said he did not propose to move the rejection of the Bill, but the Charity Commissioners objected entirely to the principle of the proposal, which was to grant the compulsory powers of the Lands Clauses to one charity as against another. St. Bartholomew's Hospital wished to acquire, by compulsory powers, certain lands from Christ's Hospital. The Commissioners believed it to be absolutely without precedent for one charity to be granted compulsory powers against another charity, and they strongly objected to the very heavy cost which would undoubtedly be inflicted on the charity by the use of these powers. The Commissioners would have thought it their duty to oppose the Second Reading, only it was understood that the governors of Christ's Hospital, after the debate of last Friday, had agreed not to oppose the Second Reading or the preamble of the Bill. The view of the Charity Commissioners was that the Bill was quite unnecessary, because they had made it a condition of any sale of the site of Christ's Hospital that a certain part of it—namely, that part desired by St. Bartholomew's—should be assured to St. Bartholomew's by means of pre-emption at a price pro rata to the whole amount given for the site. He hoped that before long some arrangement might be come to between the two charities whereby the expense of the use of compulsory powers might be avoided.

, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, thanked his hon. friend for not opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, the object of which was to enable a great institution to carry on its work more effectively. The governors of Christ's Hospital were very much gratified by the attitude of the Charity Commissioners. He did not think that any legitimate rebuke attached to St. Bartholomew's in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of Sir David Barbour's statement in his Report that some of the gold mining companies of the Transvaal paid in 1898 dividends equal to their nominal capital, and that their profits will largely increase in the next few years, he will impose a special war tax on their profits in addition to the 10 per cent. tax for revenue purposes. At the same time I beg to welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. In reply to his question, I have to say I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on Monday, the 17th June, in which I indicated, as far as I am able, the general views of His Majesty's Government.† I can only add now that of course the larger the profits that may be made by individual miners the more they will pay in accordance with Sir David Barbour's suggestions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these mines will pay anything further than the 10 per cent. to which I have alluded? Does he refer to any other matter?

In the answer to which I have referred the hon. Member I did not say anything about 10 per cent. What I did say was that, speaking generally, as regards the main principles laid down by Sir David Barbour in his Report, His Majesty's Government found themselves in agreement with them, but that the whole question would have to be gradually evolved and the details left to Lord Milner to be worked out on the spot.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bear in mind that if we put a reasonable tax on these mines—

Order, order! The hon. Member is not at liberty to argue the point.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that for a long period ministers of religion have not been allowed access to many of the camps of concentration in South Africa, and that, in many cases, the prisoners and refugees have been obliged to bury their own dead without the help of such ministers, and whether, under proper regulations, ministers of religion will in future be allowed access to the camps.

Dutch Reformed ministers are granted access to the camps in the Orange River Colony and Natal. I have no definite information as to the Transvaal

† See page 539.

and Cape Colony camps, but I have no reason to suppose that they are treated differently. Those in the Orange River Colony are receiving monthly salaries.

Since when has this permission been granted?

I cannot give the hon. Member the exact date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state how many officers and how many non-commissioned officers and members of the Volunteer force joined the first levy, and how many the second levy of the Imperial Yeomanry, and how many in each levy were formerly members of the Yeomanry Cavalry.

The figures are as follow:—First levy, 1900, Volunteers, 1,145; Yeomanry, 1,898. Second levy, 1901, Volunteers, 3,997; Yeomanry, 618.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any, and if so what, express provision is contained in contracts for supplies for the Army requiring the contractor to pay a rate of wages in accordance with the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution; whether any supervision is exercised by the War Office over contractors as to the rates of wages paid to their workpeople; whether the sub-letting of contracts is permitted, with or without notice to the War Office; and whether he can give any assurance that efforts will be made to procure compliance with the Fair Wages Resolution in all War Office contracts.

All contracts for supplies of food in the United Kingdom contain the usual clause, viz.—

"This contract shall not be sub-let or transferred without the written permission of the Director of Army Contracts. The wages paid in the execution of this contract shall be those generally accepted as current in the trade for competent workmen where the work is carried out."

Sub-letting, other than that customary in the trade, is not permitted except as above. Efforts are always made to secure compliance with the Fair Wages Resolution as soon as any case of non-compliance is brought to the attention of the War Office, otherwise the Department does not intervene, on the assumption that the contractor carries out the conditions of the contract.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the pay of the Chief Paymaster's Army Pay Department has been increased, he will consider the advisability of granting some increase to staff paymasters who have completed ten years service in that rank in view of the responsible additional duties assigned to them in connection with the monthly payments of separation allowance and allotments to the families of soldiers serving with their regiments in South Africa as well as to those of Militia battalions embodied for home service.

The matter has been carefully considered, and it is not deemed expedient to make any increase of pay in the direction suggested. There is nothing to show that staff paymasters of ten years service are specially affected by the duties referred to. These officers are eligible for charge pay, varying in accordance with the magnitude of their responsibilities, from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per diem.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that at the inquest held at Castletown Berehaven relative to the death of a seaman, who met with an accident aboard the "Diadem," a lieutenant of the Navy stated that a Roman Catholic priest was not sent for to minister to the wants of the dying man because a Church of England chaplain was on board the "Diadem," and his services could be availed of if the dying seaman required them, and whether he will make inquiry in this case.

There appears to be no foundation for the allegation that a lieutenant of the Navy stated that a priest was not sent for because a Church of England chaplain was on board. The evidence of the officer was to the effect that a Roman Catholic chaplain was not sent for because the injured man was not considered to be in immediate danger. Full inquiry has been made into this case, and the circumstances were explained in my answer to the hon. Member on Thursday.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the terms of contracts for the supply of fresh meat to the Navy in Ireland permit the substitution of foreign for home-fed meat; and, if so, in what proportion.

The terms of contract for the supply of fresh meat to the Navy are uniform throughout the United Kingdom. The conditions of the contract as to quality are as follows:—

"The whole of the beef to be delivered under this contract is to be good, fat, well-fed, freshly killed ox or maiden heifer beef, sweet, wholesome, and free from bruises, such as shall be approved by the commanding officer of the vessel supplied as in all respects fit for His Majesty's service, to the entire exclusion of the flesh of any bull, bull stag, cow, or any beast whatever that may have dropped on the road No refrigerated or frozen beef to be supplied."

There is no further stipulation as to the origin of the meat.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether steps will be taken with a view of preventing the supply of foreign meat to the Navy?

Order, order! The question on the Paper asks for the terms of the contracts, and these have been read out at length.

Yes, but what is done to prevent an evasion of them?

Precautions are taken to see that the terms of existing contracts are carried out, and as a matter of fact they are rigorously carried out.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from Rear-Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, in which the latter states that he has communicated his views upon the want of strength and the want of proper war organisation of the British Fleet in the Mediterranean to the properly constituted authorities in as strong and clear Anglo-Saxon language as he can command; whether such a communication has been received; whether its contents, or any part of it, can be published; and, if not, whether any steps are being taken to remedy the shortcomings which Lord Charles Beresford says cause him extreme anxiety.

My attention has been drawn to the letter from the Rear-Admiral Second in Command in the Mediterranean, which has appeared in the public press. There is nothing to show that the letter was intended for publication, and it seems highly improbable that the Rear-Admiral would have taken a step so contrary to the discipline of the Navy as to make a public communication with regard to confidential reports transmitted by him in respect of the Fleet in which he is serving. All official communications from the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, as well as any communications from the Rear-Admiral and Captains of the Mediterranean Fleet, which the Commander-in-Chief of that Fleet has thought fit to transmit, have been carefully considered by the Admiralty. They are of a confidential nature, and there is no intention of making them public.

I wish to ask my hon. friend a supplementary question—whether, with regard to the regular communications to which the hon. Member has adverted, the I Government will take into consideration the condition of the defences and the number of the garrisons at Gibraltar, Malta, and Egypt.

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

The answer is—Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the conference of colonial delegates in reference to the Imperial Court of Appeal, there will be any representatives from Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, and other Crown colonies.

Sir William Smith, the present Chief Justice of British Guiana, who has also served as a judge at the Gold Coast and in Cyprus, has been selected to represent all the colonies other than those under responsible government.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations on this subject from Ceylon or other Crown colonies asking for direct representation?

No, Sir; but I have had suggestions from various colonies that it might be desirable in the interests of Crown colonies that they should be represented.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in view of the contemplated legislation with regard to the courts of final appeal for the Empire, he will consent to treat as unopposed the motion for a Return entitled Appeals (House of Lords and Judicial Committee) on this day's Paper.

Yes, Sir; there is no objection to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can say when the usual explanatory Memorandum on Indian Finance will probably be issued.

The explanatory Memorandum on Indian Finance is in the hands of the printers, but some of the information has only just been received from India. I hope that it will be ready for delivery to Members in two or three weeks.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the declaration made in the opium debate in 1891 by the right hon. Member for North-east Manchester, who was then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that if the Chinese Government thought proper to raise the duty on opium to a prohibitive extent, or shut out the article altogether, this country would not expend £1 in powder and shot, or lose the life of a soldier, to force opium upon the Chinese, and whether Great Britain has formally informed the Powers that she will not consent to China's increasing the duty on imports of opium and rice.

