by granting Ireland Home Rule, or by establishing a separate Customs House, that was the strongest possible reason why those demands should emanate from the Irish Members. For the reasons he had given, he should heartily support the mover of this Amendment.

could not see, judging from the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the people of Ireland need expect any redress from the present Government of the financial injustice under which they suffered. England had enormously increased in wealth and population, while Ireland had greatly diminished in those respects, and yet they were to be treated on exactly the same basis as when a different state of things obtained. Any taxation which aggravated the wretched condition of the Irish people was an evil and a crime. No juggling with figures could convince anybody who knew Ireland that the people were not miserably poor. The number of paupers in the workhouses and of lunatics in the asylums was increasing in an enormous degree year by year, and he believed that the lunacy was largely attributable to the wretchedness of the diet. The physique of the Irish people was suffering from the same cause, combined with emigration. The best of the bone and sinew of the country went to other lands, leaving behind the weaker and unhealthy members of the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently pinned his faith to the doctrine that the present system of indirect taxation was fair to the people of Ireland, but it was admitted by most students of political economy that identity of taxation did not imply equality of burden; and that was one of the points of view from which this question should be considered. Where there were two countries in which the habits and tastes of the respective peoples were altogether different, it was very difficult for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to sit down and select articles on which to impose taxation which should be felt equally in both countries. When the union between England and Ireland was discussed——

The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the tea duty.

said he wanted to explain how difficult it was for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to find articles common to both countries, upon which the same tax could equitably be imposed. In Ireland, tea as an article of cheap diet has become a necessity to the bulk of the people, and more of it per head is consumed than in England. The poor of Ireland mainly subsist on tea and bread; they very rarely indeed are able to procure animal food. Hence the poor of Ireland will be harder hit by this war tax on tea than the people of Great Britain. Was it not an irony of fate that the people of Ireland, who opposed this war as being unnecessary and unjust, should be more heavily taxed than the rest of the United Kingdom in order to contribute towards its enormous expenditure? He protested against the proposed extra tax upon tea, and heartily supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.

