said they had every reason to complain that an entirely new policy to that pursued in regard to this Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had been adopted by His Majesty's Government in dealing with the Irish railways. The present Secretary to the Treasury seemed to have thrown himself wholly into the arms of the railway companies, and had adopted a purely Treasury policy in dealing with these Irish railways. As soon as the hon. Member opposite took office an entire change and a new departure took place in the action of the Treasury in dealing with these undertakings. When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture was Secretary to the Treasury he obtained from him pledges—

^* : The hon. Member's observations would be more in order upon the Third Reading. The motion before the House is to suspend the Standing Orders and order the Bill to be read a third time now, and the merits of the Bill cannot be gone into upon this motion.

suggested that the motion should be altered in the sense they had read it.

^* : The meaning of this motion is that the Bill be ordered to be read a third time now in the same way as when a Bill is ordered to be put down for the Third Reading on a future day. It is not usual to put the further question that the Bill be now read a third time in cases where there is no opposition. When there is any desire to raise any objection, then the question should be put.

said he did not oppose the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—( Mr. Caldwell .)

accused the Government of entering into a private deal with this railway company behind the backs of the public. When the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary to the Admiralty took office the promises given by his predecessor were thrown to the winds and this Bill was brought forward in absolute disregard of the pledges given across the floor of the House. The result was that the interests of the shareholders had been sacrificed, and they had lost, he should think, quite a quarter of a million of money in order that the Treasury, which was taking millions out of Ireland, might get this miserable sum which they had received for their interest in this railway. Why was there any necessity to hurry this arrangement? The evil they had complained of again and again was the entire absence of competition in that district through which the line ran. This line might have fructified into a through line between Derry and Dublin, but the destruction and abolition of this bit of line as an independent service had absolutely killed for ever the prospects of any through competition between Derry and Dublin. To gain this paltry sum for the Treasury, which was extracting £10,250,000 from Ireland, for which they did not get £250,000 of value, they were now asking the House to sanction the absorption of this bit of line for a paltry debt. If the Government desired to run the country like Shylock insisting upon his pound of flesh, then the action of His Majesty's Ministers was perfectly right; but if they were desirous of doing something to shepherd the interests of the country, then every one of these little independent lines should be cherished and dandled and fostered by any paternal Government. What about the pledges which had been given 1 It would weary the House too much if he were to go through the miserable history of the dealings of the Government with the Irish railway companies. In 1895 he exposed one scandalous transaction, and in consequence of that exposure they had a definite and fixed promise from the right hon. Gentleman. The Government could not justify the mortgage foreclosing except by taking up the position of Shylock, as they had no other excuse to offer for the absorption of the line. Another change had taken place in the Government of Ireland since the hon Member opposite came into office, for they had had Mr. Holmes placed at the head of the Board of Public Works in Ireland. He wished to know if this official was responsible for the sale of the Government's interest in this railway.

Mr. Holmes only came into office after these negotiations for the sale had reached an advanced stage.

said that meant that Mr. Holmes was not responsible, and the whole of this miserable piece of trafficking was done without the sanction of Mr. Holmes. The whole of this thing had been done in London by an official who probably never saw Ireland in his life, and the whole matter was consummated in the spider's web in Downing Street. This little line, which was the nucleus to the true route to the nor h, was chucked away for the paltry sum paid by the Northern Counties Railway Company. If ever there was an argument in favour of Home Rule it was to be found in the fact that a transaction like this should be consummated by a young and immature official without experience, and done as a direct breach of a bargain made across the floor of the House. This was the first thing the hon. Member did upon getting his feet into the Treasury soil—[Ministerial laughter]—perhaps he ought to say the mire. A transaction of this kind could only be justified because it was in furtherance of the policy adopted by the late lamented Isaac Gordon.

I have never before heard so much strong language used with so little foundation or justification as that which we have just listened to from the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. The hon. and learned Member has alleged that the moment I came into the Treasury I, in defiance of the pledges given by my predecessor, changed the whole policy with regard to this matter, and I have done what my right hon. friend promised would not be done. There is not a word of foundation for any part of that charge. When I came into office I found the negotiations—the final conclusion of which is embodied in this Bill—had very nearly approached completion under the charge of my predecessor, and what I have done has been to carry out the negotiations begun by my right hon. friend to a conclusion upon the lines he was pursuing. The only alterations I have made have been, in the first place, to safeguard the interests of the shareholders of the Derry Central Line, whose interests the hon. Member accused me of utterly neglecting; and, in the second place, to make some effort to secure as great protection as it was possible to do in the interests of that part of the country served by the line. If I have correctly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, his complaint is that the pledges given by my predecessor have not been amply fulfilled. What is the position? The complaint is, as I understand it, that no sale of the Government's interest in an Irish railway and no sale of an Irish railway by the Government should take place without full notice, and without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it; I am not quite sure, but I think he also said without an effort being made to secure competition. If that be the pledge given by my right hon. friend, then it has been amply fulfilled. Negotiations were proceeding with the Northern Counties Railway at the time when the hon. and learned Member put his question. They had then given notice to terminate their agreement at an early date. My right hon. friend said at that time that he must settle the question as rapidly as possible, or else the whole of the traffic on the line would be brought to a deadlock, and the public would be most seriously inconvenienced. What was the position then 1 The position was that my predecessor had conducted long negotiations with the Northern Counties Railway, but before accepting their terms, and before consenting finally to deal with them, he insisted upon inviting tenders for the purchase of the Government's interest in the line. Accordingly, tenders were invited for the purchase of that interest, with the result that only a single tender was received, and that one wholly inadequate to the amount of the Government interest.

Were they public tenders, duly advertised?

I think they were, but I cannot speak positively on that point. At any rate, it was common knowledge to everybody concerned that the Government's interest in the Derry Central Railway was in the market. As this single tender was wholly inadequate, and there being reasonable doubts as to whether the Derry Central Railway Company would be in a position to equip and work the line satisfactorily—

You never gave them the chance.

I hope the hon. and learned Member will not interrupt me.

I beg pardon.