My attention has been directed to the declaration of my right hon. friend, to which reference is made in the question. As I have already stated in answer to the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire, the question of an increase in the Chinese duty on opium has not arisen.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to afford the House any information concerning the proposed French railway from Haiphong to Yunnan-fu, particularly with regard to its possible prolongation to the Yangtsze, and the conditions governing its protection by French troops.

The French Government obtained from China in 1898 a concession for a railway from the Tonking frontier to Yunnan-fu. Its construction has not yet commenced, though surveys were carried out previous to the recent troubles. We have no further information, and we are not aware of any agreement authorising the employment of French troops for the protection of the line.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that it is not proposed to present Papers with reference to railways in Asia Minor generally, he will be able to lay upon the Table Papers relating to the Anatolian Railway only.

A consular report will shortly be issued which contains information relating to Turkish railways and some particulars in regard to the Anatolian Railway.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been made by the Turkish Government to increase the tariff charges on goods imported into Asia Minor; whether he has any official information showing that such increased taxation would fall chiefly on British merchandise, and that the Turkish Government intends to apply the proceeds of the increased taxation to promoting the construction of a railway from Konia to the Persian Gulf; and whether, in view of the commercial and political interests of Great Britain, His Majesty's Government will refuse to consent to any increase in the tariff on British goods imported into Asia Minor.

With regard to the two first paragraphs, there is no further information to add to the answer given to the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division of Wiltshire, on the 18th instant, in reply to a similar question.† The proposal of the Turkish Government was that there should be an increase in the tariff for the

† See page 708.

whole Turkish Empire, and was not confined to Asia Minor, and it made no reference to the railway from Konia to the Persian Gulf.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are proposing to reconstruct or abolish the system of paying compensation to the owners for slaves freed in the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, as recommended by Mr. Commissioner Last in his Despatch of 10th January, 1901.

His Majesty's Government are not proposing to take steps in the direction indicated. Such action lies, in the first instance, within the competence of the Zanzibar Government, and it appears from the Memorandum, printed at page 33 of Africa, No. 4, 1901, that Sir Lloyd Matthews contemplates advising the reduction of the average compensation by about one-half.

Then, is not the recommendation to be adopted?

The hon. Member could not have heard the first part of my answer, in which I say "the Government are not proposing to take steps in the direction indicated."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to draw supplementary labour to the Islands of Pemba and Zanzibar from the British Protectorate of Uganda and British East Africa, under contracts for periods of three years, as recommended by Sir Lloyd Matthews last January; and, if so, what steps will be taken to secure for the natives full freedom in regard to entering into a contract, and full knowledge of the effect of any contract which may be entered into, and what arrangements will be made to secure for them satisfactory terms and conditions.

As was stated in the reply to the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division on June 18th, His Majesty's Government do not, as at present advised, propose to act on the recommendation of Sir Lloyd Matthews.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government are aware of the cause of the delay in the commencement by the Turkish Government of the construction of four new lights at the southern end of the Red Sea; whether the light dues surrendered by the Egyptian Government for this purpose and accumulated for the last ten years can be made available if a want of funds in the Ottoman Treasury is the reason for the continued danger to navigation caused by the absence of these lights; whether His Majesty's Government are using their best influence to procure the fulfilment of an undertaking entered into more than two years ago; what has occurred to delay the erection of a light on the Island of Socotra for which the Under Secretary of State for War in 1899 stated that the Government of India had been requested to prepare plans, taking into consideration the fact that the erection of this light has been regarded as important for many years, and that a shipwreck occurred in 1897 for want of it.

His Majesty's Government are informed that the construction of the four lights in the Red Sea will be commenced early in November. The lighting apparatus is being constructed, and will be ready in September. In regard to the light on Socotra, the Government of Bombay was unable to submit plans and estimates in a complete form until the end of last year. These are now under the consideration of the Trinity House and the Board of Trade.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether representations have been made on the part of the local community of Gibraltar to the effect that their undertaking to pay a portion of the cost of the commercial mole was largely based on the existence of a considerable trade in coal, which they now consider to be injuriously affected by the proposed coal tax; and what answer, if any, has been given to these representations.

I have received through the Colonial Office communications from the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce urging that the duty on coal should not apply to coal exported to Gibraltar. I cannot trace any such representation as that stated in the question, and I do not think that the duty could by any possibility affect the power of Gibraltar to fulfil the arrangement made in this matter.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received any reply from the Parliamentary Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain to his inquiry as to whether they would support an extended investigation into the coal question; and, if so, whether he can state the tenour of it; and whether he has addressed similar inquiries to the representatives of colliery workmen, to chambers of commerce, coal-exporting ports, and to coal owners not connected with the Mining Association of Great Britain; whether, with the view of preventing an unsatisfactory conclusion from an inquiry confined to the probable effect of the coal duty, he can give an assurance that the investigation will be by Royal Commission and of a comprehensive scope; and whether he can before Clause 3 of the Finance Bill is reached give the terms of reference to, and the composition of, the Commission or Committee.

I have received a reply, which I have no doubt the hon. Member is acquainted with, as it appears to have been printed and circulated to the various local associations. I can only say that it does not seem to me satisfactory. I have addressed no inquiries on the subject to the other bodies named, who have not communicated with me. The answer to the second and third paragraphs of the question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any complaints as to the way in which the president of the court conducted the inquiry into the loss of the "Primrose Hill," and as to his behaviour towards the solicitor who appeared On behalf of the parents of some of the drowned apprentices, and who at the conclusion of the case made a protest; and whether he can take any steps towards ensuring that those who have a right to be represented shall have the means of eliciting the essential facts of the circumstances attending a loss such as that of the vessel referred to.

Yes, Sir; and the hon. Member himself asked me a question on the subject on the 14th of this month. I have nothing to add to my answer then† except that I have no power to take any such steps as those suggested.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the serious nature of this case, in which the representatives of the relatives of the deceased men were refused permission to address the court, the Board of Trade will seriously consider the advisability of securing the fullest representation in all cases of this kind?

I am not the President of the Board of Trade, and if I were I should not have the power to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Any person may have a right to be present, but there is a technical point—namely, that a solicitor representing parties has no right to address the court unless with the leave of the judge.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that a desirable state of affairs?

Order, order!

I will call attention to the matter on the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary.

† See page 419.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case (Superintendent of Police v. Hughes), decided on the 13th instant by the Birkenhead county justices, in which an executrix of a deceased publican, who was carrying on the latter's business prior to obtaining a transfer of the licence, was summoned for two offences on licensed premises—namely, permitting drunkenness and permitting gaming; whether he is aware that the case was dismissed upon the ground that the defendant was not a licensed person within the meaning of the Licensing Act, 1872, Section 17, and that, although entitled to sell, she could not be convicted of any offence under any of the penal sections of, that Act; and, seeing that this point is a casus omissus in the statute referred to, whether he will introduce legislation to remedy this defect in the existing law.

I understand that the facts of the case are as indicated in the question, and it seems to be a case which would claim consideration on any opportunity of amending the licensing law generally. But I can make no promise on the point.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the foreign population of the United Kingdom received last year a permanent addition of upwards of 14,000 aliens, in addition to 15,000 foreign sailors coming as passengers, and of whom no record is kept when they leave as members of the crews of outgoing British ships, and that there was an increase of over 800 per cent. in the number of Roumanians, of 39 per cent. in the number of Italians, and of 25 per cent. in the number of Russians and Poles arriving in this country, mainly for settlement in the East End of London; and seeing that 19,535 of these alien immigrants were in such a condition hat they had to be relieved by the Jewish Board of Guardians and the Russo-Jewish Conjoint Committee, and 2,015, including 1,100 Russians and Poles, had to be supported by the poor rates of London, whether His Majesty's Government will deal with this matter, having regard to the difficulty of housing our own population in east and south London.

The figures in the first paragraph of the question are approximately correct, but it cannot be stated that the Roumanians, Italians, Russians, and Poles arriving in this country came mainly for settlement in east London, a large number of them being known to have proceeded abroad. The figure (19,535) stated in the question as the number relieved by certain voluntary Jewish organisations appears to represent the total number of persons, native and alien, assisted by those organisations during the last year. The number of aliens who arrived in this country in 1900 and were assisted in that year by the agencies referred to may be estimated at about 4,000. During the year 1900 relief was given to 2,015 aliens (including 1,100 Russians and Poles) by London boards of guardians, but these figures included many persons who had arrived in this country in former years, and more than half of them received medical relief only. I am unable to make any promise as to legislation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to state how many of the aliens entering Great Britain last year, nominally en route for the United States, were refused passages by Transatlantic consular agents and steamship authorities at the ports of embarkation as undesirable settlers on American soil, and how many were refused admission at American ports under the Immigration Laws of Congress; and whether he is aware that these persons condemned as unfit by America were left in or thrown back upon Great Britain, their own countries also refusing them passports of re-entry.

