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.:—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—

It is not my desire to press my opposition to progress being made with this and the Stockport Bill. My object in putting down notice of opposition was simply to induce the promoters to insert the model clause which I hope will be put in all these Bills in the future, and I am glad to say that they have agreed to do so at a later stage.

The Instruction which I have placed on the Paper is similar to that which has already been accepted by the House with regard to other Bills of a like character. I think it is more important than usual in the case of this Bill, the object of which is to construct tramways in various London suburbs. The promoters state that they have no objection, and I therefore hope the House will unanimously carry my Instruction.

reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir William Houldsworth, Sir John Colomb, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Mr. Baird; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. J. W. Wilson (Worcestershire, North), Captain Pretyman, Sir Charles Welby, and Lord Dalkeith.

reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills, That Colonel Blundell, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War who is responsible for sending, on 5th January last, nine men of the Gloucester Regiment, recovering from wounds, from Netley Hospital to Aldershot without any notice to any officer there that the men were coming; also, for directing the men on arrival to report themselves to the 2nd Battalion Gloucester Regiment, which had gone to South Africa some time previously, so that on their arrival in the evening, there were no quarters, bedding, or rations for them until they found accommodation with the 4th West York Regiment, with whom were some details left behind by the Gloucester Regiment, and who shared their food and bedding with them; will he explain why these men who were recommended by the hospital authorities to have two months furlough to recover their health were, after a few days spent at Aldershot, sent in the clothes which they had worn on their journey from Africa, plus some civilian coats given them at Netley, to the Militia battalion of their regiment stationed at Athlone, where they were re-clothed and then allowed at their own expense to return to England on fur- lough; and whether some other system could be concerted between the hospital authorities and the military authorities for the treatment of convalescents from South Africa on discharge from hospital than was adopted in this case.

Some difficulty has occurred in the investigation of this case because many of the persons concerned have gone to South Africa. Due notice was sent from Netley of the arrival of these men, but the notice appears not to have been received at Aldershot. The detachment of the 2nd Battalion Gloucestershire Regiment left at Aldershot was attached to the 2nd Battalion West Yorkshire Regiment, and it was therefore quite proper that the 2nd Battalion West Yorkshire Regiment should provide accommodation for the men coming from Netley. The officer commanding the detachment of the 2nd Gloucestershire Regiment acted wrongly in sending these men to Athlone. He is an officer called up for duty from the Militia, and therefore inexperienced; but he will be reprimanded. A change of system is about to be introduced by which men will be sent on sick furlough direct from hospital to their homes at Government expense instead of being sent to their regiments. This concession will, at some expense to Government, simplify the arrangements for sick furloughs; but it is the opinion of the Secretary of State that the system at present in force would have sufficiently provided for the case of these men, if all concerned had acted with due zeal and discretion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, on the 10th February, 1900, Major O'Meara, military censor, during the siege of Kimberley, sent a letter to the editor of the Diamond Fields Advertiser, a paper under the control of Mr. Rhodes, apprising the editor that he had on two occasions printed articles on the military situation injurious to the interest of the Army and defence of the town, and had committed serious offences dealt with by the Army Act, and informing the editor that proofs of the Diamond Fields Advertiser must be submitted to the censor before publication; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this letter, the publication of the Diamond Fields Advertiser was suspended; whether, after the raising of the siege of Kimberley, Mr. Rhodes, in the presence of General French and of Colonel Kekewich, took on himself the responsibility of these articles, and ordered Colonel Kekewich out of his house when this interview took place; and what notice, if any, is it intended to take of this matter.

No official information of the matters referred to in the question has reached the War Office. If any action is necessary in the matter, the Secretary of State has no doubt that Lord Roberts will take it.

Will an inquiry be made into these allegations?

The Secretary of State has the fullest confidence in the discretion of Lord Roberts, and does not think it necessary that his action should be constantly aided by suggestions from home.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the authorities at the War Office will ask Lord Methuen whether the late Major General Wauchope expressed his concurrence in the likelihood of success in the contemplated operations of the battle of Magersfontein, or expressed his divergence in view from Lord Methuen with reference to the wisdom of these operations.

No, Sir. It would be entirely contrary to military custom and discipline to ask a general in command of a force whether his plan of operations was concurred in by his subordinate officer.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was openly made that General Wauchope disapproved of the plans, and that his dying words were that he was not to blame?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the troops serving in Natal have not yet received comforts sent them from this country months ago, and what is the reason of the delay; and whether he is aware that members of the Naval Brigade serving on H.M.S. "Terrible," which has recently been transferred from Natal to the Chinese station, have hitherto received none of the comforts sent them from home, and whether he will take steps to have these comforts forwarded on to them.

I must refer my hon. friend to my reply to a question put by the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent on the 16th inst.^* I have received a letter from Mr. Gatliff, in which he informs me that he has been actively engaged in expediting this matter in Natal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War is the War Office supplying the troops in South Africa with flannel shirts and warm underclothing for the coming winter there, and are thick uniforms for winter work being supplied.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the amount expended on military and naval stores bought in Great Britain for the last twelve months and the amount expended in Ireland in the same way for a similar period.

I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on the 15th instant.^†

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 1064.

^… See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 914.

In view of the fact that the amount expended in Ireland has been given, cannot the figures for the rest of the United Kingdom be presented?

It would involve a long and complicated inquiry, which the Department cannot undertake at present.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any orders for shirts, and, if so, to what amount, have been placed with the wholesale houses in Londonderry.

I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question.

Is the hon. Member prepared to give a Return showing the amount of stores ordered in every town in the British islands?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the regimental sergeant-major of a Militia regiment sent to South Africa has the same duties to perform as the regimental sergeant-major of a Line battalion; how many Militia battalions have been sent to the seat of war, and whether their regimental sergeant-majors have previously been in the regulars; whether the regimental sergeant-major of a Line battalion is not a warrant officer with pay and allowances as such; and whether the regimental sergeant-majors of the Militia will be placed upon the same footing.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Thirty Militia battalions have been sent to South Africa; their sergeant-majors have previously held lower rank in the Regular forces. The regimental sergeant-major of a Line battalion is a warrant officer with pay and allowance as such; the Militia sergeant-majors are on embodiment put on the same footing as regards pay and allowances, but their normal duties are not such as to justify the grant of permanent warrant rank.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State of War whether the rules in regard to flogging for offences committed in military prisons have been modified; and if so, to what extent since the rules were amended in 1898 in regard to flogging for offences committed in civil prisons.

The military rules were amended by Army Order 156, of November, 1898, and brought in accordance with the Prison Act, 1898, Section 5. There has been no further Amendment. The new rules were presented to the House on the 8th February, 1899.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how soon will some scheme of what is going to be done with the Royal Reserve battalions, Militia embodied in May and other Reserves be made, and when will it be made public so that officers and non-commissioned officers may know what arrangements to make for their wives and families.

The scheme will be made public as soon as it is sufficiently complete.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to proceed at once with the construction of the Withington rifle range, and what are the causes now delaying its construction.

The Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the acquisition of the land is down for Second Reading in the House of Lords to-day. As soon as the Bill has received the Royal Assent the construction of the range will be commenced.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that in the infantry and cavalry second lieutenants are promoted to fill vacancies irrespective of their service, and, seeing that about ninety lieutenants of the Royal Artillery have been promoted to the rank of captain in the Horse and Field List during the present year, the rule that second lieutenants of the Royal Artillery can in no case receive promotion until they have served for three years in that rank may be reconsidered.