Consequently, the Government declined their tender, and continued the negotiations with the Northern Counties which had been carried on by my predecessor before he left office. The result of those negotiations is now embodied in the present Bill, and Parliament is now being given the opportunity of saying whether this bargain shall be ratified or not. The pledge given by my predecessor that nothing should be done without the consent of Parliament was amply redeemed by the present Bill. May I for a moment dwell upon the merits of the case itself, quite apart from my own personal action? The hon. and learned Member says that if there were a Government in office which cared anything for Ireland or Irish interests, or which regarded the country as Irishmen regarded it, that Government would do its best to dandle and foster every one of these little lines, instead of behaving with a combination of all the worst qualities of Shylock and Sanguinetti. But is it really advisable for the Government to dandle and foster by artificial means such a railway as this Derry Central Railway It is enclosed in another system, and it is not capable of being worked except in conjunction with that system. From the day this Derry Central line was completed, it has been worked by the railway in possession of that system. It may very well be that under those circumstances, and with ultimate purchase before them, the working company have not done their best for the line, and have not developed the traffic upon it as they ought to have done. But what is the remedy for that 1 Surely the remedy is, not to continue the state of things which gave rise to its present condition, but by a purchase such as this Bill carries through to make it to the interests of the Northern Counties Railway, and make it an obligation upon them, to work that line in the same way as they work the rest of their line. The Northern Counties Railway received on the last occasion a testimonial from the hon. Member for the St. j Patrick Division of Dublin, which goes far to justify the action which the Government have taken. He said their j rates were fair, their service was good, j their lines were well equipped, and they were one of the best railways in Ireland. It is to that company that we have sold this little railway, which could not be successfully carried on by itself, and I think that in so doing the Government have done the best they could for the district which the line serves. But we have gone further than this. We have embodied in the agreement the terms and conditions upon which the line in the future has to be worked. No rates existing on the Derry Central line are to be raised without the sanction of the Railway Commission. If the rates are in any case higher than those under similar circumstances at other parts of the Northern Counties line, they are to be reduced to the rates existing on the Northern Counties line. And, finally, the Government provide—and in this respect the Bill has been amended so as to endeavour to meet the views expressed upon the Second Reading by the hon. Member for Dublin and my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone— that the purchasing company shall, after the passing of the Act, well and sufficiently equip, work, develop, manage, and maintain the railway in perpetuity, afford reasonable facilities for the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the railway, but not less than such facilities as at present exist, and that they shall in no way and under no circumstances work the railway so as to pre judicially affect the full and free flow of traffic of every description to and from Dublin, Belfast, and Londonderry.

Do the words "reasonable facilities" mean previous facilities?

Previous facilities were not reasonable. I think by these conditions the Government have done their best to secure that the district shall not be starved, and that they are providing the best guarantee, by the sale of the railway to the Northern Counties Company, that the line shall be worked well in the future. The hon. and learned Member says we have acted with an utter disregard to the interests of the shareholders, and he also drew a contrast between my predecessor, the present President of the Board of j Agriculture, and myself, in which he suggested that had my right hon. friend remained Secretary to the Treasury this sacrifice would not have occurred.

I did not say that.

I thought that was the innuendo. I think we have been very tender of the interests of the Derry Central shareholders. We have foregone part of the price offered to us by the Northern Counties Railway for the line— namely, £5,000, on condition that the company should, out of their own funds, add another £5,000, and the £10,000 thus obtained will go in compensation to the Derry Central shareholders in addition to the £10,000 already offered by the company; so that we have provided the sum of £20,000 in all, less a small matter of £500 which goes to the secretary as compensation for the shareholders. If the House reject the Bill on the Third Reading the result will be that the line would go derelict, and there would be no service in the district at all. I hope' hon. Members will not be led away by the passionate language of the hon and learned Member, because by passing this Bill they will be serving the best interests both of the shareholders and the inhabitants of the district concerned.

said he should be very sorry if the House accepted the somewhat strong views which had just been expressed by the Secretary to the Treasury. There had been no objection to the Bill before the Committee upstairs, and therefore the House was practically bound to support the Third Reading. The Belfast and Northern Company had not carried out their pledges in the past, and the next time the company came to the House of Commons for further powers he hoped that hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would watch very closely any demands they made. The Derry Central Railway was made some-twenty years ago, and it had been by agreement controlled by the Northern Counties Railway, and he assured hon. Members that it was frequently possible-to walk to their destination just as quickly as the Northern Counties Railway brought them along the Derry Central line. This company had starved the line in every way, and complaints had been made about it time after time. The inhabitants and the shareholders in the district concerned had expressed great dissatisfaction with the course taken by the Treasury. He wished also to point out that the application to the Railway Commission was wholly illusory, and they knew already what a great expense an application to that I Commission meant to a private individual. When this company came to ask for further powers, the House would be able to exercise a severe check in regard to their working of this line. The Derry" Central Company had been starved into submission by the Northern Counties Company, who declared, after shamefully neglecting it, that they could no-longer continue to work the line, and then of course they were able to make their own terms for the purchase of the Government's interest in the line. It was a great misfortune, but he agreed that the Treasury had no option in the matter,

said that, after the revelations made by the last speaker, the proposals of the Bill appeared to be doing a manifest injustice to the shareholders. It was therefore only reasonable that further time should be allowed for the Treasury to reconsider the question, and he moved the adjournment of the debate.

^* : The Secretary to the Treasury has given his explanation, and I cannot accept the motion for adjournment.

Do I understand you to rule that the motion for adjournment is not in order?

^* : That is my ruling.

^* thought they were entitled to adjourn the question until the late Secretary to the Treasury was present to give his explanation, and surely it was competent to move the adjournment. under those circumstances.

^* : I cannot allow the matter to be argued. I have given my decision, which is that the adjournment is a motion which cannot be moved now.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 320.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

moved for the appointment of a hybrid Committee. He said he did not think it desirable that he should go over the same grounds that he did yesterday when moving the rejection of the Bill, but for the same reasons he now moved that the Bill be referred to a hybrid Committee. It was a very important Bill, and a very large number of the inhabitants of Belfast felt intense dissatisfaction with the existing state of things, and with the constitution of the harbour board, the franchise, and other matters generally in reference to the Board. He therefore thought it most desirable that it should be referred to a Com- mittee on which members of the House who had special knowledge of the circumstances should be appointed instead of members selected by chance and upon which there might be no one who had a personal and precise knowledge of the circumstances. The Belfast Corporation Bill some years ago was referred to a hybrid Committee, as he suggested should be done with this Bill; on consideration of that Belfast Corporation Bill similar conditions arose, and the result of the consideration of that Bill was satisfactory to all persons concerned.. The hybrid Committee went fully into all the circumstances, and arrived at a conclusion which was just to all parties in Belfast, and which had given every satisfaction ever since. He thought, therefore, that they could not do better than follow that precedent and refer this Bill to a similar tribunal, and he moved the motion in the hope that if that were done a similarly satisfactory settlement might be arrived at.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee [9th July] be read and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection; that, subject to the Rules, Orders, and Proceedings of this House, all Petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee, and such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses be heard on their Petitions against the Bill if they think fit, and Counsel heard in support of the said Bill against such Petition; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that Five be the quorum."—( Mr. John Redmond .)

said that it was important that the reference to the Committee should be carried out without delay, and that it would involve ten days notice on a Bill which was really an unopposed Bill if the motion were to be carried.

rose to order, and stated that they could not hear what was being said.