I am unable to give figures as to passages to the United States refused by steamship companies. No Transatlantic consular agents have any power to refuse such passages. During 1900, 139 aliens arriving from the United Kingdom were refused admission to the United States under the Immigration Laws, but I cannot say how many of these entered Great Britain last year. This figure includes the persons rejected under the Contract Labour Law. I have no information confirming the statement in the last paragraph of the question as to the inability of these aliens to return to their native countries, and the information in my possession points in the other direction.

Have not Transatlantic consular agents at Liverpool power to refuse such passages?

I believe not. That, at any rate, is the information I have received.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the Labour Gazette, published by his department, in which it is stated that the number of emigrants sent back to this country shows a very considerable increase? What has become of them?

I cannot say.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many went to Leeds?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of he Board of Trade whether he is aware hat fifteen of the crew of the British steamship "Manchester Corporation" were sentenced by the magistrates at Montreal for refusing duty in conseqence of not being supplied with sufficient food; that they were supplied with eight pounds of beef, three pounds of which was bone, for their dinner, and asked the captain for more, which he refused; whether he is aware that these men requested permission to go on shore to lodge a complaint to the proper authority, which the captain would not allow, and that the men then refused to work; that the magistrates ordered the men on board and to pay all costs or go to prison for four weeks with hard labour; and whether it is his intention to recommend to His Majesty's Government the advisability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the question of the supply of food to seamen on British vessels.

My attention has been called to the case referred to by the hon. Member, and I have been in communication with the owners of the "Manchester Corporation" and with the Shipping Federation. The master of the vessel has also attended at the Board of Trade to explain the circumstances of the case. I understand that the accuracy of the facts with regard to the men's food as stated in the question is denied on behalf of the owners. It appears that the fifteen men demanded to be taken on shore in a body to see the consul, and that, having regard to the exigencies of the ship's work, permission was refused. As the men refused duty they were proceeded against. I have seen the official certificate of proceedings at Quebec, from which it appears that they were convicted for refusing to obey a lawful command, and were each sentenced to four weeks imprisonment. This occurred on the 13th May. Ultimately the men agreed to resume duty, and were released from gaol on the 15th May, rejoining the ship. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I am considering the advisability of appointing a Committee to consider questions affecting the interests of the mercantile marine as a whole, but I am not yet prepared to make any definite statement on the subject.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether when the inquiry is held he will take steps to get the opinion of seamen who are interested in this matter?

I am not prepared to make any statement at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say what form this Committee will take?

As I have said, I am not in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

Will it be a Parliamentary Committee?

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has already said twice that he is not prepared to make any further statement on the subject.

But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Order, order! The hon. Member must accept the answer. If he wishes to ask any further question he must put it down.

OS course, Sir, I bow to your ruling, but I submit that my question arises out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman.

Order, order! When a right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is not prepared to make any further statement, it is out of order to persist in asking other questions.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question when the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary comes on.

I beg, to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the judgment of Mr. Justice Mathews, in the King's Bench, to the effect that under the Merchant Shipping Act lascars and Europeans must be treated alike with regard to the crew space; and whether the Board of Trade intend to take any action in this matter.

Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the judgment to which the hon. Member refers, but leave has been given to appeal, and, in these circumstances, I am not prepared to make any statement in the matter at the present moment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what court it will be taken?

I am unable to answer that question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he intends to transfer the powers of his Board in respect of agricultural instruction to the Board of Education, or if he intends that the Board of Agriculture shall undertake the organisation and coordination of such instruction throughout England and Wales.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can inform the House whether it is proposed, in accordance with Clause 2 of the Board of Education Act, 1899, to transfer to the Board of Education the powers of the Board of Agriculture in matters appearing to relate to education; and, if such transfer is intended, whether he can state when it will take place.

I am not prepared to transfer elsewhere any part of the existing duties of the Board of Agriculture, the functions of which, especially with regard to agricultural instruction, might, on the contrary, with advantage be enlarged. I am unable to state as yet in detail how this can be brought about, but I attach great importance to the necessity for extending the work already done by the Board in collating and publishing the results of experiments and the most recent discoveries bearing on agriculture both in this country and abroad, and also to the adva tage to be gained by friendly co-operation between the Board and county councils in devising the best methods of instruction and experiment.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, in view of the fact that the rate fund raised under the Technical Instruction Acts is not applicable for the maintenance of instruction in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall Codes, whether he can explain how school boards are to be assisted in the instruction of adult pupils in elementary subjects out of the moneys at present at the disposal of the municipal authorities.

I am unable to answer this question, because, as I explained last week, I cannot accept the legal opinion upon which it is based.

May I ask whether the question will be referred to the law officers of the Crown?

I must have notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state the number of schools in respect of which applications for inspection have been received under Section 3 of the Board of Education Act, 1899, and how many of such have been inspected.

There have been applications from ninety-nine specific schools; of these twenty-four have been inspected, twenty are now arranged for, fifty-five are still under consideration. Besides this, applications have been received from county councils for the inspection of all their schools, which are under consideration.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Subsection 2 of Clause 6 in the Education Bill, introduced by the Government this session, would enable an urban district council in Wales or Monmouthshire under any conditions to claim from the education authority any share in the management or control of a county school (situated within such urban district) established under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889.

I do not think that such a claim could be made under Subsection 2 of Clause 6 against the will of the education authority. The point, however, will be considered when the Bill is in Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will ascertain what is the cause of the delay in establishing telephonic communication with Flint, and whether it is possible to expedite the completion of the work.

The Postmaster General understands that the National Telephone Company have for a considerable time been making arrangements to open an exchange in the town of Flint; but he has no information as to the date of opening, nor is the matter one in which he has any control over the action of the company.

Does the Postmaster General ever make friendly representations to the National Telephone Company when delays occur in establishing telephonic communication?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that all parcels from the United Kingdom arriving in Buenos Ayres by parcels post are not delivered, or even allowed to be inspected to see what they contain, until a tax of one dollar is paid on each; whether the exaction of the one dollar tax, not as import duty, is in accordance with the Postal Union regulations, and, if not, whether the British Government will make a representation to the Argentine Government with a view to its discontinuance; and whether in any case he will warn the British public that the receivers of parcels sent by parcels post to Buenos Ayres will have to pay the sum of one dollar on each, in addition to the import duty, before they can find out what the parcel contains.

The Postmaster General is aware that in the Argentine Republic a stamp duty of one peso (about 1s. 9d.) is payable by the addressees of parcels received from abroad. This duty is said by the Argentine Post Office to be a fiscal and not a postal charge. The British Post Office is not a party to the Parcel Post Convention of the Postal Union. Nothing, however, either in the regulations of that Convention, or in those governing the parcels post between this country and the Argentine Republic, restricts the right to impose fiscal charges. In the forthcoming edition of the quarterly Post Office Guide the public will be warned of the imposition of this duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has yet come to a decision as to the introduction in this country of the mandat carte system, which works well on the Continent.

The introduction of the mandat carte into this country would be attended by practical difficulties; and the Postmaster General does not at present see sufficient reason for setting up a new system of transmitting money through the agency of the Post Office side by side with the existing money order and postal order systems.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that 5s. can be sent by money order from France to England for 1d., but that the cost of sending 5s. by money order from England to France is 6d.; and can he explain why 500 per cent. more is charged here than in France.

Yes, Sir. The French Post Office makes a uniform charge of 1 per cent. The British charges are framed with more regard to the cost of the service, which is not proportioned to the amount of the order. For sums under £4 the advantage is with the French remitter. Above that amount it is with the English.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the money notified in each telegraph money order is brought to the residence of the person for whom it is intended in India and other countries, and that time and inconvenience are saved by this arrangement; and whether he will take steps for the introduction of this practice in the United Kingdom, or whether he will give it a trial.

The Postmaster General is aware that in India and other countries, where ordinary money orders are paid at the houses of the persons in whose favour they are issued, telegraph money orders also are so paid. But he is not prepared to introduce into this country an arrangement which would be confined to telegraph money orders, and to which there are practical objections.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the system works well in India?

Yes, I think there are great recommendations in favour of it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although the Norfolk-Hanbury conference definitely stated that technical knowledge was not to be required of telegraphists before passing the efficiency barrier, operators in the Edinburgh telegraph office have been called upon to produce evidence of technical skill before being allowed to proceed beyond the barrier; and whether the Postmaster General can state the reasons for this departure from the pledge given to the men in August, 1897, by the Duke of Norfolk and the right hon. Member who was then Secretary to the Treasury.

The regulations do not prescribe that any technical examination must be passed before a telegraphist can pass the efficiency bar, and if it is found on inquiry that there has been any misapprehension on this subject in Edinburgh, steps will at once be taken to put the matter right.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the designs and colours of the new postage stamps have been approved; and whether, if the present contractors refuse to print penny red stamps, as in every other country and colony of the Postal Union, he will give other printers the opportunity of printing these stamps of equally good quality and at less cost.