The abnormal rapidity of promotion in Line regiments to the rank of lieutenant has drawn attention to the rate of promotion to that rank in the Artillery and Engineers. It is impossible to secure uniformity of promotion in the various units of the service, but the Secretary of State is considering whether promotion to the rank of lieutenant in the Artillery and Engineers should not at the present time be somewhat accelerated.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in view of the fact that some thirty working engineers were engaged at Woolwich four weeks ago to work in the Dial Square Department, many of whom came from distant parts of the country, at their own expense, upon the prospect of permanent Government employment, and have now received notice of discharge on the ground that material is not ready,, whether he can see his way to reconsider the discharge of these men, and, until the delayed material is ready, find them employment in other departments in which overtime is now being worked to a large extent by men of the same trade as those who are being discharged.

Thirty men were taken on about a month ago for temporary employment. They were distinctly warned at the time that their employment was only temporary. They are still at work, and have not received notice of discharge. There has been no want of or delay in supplies of material.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admi- ralty if he will state the amount expended in England and Scotland respectively for armour plates during the current financial year.

The amount expended for armour in England and Scotland respectively during the current financial year, so far as brought to account up to date, is £1,425,916 and £148,665. There is only one firm in Scotland which supplies armour, and that firm has received orders in excess of their rate of production.

What amount has been spent in Ireland in this connection?

I believe there is no armour plate manufactured in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Lord Curzon has announced that American contributions for the relief of the famine in India would be thankfully received; and whether it is the intention of the Imperial Government to contribute any sum for the same purpose.

I have no information from Lord Curzon to the effect suggested, but I have seen a short statement in the newspapers upon the subject, which I have no doubt is correct. These private contributions are not paid to Government, nor used so as to reduce the sums expended by Government upon relief of distress, or to cover in any way the work undertaken by Government. The money so collected is applied to certain defined purposes outside the sphere of Government operations, and its application is superintended by local committees of private individuals, but who work in co-operation with the Government authorities.

Will the Government consider the desirability of making a grant from Imperial funds towards the relief of the sufferers, seeing that the distress is so great that even private persons in America feel it a duty to subscribe?

If the hon. Member had listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that these private subscriptions are for purposes outside the sphere of Government operations.

Stop the war.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what arrangements are made in England in the case of voluntary schools, where education is free, for heating the schools in winter, and out of what fund the cost of heating is provided.

Schools are heated by the managers out of the school funds.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether the duties appertaining to the office of Judge Advocate General, whose holder has hitherto been a Minister of the Crown, are now discharged by a member of the High Court of Justice who gets no salary for the discharge of those duties, and is removed from the scope of Parliamentary criticism except in peculiar circumstances directly appertaining to the discharge of his judicial functions; and whether there is any, and, if so, what method whereby the exercise of the functions of the office of Judge Advocate General and the disposal of the patronage attaching to that office can be submitted to the consideration of the House of Commons.

In my opinion the first paragraph of the hon. and learned Member's question does not give a correct description of the conditions under which the duties of the office of Judge Advocate General are now being discharged. The resources of civilisation at the disposal of the hon. and learned Member will, I think, suggest to him a method of bringing the circumstances of any case to which he desires to direct attention before the House of Commons.

But Sir Francis Jeune being a member of the High Court of Justice, how can we impugn his action?

There are many methods by which the hon. Member can draw attention to particular cases if he is not satisfied with the decision arrived at.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice of England, in delivering judgment in the Queen's Bench Division in the case of Payne v. Cooper, in April, 1896, stated that applications for committal for contempt of court had been much too numerous, and that in some instances the decisions had gone too far; and that Mr. Justice Wright, his Lordship's colleague on the bench, expressed his concurrence in these remarks; and whether, having regard to the fact that so far back as 1882 legislation on the subject of committal for contempt of court was announced as a Government measure, and that the power of committal for contempt of court is not subject to appeal or supervision, and is uncontrolled by the prerogative of pardon, the Government will take into consideration the propriety at an early date of proposing legislation with a view to the definition and limitation of this power.

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. and learned Member's question is in the affirmative. The rules which govern questions of contempt of court are well understood, and there is not, in my opinion, any necessity for legislation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of cases in which prisoners have been sentenced to corporal punishment for offences under the Vagrancy Acts during the last five years.

The figures are:—1895, 1; 1896, 3; 1897, 1; and 1898, 1. Those for 1899 have not yet been abstracted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether the works in connection with the construction of the lighthouse on the Flannen Islands have yet been completed; and, if not, will he say what progress has been made.

I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the light at Flannen Islands was exhibited last December. The only work remaining to be done is the completion of the landing places.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a capstanman at the Great Northern Goods Station, Deansgate, Manchester, who on 3rd instant was crushed when passing betwixt the buffers of two wagons, with the object of coupling them, and was so injured that he died shortly after his arrival at the hospital, and to the case of a goods porter at the Great Central Railway, Ardwick, Manchester, who attempted on the 7th instant to put the brake down on a wagon of the London and North Western Railway Company when, owing to a defective brake, he slipped and fell in front of the next wagon, receiving such injuries that he only lived a few hours after reaching the infirmary; and whether in view of the frequency of such accidents as those mentioned, he will push on with urgency his Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill, which will greatly tend to diminish their number.

The two unfortunate accidents referred to were duly notified to the Department, and in the latter case an inquiry will be held.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the serious shipping disasters that have occurred off the south coast of Cornwall in consequence of the want of a lightship or lighthouse to warn mariners off the Manacles Rock; and whether he will take steps to communicate with the Corporation of Trinity House, with a view to having this dangerous part of the coast lighted by a lightship or lighthouse for the purpose of warning mariners of the danger.

My attention has from time to time been called to disasters that have occurred in the neighbourhood of the Manacles. The Trinity House, as the general lighthouse authority, are responsible for the lighting of the coast, and the Board of Trade have not received from them any application for sanction to the necessary expenditure for the establishment of a lighthouse or light vessel near the Manacles.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of auctioneers having to take out a licence, there is any control on the part of the Department; and if there is any method, other than by a legal action, of getting a licence rescinded on account of malpractices or of opposing a renewal of any such licence.

The Board of Inland Revenue have no power to refuse to grant an auctioneer's licence when applied for or to rescind one after it has been granted. It is not necessary, as in the case of retailers of intoxicating liquors, for an auctioneer to obtain a magistrate's certificate before applying for an excise licence; and licensed auctioneers are under no control so far as that Department is concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in view of the small number of supervising officers in the telegraph branch of the post office at Liverpool, and of the amount of supervisory work being performed by senior clerks, it is the Postmaster General's intention to issue a revision of duties in that office.

A revision of the telegraph indoor establishment of the post office at Liverpool is under considera- tion in connection with the removal to the new post office.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any share of orders for cycles for the Post Office service has been given to Irish firms.

Yes.

To what extent?

About a dozen bicycles have been purchased in Ireland from various firms, and one firm applied to be allowed to tender for a portion of recent orders. In reply to an invitation last year this firm declined to tender owing to pressure of work, but asked to be again invited this season. They will accordingly be asked to tender when the next supply is required.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether sub-postmasters are entitled to superannuation on retirement; and, if so, under what conditions and under what Act.

Sub-postmasters are eligible for superannuation under the Superannuation Act of 1859, provided they hold a Civil Service certificate and their duties are such as necessarily to occupy their whole time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether consent has been given to the scheme of the Whitechapel and Bow Railway Company to erect dwellings for working class occupiers displaced from Whitechapel and along the projected route of the railway in the residential districts of the Wellington Road, the Mornington Road, and Bow Road; whether the local authorities have been consulted in the matter; and if he will now cause an inquiry to be held as to the possibility of the railway company acquiring an alternative site.

The scheme in question has been provisionally, but not yet formally, approved. The second and third paragraphs seem to raise points which do not fall within the scope of my duties in the matter.

Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consult the local authorities?

I apprehend that the duty of the Secretary of State is to see that the site proposed is a suitable one for the class of dwellings to be erected.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any officers directly responsible for the effective carrying out of the instructions to theatrical managers against the blocking of gangways and the overcrowding of seats.