^* : That is hardly a question of order. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise his voice.

said he had the greatest abhorrence to hybrid Committees. He spoke as one having experience. He sat on the Belfast Corporation Bill as an advocate on one side, not as a juror, and the corresponding member who sat on the other side announced to the House that if he were not put on the Committee his friends would be obliged to employ an extra counsel, but by reason of his being on the Committee that expense would be saved; in other words, that he went there as an advocate. Belfast did not desire any advocates on either side. They asked for a fair tribunal selected by the House, not on party lines, but selected by the Committee of Selection to try the Bill and weigh the evidence brought before them, and arrive at a conclusion as jurors without fear, favour, or affection. It was evident by the motion that it was proposed that there should be imported into the Committee a portion at least that should be prejudiced. There was no use disguising that fact. Hybrid Committees were simply appointed upon that ground, and a hybrid Committee of that class would have two or three Members from that side and two or three Members sitting below the gangway on the other side of the House; and they knew with what opinions they went into that Committee, and how fairly they weighed the evidence, and that they simply went there as advocates. Belfast had nothing to fear if the case were brought before any Committee the House pleased to appoint, but they asked that | it should not be appointed upon party lines, but by the Committee of Selection, which should fairly consider the provisions of the Bill and arrive at a conclusion that would be just to all sides.

said that the Government yesterday sat through the debate without saying one single word, although the question of law and order was largely involved. He asked the Government whether they had no opinion upon this matter, or whether they did not consider it one which deserved their attention. They knew that on the last occasion, some four or five years ago, when the then Government—predecessors of the right hon. Gentlemen—assented to the hybrid Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill, he was assailed in the most virulent terms by the hon. Baronet, who said the interests of the loyalists had been sacrificed and the interests of the rebels had been recognised by Her Majesty's Ministers. What was to prevent the right hon. Gentleman giving his views on the matter? No doubt it seemed a very fair thing that they should select a jury from gentlemen who never heard of Belfast before except on the 12th July, but he did not think they should be asked to confirm a system like that. They conceived that ignorance was not the best basis upon which an arrangement could be arrived at, and they really thought that two or three Irish Members, who had some acquaintance with their own country and its affairs, ought not to be permanently disqualified from sitting on these Committees. Of course if those questions to be tried were British questions, such as an electric system or the purity of gas at Bournemouth, he could quite conceive that persons of the utmost ignorance would be best qualified to pass an opinion on questions of that nature; but when they had to deal with places like Belfast, and considerations arising therefrom, they ought to have some tribunal with some intelligent appreciation of the affairs of that community from 1688 downwards. Therefore he thought when they had a Bill like this, affecting an area which generated so much violent trouble, and led to so much disorder and bloodshed, on the 12th July and other anniversaries, it was not too much for them to ask that an intelligent tribunal, such, for instance, as was employed in the south of Ireland to try prisoners, with a certain amount of exclusion and a certain amount of inclusion, should pass its judgment upon the Bill. [Order, order!] The hon. Member who had interrupted was most sensitive. He had said nothing which would bring a blush to the most modest cheek. He did not think he had said anything which would offend the most rancorous Queen's Islander. Having regard to the necessity of providing for an intelligent tribunal in dealing with the question, he conceived that they ought to allow of the appointment of a hybrid Committee, which, as regards all such troublesome questions, had already dealt with them in that House.

As the hon. Member has invited me to interpose, I may say that I did not rise yesterday because I did not think any question of law and order was involved in the Bill. The Bill was argued on its merits, and it seemed to be certain to win on its merits, as it was intended to foster the great shipping industry of Belfast, and I thought therefore there was no occasion for intervening in the debate. But the hon. Member for Waterford has stated that he desired a hybrid Committee, which is a somewhat exceptional tribunal in order to deal with the question, and in order that the question of the police of Belfast should be imported into the consideration of an industrial project. I am opposed to that if no stronger case can be made out for it. I am opposed to a hybrid Committee. I think grave objection can be urged against referring such a Bill to a hybrid Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is opposed to sending such proposals to hybrid Committees, and personally I think an ordinary Committee perfectly well qualified to judge whether the project will benefit the shipping industry of Belfast, whether it is properly drawn to achieve the object for which it is promoted, and whether the project is one which should receive Parliamentary sanction.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 321).

then moved "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to introduce a Clause assimilating the franchise of the Belfast Harbour Board to that of the local municipal franchise."

I have to inform the hon. Member that the Instruction is out of order. An exactly similar Instruction was moved on a Bill of a very similar description promoted by the same Board; the Instruction being of exactly the same purport as that of the hon. Member, I cannot do better than give the reasons I gave then—

"I think this Instruction is not in order. The Bill does not deal with the constitution of the Belfast Harbour authority, and the Instruction proposes that the Committee shall have power to inquire whether any alteration in the qualification of electors shall be made. This travels outside the scope of the Bill. The harbour authority has been duly constituted, and when it comes afterwards for further powers of the kind usually granted to such authorities it cannot be altered on a further Instruction. Therefore for these reasons I must rule the Instruction out of other."

The same applies to the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Cork.f I do not see the hon. Member in his place to move it, but if he did move it I should rule it out of order.

In the absence of my hon. friend, and as you, Sir, have given a considered ruling upon it, of course I cannot in any way take exception to your ruling, but I might be allowed to ask you whether, in considering the point, you have had consideration for the fact that in the year 1882, on the Belfast Harbour Bill, a precisely similar Bill to this, the late Mr. Biggar was allowed by the authorities of that day to raise the question of the franchise, and that from that date down to 1896 on several Bills—on the Bill dealing with the Rathmines and

† The motion on the Paper in the name of Mr. Flynn was "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to introduce a clause to provide for the erection of a police barrack upon the Queen's Island, Belfast."