The designs of the new postage stamps generally have been approved, but the colour of the new penny stamp has not been finally settled. There is no question of any refusal on the part of the contractors to print a red stamp.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that 2nd February, 1901, was ordered by the Postmaster General to be regarded as a bank holiday among Post Office employees, and to the rule that those clerks who do not get a bank holiday as a day of leave of absence receive another day in lieu, whether he can state why this practice has not been carried into effect at Southampton, Birmingham, and other offices with reference to 2nd February.

The Postmaster General decided that, while those of his staff who were required to perform their ordinary duties on the 2nd February, the day of Her late Majesty's funeral, should receive extra payment, the alternative of holiday at another time could not be allowed, because, in his judgment, that was not a suitable way of observing an occasion of public mourning.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has observed that the Return of the Population and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland just issued is based upon the Census of 1891; and whether, while the types are standing, he will agree to a corresponding Return based on the Census of 1901.

The Return in question is issued triennially in advance of parish and county council elections, and it was thought inexpedient to wait till the new Census Returns are available; a revised Return incorporating the population figures for 1901 will be issued as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is no Sunday delivery of letters at Achill, county Mayo, and that inconvenience to the inhabitants is caused thereby; and would he see that in future letters and papers are delivered on Sundays.

The question of establishing a Sunday post to Achill, county Mayo, has been considered, but in view of the heavy deficit on the present service, the Postmaster General regrets that he would not be justified in sanctioning additional expense for the purpose of providing a Sunday service.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post master General, whether he is aware that the mails carried from Cork to Baltimore by the train leaving Cork at 11.50 a.m., arriving at Skibbereen at 2 p.m., do not reach Baltimore (a distance of nine miles) until the next day, that this mail mainly consists of letters from England which are of importance to fish buyers, and that the letters from Balti more are conveyed by mail car at 4 p.m. each day, though a train leaves at 5.35 p.m.; and whether, in view of the fact that the line of railway from Skib bereen to Baltimore was constructed by the Government at a cost of £56,000 to promote the fishing industry, he will make arrangements with the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Company for the conveyance of the mails to and from Baltimore.

The total amount of correspondence for Baltimore is not large, and as the cost of the present service is high in proportion to it, additional expense for affording a second service in the day would not, as the hon. Member has already been informed, be warranted. Further inquiry is being made as regards the hour at which the night mail is despatched from Baltimore. Proposals have been made by the railway company with regard to the night mail service, but their demands have hitherto been such as the Postmaster General could not entertain.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to grant the Return relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary which stands on the Notice Paper for this day.^*

*The following is the Return referred to in the question:—

"Royal Irish Constabulary.—Return showing the names, ages, religion, rank, and length

There are no official records at headquarters in Dublin which would give the information desired by the hon. Member, and the preparation of the Return, extending over so long a period, would entail a very considerable amount of labour on the part of the constabulary throughout Ireland, as well as on the Clerks of the Crown and Peace. I hesitate to impose this labour unless satisfied that the Return will serve some useful public purpose. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to communicate with me in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has been directed to the increase in the amount of the baronial guarantee in connection with the Killaglin, county Kerry, line; whether he is aware that this baronial guarantee has gone on increasing year after year, notwithstanding the fact that the traffic and receipts have also increased; and whether, having regard to the effect of the working of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the trade and prosperity of Killarney, he will cause the Department to compel an independent audit of the accounts of the line, at which the Kerry County Council can be represented, with the view of ascertaining the reasons for this increase in the baronial guarantee, and also so as to bring about the exclusion of the Killarney district from the payment of any portion of it.

of service of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were injured while on duty during the past twenty years; the name of the county to which each member was regularly attached, and the name of the county in which the injury was inflicted; the amount of compensation claimed and awarded in each ease, and the name of the public authority, court of law, or otherwise, which made the award; the source from which the payment was made; the nature and extent of the injuries, and how caused; the duties, whether ordinary or special, and their nature, upon which such members were engaged when injured; the names of members retired as result of injuries, and the amount of pension, if any, in each case; the names and similar particulars of unsuccessful claimants, and the amounts claimed."

The Department of Agriculture has no interest in or control over the line of railway referred to, and has no power to take action in the direction suggested in the third paragraph of the question. I am informed by the Commissioner of Valuation that the valuation of the railway was increased by a sum of about £1,000 in 1899, the former valuation having been merely placed on the land during construction and the buildings. This increase in valuation might affect the liability of the baronial guarantors to the extent of £350, but it would at the same time reduce the rates in the rating area through which the line passes by the same amount. Moreover, against this increased liability the guarantors last year received a bonus of £862 under the provisions of Section 58 of the Local Government Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a police hut at Slinann and also at Moyna, in the Westport, county Mayo, police district; and that the distance between the two is only three miles; and, seeing that there is a police barrack between and equidistant from these huts, and as the district is crimeless, would he see that the huts are removed and the police withdrawn.

These huts were established for the purpose of preventing crime, and, in the opinion of the local authorities responsible, cannot at present be removed with safety.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police at these huts have for a long time had nothing to do?

I have no such information.

But it is the fact.

Could not some of them be sent to Queen's Island, Belfast?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any lands in the Kilmeena and Kilmaclatter districts of the Westport Union have been offered for sale by the landlord to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, on what terms, and could he state when the purchase of such lands will be completed.

This transaction has not yet been completed. It would, therefore, be inexpedient to disclose the terms proposed on either side.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast carry arms of any kind, and, if not, whether he will direct a change in this rule in view of the fact that the Royal Ir sh Constabulary carry arms in all other parts of Ireland.

Since the year 1886 the baton has been the only weapon carried by the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast, except that during some disturbances in 1898 selected policemen were, by order of the Inspector General, armed for a short time with revolvers for their protection. Rifles are not carried in the streets except for ceremonial purposes, such as guards of honour. The Constabulary in Belfast have rifles and revolvers in their barracks, and are kept up in their knowledge of the use of firearms. The system as regards the arming of police in Belfast does not differ essentially from that in other towns in Ireland, as batons are the only weapons carried by men on ordinary town duty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider whether some alteration can be made in the new regulations of the Board of National Education under which all children, including infants under ten years of age, are obliged to be at the school at ten a.m., and are not allowed to leave the school premises, unless they obtain a doctor's certificate, till 3 p.m.

I am informed that there is no such rule of the Commissioners as is referred to. On the contrary, managers of schools have been given a discretion under new regulations to permit infant children to leave before the termination of the regular school hours. The hour of attendance at school in the mornings is fixed by the local managers, and not by any rule or regulation of the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a farmer, named Cornelius Sullivan, of Kilnaclasha, on the Reeves Estate, near Skibbereen, has made several ineffectual attempts to dispose of the interest in his farm within the past few years; is he aware of the circumstances which prevent the sale being carried into effect, and will he endeavour to remove any impediment placed by the landlord to prevent the tenant from exercising the right of free sale in the open market.

The Government have no power whatever to interfere in the manner suggested.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases in the West Riding of county Cork in which tenants are similarly placed?

I cannot.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the difference between the terms arranged by the Land Commission, on which the landlord can exercise his right of pre-emption, and the amount offered to the tenant in the open market?

No useful purpose can be served by discussing that subject.

Is not the amount at which the landlord is allowed to exercise his right of pre-emption less than one-third of the sum offered to the tenant in the open market?

I am not prepared to discuss that aspect of the question. As I have said, the Government have no right to interfere.

It is so, nevertheless.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the cases of alleged malicious burning of heather in Sligo county which were heard at the recent quarter sessions in Sligo the solicitor to the county council, who is also the Crown solicitor for the same county, has publicly announced his attention of appealing from the judge's decision to the Court of Assize; and whether he proposes to take steps against the Irish newspapers who have commented on these cases while still pending.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. My attention has not been called to any comments on these cases calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. No proceedings will, therefore, be instituted by the Crown, but if the parties interested are of a different opinion they can proceed by the same methods as are open to the Crown.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to an application for compensation made by William Murphy, of Cupenagh, at the recent quarter sessions held in Loughrea before his Honour Judge Anderson, for malicious burning of heather and grass on the 3rd May last; whether he is aware that the police swore that, during the course of their investigation into the cause of the alleged outrage, several parties, including two farmers named Clarke and Slattery, specifically stated that they saw William Murphy and his family set fire to the said lands, at the time and date sworn to in an information by Murphy that the malicious injury had been done to his property; whether his Honour Judge Anderson dismissed the application; and, considering the fact that Murphy was the principal witness in other malicious injury applications put forward by the landlord for the burning of mountain heather, over which Murphy acts as gamekeeper, and which were also dismissed by the Judge, whether he will direct criminal proceedings to be instituted against Murphy for swearing a false affidavit, upon which was grounded his application for malicious injury.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the claim was rejected by the county court judge. No evidence was given by the police to the effect stated in the second paragraph, nor were the police examined at the hearing of the claim, but statements have been made to them by three persons (including Clarke and Slattery), who allege they saw Murphy set fire to the lands. It is also the fact that Murphy was the principal witness in another similar claim for compensation, which was dismissed on the same occasion. The question of Murphy's prosecution is under consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a resolution passed at the Irish Trades Congress last month calling on the Government to so amend the Workmen's Compensation Act as to include all wage earners within its provisions, and urging that more efficient inspection should be exercised by the Home Office in order to secure as far as possible security from accident to the workers; also that all plant used in the execution of painters' work should be deemed scaffolding, and that the thirty feet limit should be removed from the Act; and whether the Government purpose this session to endeavour to give effect to this resolution.