I am informed that officers of the London County Council inspect theatres and other places of amusement with the object indicated in the question, and when they find irregularities in a theatre under the control of the Lord Chamberlain they report to that official.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has had any report from Worksop in connection with a statement which has appeared to the effect that a local Wesleyan schoolmaster who had been accused of holding pro-Boer opinions was assailed while presiding at a temperance meeting, and followed to his home by a crowd pelting him with stones, eggs, and earth; whether the same course was adopted towards him on the following evening when leaving his school; and whether, if this be so, he will satisfy himself that there is a sufficient force of police at Worksop for the preservation of the public peace and the defence of unpopular individuals.

I cannot but express my regret that a temperance meeting was disturbed because the chairman is believed to hold unpopular views about the war; but having made inquiry I find no reason to doubt that the police performed their duty in affording adequate protection—more, in fact, than was asked for—and that sufficient precautions were and are being taken to prevent a renewal of the disturbance. I may add that Mr. Roberts, the schoolmaster, did not sustain any injury on either occasion.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many convictions were obtained in the year 1899 against persons engaged in illegal trawling in Scottish waters, and in how many instances there was a repetition of this offence by the same master; will he state in how many cases the men elected to go to prison rather than pay the fines imposed; and whether in all cases the trawling gear of convicted trawlers was confiscated.

I am informed by the Fishery Board for Scotland that there were seventeen prosecutions for illegal trawling in Scottish waters undertaken in 1899, and convictions were obtained in all of them. In one instance there was a repetition of the offence. In three cases the offenders chose the alternative of imprisonment. The gear belonging to nine of the trawlers implicated was forfeited.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that the Fishery Board for Scotland stated last year that it was the intention of the Board to secure a new cruiser for the purposes of sea police patrol out of the funds allocated to the Board under the Local Taxation (Scotland) Act, 1898, will the Secretary for Scotland state the cause of the delay in advertising for tenders for the new cruiser.

I am informed by the Fishery Board for Scotland that there has been no delay; the vessel has already been contracted for, and will be completed according to the original intention.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland will be laid upon the Table of the House.

I understand that this Report will be ready about the end of April, which is the usual time.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that in the parish of Lochs, Lewis (population 4,676), nearly the whole of the electors have no vote for the election of school board candidates by reason of their rentals being less than £4; has his attention been called to the fact that owing to the scarcity of persons qualified to vote, considerable difficulty was experienced at a recent school board election in finding persons qualified to sign the nomination papers, and that on this account only five candidates for the Board were nominated instead of seven; and will the demand, which has been forwarded from the parish of Lochs to the Scottish Education Department for a fresh election, be acceded to; and, in view of the dissatisfaction which the condition of the school board electorate causes in the parish of Lochs, as elsewhere in the Highlands, will he state what steps he proposes to take to remedy the grievance.

The question of the school board franchise has formed the subject of several replies to the hon. Member, who has already been informed that we are not prepared at present to propose legislation on the subject. I am aware that the recent election in the parish of Lochs has broken down owing to an informality in the nominations, but I am not prepared to say that this arose from an insufficient number of electors. The Department proposes to issue an order for a new election.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in the proposed Southern Railways Amalgamation (Ireland) Bill, it is provided by Clause 19 that the companies will forward via Waterford until Rosslare is opened, thenceforward via Rosslare, traffic of all descriptions they can control between such portions of the districts served by their respective systems in the south and west of Ireland and the south and west of England, including London; and that the Corporation of Dublin passed a resolution disapproving of such diversion from the natural route of traffic; and whether the Board of Trade will consider this matter.

There are provisions in the Bills promoted by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland, dealing with the through traffic, but I am not aware that Clause 19 in either Bill has any reference to the question. I have no doubt that the matter will receive the careful consideration of the Parliamentary Committee to whom the Bills are referred. If that Committee should desire any information from the Board of Trade it will be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to transfer the Inland Revenue Offices from the Custom House, Cork, to some more convenient locality in that city; and what premises have been acquired for the purpose; and, if so, where; what the cause of the delay in effecting the transfer is; and when it will be completed.

As this question only appeared upon the Paper this morning, I have not been able to obtain the requisite information from the Departments concerned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the drainage from all the public institutions in Mullingar and vicinity, including the military barracks and lunatic asylum, is at present emptied into the river Brosna, which flows through the town, the odour from which is dangerous to the health of the inhabi- tants; that within a mile and a half of the town the river discharges itself into Lough Ennel, one of the best trout lakes in Ireland; and that dead trout are frequently found floating on the water at the point where the river enters the lake, poisoned by the water from the river; and will the Local Government Board take steps to enforce the Rivers Pollution Act so that the nuisance may be abated.

In September last the Medical Officer of Health reported that the sewers of the town of Mullingar, including the sewage from the public institutions mentioned in the question, ran into the river Brosna and polluted it. The Local Government Board, on receipt of this Report, requested the rural district council to give the matter their early consideration with a view of improving the drainage of the town. No definite action has yet been taken by the council upon the communication addressed to them by the Board. This objectionable drainage system is, I understand, of long standing, and the Board will cause the matter to be further looked into.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that, in direct contravention of Section 77 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, licensed premises are used as offices for the collection of rates; and if he will take steps to prevent this violation of the law.

The prohibition contained in the 77th Section is not absolute, but only conditional. I cannot therefore answer the question in its present general form. If the hon. Member will refer me to the particulars of some specific case in which the provisions of the 77th Section of the Act have been contravened, I will obtain a report as to the facts, and endeavour to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of a case in his own constituency?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Agnew, Local Government Board Inspector, in his last half-yearly Report of Carrickmacross workhouse, suggested Irish stew, fish, and other expensive changes in the dietary of the inmates, which would cause great additional cost to the rates, and that the average cost per inmate per week in Carrickmacross workhouse is 3s. 9¼d. (according to the last Report issued by the Local Government Board), while in Clones the average cost per inmate per week is only 2s. 9¾d., and Monaghan 2s. 8d.; and whether, seeing that the same inspector superintends the three workhouses mentioned, and is trying still further to increase the already too high average cost by his suggestions already referred to in regard to Carrickmacross Workhouse, the Local Government Board will take steps to prevent any further additional changes being made in these districts.

Mr. Agnew in his last half-yearly report urged that the recommendations which the medical officer of the workhouse had made with regard to an improvement in the dietary of the inmates should be given effect to. The scale of dietary approved of by the medical officer was subsequently adopted by the guardians, and included Irish stew composed of two ounces of beef and two ounces of bacon per head, with vegetables and potatoes, on three days in the week. This dish, I may state, is strongly recommended by medical officers generally. Fish is not on the dietary scale of the Carrickmacross workhouse. The cost of maintenance per head in the three unions specified is as stated in the question. The average weekly cost of maintenance in workhouses throughout Ireland is 3s. 7¾d., so that the cost of maintenance in Carrickmacross, which is 3s. 9¼d., is only very slightly above the average. Clones union is not under Mr. Agnew's charge, as represented in the question.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he will grant a Return of the quantity of spirituous liquors consumed in each workhouse in Ireland for the year 1899, and the average number of inmates.

The preparation of a Return such as indicated, to which there is no objection in principle, would devolve upon clerks of unions and rural district councils, and as these officials are fully occupied in the working of the Local Government Act, I must ask the hon. Member not to move for the Return at present. If he will do so in July next, I will endeavour to have the Return prepared as rapidly as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a resolution of the Ennis Asylum Committee, in which they called on the Treasury to refund to the asylums of Ireland the amount of the rate-in-aid withheld by them in respect of the first three quarters of the year 1899; and whether the Government will favourably consider this request.