Rathgar townships by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and again on the Belfast Main Drainage Bill by Mr. Sexton, an exactly similar course was pursued, and during subsequent years down to 1897. I ask whether you had consideration to the fact that in all those cases the course I propose to pursue was permitted from the Chair, and I ask whether you have taken those former precedents into-account in giving your ruling.

^* : I am aware of those decisions, but the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that they are in point.. Most of them, if not all of them, were questions of Second Reading, and a much, wider scope may sometimes be taken on Second Reading than can be given on an Instruction. At any rate, I am quite clear that in this case the Instruction is out of order.

In some of those cases they were Instructions.

^* : I did not say all of them.

You will quite understand, Sir, that in making these remarks I am not questioning your ruling at all. If is only natural under the circumstances I have mentioned that I should point out that your ruling seemed to be in contradiction to the rulings previously given, and it is only right that I should ask for enlightenment.

^* : If I were to examine those cases in detail from the reports I have here, I think I could show that they are not in point on the question of Instruction. However, it is sufficient that I am decidedly of the opinion that I have expressed.

Mansfield Corporation Bill

Lords' Amendments, considered, and agreed to.

CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

DOVER GAS BILL [Lords]

Read a second time, and committed.

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill

[Under Section 7, Sub-Section (2), of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.]

Read the third time, and passed.

AYR COUNTY BUILDINGS PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

[Under Section 9, Sub-Section (4), of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.]

Read the third time, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL [Lords]

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [Lords]

Read a second time, and committed.

moved the omission of Clause 2, which imposes the .sugar tax. He said he made this further protest against the tax because he considered a vital objection was to be found in the frank admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they must not look j upon it as an emergency tax, but as a permanent part of the fiscal financial system of this country. That declaration added to the gravity of the proposal, and when they remembered that the imposition of the tax was a revolutionary and retrograde step in the financial system of the country, he thought it would be impossible to attach too great weight to the declaration. The placing of a tax upon an article of food which had if or many years been free from all taxation was a proceeding, so far as his knowledge went, which was unknown in the financial system of the country for half a century. He had listened with astonishment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointing out that in the days of the Crimean War the tax on sugar was much heavier than at the present moment. He had always been led to believe that we had progressed in this country in the art of finance since the days of the Crimean War, and the fact that a tax was in force fifty years ago was not an argument in favour of its being imposed on the people now. But whatever the tax on sugar was in the days of the Crimean War, he did not think that at any time a tax had again been placed upon sugar or anyother primary article of food after that article had been left free from taxation for a great many years. That was what was proposed to be done on the present occasion. On this question he was not greatly surprised at the views put forward by some hon. Members in the course of the debate. Some hon. Members opposite seemed to question the assertion that sugar was a primary article of the food of the people of this country. He was astonished that that assertion should be questioned, but as it had been questioned it was essential that it should be dealt with. Men who were experts in this matter had held that one of the causes of the health and strength of the people of this country was the greatly increased consumption of sugar which had resulted from the freedom of that article of food from all taxation. The facts as to the enormous increase—quite unparalleled in other European countries so far as he knew—in the consumption of sugar per head of the population were very remarkable. In 1863 the consumption of sugar per head in this country was 30 lbs.; in 1866, 38 lbs.; in 1884, 70 lbs.; and in 1890, 86 lbs. Therefore, the consumption of sugar per head of the population in England had increased very nearly three times since sugar was freed from taxation. Of course that gave a slightly exaggerated view, for no doubt it was not all actual consumption, because a portion of that was due to the manufacture of jams and confections which were exported. There was no doubt, however, that the consumption per head of the population had certainly doubled, if not more than doubled, as an article of food. That alone was a very remarkable and important fact, and it ought to be kept in mind in dealing with the question. There could be no controversy on the point that sugar was not only an article of food, but an important and vital article of food—one of the most wholesome and most useful from the point of view of strength and the development of the muscular system. The hon. Member proceeded to refer to experiments which had been made with respect to the dietetic value of sugar. In an article on the subject in the British Medical Journal of 27th April this year he found the following passage:— impossible for anyone who had watched' the course of the discussion of questions of taxation during the last five years to look on this as an isolated tax. The imposition of the sugar tax was only the first step in the process of broadening the basis of taxation which was advocated in a series of letters published in The Times three or four years ago. Those letters were evidently written by some great authority on finance, or one who imagined himself to be so. This writer advocated first and foremost a tax on sugar, and also a small tax on meat, on corn, and on some other articles of food. This year, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted on the advice of this weighty correspondent of The Times , he emerged again from his obscurity, patted the right hon. Gentleman on the back for having adopted his chief suggestion, and went on to say that of course the sugar tax was only one item in the programme, the whole of which he trusted and believed would be carried into effect.. In one of these letters it was pointed out that the provision made for permanent expenditure was insufficient, that for at least three or four years fifty millions a year would be required for the Army, and that moderate duties on corn and agricultural produce would be necessary. He believed himself that the whole programme would be adopted. Supposing; the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House next year, and under the pres sure of the naval and military expenditure which was being recklessly piled up proposed a tax on margarine, what would be the position of the Irish Members? They had now cast to the winds the principle of not taxing the food of the people. The Government now proposed to tax the food of the people in a way that would cruelly and unjustly oppress, the people of Ireland. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say next year, "We will redress the balance, and lay taxes on meat, margarine, butter, corn, and wheat," how could the Irish Members refuse to support these taxes, which would put millions into the pockets of the Irish people? Sugar was as much a food of the people as wheat or corn, the only difference being that from that point of view the tax on sugar would press with especial cruelty on the poor people of Ireland, while a tax upon corn, or margarine, or butter, or even imported meat, would have the reverse effect. He laid stress on this point, because he wished the House to realise that if they were going to enter on this disastrous career of reimposing on the people of this country the taxes which the great financiers of the past, now dead and gone, had taken off from the food of the people, they must not blame the Irish Members if they demanded that taxes should be put on meat, corn, butter, and margarine, which would press heavily on the working classes of the United Kingdom. These would be entitled to say, You have set us the evil example by breaking down the great traditions of the best financiers of the past generations."