Yes, Sir, I have seen the resolution. We have never supposed that the present position of this Act was to be its final position. I have no further statement to make on the subject.

May I ask the Chief Secretary when the Report of the Land Commission will be laid on the Table.

I must ask notice of that question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can arrange to take Irish Estimates on Friday next, and to put down first for discussion on that day the Votes for Supreme Court of Judicature and the Chief Secretary's Department.

At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can arrange to take Irish Estimates on Friday next, and to put down first for discussion on that day the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Department.

My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary informs me that it is necessary, as I understand it, to take money under the Education Estimate in order to carry on the necessary work of education in Ireland, at a very early date. This matter calls for examination, and if it appears to be absolutely necessary I will put down the Education Vote first on Friday next. As regards the second Vote to be taken, I have an application from the hon. Gentleman that the Judicature Vote should be taken, and also an application from my right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim in favour of the Chief Secretary's Vote. There appears to be an agreement that one of these Votes should be second and the other third, and I will endeavour to make the most satisfactory arrangement I can between them, but I see no reason why both these Votes should not be got through as well as the Education Vote.

May I say that the order in which I ask the Votes to be taken—namely, the Judicature Vote first—is the order desired by the overwhelming majority of the Irish Members? With regard to taking the Education Vote first, may I ask whether it is not the practice to settle the order of the Votes in accordance with the wishes of the Members from the country concerned, and whether, if the Education Vote is taken first, it will not mean the absolute breakdown of that arrangement, because it will necessitate the discussion of various matters which will postpone the consideration of the other Votes, which the Irish Members on both sides desire to be taken?

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman did not state on Tuesday last that he would endeavour to arrange that the Votes be taken in the order of precedence desired by the Irish Members? And did I not then publicly ask him to put the Judicature Vote first?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the demand of his supporters on this side of the House?

It is quite true, of course, that if hon. Gentlemen on this side are in a minority, their views should not be ignored because they are in a minority, but as regards the questions put by the hon. Gentleman opposite and by my right hon. friend, as the House knows, I have always desired to put the Votes in the order which would meet the convenience of the House, having regard to the financial necessities of the administration. I will make careful inquiries into the matter, and if it is necessary to take the Education Vote I am afraid it must be done.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed, notwithstanding the Vote on Account, which was taken to cover several months, that it is necessary to get this Vote on Friday next? Of course it stands to reason it is not.

There can be no controversy about it. I will inquire, and the Treasury will inform me whether it is necessary or not. It may be convenient, but if it is not absolutely necessary I will not press it. If it is absolutely necessary there is no choice in the matter.

That is an indication of the absurdity of the system. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly stated that he is prepared to leave the order of the Votes, not to his own side, but to the Opposition—to a Committee in which the Opposition would be in a majority. Now, if for the convenience of a Department that can be broken through, it shows the absurdity of the whole arrangement. It would be better to leave the Government to take the Votes on their own responsibility.

I have suggested more than once the desirability of leaving the decision of how the Votes should be taken to a Committee on which the Government would be in a minority, but we know well enough that such a Committee, if Treasury reasons or reasons of administration affecting a great Department rendered it necessary that some particular Vote should be taken, would agree to give that Vote precedence.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the statement in The Times of Saturday, relating to an interview between the right hon. Gentleman and a deputation representing the London and County Brewers is substantially correct; whether the deputation urged the unfairness of sending the Beer Bill to a Standing Committee for a variety of controversial reasons, and strongly recommended its reference to a Select Committee, thereby rendering any chance of the Bill's passing into law this session practically hopeless; whether Mr. Cosmo Bonsor, who is stated to have introduced the deputation, is now serving in a judicial capacity on a Royal Commission which has before it a number of controversial questions of a similar character; and whether, if that is the case, Mr. Bonsor's services on that Commission are to be continued.

It is quite true that on Friday last Mr. Cosmo Bonsor and some other gentlemen connected with the brewing interest called upon me in connection with the procedure to be adopted on Wednesday next, when the motion before the House will be that the Beer Bill be referred to the Grand Committee. I informed them, as I should have informed any other deputation on any side of this question, that it was for the House to determine whether the Bill should go to the Grand Committee or to a Select Committee. I do not think that Mr. Cosmo Bonsor's action in this matter has, or ought to have, any effect upon his services as a member of the Royal Commission.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House any assurance that the Education Bill will be proceeded, with this session.

At the same time, may I ask the First Lord, of the Treasury whether he can state when the Revenue Department (Customs) Vote will be taken.

I have no statement to make at present upon Government business beyond what I have already made, except to tell t e House what I am informed, that it will be necessary to have a Ways and Means Bill at once, and I propose to introduce it to-night.

May I point out that the answer, as I caught it, did not appear to be a reply to my question?

What I said was that I really had no statement to make on the subject of Government business to the House at the present time, except the statement I then proceeded to make in regard to Ways and Means.

And what does that mean?

A Consolidated Fund Bill.

We need not go into that.

said he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the clause, because he ventured to think that it was a distinctly good one. He had always regarded the abolition of the sugar duties by Sir Stafford Northcote as a most deplorable blunder. It was a foolish act, for which, he, although himself an Under Secretary of State at the time, had declined to assume any personal responsibility, for he looked on it as one of the greatest financial blunders of the generation, with perhaps the exception of the abolition of the registration duty on grain by Mr. Lowe. Now the present Chancellor of the Exchequer tardily came forward to repeal the great mistake made by his colleague. The other day he accused his right hon. friend of being at least fifty years behind the times as regards the purview he took of financial questions, and the right hon. Gentleman had confirmed his opinion within the last few days by refusing an appeal made to him in the House of Commons to enlarge the advantages which we might confer on our fellow colonial subjects in this connection. A suggestion was made that the clause now under discussion afforded a favourable opportunity of making some return for the advances made by our colonies in connection with British trade. What was the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? His reply was that remedies of the kind had been tried and discarded forty years ago. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, still hugged the delusions of past generations. He utterly failed to recognise the Imperial aspects of the question as it presented itself in the twentieth century. The right hon. Gentleman said they could not stand merely on sugar, but if they once accepted the principle embodied in a preferential tariff it must be extended to other colonial commodities. Certainly, and he for one could see no danger in frankly admitting that fact. He would not advocate exceptional treatment for sugar as distinguished from other taxable articles. He could quote the opinions of some of the right hon. Gentleman's most distinguished colleagues, Lord Salisbury and the Secretary of State for the Colonies strongly endorsing the principle of preferential trade within the limits of the Empire, which the clause now under debate offered a favourable opportunity of giving effect to. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had pronounced an opinion as to the desirability of offering special facilities to trade within the Empire. He said—

"There is a universal desire amongst all the members of the Empire for a closer union between the several branches, and in their opinion it is desirable, nay, it is essential, for the existence of the Empire as such. Experience has taught us that this closer union can be most hopefully approached in the first instance upon its commercial side.