This question must be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that there are a great many fishing stations in the south of Ireland, and also that there is a large area scheduled as congested districts, he will consider the advisability of giving the south of Ireland representation on the Congested Districts Board.

I have already stated that the constitution of the Congested Districts Board is regulated by statute. I have no reason to believe that the interests of the congested districts in the south of Ireland have been neglected, and there is at present no vacancy on the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, within the last seven years, it was pointed out to the Irish Fishery Inspectors in writing that the Queen's Gap at Galway was not in accordance with the Fishery Acts, the sides not being parallel and in line with the stream, as laid down, which irregularity had enabled certain persons to so alter the gap as to reduce the flow of water which should have gone through such gap; and that the inspectors, after receipt of the above complaints, caused boards to be placed which temporarily to a certain extent corrected the evil; and whether, seeing that the gap is still not in accordance with the Fishery Acts (Irish), the sides not being parallel or in line with the stream, the Fishery Inspectors will cause the gap to be altered in accordance with the law laid down in 26 and 27 Vic.

The Fishery Inspectors many years ago required a gap to be made of a certain kind in this weir which they considered adequate and proper. The weir was accordingly so made and a certificate was granted. Part of the structure was subsequently carried away by flood, but the damage had recently been repaired. If any person contends that in its present condition it is illegal, his proper course to adopt is to sue for penalties at petty sessions under the 12th Section of the Statute.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure to amend the present system of Private Bill Legislation for Ireland.

The Government do not propose to introduce such a Bill during the present session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury 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.

I am not aware of any further facts which require an investigation upon the tenure and security of improvements to tenants of town holdings in Great Britain and Ireland supplementary to the complete in vestigation which has been made by a Parliamentary Committee.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he intends to take the Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill.

I cannot name a day on which the Second Reading of this Bill will be taken, for the reason I have already indicated. I hope it may, however, be obtained by Easter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Scottish Education Bill will be introduced into this House.

The Bill to which this question refers has not yet been read a second time in the House of Lords, and it would, therefore, be premature to talk of fixing a day for its discussion here.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state whether the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Bill will be the first Order on Monday.

I think I have already expressed a hope that we may be able to take this Bill as the first order on Monday. I am unable, however, to forecast precisely the course which business will take during the present week.

Will the Australian Commonwealth Bill be introduced by Easter, and when will it be printed and circulated?

I am not at present in a position to make a statement as to whether the Bill will be introduced before Easter, nor when it will be printed and circulated.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Second Reading of the Irish Tithe Rent-charge Bill will be taken.

With regard to the Second Reading of the Irish Tithe Rent-charge Bill, I have already said that I will not take it before Easter, and not on the day after Easter, that day being inconvenient to hon. Gentlemen.

Nor on Thursday, 26th April, may we take it?

No, I could not take it on that day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will arrange that a discussion on the new Code of Regulations for day schools shall take place on some night not later than ten o'clock.

I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday with regard to this. I must remind the House that the general arrangements I sketched out for next Thursday are necessarily dependent on our finishing the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to-day. We must take that de die in diem until it is finished, and I have no reason to doubt it will finish to-day.

If not, will the right hon. Gentleman adjourn the debate early on Thursday?

I am afraid I cannot. I have shown myself ready as far as possible to meet the views of hon. Members.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as he has given a day for the discussion of the financial relations between England and Ireland, he will give the House an opportunity of considering the question of the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons.

I cannot give a day for this discussion. As to the day which had been granted for a debate on the financial relations of Ireland, I think my hon. friend has forgotten the circumstance that it was merely the substitution of one day for another day which the Irish Members had already obtained. I had no alternative to the course I took. There is no parallel between the two cases.

In view of the fact that this Parliament has not had an opportunity of discussing this subject, and as there is not much business before the House this session, will an opportunity be afforded to discuss the question?

When the business which is before the House has been concluded, I may be in a position to consider suggestions for filling up the remainder of the time of the House.

I have received a letter from the Secretary to the Admiralty stating that he is unable to reply to the questions which appear on the Paper this day relating to foreign seamen on British transports, and asking me to postpone them until Friday. The two transport vessels, however, will sail before Friday, and I therefore propose to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the question as a matter of great importance. The terms of my resolution are—

"To move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the employment on Government transport vessels of alien seamen, natives of countries which have shown marked hostility to Great Britain during the progress of the war in South Africa."

The reference would be too general, and I suggest to the hon. Member that he should alter the terms so as to make them apply to the two transports about to sail.

They are the steamers "Caspian" and "Sapphire."

I cannot accept the motion in the form in which it is drawn. The hon. Member had better recast it, and ask leave again to-morrow.

I will put it off until Thursday.

There is a general understanding that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill shall be resumed to-day; but last evening there were one or two points brought before me on which I thought it would be necessary to add some clauses to the Bill. I therefore put down Committee of Ways and Means as the first order of the day in the belief that the preliminary resolutions relating to these matters might occupy a few minutes before going into Committee. But I find that the hon. Member for King's Lynn, acting in a manner for which there is hardly a precedent, has placed on the Paper a motion on going into Committee; and when once a discussion of that kind begins it is impossible to say how long it may go on. In these circumstances I propose the postponement of the Committee of Ways and Means until to-morrow, and that the House should proceed at once with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

said his object in opposing this clause was to save Ireland from the very heavy tax which was imposed by it. The clause hit at two classes of Irishmen—the manufacturer and the consumer; and the amount of the tax made it very difficult to get at the consumer otherwise than by a reduction in the quality of the material supplied to him. Now one of the causes of much evil in Ireland was the supply of bad and inferior drink, and, as a total abstainer himself, he considered it very reprehensible that any temptation should be placed in the way of either the manufacturer or the retailer to supply the public with drink of an inferior quality. But they were forced either to reduce the quality of the liquor they sold or to raise the price of the article, and the latter alternative was scarcely possible, seeing that the added tax was not sufficiently large to enable it to be charged against the individual consumer unless they themselves made a huge profit out of the transaction without the State deriving any advantage whatsoever. Their contention was that the tax should not be put on Ireland at all. They objected, in fact, to all taxes raised for the prosecution of the war, because they were opposed to the war itself. They objected, further, in a particular manner to a tax which struck at an Irish industry. They had some of the largest and best known breweries in the world in Ireland, and they did not know what might be the effect upon them. But they had reason to fear that effect when they remembered how in former days, when the spirit tax was increased, the number of distilleries in Ireland was reduced at one swoop from ninety-one to twenty-nine, thereby depriving a large number of people of employment. By inflicting these taxes, therefore, they struck at the very poorest of the people, they forced them to seek employment elsewhere, and, as there was no other place for them to go to in Ireland, they had to migrate either to England or America. There was reason to fear, too, that another effect of this tax would be to place the manufactories of Ireland in the hands of the larger companies and the richer people, and to create monopolies, which were bad for any trade. There were a number of small thriving breweries scattered throughout the country, which gave a great deal of employment to the people, and it had been calculated by those conversant with the facts that this tax would sweep away a very large proportion of these breweries, by depriving them of the profits they now made, and rendering it impossible to keep them going. Although their protest against this tax might be vain and ineffective, it was their duty, as the representatives of the great majority of the Irish people, to oppose every clause of the Finance Bill. They believed that their country was already over-taxed, and these new proposals would add greatly to the disproportion of Imperial taxation which Irishmen were made to bear. The present proposal would impose a charge of £150,000 per annum upon their country, and it had been calculated that a shilling per barrel upon beer would bring in about £116,000.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to intervene to point out that he has mistaken the clause. This one does not particularly affect Ireland, as there is hardly any beer imported into that country; indeed, it would be against the advantage of Ireland to omit the clause.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and said he would not now move his Amendment. He hoped he would still retain his right to move it at a later stage.