It was really no wonder that they should have these extraordinary financial evils imposed in this House when they read inane rubbish in the greatest journal of the country, The Times , as sound financial teaching. In a recent number of that journal it was stated as a great principle, laid down beyond all controversy and as the beginning of wisdom, that they ought to consider what the rich man did with his wealth, when it would be found beyond all doubt that he spent his income in paying wages—that the rich man's main luxury was to employ labour. The argument which that sentence was used to support was that it did not matter in the least degree whether they put taxation on the rich or the poor, because if they taxed the rich they lessened the fund for the payment of labour. That was the modern finance of The Times newspaper! He ventured to prophesy that if this Government, remained in power, and if they accepted the doctrines of this writer in The Times , on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to rely, before long a condition of confusion and disaster would arise in the finances of the country which would produce in time a very great reaction. That was the ground on which he strongly opposed this tax. He had been astonished to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer and some of his supporters allege that there had been no opposition to this tax, and that no great interest had been taken in it. He s, hould show that that was not true. But he might first of all say that in the course of the debate in this House and outside in reference to the present Budget Bill, it was rather disheartening to the men who believed in democratic government to see that the opposition to the coal tax had been far better organised than that against the sugar tax, although the sugar tax was a far more reactionary measure and a greater departure from sound principles of finance. How had that arisen 1 He did not in the least charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with it, but it was true that the proposed imposition of a sugar tax had leaked out, and there was not a single sugar dealer, wholesale or retail, who had not made a big haul out of the tax. For weeks before the Budget the ports of the country were blocked with vessels bringing cargoes of sugar, and dealers doubled and trebled their stocks before the tax was imposed. He maintained that all the great interests which would be most naturally affected by the tax were silenced. Everybody knew that the general body of the people were the last to hear of these matters. It had been perfectly amazing—almost incredible—what a clamour had been raised by the coal party by means of their machinery and the money at their disposal, that their industry was going to be destroyed by the coal tax, and they had succeeded in obtaining great concessions. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so arranged that the coal owners and dealers were going to make a great deal of money out of the coal tax there would not have been half the opposition to it that there was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had set up an elaborate and difficult machinery for the collection of the sugar tax in order to collect a halfpenny per pound, which the right hon. Gentleman says nobody would feel—although he was going to draw five millions from it. But did he realise, in putting sugar under the harrow of taxation, that it was the first step which cost, and that it would be easy to increase that halfpenny to a penny, as the machinery was there 1 Was it true that there was no opposition to the sugar tax and no very strong feeling in the country against it? There was evidence strong and striking of the feeling in the country against this tax, and none was more impressive than that which was given at the meeting of the National Association of Co-operative Societies, held recently at Middlesbrough—attended by 1,300 delegates. When the question of the sugar tax was raised some gentlemen remonstrated, because they held that politics should not be introduced into the congress, but despite that, a resolution was unanimously carried that the congress deplored the action of the Government in putting a tax on sugar, which was mainly a tax on the working classes; it declared for a free breakfast table, and held that the increase of expenditure of thirty-five millions was unwarrantable and unjustifiable. When that resolution was brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman said that the congress represented the grocers, and that he knew this tax was unpopular with the grocers. But the congress did not represent the grocers, and it was unjust and unfair to say so. The congress consisted of the citizens of this country—to an immense extent the working classes—and it was that which made the resolution so important. The congress was not even a Liberal association, but a mixed body of Tories, Liberals, and Radicals. That was a very strong indication of the great strength and extent of the opposition to the sugar tax in the country. But there was another striking instance. The last Member elected to the House—the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division—told the House that the subject of most interest during his election campaign was the sug r tax, and that that had influenced more votes in his favour than any other political subject. Then there were resolutions passed by co-operative guilds and women's trade unions against the tax, and when these wished an interview on the matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that he regretted he could not receive them. These were all facts showing that there was a very large volume of opinion against the tax. But even if that were not so, he should still oppose the tax, because he believed it to be radically vicious and wrong in principle. These questions of taxation were not questions on which popular excitement or interest could he very easily roused, particularly in times of great prosperity, and when wages were high and trade was good. Great taxation reforms were accomplished, not so much by popular agitation, but by great leaders, who had studied the effects of taxation on the social life of the people and the prosperity of the trade of the country. It would take time for the people to realise the injury this tax inflicted upon them, but he felt convinced that the time would come when a popular agitation would be raised against this tax; and on all these grounds he took the opportunity of protesting against the tax, and he certainly wo Id divide against it. He begged to move the omission of the clause.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, to leave out Clause 2."—( Mr. Dillon. )

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 2 to the word ' all,' in page 2, line 16, stand part of the Bill."

I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I do not wonder that a protest against this tax comes from Ireland, because taxes of this character press with the greatest severity upon the poorer classes of the community, whether in this country or in Ireland. But bad as this tax is, bad as I think the finance of the present time to be, I find myself not in a position to oppose this tax. As long as the House and the country chose to persist in the policy of extravagance to which we are now exposed, it is absolutely certain that you will have bad finance. It is the inevitable consequence of the policy which is being pursued, not only in the war, but in the normal policy of the country, that you will have to raise money. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, year after year our expenditure is growing at a much greater ratio than our revenue, and therefore we must cast about to find what taxes may be imposed, without any regard as to whether they are good or bad taxes. As I understand, a sort of apprehension has been created in the mind of my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo by certain anonymous letters in The Times newspaper , which he thought might possibly influence prejudicially the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I entirely acquit the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being influenced by those nonsensical productions. They are so absurd in themselves that they carry with them their own refutation. I do not know who the author is, but I think he has been extremely wise to conceal his identity. I do not wish to use an offensive epithet, but I think everyone will say how unwise a man he is. But I do not think we have reached the point of badness of finance to suppose that the finance of The Times newspaper is likely to be adopted. Therefore I dispense altogether with that ground of alarm. My hon. friend has been struck with the similarity of the arguments with respect to the sugar tax and a tax upon corn, but I would point out to him that there is a very wide distinction between taxes that are protective and those which are not. The tax on sugar is not a protective tax. All the money raised upon it goes into the Exchequer, whereas in the case of a tax on corn or meat, which raises the price of the commodity at hone as well as abroad, a great part of the money raised never goes to the Exchequer at all. I do not suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet been driven to protection, and I am quite sure it will take a great deal and a few more years of such expenditure before he is reduced to that strait. I think everyone must be aware of what was the condition of taxation after the great war at the beginning of the last century. In a celebrated passage Sydney Smith described how every article used by man from the cradle to the grave was taxed. We are now going in the direction in which I think you may reproduce that condition of finance. These taxes are oppressive; of course they are. The policy of the Government is one which demands oppressive taxation, and I believe that as in former days, so in the present day the evil will become so great that it will cure itself. You have had no reimposition of taxes upon the food of the people for fifty years. That is because you have had fifty years of peace, but if you are going to have twenty years of war you may go back to taxation as bad as that which was experienced in the former century. It is quite true that a system of sound finance slowly began at the beginning of the last century. It began under the teaching of the severity of taxation due to war, which naturally gave rise to the policy of the men who-advocated economy—a policy now relegated to Saturn. The great Budgets of Mr. Gladstone were founded also on public economy, and it was in that way and by the prosperity thus created, that the taxes imposed at the time of the Crimean War were taken off. I believe the day will not be far distant when in this country there will be a hearing given to economy. I am quite sure the man who would be most glad to hear that voice would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer of to-day and any Chancellor of the Exchequer who may succeed him in the future. There are evils so great that they bear within themselves their own cure. Although I entirely agree with my hon. friend in all he has said, it is perfectly true that when the House of Commons has voted the expenditure it must be taken to have the support of the country, which has given the Government their majority, but I cannot refuse, when the House of Commons has voted the expenditure, to find the ways and means towards meeting that expenditure. I condemn the finance upon which we are entering, and I wish I could think that we are not going far deeper into these evils, but may be driven to re-impose all the taxes which it has been the labour of the great financiers of the-last century to remove. That was an epoch of emancipation. The wheels are now reversed, and we are going back on the past, and I am afraid we are in the fair way, or rather the foul way, of undoing all the work which had been accomplished. We are not only re-imposing taxes which had been removed but we are doing that which, in my opinion, is still worse—we are burdening posterity with enormous debts, which for fifty years we had endeavoured to relieve them of. That is a melancholy prospect. It is a prospect of financial degradation; it is a necessary consequence of the policy we are pursuing. I shall give a vote in favour of this tax, not because I do not condemn it, but because I find myself in the situation described in the proverb that "Needs must when war drives." I cannot vote with my hon. friend on this occasion, but I enter my protest against the taxation which has been forced upon us by the financial policy of the Government.