What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say with regard to that? The speech of his right hon. friend referred rather depreciatingly to the practical effect of Canadian legislation and administration in carrying out the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary. That was not the way to support the Imperial principle which his right hon. friend's distinguished colleague had laid down with such emphasis. But his right hon. friend went further than that. In the discussion on Thursday last, he pointed out what he considered a great danger. He referred to the great difficulty of enforcing a provision such as was proposed, even if it were inserted in the Bill, and he talked about its being necessary to have in that event recourse to certificates of origin and other precautions of that kind. His right hon. friend went still further, and said that that provision could be easily evaded, and he gave hon. Members a geographical lesson by informing them that Cuba was not far from Jamaica; but the contrary statement held equally good, namely, that Jamaica was not very far from Cuba. During the last forty years the difficulties referred to by his right hon. friend had been successfully surmounted by every Government in the world. What did his right hon. friend fear? It was, he took it, that foreign goods would be received in the colonies and dependencies of the Crown, and transmitted to England under the seal of colonial produce. Was it in accordance with common sense to suppose that any colonial Government would for an instant allow its fiscal policy and revenue arrangements to be deranged by such a palpable device? The idea was absurd, as all other Governments had devised means of checking evasions of that kind. The American Government, under the provisions of the McKinley Act, levied unequal duties on the produce of various countries according as the countries did or did not afford, in the judgment of the American Government, facilities for American trade. Sugar was at the moment a subject of acute controversy, largely a press controversy, he admitted, between the Governments of Russia and the United States, and did anyone suppose that the United States Government would allow Russian sugar to enter that country by Germany or France? It was unquestionable that what his right hon. friend was alarmed at was dealt with every day throughout the rest of the world. His right hon. friend spoke disparagingly of the attempt to enforce the right of this country and of Parliament to afford facilities for trade to the most distant portions of the Empire. The British Empire, so far as foreign nations were concerned, was one vast Imperial unit. Of course, financial arrangements differed in various parts of the Empire, but the object of the denunciation of what Lord Salisbury called "those unlucky treaties"—and he thought he even used a stronger term—was to allow such a policy. His right hon. friend admitted that Lord Salisbury had spoken strongly against the treaties which were now abrogated, but his right hon. friend apparently wished to reintroduce the system which the abrogation of these treaties had abolished for ever. His right hon. friend talked of the danger of reprisals from foreign countries, but was not that understood when the treaties were abrogated. His right hon. friend also talked about the strong feeling in Germany, and he would add that he thought that that strong feeling had intimidated His Majesty's Government into what was a hostile act towards the great Dominion of Canada. He understood his right hon. friend warned the House of Commons against forcing the hand of the Government, or compelling them to assume an attitude which might give rise to offence in foreign countries, but foreign countries did not consider British feeling; they laid on every shilling of duty they could, and consistently framed their tariff arrangements according to their own necessities and requirements.

So do we.

The hon. Gentleman opposite says "So do we," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the House of Commons not to exercise its discretion, but to beware of offending foreign countries. He himself did not wish to say anything disrespectful of foreign Governments, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the House of Commons against exercising the liberty accorded to it by the action of Lord Salisbury, he might be permitted to quote what Lord Salisbury said. In June, 1891, in reply to a deputation, Lord Salisbury said—

"With respect to those two unlucky treaties (with Belgium in 1852 and Germany in 1863) that was made by Lord Palmerston's Government some thirty years ago, I am sure the matter of the relation of our colonies could not have been fully considered. We have tried to find out from official records what species of reasoning it was that induced the statesmen of that day to sign such very unfortunate pledges."

His right hon. friend would now wish to put the country back into the position from which Lord Salisbury rescued it—of not being able to legislate in concurrence with the colonies without obtaining the leave of foreign Governments. Lord Salisbury continued—

"But I do not think that they had any notion that they were signing any pledges at all. I have not been able to discover that they realised the importances of the engagements upon which they were entering. I think I can give you with the greatest confidence an assurance that not only this Government, but no future Government, will be disposed to enter into such engagements again."

In face of that statement of the Prime Minister, his right hon. friend had now conjured up the foreign bogey, and attempted to prevail on the House of Commons not to avail of that freedom of action accorded to it, but to allow its hands to be tied. Lord Salisbury concluded—

"We shall be glad indeed to take every opportunity that arises for delivering ourselves from those unfortunate engagements."

Lord Salisbury had obtained liberty of action for the Government, but now his right hon. friend showed a disposition to fetter that liberty. He should have scarcely thought that such a policy would be announced in the House of Commons by a colleague of Lord Salisbury. The action of the Government with reference to Canada was most un fortunate, especially in days when it was desired that the colonies should more cordially approach the mother country He need not recall to the recollection of the Committee the resolution adopted at the Ottawa Conference, which consisted of representatives of the whole Empire. That Conference passed a resolution, he thought with absolute unanimity, urging that liberty should be accorded to the colonies to make fiscal arrangements without reference to any foreign Power. The colonial Premiers, during their visit to England in the Jubilee in 1897, unanimously passed a resolution urging the adoption of the principle of deferential treatment. He asked the House not to be frightened by the bogey raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to realise that the right to establish a reasonable preference for British goods within the British Empire was conferred upon them by the action of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague. He warned the Committee that it was not a fact that public opinion was not favourable to such a policy. He thought that public opinion was favourable to it. Politics apart, the great mass of Members who had any opportunity of mixing with colonial statesmen were strongly impressed with the view that some solid substantial step in that direction was an essential element of Imperial rule. The colonies, of course, were able to look after their own interests. One saw, day after day, negotiations between the different colonial Governments and foreign countries. He asked a question himself not long ago of the Colonial Secretary as to whether it was not the case that a subsidised steamship line was actually in operation between Canadian and French ports, and the answer was that last year a steamship line involving a payment by the Canadian Government of £10,000 a year had been established between French and Canadian ports. His right hon. friend's speech the other night was a distinct repudiation, on the part of himself as at present responsible for the financial arrangements of this country, of the advance already made by Canada without any return, and his right hon. friend went so far as to hint that Canada did not know its own business. [Sir M. HICKS BEACH dissented.] He had certainly gathered that from the remarks of his right hon. friend, which, however, he unfortunately had to take second hand. He understood his right hon. friend, by an interpolation during another speech, to intimate that although it was true that trade between Canada and the British Empire had increased since the introduction of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's preferential tariff, nevertheless, Canadian trade with the United States had also increased, although the tariff arrangements did not apply. What did that mean? It meant that Canada would conclude that, after all, it would have done just as well if it had not adopted Sir Wilfrid Laurier's 33⅓ per cent. tariff. That was certainly calculated to discourage the Canadian Government, and he thought it was a most deplorable utterance. He would have been sorry to permit the clause to pass without uttering his emphatic protest against what he might call the levity with which a great Imperial movement had been treated by the Government. The Government had adopted the attitude they had without taking into account the unanimous opinion of the colonies. The great Commonwealth of Australia was guided by statesmen who had strongly pronounced themselves in favour of a moderate and reasonable application of the principle of preferential tariffs. There was a general demand throughout the Empire that such facilities should be granted, and he ventured to state there was a very strong and decided opinion in the United Kingdom itself with regard to it. In the position in which they were now in, all he could do was to utter strong and emphatic protest against he short-sighted selfish policy which had been adopted, a policy which was calculated to drive the colonies into making bargains with foreign countries, perhaps to the disadvantage of Great Britain. He thought his right hon. friend was lot fully alive to the great change of pinion on the subject which had taken place, not only in Great Britain, but throughout the Empire.

My right hon. friend says he is in favour of the general policy of the Finance Bill, but he has taken a most remarkable way of showing it. For a full half-hour my right hon. friend has entertained the Committee with a dissertation on matters on which we all know his opinion, and which have already been, on this clause, the subject of debate for three or four hours on Thursday last. Why did not my right hon. friend take part in that debate? Presumably my right hon. friend was in another and more agreeable place. Why was he not here on Thursday last?

It was a fiasco.

But if my right hon. friend had been present the fiasco might have been avoided, and his opinions might have been given effect to in some better way. As it was, the policy he now suggests was negatived almost unanimously by the House of Commons on Thursday last.

But my right hon. friend will not say that that was a genuine expression of the opinion of the House.

My right hon. friend has described it as a fiasco, but I am quite prepared to admit that the division on Thursday may not accurately represent the amount of support which the principle might obtain.

I am quite satisfied.

I would ask hon. Members who have had an opportunity of expressing their views and of obtaining the opinion of the House, and who, like my right hon. friend, desire to support the clause generally, to be good enough to refrain from giving the House a repetition of the debate on Thursday last.

thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a reasonable one. He quite agreed that if the Committee were to discuss the details throughout the clause there would not be any opportunity of coming to a decision on the general clause. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was not quite convincing, but it satisfied him that the proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to adopt was a reasonable one, and one which the Committee could accept. He desired to refer to two remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his speech. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said that for the proposals of taxation the House must accept the authority of the Government. That was quite true, and the Committee was not entitled to reject a proposal of this kind unless it was prepared with an alternative proposal. The second remark was that the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter in a year or two, and if he found in the practical working the Bill did not turn out well it should be modified.

I went further than that. I should not wait as long as two years.

thought that nothing could be fairer than the way in which the Committee had been met, and that the result was to enable them to leave the details and approach the main question and discuss whether the tax was a wise one or not, and whether it was the best way to obtain the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise by this clause. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet had said he was a Member of the Government which abolished the sugar duties, and had said what a foolish thing they had done by so doing, but he would quote what Sir Stafford Northcote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that Government, had said in 1874—

"The sugar duties are a source of revenue which does more harm than it produces good; their removal would be permanent…. England would become the great entrepot of the sugar trade….and the result would stimulate and support the commercial interest of the country."