No doubt it is true that the proportion of indirect to direct taxation, to a certain extent, has been altered by this particular Clause in the Bill. I have taken very great interest in these forms of taxation, and I have always felt that the true policy should be to read just them equally, and that we have done now for several years. It is true that this Budget alters that, more especially in the poorer districts, where the increased taxation falls more heavily upon the poor than upon the rich, although it is, to some extent, counterbalanced by other duties. But this is quite as true in the poorer districts of England, and in many parts of my own constituency and other places the change which this Budget involves does largely increase the relative proportion paid by indirect to direct taxation. Where the poor live very largely upon certain articles which are heavily taxed, and where they consume alcohol and spirits, any alteration of the taxes upon those articles must largely affect the relative proportion of those two items of taxation; and although my right hon. friend says we have adjusted it by the large increase in the income tax, still that does not affect the poor in any way. But the fact remains that nobody can suggest any possible scheme which would do away altogether with this anomaly; and so long as that is the case no one can claim that in order to get an accurate tax all round we should do away with this taxation upon alcohol. We should keep our eyes most carefully upon the relative proportions of direct and indirect taxation, because any increase of indirect taxation is a great hardship on the poor. The present Budget is fair because it tends to make every class pay their share towards this war. Although the people do not like to pay taxation, it would be very unwise if, after having indulged in a war, we allowed any section of the community to avoid any part in the payment for that war.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that all classes of the community should be called upon to defray some portion of the cost of this war, and that all classes were ready if not anxious to do so. As far as the Irish people are concerned that statement has no foundation. We are not anxious to contribute one shilling towards the cost of this war, which we regard as iniquitous and unjust, and we think it is an intolerable grievance that Irish taxpayers should be called upon to pay for it. But if Ireland is to be taxed for this war and further bled, why, in the name of all that is humane and reasonable, do you not endeavour to raise your taxes in Ireland in some way which will not fall heavily upon the very poorest class of people in the country? It would be quite out of order to allude at any length to the proposed taxation in this Bill upon spirits and beer. I do not propose to do so until the proper time comes. But whatever is to be said against the taxing of alcohol, there is nothing to be said for putting an increased tax upon tea, especially in Ireland. Tea in Ireland is almost as necessary as bread, for it is the common article of diet from one end of the country to the other; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to spend all his intelligence in endeavouring to discover what would be most disastrous to the people of Ireland, and fall most heavily upon them, he could not have made any greater discovery in that direction than by coming to the conclusion to put a tax upon tea. We are often told that the Irish people indulge too much in alcohol. That is a statement which is perfectly untrue, and which the figures will not for a moment support. But, whether it be true or not, why, if you believe it to be true, should you discourage temperance by putting a tax upon what is the substitute for alcohol, and that is tea? It is a most unjust and unfair thing, and it is a surprising thing to me that the whole Liberal party are not prepared as one man to resist the imposition of taxation upon an article consumed by the poorest of the people. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for West Monmouthshire, spoke of the hardship that would be inflicted by this and other taxation on the poorest communities, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would be glad to have the poor communities relieved to some extent. We deny altogether the right of any statesman on either side to refer to Ireland as a poor community. The hon. Member for North Islington admitted that this would fall heavily upon the poorer classes in Ireland, but he said that there were equally poor classes in this country and amongst a portion of his own constituency. That is perfectly true no doubt, but the Irish people are entitled to separate and special treatment in the matter of taxation under the Articles of the Act of Union. I know that it would not be in order for me to discuss the provisions of the Act of Union, but I give it as one of my reasons against this fresh taxation that under that Act we were entitled to have special treatment, and under the special circumstances which exist I say it is a most unfair thing to put this additional tax upon the Irish people. I do not know exactly how much it is estimated that this fresh tax upon tea will realise, but I am perfectly certain that the amount required could have been obtained by taxing some other commodity which would not fall so heavily upon the poorer classes as the tax upon tea will do. I cannot describe this tax as anything but a cruel proposal, because it says to the very poorest people of the country that, in order to defray the expenses of this war, we will put a tax upon that article which you consume at every one of your meals. If this tax is carried through, I hope that every Irish man, woman, and child, whenever they taste a cup of tea, either in the morning, midday, or evening, will remember that while doing so they are compelled by the Government of this country to help to pay for the slaughter of their own kith and kin in South Africa. You talk about the valour of Irish soldiers abroad, and that valour is now to be rewarded by putting fresh taxation upon the Irish people, and you are making them pay for the blood of their own brave fellow-countrymen which has been shed in South Africa. This is not only cruel, but it is the height of meanness. It is about the meanest thing England has done towards Ireland—and that is saying a very great thing indeed—to say that the Irish people, the great majority of whom are utterly opposed to the policy of which this taxation is the outcome, should be called upon to pay for it This is not Ireland's war, but it is England's war, and the Irish people ought not to be asked to pay more for their tea in order to pay for the cost of a campaign with which they have had nothing to do. Why does not England accept this Amendment and exempt Ireland from fresh taxation on tea? Why does not England have the common decency to pay for her own bloodthirsty transactions without asking us to do so? If the people were in a position in Ireland they would be amply justified in refusing to pay a single penny of fresh taxation, and I believe that if you taxed any other article not so necessary as tea the consumption of that article would fall off. You know perfectly well that the people must drink tea, because there is no substitute to be had for it; and, therefore, I believe that tea is selected by the Government in order to wring fresh taxation from the Irish people. I can only say that the whole of this thing, in my opinion—and I do not care what hon. Gentlemen opposite or around me may think of my statement—is what I regard as common brigandage and plunder and pillage, and it is a cruel attempt to make people pay for transactions of which they do not approve. Although there is no doubt that this Finance Bill will pass, and Ireland will be taxed to the tune of an additional million of money to keep this war going, I say that sooner or later the time will come when not merely the people in Ireland, but the working classes of this country, will also object to be called upon to have their breakfast table taxed in order that a war for the benefit, not of the masses, but for a gang of millionaires may be carried on.