Of course, the hon. Member will have the right to move any Amendment which is in order. As no Amendment has been moved to this clause I have simply to put the question "that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

said his hon. friend would soon have an opportunity of re-stating the very cogent arguments which he had been submitting, as he did not propose to occupy much time in stating the grounds for his opposition to this clause. They were, of course, opposed to all increases of taxation, and they were specially opposed to added duties upon commodities which were articles of common consumption in Ireland. He feared that the duty would have disastrous effects upon the general body of Irish taxpayers, and also upon their exports. The present clause imposed a duty of one shilling upon every thirty-six gallons of beer. But beer was being more and more consumed by the working classes of the country, and hence it was that Irish working men, the great bulk of whom were opposed to the war, would have to bear a considerable proportion of the burden. None of them desired to give further facilities for heavy drinking in Ireland, but they must take things as they found them, and surely they ought not to unduly tax a man because he chose beer for his beverage. Undoubtedly it was the working-class population which would be penalised by this tax, and he therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.

I will not trouble the Committee by repeating my arguments. What I want to point out is that this Bill adds £150,000 to the taxation of Ireland, of which about £118,000 will be paid by the consumers of beer in that country and £130,000 by the exporters of beer. We consider this tax an unjust addition to the burdens of our country. We also consider that it is unjust that we should have to bear any portion of the cost of a war which we are not in favour of, and which we have always protested against. The amount of taxation involved is very unfair to Ireland because it does not take into consideration many things which we think ought to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One thing which I would like to urge most strongly, is the fact that this tax does not really come upon the mass of the consumers, except by a method which is to be condemned in the strongest manner possible, and that is by the reduction of the quality of alcoholic drink. I think it is regret-table that in Ireland or in any other country, so much alcohol should be consumed. I do not agree, however, that there is more drink consumed in Ireland than in other countries. The greatest evil is the bad drink which people sometimes get. There are two ways in which the trade can get back this tax; one is by insisting that the price must be very high, or by reducing the quality and giving the people very bad beer. I think this may be one of the effects in England and Ireland of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For this and other reasons I strongly object to this proposal, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make some statement, which will show us how this tax can be placed upon the shoulders of the people by some other means. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he considered it right in all these proposals to make every class in the community contribute according to their means to the taxes which the war involves. I hope he will be able to show us by what means, otherwise than by taking an inferior drink, the mass of the people who consume drink can pay any portion of this tax, because one shilling per barrel of thirty-six gallons cannot be divided up into any coin of the realm upon quarts, pints, half-pints, or glasses. I think if the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little further and placed a higher tax upon us in that respect, it would have been fairer to Ireland. Not only has this proposal a tendency to palm bad material upon the people, but it is calculated to cripple some of our smaller breweries and place the trade in the hands of monopolists.

I do not intend to enter into details upon this question, because I heard your predecessor in the chair rule that as the question had been previously discussed upon the tea duty it should not be renewed upon any other part of the Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to make two remarks in answer to some observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He said that the arrangement of 1816, by which equal taxation with England was imposed upon Ireland, was assented to by the Irish representatives. I wish to say that there was no assent of the kind given.

Order, order! The hon. Member is opening up a question which will not be in order.

I wish simply to confine myself to a protest. From 1816 down to the time when the taxes were equalised a continual protest was uttered on behalf of Ireland, even by some of the Conservative Members. As to this particular tax I conceive that there is a special reason why Ireland should be exempted under the beer duty. I think it is admitted on all hands that the system of conducting public house business differs entirely in the two countries. In England there exists what is known almost universally as the tied house system, and we all know what that means. It means that the big brewers really own the houses in which their beer is sold. I do not profess to understand how that can be, because in Ireland the law is that the resident manager of the public house is the person who is responsible for the sale of drink, and he must be the legal owner of the establishment. He must have a beneficial interest in it, and the fact that he has an interest in it and owns the lease has to be proved before he gets the license in his own name. That is the security demanded by the tribunal which gives the licence, so that the public-house will be properly conducted. The law may be different in England—in fact, it must be, when you have the nominees and representatives of the big brewers managing all these public-houses. The managers of these public-houses in England do not bear any part of the cost which may be involved in an increase of taxation. The real owners who supply the beer and manufacture it are the great firms, and they are the people who really bear any burden involved in any increase of taxation which cannot be got out of the consumer. In Ireland the state of things is entirely different, for when a man applies for a public-house licence he must produce in the court his lease of the place. He must also show that he has paid a substantial sum of money for it, and that it is a real bargain and sale; also that he has invested his own money in it. It is very often a source of complaint and almost a reason for refusing the licence that the man has borrowed the money almost to the last penny from bankers or from private friends. The fact remains that he has to produce his lease showing that he has acquired the public-house in a legal manner, and prove that he has paid a substantial price for the property. That is the guarantee with which he comes to the court, that he will himself conduct the business properly. The consequence of all this is that the brewer in England bears the burden of additional taxation on beer, while in Ireland it is not only a poorer class but a larger class who have to bear the burden. I know that there is a good deal of odium cast upon the trade, and while I admire the efforts and sincerity of those who work in the cause of temperance, a great many of their attacks on the trade I regard as little short of hypocrisy. These owners of public houses in Ireland are very closely watched, and the law is very stringent in regard to them. I believe they are more closely watched in Ireland by the constabulary and the metropolitan police in Dublin than anywhere in England. As a matter of fact, I believe it to be true that the great majority of these public house owners, who are carrying on a business which is recognised by the law, have been falsely accused of many abuses with which they had nothing to do. The result, nevertheless, is that they are treated in the same-way as if they were millionaires who brew the beer in England, or as if they were Guinnesses in Ireland. I think it is very unfair to take advantage of an odium unjustly created to fix burdens upon publicans that they would not have been obliged to bear if they were carrying on their business in England. That difference is, I think, a very strong ground for treating Ireland in a different way to England. In addition to this, it is a fact that Ireland is a poorer country, and you cannot take money out of the pockets of the publicans of Ireland without impoverishing the country to a greater extent than you do if you take it out of the pockets of the same class in England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted figures to show that savings bank deposits had increased, and so on. I have been listening to that sort of thing ever since I entered public life, and I am amused by its vitality. I can remember when the late Lord Carlisle, thirty years ago, went about the country boasting that a few more cattle had been exported from Ireland, and that the country was abounding in wealth. Shortly afterwards there was a famine, and several other famines have occurred since then. For all these reasons I think there is a strong case, apart altogether from the obligations imposed by the Act of Union, for treating Ireland as a, separate country, and for exempting her from this tax.

I hope the hon. Member who moved to omit Ireland from this clause will forgive me if I do not enter at length into his arguments. It seems to me that whatever cause of complaint hon. Members from Ireland may have with regard to tea and tobacco, it absolutely disappears when we come to the question of beer, because there is no doubt whatever that the great bulk of this tax will fall either on the brewers or the consumers in Great Britain rather than in Ireland. As far as I can judge, out of £1,750,000, the total amount of this tax, something less than £110,000 will fall on Ireland. That is not by any means a large proportion; in fact, it is a small proportion. But the hon. Member for South Roscommon suggested that this tax would interfere with the great Irish industry known as Guinness's Brewery. I fancy none of the shareholders of that admirable concern will be much affected.

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not suggest that this tax would interfere with a business like Guinness's, but I did suggest it would interfere with small provincial brewers throughout the country, and place the trade in the hands of Guinness.

Then I am afraid the hon. Member is rather contradicted by the hon. Member for North Dublin, because his argument was that while the brewers in England might bear the tax, the brewers in Ireland would throw it on the publicans, owing to the different system existing in that country. It is very difficult to say precisely in what way an indirect tax will reach the consumer. My belief is that this tax will ultimately come to the consumer, somehow or other. It may be in some cases by the addition of a little water, which may not be a bad thing for the consumer, but which certainly would be a bad thing for the Exchequer. I hope that hon. Gentlemen, even from Ireland, will see that, having imposed additional taxation on alcohol, I am bound to tax beer more heavily than spirits because beer is at present more lightly taxed than spirits. We could not have done anything with regard to existing indirect taxation which would have affected Ireland less than this tax on beer.