Those were the opinions of Sir Stafford Northcote, and it was highly interesting to consider them twenty-seven years after. One prophecy Sir S. Northcote made was not fulfilled—the removal of the duties was not to be permanent; but a great many of his prophecies had been fulfilled. Sir Stafford Northcote said he hoped the island of England would become the entrepôt of the sugar industries of the world, and what progress had been made in that district since the duties had been abolished? The consumption of sugar per head of the population in this country was 90 lbs., which worked out at a figure of at least 1,500,000 tons coming into our ports and distributed throughout the kingdom every year, or, in other words, 5,000 tons per week. This country had truly become the entrepôt of the sugar industries; the consumption of sugar in this country was double that of any other country in the world. The next great consumers were Denmark and Switzerland, with a consumption of 45 lbs. her head; then came Germany with 30 lbs., France with 26 lbs., and Austria with 17lbs. her head. All those countries were sugar-producing countries, yet owing to the wise act of Parliament nearly thirty years ago they produced not for themselves, but for the purpose of putting their products on our tables. As a result of that legislation there had been a steady improvement in the quality of Austrian sugar sent to this country, and the sugar sold in Prague at 4d. a pound was sold in this country at 2d. These were some of the advantages which were engendered by the wise act of twenty-seven years ago. The Committee must, however, consider that sugar was not only prepared food, but also the raw material forming the basis of hundreds of manufactures in this country. Great industries had been set up; the production of jam and marmalade had stimulated the growth of fruit in country districts; the manufacture of biscuits, confectionery, chocolate, and aerated waters had developed. No less than 150,000 tons of sugar were used in brewing in one year. When the Committee remembered these things they would see that it would be an evil day for this country when Parliament set itself to reverse the policy of 1874. Having thus surveyed the practical effects of that policy he would ask the Committee to consider the principle which led, after great consideration, to these duties being removed. Adam Smith in his great work on economics, in that chapter in which he dealt with "the most just taxes for the people," laid down principles for every good tax. The first principle was that the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government of the State as nearly as possible equally according to their respective abilities, with respect to the earnings which they enjoyed under the protection of the State. This tax set that principle at defiance in the most bold and open way. In 1776 Adam Smith treated sugar as a luxury, but no man to-day would deny that it was one of the most vital necessities of the people. Every good tax should be imposed in such a manner that all contributed in proportion to their wealth; in this case there was the exactly opposite effect. The rich man, if anything, used less sugar than the poor man, and £2,000,000 out of the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman hoped to obtain would be wrung out of the scanty pittance of those who could not afford to pay any tax whatever. Mr. Charles Booth showed that in London 40 per cent. of the population had to live on something that was below the proper margin of subsistence; all those people eat sugar, and the vice of the sugar tax was that, although the people could be made to pay, it was only to be done in the same manner as would be done by taking away a proportion of the food from an animal. The result of such a tax was that these people would become less efficient in their work, so that in a round-about way it would fall back upon he rich in the shape of higher wages or a smaller development of work. The second principle laid down by the same authority was that the tax an individual vas bound to pay should be certain and not arbitrary. The amount in this case was not certain. No less than twenty-four different rates of duty were embodied in the Bill, and no purchaser abroad could tell exactly what was the rate at which his sugar would be admitted into this country. Adam Smith aid down the principle that it was better to lay on a heavy tax that was certain than a lighter one that was not, but hat principle had also been set at defiance. The third principle was that every tax ought to be levied at the time And in the manner which was most convenient to the contributor to pay, and it certainly did seem convenient that when one bought an article he paid a small contribution; but Adam Smith also laid it down that it was the luxuries and not the necessities that should be taxed, and that if a barrier was placed between a man and what was necessary to him as great injury was inflicted upon him, and the State was not assisted. The best example of the luxury was beer. Nothing could be more proper than that on every glass of beer a contribution should be made to the State, because beer was not a necessity, and those whom necessity compelled to avoid the tax could very well abstain from using it. Sugar, however, stood in a different category, and the additional price would fall heavily on the people. The fourth principle was that every tax ought to be so laid as to take as little as possible from the people in excess of what was paid into the Exchequer. That was the most vital principle, and one reason why he opposed this tax was that he believed it to be a most extravagant tax; millions would be wrung from the pockets of the people which would not find their way into the Exchequer at all. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he had borrowed that scale from the United States. He had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that within four years of the United States Government adopting that scale a great industrial combination had grown up in America called the Sugar Trust, which probably wrung from the pockets of the people as much as was got by the Revenue. He held that a tax imposed in such a way gave great opportunities—he would not say for fraud, but for practices which were very hurtful to the Revenue, and which no one who wished to see the tax voluntarily paid would approve. This sugar tax violated every one of the four vital principles which had been laid down by that great economist, and we were now to reimpose a tax which twenty-seven years ago had been abolished "for ever." He submitted that the Committee ought to be very slow to go back into the dark era out of which the country had come. He could not enter into a discussion upon the Finance Bill without remembering that in this case there were two islands to be dealt with—Great Britain and Ireland. The duty would press with peculiar weight upon the people of Ireland. In that country 75 per cent. of the whole taxation was indirect and paid by the poor, and 25 per cent. was direct and paid by the rich, and this new duty, which imposed an additional burden of £500,000 a year on Ireland, would raise the proportion of indirect taxation to nearly 80 per cent. It would have been far better in the interest of trade and of the whole kingdom if, instead of the sugar and coal duties, 4d. had been added to the income tax. The sugar duty was certainly a bad and retrograde proposal, and he hoped it would be rejected by the Committee.

said he did not oppose the sugar tax because he desired that less taxation should be raised this year. Indeed, he thought the Government had not imposed sufficient taxation to meet the expenses of the war and the ordinary expenditure of the country. But there were three other branches of taxation to which it would be better for the country, for trade, and for the consumer if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone for the additional revenue he required rather than to sugar and coal. He believed it would have been better to have increased the income tax to a larger amount. The yield of that tax had increased in ten years by some £120,000,000, which showed that there was very good ground for further increasing that tax. Apart from the question of income tax he differed from the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that further taxation could not be imposed upon wines, spirits, and beer. He doubted very much whether those particular liquor interests could not stand a considerable increase of taxation. At all events, an appreciable sum might have been raised by a large licence duty on public-houses. But assuming that that branch of taxation was exhausted, he would have much preferred an increase of the duty on tea or tobacco to the creation of a new duty, for the reason that the duty on tea and tobacco was practically a duty on the consumer, and only to a very slight extent did injury to trade. It would have been better to increase the duty than to disturb two great trades such as the sugar and coal trades for the comparatively small sum to be raised. The principle upon which our fiscal policy had for many years been based was that of freeing from taxation as far as possible articles of food and the raw materials of industry, and he opposed the sugar duty because it violated that principle. Its effect upon the consumer was the least important side of the question, the serious aspect of the new taxation was its effect upon trade. With regard to the consumer, it was perfectly obvious that the imposition of a heavy tax upon sugar must hit very hardly the consumer, especially the consumer in Ireland, and, as was always the case with this sort of indirect taxation, the poorest classes were hit the hardest. The incidence of such a tax as the sugar tax, in the first place, whatever it might be in the ultimate result, must necessarily fall on the poorest classes, while in this particular case it would, he was afraid, fall more on the women and children than on the working men themselves. But putting aside the consumer, the gravity of the imposition of this tax was greatly increased from the fact that it was a new tax, which, for the first time for many years, would interfere in a most harassing and destructive manner with many industries throughout the country. The annual consumption of sugar per person worked out at 90 pounds, but in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken exception to that figure, stating that the personal consumption was only 56 pounds. That meant that the other 34 pounds per head were used in the different industries, so that a large proportion of the whole would not affect the consumer, but would do more harm by interfering with trade. In 1860, when Mr. Glad stone made a considerable number of alterations in the financial system of the country, he decided not to reduce the tea and sugar duties on the ground that those duties were simply revenue duties, and did not in any way interfere with trade, as they affected only the consumer, and he preferred to remit taxation which interfered with or disadvantaged trade. The same argument was used when the sugar duty was finally repealed. The people of the country were in a very different position now from that of twenty-five years ago, when that duty was repealed. At that time the duty was practically a mere revenue duty on consumption, and the total consumption, per head of the population was about 20 pounds per annum. It had now risen to 90 pounds, of which only 56 pounds were consumed by the individual, the remainder being used by the various trades. The total imports of sugar then were about £7,000,000, while now they were no less than £12,000,000. Therefore this duty on its reimposition would be a totally different thing from the duty repealed twenty-five years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that no real disadvantage would arise from the duty, because in 1893 the price of sugar was considerably higher than at present, and that it was since that time these different industries had to a large extent sprung up. But those industries had arisen chiefly because sugar was free, and could be dealt with in a free way, and because the trades believed it was cheapening, as it had cheapened. It seemed to him that it was no argument at all in favour of the imposition of the tax to say that at a time when the conditions were totally different the price was lower, and that therefore the tax could be imposed without interfering with or harassing trade. In connection with this question of trade he might point out that, thanks to the policy of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, our import duties had been reduced in every possible way. Last year the number of heads and subheads of our tariff upon which taxation was levied, and which had therefore to be examined by the Customs officials, was forty-six. At one sweep the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adding eight heads and no less than twenty-three subheads to the tariff, making a total of seventy-seven, instead of forty-six duties. This was in a free trade country, whose policy had been to free the tariff as far as possible. That meant the examination of all these imports and the handling of every parcel, with the result that much damage was done and great delay caused, while the freedom of trade, which was of the greatest possible benefit to the wage-earning classes, was very largely restricted. He did not desire to criticise tie way in which the Customs authorities discharged their duty; he believed they did it as far as they could to the best possible advantage, but it was perfectly obvious that in any Customs system there must be a large amount of red tape, delay, and expense, and, still worse, a considerable uncertainty on the part of importers and others as to what new regulations might be sprung upon them at any particular moment. Recent debates in Committee had shown the impossibility of any goods of this sort being examined without leading to all sorts of harassing regulations and vexatious proceedings on the part of the Customs authorities against the importer. Another point worthy of consideration was that, while at present sugar could be sent into the country, at any port the importer desired, and could be despatched direct to any place he wished, the imposition of this tax would of necessity lead to bonded warehouses for sugar, which would involve the sending of sugar to certain ports only. A large proportion of the sugar was imported by a few big firms, who would have their own bonded warehouses, with every facility, and so the small importer would suffer in competition by the difficulty he would have in clearing his goods and so on. He was afraid that one of the results of this policy would be the creation of great trusts, from which America had suffered so severely. The tendency of the legislation now under consideration would be to place these matters more and more in the hands of the great importers, to the detriment of the smaller men, and might ultimately result in a trust in sugar. The fact was the Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked too glibly about broadening the basis of taxation. Broadening the basis of taxation of necessity meant equivalent restrictions on trade; and though it might be necessary to increase taxation, he regretted that the Government had not taken more trouble to avoid the disastrous results to a large number of industries in the country, and the destruction of many of the smaller ones in which sugar was largely used, which would arise from the harassing and vexatious nature of the duties. Instead of thinking, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member, for Thanet had suggested, that Mr. Lowe and Sir Stafford Northcote were unwise in repealing the sugar duty, he thought the country had been fortunate in that for twenty-five years there had been, complete freedom from the duty. It might be said that there was want of foresight on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date in relinquishing that particular branch of revenue, but it would have required a great deal of foresight to have anticipated the advent of such an extravagant Government as the one at present in power. It had to be remembered that in those days the revenue was very buoyant, the expenditure was kept down, and the system of throwing away money by means of doles had not been invented. If it was a question of foresight, they might rather attack the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the large sums of money given away in doles and the greatly increased public expenditure of the last few years. He should certainly vote against the proposal of the Government, not on the ground that so much taxation ought not to be raised, but because it might have been raised with much less distress to the consumer, much less injury to trade, and much greater advantage to the country as a whole.