I think if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had increased the tax upon wine we should have had a much more lively discussion in this House. I do not look at this matter from an Irish standpoint. I think it was a great mistake to put a tax upon tea either in England or Scotland. The extra tax should have been put upon intoxicating drinks which are so largely consumed by the drunken patriots who sing "The Absent-minded Beggar" at music halls. You are now putting a tax upon the very men who are opposed to this war. I have a very strong personal feeling upon this matter as one who does not drink tea, as a non-smoker, and also as a non-drinker of alcohol, and I feel that I have been treated very badly in this matter. It is not necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest to me that we are paying the penalty for this war policy of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer turns to Ireland, and he finds there that the consumption of tea is larger than in England and Scotland, and so he puts his finger upon our country in order to raise this amount of money to defray the cost of this very unjust war. The hon. Member for South Belfast is now supporting a tax which presses very heavily upon the very poorest people in Ireland, and so he is as much to blame as any of the drunken jingoes who go to music-halls. Upon this question I agree in the main with what has been said by previous speakers. I remember a time not long ago when farm labourers used to consume wholesome food which would not have caused them to be overtaxed, but owing to changes over which the people themselves had no control tea has been substituted as an article of food. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have avoided this difficulty by putting a tremendous tax upon wines and spirits and other commodities of that kind, and I hope my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast will rise and support what I am putting before the Committee now. In Ireland we are opposed to this war. It is true that in certain parts of Belfast they have said that they are in favour of this war; but, nevertheless, they refuse to enlist. When I look through the lists of those who have been killed and wounded in this war——

The hon. Member will not be in order in referring to that subject.

I was only following in the lines of previous speakers. The tea-drinkers will find this tax press very heavily upon them. Nine-tenths of the people of Ireland are opposed to this war, and it is only in those parts of Ireland where they do not drink tea, but something stronger, that the war policy is supported.

That is a slander upon Belfast.

I have no desire to run counter to the ruling which has just been given. I look upon this tax upon tea not only as disastrous to Ireland, but also as having a very bad effect in England and Scotland, because you are showing to every sober man and woman in England, Scotland, and Ireland that the jingo policy of the present Government is one that presses unduly upon the people, and that the men who have been instrumental in causing this war are now trying to frame the Budget so as to escape taxation.