I approach the question from a different standpoint to that of my hon. friends. My view is that this tax will be an injury to the barley growers of Ireland, and that worse material will be put into beer and stout in Ireland. The majority of the people of Ireland are farmers, not like the people of this country, who have large industries and manufactures to depend on. In a great many counties in Ireland the best barley in the world is grown, and this increase in the tax on beer may cause the brewers of Ireland to purchase their barley in foreign countries. That would be a deplorable state of things, especially from the farmers' point of view. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that this tax will come out of the pockets of the consumers, and he makes light of the water that will be added to beer. I object to this tax on the part of the Irish farmers, who may be injured by it, and also because it is for the purposes of a war with which the people of Ireland have no sympathy, and which they regard as unjust. I hope my hon. friend will proceed to a division.

I protest against this tax on different grounds from my hon. friends. I object to it because it is opposed to the terms of the Act of Union. I admit beer is a commodity pretty heavily taxed in this country, and not without reason. For instance, if the House of Lords became fossilised you would simply turn on the beer tap to obtain members. I never had the pleasure of holding a post-mortem on a noble Lord, but I believe the colour of his blood is different from that of a Commoner. In forty years we have lost in Ireland more than a million in population, and during the same period our taxes have increased by more than a million sterling. Where then does the Act of Union come in? You broke the treaty you signed in the Transvaal in 1857, having been put on the scent, when a countryman of mine—O'Reilly—found a pebble which turned out to be a diamond, and which he sold for £500. You now ignore the treaty with Ireland, and treat it merely as a district of England, whereas it is in a different position altogether. On those grounds I protest strongly against this tax.

I have heard with the utmost astonishment the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an attempt would in all probability be made to evade this tax by the addition of water to beer. Coming from any person any suggestion of that kind is, in my opinion, most undesirable, to say the least of it; but coming from such a high authority as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it is perfectly astounding. The retailers of beer are a class who will probably take the hint, and the result will be that the people will not only have to pay a greater price for their beer, but they will probably get their beer watered down. That would be most undesirable, and I for one am perfectly astonished that such a statement should have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I protest against the inclusion of Ireland in this increased taxation, because I think Ireland ought not to bear increased taxation at all. On the other hand, I would feel very much inclined to argue that if taxation is to be put on Ireland and England it would be a much fairer thing to put a greater tax on beer, and not increase the tax on whisky at all, because whereas about half the quantity of beer per head is consumed in Ireland that is consumed in England, the consumption of whisky per head is about the same, and, of course, England is the larger and the richer country, and beer is the national drink. That being so, it would be infinitely fairer to put 2s. extra on beer, and not to increase the tax on whisky at all. I agree with my hon. friend who desires to exclude Ireland altogether, because I think the inclusion of Ireland is most I unfair; but the beer tax will not affect the Irish people as much as the tax on whisky. Beer is manufactured mostly in England, and I say that you ought in common fairness to make the people of this country pay in something like a fair proportion towards the cost of the war. An increase of only a shilling a barrel upon beer is altogether unfair in proportion to the taxation you are putting on whisky. I say that sixpence additional on every gallon of whisky weighs infinitely heavier upon Ireland than the extra one shilling a barrel on beer upon England. For that reason I think the proposal is in itself unfair. I regret at all times, Mr. Ellis, to use any language which may not be strictly Parliamentary, and I always try to avoid it, especially when we have the pleasure of seeing you in the chair; but I really do say that I find it quite impossible to characterise in language which would be considered Parliamentary the attempt which has been made to make the Irish people—and the very poorest of the Irish people—pay a larger contribution towards the expenses of the war. It is the most unjust, the most unfair, and the meanest proposition that ever was made at any time by any Chancellor of the Exchequer. This war is to cost an enormous amount of money, and to tax every unfortunate Irishman who takes a glass of stout or beer with his dinner or his supper in the evening, and make that man pay towards the expenses of your enormous army of a quarter of a million of men in South Africa, is a most unjust and iniquitous proposal. In regard to the increased tax on beer, I think the same thing applies to it as applied to the increased taxes on other commodities. It seems as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had singled out all those things that are necessaries of life for taxation. There are a variety of things that might be taxed in Ireland, which I believe would have realised the money the right hon. Gentleman wants, but he makes no such proposition. There is no proposition to tax champagne or the expensive wines that are consumed by rich people.

I increased the duty on champagne and expensive wines last year.

Yes, but I think you ought to put even more extra taxation on them this year. If it were found necessary by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose an additional tax on expensive wines last year, when the whole world was in a state of peace, there is an additional reason for putting on an additional tax upon expensive drinks now, when money has to be raised for the war. The gentlemen in this country who drink their bottle of champagne are quite indifferent as to how long the war will last, for it will not cost them any more for their bottle of champagne; but the unfortunate coal porter who works all day on the quays of Dublin will find, when he gets his half-pint of stout, that he has to pay an additional halfpenny for it. Now, I ask any impartial man, is that justice; is it fairplay? Is that laying with equal hand an equal burden of taxation on all classes according to their means of bearing taxation? It is not. And it is addi- tionally unfair when it applies to Ireland. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are amused at that; but I maintain that we are entitled to say that this taxation is additionally unfair on Ireland, and I could prove that without the slightest trouble if you, Mr. Ellis, would allow me to do so by going into the question of the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland. It is within the knowledge of every Member of the House, and of the outside public, that there are special circumstances in connection with the taxation of Ireland for Imperial purposes which justify me in saying in spite of the laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this tax, which falls hardly on the poor people of Great Britain, falls with additional hardship on the poor people of Ireland. I wish to say no more than I have said, because I know that I could not influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I conclude by referring to his original astounding suggestion that this extra taxation would be met by the people having their beer watered. The Irish people are pretty good judges, and know whether their beer is watered or not; but if the people of this country get their beer watered it will serve them right, because they have allowed this country and the Government to drift into this most disastrous, unjust, and expensive war in South Africa.

I wish, in a very few words, to enter my protest against this beer tax. This tax hits my constituency in a peculiar way, because Kilkenny, famous in many other respects, has been specially famous for the excellent quality of its beer. There are two or three breweries in the city, and, in fact, they afford the only means of employment in the city, so that not only are the poor people who drink beer but the industry itself is hit by this extra tax on beer. It is an extraordinary thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have selected the Irish people to bear this extra tax to pay the expenses of a war with which, it is notorious, they have no sympathy. The people of Ireland have demonstrated their opinion against the war, and I believe it is certain that if the masses of the people of this country were only allowed to exercise their right of free speech they also would pronounce against the war. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, speaking on the proposed increase of the tax on tea, said that the large mass of the people of the country should be asked to contribute to the expenses of the war as well as the classes. I deny that entirely. I say that the masses of the people had nothing whatever to do with instigating the war, and that they are already contributing most to it. They are contributing the fighting material and the blood which is being wasted in the war. The least that the wealthy magnates who got up the war can do is to contribute the money to pay for it. My hon. friend the Member for East Clare mentioned champagne. I think the people who indulge in champagne in glorification of the war should pay for it. The prime mover in the war, Mr. Cecil Rhodes, laid in a great store of champagne at Kimberley, and allowed the masses of the people who were in the Army to lose their lives for his honour and glory. It is absurd to say that you should tax tea and beer, which are the necessaries of life of the poor, in order to make them contribute to the cost of the war, when they are already giving their lives, or the lives of their breadwinners, to the war. I think every hon. Member who claims to represent the masses of the people is bound to protest against this new tax on beer. So far as my constituents are concerned, it is a very serious matter, because of the reasons I have given. The beer industry in Kilkenny is the only industry in that city. Before the Union was brought about—

Order, order! The hon. Member is wandering considerably from the Amendment before the House.