said that if there was one subject more than another which interested the electors at the recent election in the Saffron Walden Division it was the imposition of the tax on sugar, and on behalf of those electors he desired to protest against the unfairness of the tax especially in its effect upon the poorer classes. He wished the Committee to realise how hardly the tax would press upon the poor and how little it would affect the rich. Recently he applied to a large co-operative store, which supplied 1,300 customers, 1,200 of whom ware wage-earners, and asked how many articles they were about to raise in price in consequence of the imposition of this tax, and the fist he received in reply contained the following twenty-seven articles—biscuits, home-made beer, blacking, bottled fruits, British wines, cake flour, cakes, candied peel, candy, chocolate, cocoa, condensed milk, preserved fruits, health salts, jams, marmalade jellies, lemon cheese, lemon curd, sugar sweets, pickled bacon, lemonade, lime juice, pomfret cakes, sherbet, syrup, and treacle. If these articles were not directly increased in price there was an inferior article supplied as a direct consequence of the imposition of this tax, or the amount in bulk was reduced. The tax seemed to have not only disorganised the trade, but an increasing quantity of inferior sugar was being sold to consumers. He wrote to one of the largest grocers he knew in his constituency, and asked him how the tax affected his business, and he replied as follows—

"In reply to your inquiry respecting the operation of the sugar tax, our own experience is—and we supply a large number of small shops—that the sale of all kinds of sugar has decreased quite 20 per cent. Consumers amongst the working classes are purchasing an inferior quality. Retailers have only advanced their price ½d. per lb. The probable consumption of sugar per week in an average labourer's household is 6 lbs. per week. Of course, the increased cost of many other articles owing to the sugar tax bears very heavily on the working classes."

This grocer lived in a district where there was a great deal of grass land. Where there was a great deal of grass land the humbler classes could purchase milk, and for that reason they had a less quantity of sugar. On the contrary, where there was little grass, and where it was nearly all ploughed country, as was the case with the bulk of the county of Essex, a larger proportion of sugar was purchased by the working classes, and instead of 6 lbs. per week the quantity varied from 8 to 14 lbs. per week per household. It came to this, therefore, that owing to the imposition of this tax the average family had to pay something like sixpence per week every week in the year. If they assumed that it was only fivepence per week, and that the agricultural wage earner received 17s. a week—the majority in the county which he represented got wages varying from 11s. to 13s. a week—the imposition of this tax meant 2½ per cent. of his income. He asked the Committee to compare this with the case of the richer individual who had an income of £1,000 a year. That individual, because of his greater wealth, consumed double the quantity of sugar, and 2d. had been added to his income tax. They were, therefore, only calling upon the rich man to pay 1 percent. on his total income, whereas they were calling upon the poor man to pay 2½ per cent. of his total income. In that, way this tax was unfair to the mass of the people. If he took the ordinary case of the agricultural labourer who had. 12s. per week, and assumed that 12 lbs. of sugar was the amount his family consumed if living in an arable district, where they were unable to get any milk, the tax meant that this poor man would actually pay 5 per cent. of his total income; while the man receiving £10,000 a year would only pay 1 per cent. of his income. What were the principles on which taxation was imposed in this country? Were they rejecting the principles of Adam Smith, which the Member for West Islington had dwelt upon that afternoon? The hon. Member for West Islington alluded to the principle that payment should be made to represent equality of sacrifice between man and man. Instead of that principle being adopted, it appeared to him that equal payment or something similar was being adopted by the Government. If the principle of taxation in this country was, that every man, whether rich or poor, should pay an equal amount, the Government should say clearly that they desired a poll tax of say £3 per head, so that the electors might realise the principle which was involved. He objected to the tax not only on the ground that it was unfair to the poor, but because it, was not proposed to make it even a temporary tax. In a period of declining; prosperity this tax was placed on one of the staple foods of the people. In his judgment the last article any Government ought to place a tax upon was one which was an actual necessity in the daily life of the working classes of this country. He had always favoured direct rather than indirect taxation, and he should like every individual in the State to be called upon to pay his fair share for the government of the country; but it ought to be done in accordance with the principle of equality of sacrifice. In the past our prosperity had been largely attributable to the fact that we had free trade. When there were such men in the House as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet and the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, who welcomed this tax because it was a protective tariff, and because it would lead to the imposition of a duty upon corn—men who regarded this tax as the thin end of the wedge—the Government ought to be on their guard and pause before instituting a tax which he believed would be retrogressive and detrimental to the great trade interests of the country.

said he also represented a division of Essex, and he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sugar tax was popular. The working classes were quite ready to provide their quota of the expense of the war and to meet their obligation in connection with the increased expenditure of the country. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden had said that the poor man would be unduly taxed. Did the poor man consume chocolate?

said his statement was that 1,200 wage-earners were consuming all these articles. He got the figures from a co-operative store.

said that that was not his point at all. The hon. Member said that the man who had an income of £1,000 a year contributed less in proportion than the working man. But the hon. Member did not take into calculation the number of employees which the man with £1,000 a year engaged; and that if the man himself did not consume the sugar he consumed other dutiable articles. Therefore the rich man was more taxed in proportion than the poor man, and it was perfectly right that it should be so. His object in rising was not to deal with these small matters, and he had no doubt that hon. Members opposite would take very good care that the burdens lay on those who could pay for them. So far as he was concerned, he could assure the hon. Member for Saffron Walden that he also stood there as a champion of the working classes, and that if there was anything to be done in their favour he would work with ardour equal to that of the hon. Member. He did not vote in favour of the resolution to allow a rebate on colonial sugar, as he thought that the colonies were quite able to fight for themselves. But he wished the colonies to fight fairly, which up to the present they had not got a chance to do. If bounties were given by foreign countries on cotton, wool, grain, locomotives, and machinery, we should soon be up in arms, and put a countervailing duty upon these articles; and why not on sugar? The question was how the sugar bounties had affected the sugar producing colonies.

said he did not see how the hon. Member could connect the discussion of the clause before the Committee with bounties given by foreign countries on the export of sugar.

said that the raising of the tax on sugar depended in great measure on the amount of sugar imported into this country, and if a trade were killed by imposing a tax on sugar the income which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would derive from the tax would be to that extent limited. He, however, did not wish to press the point of countervailing duties.

said he did not think that the question of countervailing duties as applied to bounties was relevant to the discussion of this clause.