As I understand this Amendment, its object is to enter a protest against the imposition of this additional duty upon tea so far as Ireland is concerned. That Amendment has been met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a two-fold way. First he argued that this imposition was a just one, and he put the case assuming that it pressed unfairly or unequally on Ireland, yet he said that there were no means of rectifying it, because it was impossible to differentiate the duty on the same article in the two countries. If that were really so, I think it is particularly unfortunate that an article like tea should have been selected for this additional duty, so far, at all events, as Ireland is concerned, because of all the articles which could be made subject to duty there is none that the poorer classes of Ireland, from the north to the south or from the east to the west, will feel more severely. The tax will be felt not merely by those classes which have been referred to by my hon. friends below the gangway, but by innumerable other hardworking and most respectable people who are sure to feel this tax of two pence a pound on an article which is in constant daily consumption, and for them this tax becomes indeed a very large burden at the end of the week upon their small earnings of perhaps only a few shillings. These are the very people who, from a proper pride, shrink from going into the workhouse, while their position will be very seriously affected by this tax. That fact has not been controverted, and it will be no consolation to the classes to whom I have referred to hear that, in regard to this expensive war which has been embarked upon, every member of the community should feel the burden of it. I do not think that is an argument which will commend itself to them, while they feel more or less keenly its burden. Surely the resources of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this great Empire are not so scanty that some other tax could not have been devised which would have brought in the same amount of money. Even at this moment is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this particular tax upon tea as he has done in the case of brokers' notes? I challenge any hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to deny that, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, this tax will press more severely upon them than if it had been placed upon any other article, and more than any other species of taxation which could have been devised. If that be so, is it any argument to say that no matter how unjust or heavy this tax may be, inasmuch as you are linked with Great Britain, and inasmuch as this tax is just towards Great Britain, you must also bear it in Ireland, and bear it without murmur and complaint? You may make us bear it, but you cannot make us bear it without murmur or complaint. Is that a fair and statesman like argument? It ignores the fact altogether that, up to a very recent period, the duty on spirits was differentiated between the two countries, and there was no inconvenience resulting from it. For other purposes it became advisable to equalise those duties, but it was never put forward for the greater part of this century as an argument that it was impossible to differentiate between the two countries with regard to taxation upon spirits. Why the whole foundation of our fiscal system involves differentiation, and it is impossible to rely on that argument. The abatements and exemptions were specially provided for as between England and Ireland by the Act of Union and by the Act of 1816, and it was never contemplated that there should be a hard and fast rule which would make it imperative that whatever taxes were imposed in wealthy England they should also be equally borne by impoverished Ireland. There is nothing in the law which has altered that principle, and there is nothing in our constitution which provides that the taxation in Ireland should be equal. There is on the contrary a qualification that there should be certain abatements and exemptions under the different circumstances of the two countries. But if it were necessary to differentiate it most certainly ought to be done by selecting some other subject of taxation by which the evil complained of might be avoided, because a reduction of the taxation on tea is necessary not only in Ireland, but also in Great Britain. Is it right that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who I admit are actuated by a strong sense of justice—although their judgment may sometimes lead them astray, but I give them credit for having their hearts in the right place—should support this tax and this policy in regard to their dealings with Ireland? I would venture to remind them that taxation, of course, goes with representation. Ireland is represented in this House chiefly by the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, with some sixteen or seventeen exceptions. Therefore, the voice of Ireland should be listened to with reference to taxation, and the Treaty of Union would only be binding upon the Irish people upon this principle. The Irish Parliament had 300 Members, and they gave up about 200 Members upon the express condition that the articles of that treaty would be observed. One of those conditions was that the taxes should not be necessarily equal, but subject to exemptions and abatement according to the different circumstances of the country. That was a solemn compact between the representatives of the people of Ireland and the British Parliament, and that compact is now being departed from. While I admit that it is a difficult matter to distinguish between the two countries in reference to this particular tax, I say that some means should be devised to prevent this injustice upon Ireland, because no argument has been advanced from the other side to show that it is an unavoidable tax.

I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for Waterford. I cannot, however, agree with some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He regretted, as I regret also, that there should be a tax upon tea. He suggested that the tax should be taken off England as well as Ireland, but the people of England are not making any objection to it, and I take it for granted, as hon. Gentlemen on the other side have not made any objection, that they are quite satisfied with the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We protest, and protest bitterly and strongly, against this tax, because it will strike very hard on poor people in Ireland, and because it is imposed for the purpose of carrying on a war which seven-eighths of the people in Ireland protest against and abhor. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, more tea per head of the population is used in Ireland than in England, and therefore the tax will be greater on Ireland than on this country. I have had, from time to time, an opportunity of seeing the food of labourers and poor people in Ireland, and I can assure the Committee that tea is used at almost every meal. It might be said that milk should be used more than tea, but the farms in many parts of Ireland are very small, and it is more difficult to got milk in many country places than in the City of London. Since the creameries have been established in Ireland nearly all the milk is sent to them, and the consequence is that tea and tea alone is the beverage used at almost every meal. Labourers working in the fields and on the roads have for their dinner meal a pot of tea and a bit of bread. Another objection I have to this tax is that it will add a quarter of a million to the taxation o Ireland, which has been already proved beyond all contradiction to be over-taxed to the extent of three millions. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it would be very unfair to tax labourers in England more heavily than labourers in Ireland, but wages in this country are better than in Ireland, and labourers can afford meat, whereas there is no such thing as meat used by labourers in small farms in Ireland. Potatoes and "stirabout" and tea are what they live on. I think, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well not to impose this extra tax on Ireland. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that many manufactures are carried on in this country which benefit the labourers, and therefore it would not matter so much if labourers were taxed in this country as it would in Ireland. Scarcely any of the money of the Government is expended in Ireland for the purposes of the war, and I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is not fair to put Ireland on a comparison with this country.