Am I not entitled, Mr. Ellis, to refer to the fact that my constituency may be brought to ruin by this tax? Before the Union Kilkenny was a city of wealth, with a population four times the number it has now. And is this diminished population to be overtaxed again? I shall, of course, vote against the imposition of this tax.

As another Irish Member, I rise to protest against this increased taxation. If this tax is imposed on porter in Ireland the direct effect will be that all the small breweries will be absorbed by the larger, and that I would regret. On the sea side of my constituency there is a great deal of barley grown, and the growers have a ready market for their produce at the local brewery. This tax must fall upon the brewer, who is the only one who can pay it, for the margin of profit on the sale of the barley is already too low, and the growers would not be able to contribute to it. I have no knowledge of whether it is the intention of Her Majesty to visit South Cork, but if it is her intention so to do I am afraid the ardour of the people who will drink her health will be damped if they know that in so doing they are also providing sinews for a war against which they have protested, and in the policy of which they do not believe. On those grounds I support the Amendment of my hon. friend.

was opposed to the extra duty of a shilling a barrel on beer. From long experience, both in this country and America, he had come to the conclusion that the more the legislation in the cause of temperance and the higher the tax put upon certain articles the greater became the ardour of the people to possess those articles, even to the extent of breaking the law. Hon. Members would find, if they carried their recollections back, that in spite of all the temperance measures passed by the House of Commons the consumption of drink per head had largely increased. In 1879 it amounted to £3 10s. per head, and in 1898 it had increased to £3 16s. By increasing this duty the Government were not only not assisting temperance reform,

Order, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the question before the House, which is the omission of Ireland from this particular increase of duty.

said in putting this tax on beer the Government was not only doing an injustice to the working man of Great Britain, but a greater injustice to his fellow in Ireland, whose revenue would not compare with that of the working man of Great Britain. The imposition of the tax would also dislocate and demoralise the small brewing industries in Ireland. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that it was manifestly unfair that Ireland should be compelled to contribute to a tax with the reason for which they did not agree. Already in his opinion more duties were imposed than were sufficient to meet any emergency, but Ireland had from beginning to end disagreed with the war policy, and had consistently condemned it, and now the Irish representatives could only protest against the tax of one shilling per barrel on beer both with their voices and their votes.

In rising to support the Amendment which stands first in my name I desire to state that it was substituted for that previously drafted, but unfortunately it places me in the position of wishing, apparently, to reduce the amount sought to be raised by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a course of proceeding which would not commend itself, I am certain, to any of the three classes on whose behalf I am speaking—namely, the farmer, the maltster, and the beer-drinker. The last thing that any of them would desire, I am certain, is that we should seek to reduce in any way or to hinder the collection of that sum of money which is necessary to carry on the war which has been forced upon us. I do not consider that this is the proper time to make what might be called a pure beer speech, but the principle that underlies both of the Amendments on the Paper is the unfairness of the present incidence of the duty on beer, that it is inequitable as between barley-malt and substitutes. The percentage of barley-malt used in beer as compared with substitutes shows very alarming figures. The average quantity of malt used by brewers to each hundred-weight of sugar in 1882, just after the repeal of the malt tax, was 42 bushels; in 1895 the average had fallen to twenty-four bushels, and in 1897–98 to under sixteen bushels. The latest available figures are made up to September, 1898, and I have not the slightest doubt that since that time the proportion has fallen still further. Although I have said this is not the time to make a pure-beer speech, I wish it to be understood that the desire for pure beer is not less than it was. That will be almost universally admitted. It is being asked for in increasing quantities, so far as I can judge from the correspondence that reaches me, and there is no doubt that the consumption of beer and the quality of the beer which is consumed in this country is a very fit subject, not only for the consideration of this House, but of any thoughtful man who takes an interest in the well-being of his fellow-countrymen. Does not the immortal bard say that "a quart of ale is a dish for a king"? Well, I don't think the ale that is met with in the East End of London and some of the great towns is such as you would venture to give to any king—not even to King Prempeh. The "fourpenny" which the labouring classes have to drink would, I think, hardly come under that description. Why are they compelled to drink it? I have been told by a great authority on several occasions. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire who told us on the last occasion when the question of pure beer was discussed, the 29th of March, 1896, he was compelled to drink it because of a monopoly "so powerful that nothing can resist it." The right hon. Gentleman was right. He found it very difficult himself to resist it. In the course of the long and weary watchings I have had in this House on this question, when I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire leaning on the arms of the late Mr. Whitbread, and that high priest of mysteries, the Member for Wimbledon—I have wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get any advantage from bowing down in the house of Rimmon. The Amendment I first placed on the Paper provided a substitute for the amount which I desire to take off the pure beer. The original Amendment would not have materially reduced the yield of the duty, and it would have compelled those who are admittedly making the largest profit to contribute their fair proportion. I hope if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to differentiate between those who are admittedly making a very large profit out of the use of sugar and other substitutes, and those who continue to use only malt, so as to make the burden fall upon the shoulders which are best able to bear it, perhaps some future Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to do so—some imaginative Chancellor like the Member for King's Lynn, or someone who occupies that important position in future might very likely see his way to do something to redress the inequality. It used to be said: How are we to differentiate? The Inland Revenue authorities now have forms by which it is possible to see at a glance the sort and quantities of substitutes used. That quantity is an increasing one. If we had lived in the time of Sheridan I have no doubt he would have been tempted to repeat that interesting verse of his on this particular point—

"They ve raised the price of table drink,

What is the reason, do you think?

The tax on malt's the cause, I hear,

But what has malt to do with beer?"

Very little nowadays, I am sorry to say, and that is the reason I am on my legs speaking upon this Amendment. The manufacture of malt in this country employs a great many hands. The growth of barley used to employ a great many hands, but it employs a much smaller number now. I am not speaking now of anything at second-hand. I am speaking of a thing I understand, because I am sorry to say I grow barley myself, and I know how, year by year, it becomes more and more difficult to sell barley at anything like a price which pays the cost of cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth made some allusions to this subject the other day. I was very sorry to miss that speech, as the right hon. Gentleman does not come amongst us so often now as he used to do, and I am told he was in fine form. I have always found him in the best form when gambolling in the barley field or hiding in the hop garden, and I hope we shall have the benefit of hearing him to-night on this great subject. Doubtless he will be disposed to say that this increased use of substitutes is exaggerated. I do not think it is. I will not weary the House by reading long extracts, but there are one or two to which I must allude. The question of the use of substitutes was alluded to by the hon. Member for Wimbledon in a very memorable declaration which he made when speaking in this House in 1894 on a similar Bill to the one now under consideration. He said^*—

"An English brewer wished to use English barley, if possible; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to insist upon running up the taxation on beer to such a point that it could not be made from malt and hops, the brewer, like other manufacturers, would naturally seek other ingredients."

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxiv., p. 502.

That is not good reading for the agriculturist or the English farmer, nor is it good reading for the man who represents sixty miles of agricultural country. What has been the effect of this present proposal? I had a short letter this morning from a very large maltster, saying—

"I was very pleased to see the notice of your Amendment. I have been told by six large brewers that the extra shilling per barrel duty would drive them to use substitutes—raw grain, maize, rice grits, sugar, etc. This would operate against the barley grower and maltster, as some brewers use from fifty to seventy-five per cent. of sugar. I think your suggestion of four shillings per hundred weight on sugar, etc., is very fair, and could be easily collected with the beer duty. I f enclose you an advertisement from a Burton paper, which has appeared since the duty of one shilling was proposed."