^* said he listened with interest to the copious statistics quoted by the hon. Member for East Mayo to prove the superiority of sugar, but the conclusion to which he had arrived was that if the people of Ireland, as well as the people of England and Scotland, lived on the less stimulating food of their forefathers, and abandoned a tea and coffee diet, they would not only be much better in health, but would also take from the Chancellor of the Exchequer part of the taxation he had imposed on them. His principle object in rising was not, however, to discuss the merits of sugar as an article of food, but for the purpose of saying a few words on the sugar tax as it related to the colonies and to sugar refineries at home. An Amendment was put down on the Second Reading stage of the Finance I ill by the late Colonel Milward, whose loss they all deplored, to the effect that no system of taxation was satisfactory which did not afford to sugar produced in the British colonies or by British refiners equality of opportunity with sugar produced in bounty-giving countries. The Amendment was not, however, moved for two reasons; firstly, because they did not wish to add to the worries of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he had already experienced so much difficulty in re-establishing the old basis of taxation; and, secondly, because they believed that the Government would do its very best at the forthcoming international conference to have the bounties abolished. From what had transpired, however, during the debates he thought it necessary to make a statement from the free-trade point of view in connection with sugar taxation. The crucial point was whether sugar could be produced more cheaply in tropical countries than in European countries, and on that point the advantage lay with tropical countries to the extent of from 10 per cent, to 20 percent. That was admitted by the hon. Member for Devonport, who, however, made the extraordinary statement that the reason why the colonies in the tropics did not avail of their natural advantages was because the West Indian planters lived luxurious lives, and that they had not made the same progress in the improvement of sugar production as European countries. But America had proved conclusively that, even under existing conditions, the West Indies were more than a match for European sugar producing countries on terms of equality. The United States had given the West Indian planters that equality of opportunity which was denied them by England, with the result that in every market in the United States cane sugar led. That would be the result in England also—

^* : How does the bounty question arise on the sugar clause?

^* said that he desired to show that there should be a provision to counteract the bounty.

^* : I do not think the bounty question properly arises. The clause is simply a tax on sugar.

^* said he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and he would conclude by saying that there was no public question regarding which such progress had been made. Twenty years ago anyone who advocated equality of opportunity for sugar produced in England or the colonies would be stigmatised as a rank Protectionist. Now the Chambers of Commerce of London, Glasgow, and other great cities were not only in accord with that policy, but strongly advocated it, because they recognised that if the Crown colonies were denied preferential treatment they were at least entitled to what they would have secured for them-selves hadthey been self-governingcolonies and British workmen whose products were shut out by tariffs from every market in the world were entitled to demand that in this country at least they should have a fair field and no favour. He believed that a majority of the House and the country had come to a more enlightened view of the subject, and that the Government would have the cordial support of that majority in doing everything they could at the forthcoming International Congress, even to adopting drastic measures, to secure the abolition of the sugar bounties.