I desire to say one or two words with regard to the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the present proposals in reply to observations addressed to him from these benches. First of all, he dwelt upon the fact that the taxation on the consumption of tea among the poorer classes was the same in this country as in Ireland. I think a very great distinction ought to be drawn between the two countries in respect of the present taxation. The distinction is founded on the fact, that whereas the £250,000 extra which is imposed on the taxpayers of Ireland is drawn away from Ireland, the extra taxation imposed upon the taxpayers of Great Britain is not drawn away from Great Britain. It is paid in Great Britain, and is spent in Great Britain, but the extra quarter of a million is drawn away from Ireland and is spent in this country. It is one of a large number of taxes all filtering in the same way, and constituting a stream which is always running to the depletion of Ireland and the enrichment of England. What is the necessary economic result? Let me take as an illustration two adjoining areas. Supposing that from them we have a constant process of evaporation, and that the moisture from that evaporation is condensed in the higher regions, and then falls as rain on one, and only one, of these two areas; what is the natural result? Clearly that one area becomes arid, while the other is moistened and fertilised and made rich. That is precisely the position in which Ireland and Great Britain stand to each other. The taxation drawn from Ireland and Great Britain is combined in one great reservoir, which, however, is opened only for the purpose of irrigating one country and one country only. That is the great distinction between the effect of taxation in Ireland and in England. Then the right hon. Gentleman suggests that because this tax is paid equally by all poor people in England and in Ireland there is therefore nothing more to be said. That is no answer whatever, and for this reason: we have a good ground for our complaint. Have the poor people of England no ground for complaint? Yes, they have, but, unfortunately for them, they have no spokesmen. The people of England are in many respects very astute, and the ruling classes are very good politicians, but there is probably no population on the face of the earth which is, from a political point of view, more intensely stupid and doltish than the people of England. I say so for this reason. The people of England in the mass have the power, if they will, to return to this House their own representatives and to dictate to them what taxes shall be imposed. No one will deny that proposition. But what do they do? They send back, election after election, men who have assented to the imposition of burdens entirely in the interests of the privileged classes and entirely at the cost of the industrial community. The great mass of your income is raised from indirect taxation, and if the aphorism of Carlyle that the great majority of mankind are undeniably fools were not true the people of England would not be guilty of the folly of sending to Parliament men who allow taxation to be imposed always for the relief of the privileged classes. We Irishmen witness it from year to year with astonishment as well as with regret. Our interests and the interests of the English working classes are identical, but the British being a stupid people take long to learn. We have above the gangway on this side hon. Gentlemen sup- posed to represent the intelligence of the commercial community. What do we hear from them with regard to the incidence of direct or indirect taxation? Nothing more than a pious opinion from an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who rises merely to say that because this is a war tax the people should bear it. Why should the working people of England and Ireland, who do not want to be at war, be called upon to pay an extra tax to meet its expenses? Why should not those who want the war bear the cost of it? Why, the consumers of wine in this very Budget do not contribute a farthing. Are not they concerned in this war? Why should they be let off, while the consumers of tea are compelled to pay twopence in the pound? It is because the people of England are not properly represented in this House of Commons.