The advertisement is very short, and is, as follows:—

"—, —, manufacturers of flaked malts, maize, and rice. The position we hold, as one of the largest maize importers in the United Kingdom, and our modern plant, enable us to compete most favourably in quality and price. Samples and prices on application."

That only appeared after the extra shilling duty was announced. It is in very large print, evidently a very expensive advertisement, and one which could have been inserted only in the hope and expectation of a very large business resulting. It is said that this duty is collected from the brewers. Yes, it is collected from the brewers, but it is not paid by them. These extracts which I have just read show that. It is very important that it should be understood that the increasing of a duty does not apparently reduce the brewer's profits. The price of the beer to the public is the same, although the price of the materials is more, and, therefore, substitutes must be used. We barley growers and maltsters suffer because less malt is used, and the beer drinkers suffer because they get a more sophisticated drink. In the Amendment which I originally desired to move, I had to bear in mind that had that 4s. per cwt. been placed on sugar substitutes, while it would have realised about the same amount for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would not even then have brought up the cost of these materials to that of barley malt. It is very necessary to bear this in mind, because it may be that in the future this tax, which is so eagerly availed of by all Chancellors of the Exchequer, should be placed, as I have said, a little more on the right shoulders. I have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that some of this tax is to be recouped by the brewers by raising the price to the publican. The publican is not supposed to charge more, but he will have to pay more. That is a part of the happy system to which the right bon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire has so often alluded. The brewer has many ways of recouping himself, and my object in this Amendment is that there should be an equitable adjustment of the duty according to the materials used. He can use whatever he likes, but if he uses the cheaper materials, and so makes a larger percentage of profit, it is only right that he should contribute a larger sum to the national Exchequer. I regret very much—and I am not the only Member of this House who so regrets—that that Amendment was out of order. I have received a great many letters and assurances from Members of the House to the effect that if I had been able to move that Amendment they would have been glad to support me, because they think the duty as at present levied is inequitable. The brewer who uses substitutes as against barley-malt turns out more beer with the same amount of plant, so that he is all the more able to bear extra taxation. By raising the duty on substitutes any Government would, in my humble opinion, confer a distinct benefit on arable farmers, on maltsters, on beer drinkers, and on the cause of true temperance. I know very well that in this House you have got to hear the other side of the question, and I shall no doubt be confronted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the findings of the Beer Materials Committee. This Beer Materials Committee, which, in a weak moment, I accepted, did not agree with my view. I admit that. I am anxious not to say anything about the Committee myself—it is not proper that a Member of Parliament should—but I would like, if I might, to read some remarks of Mr. Clare Sewell Read, who was himself a member of the Committee, and for a long time an honoured Member of this House, and who stands as high in the agricultural world as any man in England. He said at Norwich directly he was free to speak after the Committee had reported—

"At the first meeting I told Dr. Bell, 'I shall be in a minority of one, and when I write my Minority Report you five will have a Majority Report.' … Later in the speech, he said: In the first place, I may state that our agricultural witnesses were very shabbily treated. I have served on three Commissions and on scores of Committees, and I have always seen this, that any man who is not a real expert, but a common creature like a farmer, is allowed to send in the heads of his evidence to the Chairman, and to tell his story in his own way. But I think that Mr. Sapwell will bear me out that this was not the way in which our farmers were treated by this Committee. They were cross-examined as if they were at the Old Bailey, and it was not until we had sat for eighteen months that I got the Chairman to allow, and to insist upon it, that witnesses should be permitted to tell their story in their own way."

These are not my remarks, but those of Mr. Clare Sewell Read. So much for the composition and the proceedings of the Committee. What were its findings? Naturally, they were adverse to our contentions. But there was a Minority Report, signed by Mr. Clare Sewell Read himself. What were its findings? They, very shortly, were—

"That a beer brewed with substitutes cannot have the same composition as an article produced from malt and hops only. That the use of substitutes undoubtedly entails the introduction of substances foreign to normal beer. That these substitutes may in some instances be injurious to health, and are certainly less nutritious and wholesome. That beer made from malt and hops only is brewed by nearly half of the brewers in the United Kingdom, and that, therefore, it is possible to produce good beer without the use of sugar or any other substitutes. That the use of preservatives may be, and probably is in many cases, much abused. That at present the public have no adequate protection against the use of deleterious substances in the manufacture of beer. That it would be neither difficult nor vexatious to enforce such legislation as would ensure to the purchaser his right, when he asks for beer—the national beverage—to obtain a beer brewed entirely from malt and hops."

Is it not in the national interest to brew beer from malt and hops? I attribute some of the great victories we have won and the great deeds we have done to a certain extent to the consumption of good beer. I have heard many remarks to the effect that the character of our population, especially in the great towns, has decidedly altered. I think hon. Members who have recently had the opportunity of seeing in our streets celebrations of the victories won by our Army must have observed an excitability more akin to that of the Neapolitan fisherman than the staid way in which our citizens were accustomed to conduct themselves on such occasions in former days, and I have come to the conclusion that it is the deterioration of their native drink which has something to do with this great alteration. I do not wish to say anything about Bavarian ales, but when I was over in Bavaria I was very much struck with the steadiness, the sobriety, and the great advance made by that beer-drinking community. It is a matter of common knowledge that this is due to the Bavarian and lager beers which they drink. I am proud to say that good lager beer can now be made in England, not a thousand miles from Burton. It is a fact that a considerable quantity of that beer is not at all objectionable or injurious to anyone. There is an hon. Member who is well known for his vocal talents and for his readiness to give his services; and he told me that, on one occasion, he was present at a supper in Bavaria, and after taking part in it and singing many songs, he found to his horror that he had consumed twenty-two glasses of lager beer. He went out with fear and trembling, and was pleased and indeed rather surprised to find on leaving the hotel that he was not only perfectly well, but on returning to his lodgings he was able to prosecute with success two very difficult anatomical problems to which he had been for a very long time devoting himself. It is quite clear that the effect of this beer which Bavarians enjoy so much, and which seems to be denied to the majority of Englishmen, is an entirely different thing to that which obtains throughout the greater part of this country. I send two or three wagons and horses to the market town, and if anything goes wrong, the invariable answer I get from them is, "We stopped and had a glass of beer at so-and-so." They may have had one glass or two glasses, but I do not suppose, at any rate, that they have had twenty-two glasses, and surely, therefore, there must be something in the quality of the liquor. I do wish to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and upon this House that there is more in this question than merely an afternoon discussion to provide something to laugh and smile at. We are engaged in a very serious war, which as taxing the energies of our country to the utmost. Every year—and more particularly during this great war—the question of population in the country districts is becoming a more serious one, and it is becoming more difficult to see where you are going to get the muscle and sinew from to fight your battles ashore and afloat, to say nothing of tilling the land. What is needed is some attempt to put before the working classes of this country—and especially the classes to which I have referred—a better class of drink than that which now exists, and I think this is an important consideration which should not be lost sight of. How that is to be done is a difficult problem to solve, and I only bring it before the House to urge hon. Members to look into it for themselves. Every instance which I can hear of where a public-house is in private hands, and where the beer is carefully selected, it not only supplies refreshment to the wayfarer, but is also a benefit to the locality. I cannot help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either now or upon some future occasion, will help us upon this question by adjusting the incidence of the duty upon the materials used in making beer he will do something at any rate to bring back to the countryside and to our villages that good old-fashioned sort of beer which was brewed in former times. I am glad to say that beer can be now much better brewed than it was in previous years, owing to improved apparatus. I think if he would do something of the kind suggested to encourage the use of the genuine materials we should in the end derive immense benefit, and future generations would bless the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who addressed himself to the improvement of the nation's beer. (Cheers.)