said the most extraordinary reason he had ever heard in favour of the tax on sugar was that long ago the price of sugar was very much higher than it was at present, and that therefore it could safely made dearer. In other words, that an article which was naturally cheap—he knew it would be contended that the bounties made it cheaper than it otherwise would be—should be artificially made dearer because it was once dearer than it was at present. Many things were once dearer than they now were. Window light was dearer when the window tax was in operation, and flour and bread—which many would like to make dearer if they had the courage—were once dearer than at present. It had occurred to many hon. Members to contract the very great agitation which had been produced by the coal tax with the comparative apathy, to which the hon. Member for East Mayo drew attention, with which the tax on sugar had been received. There were very good reasons for that. As the hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out, the sugar trade as a whole had had an opportunity—he did not say it was extended to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with set purpose—of making a very large extra profit out of the tax, because immediately the Budget was introduced they increased the price by ½d. per pound on large stocks of sugar which had not paid any duty at all. The stocks were not yet exhausted, and until they were it was to the interest of every sugar dealer in the country to back up the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal, so that the extra profit might be secured. There was a further evil which naturally resulted from the tax. When the present stocks were exhausted, the dealers would then have stocks on which duty had been paid, and a new vested interest would be created in favour of keeping the duty on in order to protect the holders of stocks. He had not the smallest doubt whatever that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers did everything they could to keep from the knowledge of the trade the intention to impose the tax. There was no one in the House who had a stronger respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than he had, and he was absolutely convinced of the right hon. Gentleman's desire to do everything he could for the public interest, but, as he himself had indicated, there was very great difficulty in keeping secret the intention to levy a particular duty, and not unnaturally the sugar trade, after all the statements in important journals with reference to the tax, believed it would be levied, and the dealers were now making an extra profit without any advantage to the revenue. There was another reason why there was, as yet, no outcry against the sugar tax as compared with the coal tax. Why had the coal tax been whittled away as far as the present year was concerned? It was because of the combined, strong, determined, and concentrated attack by the particular trade concerned in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, and it had succeeded because the coal industry was centred in a few districts, was highly organised both as regarded employers and employed, and was able at once to make its opinion felt in the House of Commons. In the sugar industry there was no such combination, because the factories using sugar were widely scattered and could not make their views heard. On the Budget night nothing was said about the coal tax and the sugar tax being permanent. Hon. Members learned that later. The fact that the sugar tax was to be a permanent tax was, in his opinion, a matter of very serious moment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to bring home to the electors the increase in national expenditure and the cost of the war, he would have done it more effectively by putting a tax on articles they consume, such as alcohol or tobacco; but he failed to see the special appropriateness of a tax on sugar. There were two ways in which a working man handed money over to his wife. He either handed her a fixed sum out of his wages, or he retained a fixed sum for himself and handed her the balance. It would be the wife, therefore, that would suffer from the sugar tax, because she would have to make the same amount of money do, whether sugar was dear or cheap. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had aiders and abettors on that side o the House in his desire to make the average elector feel the burden of the war expenditure. He was very sorry to hear the tone of pessimism adopted that afternoon by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for West Monmouth whom they looked upon as a great authority, and whose financial achieve ments were greater than those of any other living man. It might seem presumptuous for a young member to differ from such an authority, but it seemed to him that the principles of good taxation and free trade were as true to-day as they had been fifty years ago.

Hear, hear.

The point of view of the right hon. Gentleman was that a bad war justified bad taxation, as if two blacks could make a white.

I did not say justifies, but necessitates.

The right hon. Gentleman epitomised the whole situation when he said "When war drives needs must." But what need? There was no need to tax one of the first essentials of human existence. There were in the country, and even in the House, men who believed in the principle of taxing what he might call the minimum of subsistence. At the period of the repeal of the Corn Laws he thought it was established once for all that it was a principle of British policy that the minimum of subsistence should not be diminished by taxation, and that nothing should be taken away from the poorest in the land. It might be said that it would not be consistent to refrain from taxing any elector, but fifty or sixty years ago it was thought that that principle had been established. That principle had been recently extended. There had just passed through the House of Commons a Bill for the relief of friendly societies, by which if a working man in receipt of five shillings a week or less, from a friendly society, sought parish relief that amount should not be counted as part of his possessions. That recognised the general desire of the country and the House not to press hardly on the very poor. The Old Age Pensions Bill was another step in the same direction. It was therefore inconsistent to relieve the very poor, and at the same time take away part of the minimum of subsistence by taxation. It seemed to him that they should decide on some intelligible principle and stick to it. He knew it was customary to regard the repeal of the Corn Laws as the establishment of free trade, but it was more than that—it was the reform of the then existing system of taxation. Now a tax was imposed by an avowed and honest Free Trader, aided and abetted by another Free Trader of great eminence, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, which in all humility appeared to him to violate the principle that the minimum of subsistence should not be taxed. The sugar ax had further evils. Not merely would it press hardly on the poorer classes, but sugar was also the raw material for several industries. The fruit industry was happily a growing one. He read every day they appeared interesting letters of Mr. Rider Haggard on the condition of agriculture in the country. The fruit industry tended very strongly in the direction of peasant propritorship, but it depended for its cotinuance, as far as home consumption was concerned, on cheap sugar. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer had promised to relieve the jam industry from the tax on sugar as far as exports were concerned, and no doubt he right hon. Gentleman would do as much as any man in that respect with regard to jam and similar industries in which sugar was an important material, le was told that on an average a pound f sugar was used for every pound of fruit n the manufacture of jam, so that the ax was a very important matter. As a result of the duty, the manufacturers would have to charge more for their products in the home markets, or else pay less for their fruit. The first result would e, not to give the same price for the fruit. A good amount of fruit was expected in tie present year, but a large quantity of; would have to be left to rot, as the jam manufacturers could not afford to pay even the cost of picking it. Over 300,000 acres were at present under fruit. That acreage haddoubled during the last fifteen years, since the decline of wheat-growing in several counties. It was a very lucrative crop, and gave considerable employment. A little fruit farm in Sussex, containing five acres, gave employment to six labourers throughout the year.

^* : The hon. Member is quite in order in referring to the importance of cheap sugar as regards fruit-growing, but he is not entitled to discuss the industry of fruit-growing.

said that the sugar tax was a reversal of the fiscal policy of the country, as was shown by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in his Budget speech that it was found necessary to propose a departure of great importance from the system to which they had been accustomed, and from which they were unwilling to depart. It seemed to him that before such an extraordinary departure was decided on the Government ought to look in some other direction. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth to say that it did not matter whether the taxation was good or bad.

I said that the taxation was sure to be bad in its consequences.

accepted the correction, but he could not agree that they were driven to adopt that system of taxation. He did not think they were in the last ditch as regarded that matter. They were not absolutely bound to tax the food of the people. There were many other objects suitable for taxation, and he presumed he would be in order in naming some of them, so as to show that the system now proposed was not absolutely necessary. First, there were ground values. These in London alone had risen in value ten million sterling during the last thirty years.

^* : The hon. Member will not be entitled to argue on this point. He can indicate the alternative taxes he would prefer, but he must not argue as to their merits.

said he had no desire to argue as to their merits, he merely wished to name the articles. Licensed houses might be taxed, and we had not yet reached the limits of the income tax. If it could be advanced from 8d. to Is. 2d., it might as well be raised to Is. 6d., and then there would be no need to tax either coal or sugar. Surely this country must be in a desperate condition if it had reached the same stage as our Indian finances, and was compelled to tax a prime necessity of life. Were we soon to have bread and salt as well as sugar taxed? It was suggested that everybody in the country ought to bear a fair share of the cost of the war. He had only been a member of that House a few months, but he had been in business for thirty-five years, and his fear was that there was approaching one of the worst periods for trade and employment that we had experienced for many years. Yet in face of that we were imposing a tax which would be severely felt by the very poorest, and there was also the prospect of a tax on corn in next year's budget, because the celebrated writer in The Times whose advice had been adopted in regard to the sugar duty had also recommended a tax on meat and corn, and other agricultural produce. If that principle were to be pursued, wha article would escape taxation He deeply regretted to hear so retrograde a proposal as that which was now under consideration. It was the duty of those who had any belief whatever left in the principles established fifty or sixty years ago to vote against this tax.