Anyone who has studied the question must admit that the financial case of Ireland is as different from that of England as chalk is from cheese. You have been found guilty by a Commission of your own financial experts, with your own paid servants of the Crown as witnesses. They have admitted that Ireland is already over-taxed to the extent of 2¾ millions, and yet for the purposes of this war, which is condemned by the people of Ireland (except by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, who would not go out except Her Majesty made him a field marshal), you propose to impose an additional quarter of a million. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be better advised if he put a tax on other things, for example on property. Property is handed down from one generation to the other, and why should it not be taxed, instead of putting an additional tax upon the poor people of Ireland? If property were taxed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably be putting his hand in his own pocket. In Ireland tea is the only beverage of the people; there is no milk, owing to the creameries, and the milk that is returned from them is not fit for drinking purposes. As an Irish Member, I object to this additional taxation on the people of Ireland.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is certainly dealing very hardly with the people of Ireland. The taxation of tea is entirely out of proportion to the other taxes he is dealing with. Tea is an article in very extensive consumption among the people of Ireland, and more consideration for them ought to have been shown. It is not a luxury, it is an absolute necessity. If the money is required it ought to be obtained from taxation on articles much better able to bear it than tea; such as wines, especially expensive wines. In connection with the increased taxation on tea I notice a peculiar omission. I would like to understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing with tea in a different manner to that in which he is dealing with spirits, and why he has not included a clause similar to Clause 8 with regard to tea. If not too late, I would now move such a clause.

May I point out that I have a clause down for that very object.

Ireland already contributes about three-quarters of a million of duty on tea to the British Empire. With the addition now proposed we may estimate that the aggregate tea duty which Ireland will be compelled to pay for the year 1899–1900 will amount to a million of money, and we believe that that taxation will press very severely on the poor of Ireland. Of course the argument may be used that if the Irish people cease to consume tea they will save the expense. The same kind of argument has been used in connection with the Catholic university question. You ask us to enter Trinity College, and we refuse. We have come to the conclusion that this tax is imposed on tea simply because the Irish people in proportion to their population consume a larger quantity of tea per head than you consume in England. It has been estimated that every inhabitant in Ireland consumes 7 lb. of tea per annum, as compared with 5½ lb. consumed per head in Great Britain. Therefore, not only is every man and woman in Ireland compelled to pay a larger amount per head for their tea, but also an increased amount in duty as compared with Great Britain, although in Great Britain the average income of a family is larger. If you take the average wage of an agricultural labourer in Ireland and in England the difference will be, roughly speaking, 100 per cent. in favour of the latter. Personally I can state that the average wage of an agricultural labourer in the county of Kerry does not reach 10s. a week throughout the year, and how much harder, therefore, is it for the poor labourer, who generally has a larger family than the English agricultural labourer, to bear this increased duty. We have made our protest and have refused by our votes in the division lobby to agree to this increased duty, and we have also refused to associate ourselves in any way in discharging the debt you have incurred in endeavouring to suppress the freedom of the Transvaal.

said he joined with his hon. friends in protesting against this additional tax of two pence in the pound on tea. He was in Ireland when the Budget speech was delivered, and when he opened the newspapers the next morning he was amazed and indignant that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought of raising a quarter of a million on tea. This tea tax would fall much heavier on Irishmen than on Englishmen or Scotchmen; for the average wage of an Irish labourer was not more than two shillings a day, compared with the average wage of four shillings of the English or Scottish labourer, while the Irish labourer's family drank far more tea than the English or Scotch. The poor people of Ireland had now no milk, and had to take to tea, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer might as well have taxed milk, since tea was the substitute of milk. Instead of increasing the tax on tea it ought to have been reduced; in fact, there ought to be no taxation on tea whatever to pay the expense of this most unjustifiable and iniquitous war. They ought to tax the capitalists who promoted the war. It surely ought not to pass the wit of man to make tea as free of taxes as bread. Luxuries and the property of the wealthy ought to be taxed for the whole expenses of this war. Some of the ardent enthusiastic jingoes ought to have their property taxed, instead of the poor Irish peasants who were eking out a miserable existence, scarcely knowing how they were to get a bite on the morrow. He entered his protest against the increase of the tax on tea, which, indeed, should be free.