^* suggested that if the hon. Member who last spoke had extended his politico-economical researches into the works of John Stuart Mill, he would have found the principle laid down that taxation and representation should proceed co- extensively. That writer never put forward the doctrine that taxation ought to be levied, not on the mass of the people, but on a small minority, That was a very revolutionary doctrine. The hon. Gentleman took exception to the sugar tax on a ground on which he for one supported it, namely, that it afforded an opportunity for those who controlled the policy of the country to contribute their fair quota towards the expense of its government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had twitted him not unfairly or discourteously with having been more agreeably engaged elsewhere when the West Indian Committee brought forward their case in the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that he was more agreeably occupied, but it was only right he should explain that he allowed himself to be more congenially engaged, because he had ascertained beforehand that a fiasco was inevitable in connection with the discussion. The West Indian Committee had, he found, been squared— not of course in any corrupt sense— but they had come to the conclusion that their object would be more satisfactorily brought about by abstention from hostile action in connection with the Finance Bill. He was in fact led to understand that although the amendment in favour of the establishment of a preferential system of trade between the Mother Country and the Colonies was to be proposed, it would, when the critical moment arrived, be withdrawn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would therefore hardly blame him for thinking he was better elsewhere than engaged in a fiasco of that kind. In speaking of "squaring," and of a "fiasco," however, it must not be supposed he was including or in any way blaming his hon. friend the Member for Central Sheffield, who stood by his guns, but at the last moment found himself deserted by those at whose trumpet call he had fought. He at any rate was entirely free from any blame in that connection. As regarded the merits of that taxation, the last speaker had called it protection, but he failed to see any protective element in it at all; he only wished there was; neither did the hon. Gentleman give any evidence of it. As he understood it, foreign manufactured jam would pay a duty when it came into this country. Was he right in that?

Yes.

^* : He was glad to hear that, and he hoped that the duty would be a stiff one. The hon. Gentleman had ignored that altogether, and had said that the imposition of a tax on sugar, which was used for manufacturing and refining purposes in this country, had a tendency to protection. He failed to see that that was so.

I quite recognise the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to withdraw from taxation sugar employed in the manufacture of jams that are exported.

^* : A kind of export bounty!

A drawback.

^* said it was an absolute misnomer for those who opposed the tax to associate it with protection. As regarded the taxation as a whole, he thought it was a sound doctrine that those who were mainly responsible for the policy of the country should pay their fair share of its burdens. That was the principle set forth in the works on political economy which the hon. Member had so much in his mind. He had suggested that much of the land formerly devoted to corn growing might be used for fruit cultivation, but he would advise farmers to be very careful before they acted on the hints of a very eminent statesman in that direction—there was no quicker road to ruin for everyone concerned. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not availed himself of the desire of our colonial fellow-subjects to enter into special reciprocal relations with the Mother Country in connection with trading. If the words used by the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary had any meaning at all this clause ought to have contained some provision placing imports into this country from British colonies and dependencies upon a more favoured footing than sugar from elsewhere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had always adhered to a pious opinion, and resolutely declined to encourage fellow-colonists, in any shape or form, except upon identically the same terms as were accorded to foreigners. It was no doubt an orthodox attitude, which earned the applause of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and those who agreed with him, but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would realise, notwithstanding the scattering of the forces on the sham amendment of the West Indian Committee, and the squaring of that body, that there was a strong and growing feeling throughout all portions of the Empire in favour of preferential treatment for the trade of our colonies.

said he wished to join in the protest o: his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo against the imposition of this tax which he looked upon as one of the very meanest phases of a retrograde financial policy. It was curious the one of the ablest financier's of modern times should have been constrained by the necessities of the situation to adopt a retrograde policy, in pursuit of which he not only had swept away the whole of the nation's savings for the last century and had increased its annual expenditure by many millions, but now sought to impose a tax upon one of the principal means of the subsistence of the people. It was a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer—Sir Stafford Northcote—who first of all swept away the last vestige of the tax upon sugar, and when he swept it away he stated in most emphatic terms that it was a tax on food, which, as far as he was concerned, would never be renewed. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of the Cabinet of which Sir Stafford Northcote was so distinguished a member, and yet it had fallen to his lot to reimpose the duty. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, who, while regretting the imposition of the sugar tax, had announced that he intended to vote for it, he could only deplore that the right hon. Gentleman had so far departed from the principle he had laid down years ago, when he said that, through thick and thin, he would work to procure a free breakfast table for the people." The right hon. Gentleman had said that the English people, by a vast majority, had determined on the war, and that, therefore, it was only fit and proper that I they should be made to pay for it. But even if he held that opinion, was it any reason why he should depart from the sound principles of finance of which in the past he had been so able an exponent? As to his right hon. friend opposite, the Member for Thanet, he had always believed him to be one of the gentlemen whom Mr. Gladstone had in his eye when he spoke of those who relegated political economy to Mars and Saturn. His right hon. friend would fain have cited John Stuart Mill as an advocate of a sugar tax, heedless of Mill's contention that the margin of subsistence should not be taxed. No one was ever a greater opponent of anything like taxation on food, and he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to make a more careful study of John Stuart Mill's fifth book. Now, he came to a different phase of the question. There were some matters which he often tried to avoid, because they aroused within him such strong feelings. But in this case he must put self aside and endeavour to awaken the House to a sense of what this duty would do. The persons he represented were not only poor but they were very poor indeed, and nothing was more difficult for people in easy circumstances to understand than the enormous difficulties created in a household by the reduction of income to the extent of only a few pence. In speaking upon that subject he had clearly in his mind's eye the interior of many wretched poverty-stricken cottages to be found in many parts of Donegal, and he was well aware that this tax of ½d. per pound on sugar would mean to many of those people, not only increased discomfort, but also the gnawing feeling of hunger, for there were few occasions in the course of a year in which their appetites were absolutely satisfied. It would be shameful indeed if he did not raise his voice in protest against the duty being placed upon one of the necessaries of life in order to carry on a war which was the outcome of a policy his constituents had always pro-Bested against. It had been suggested that sugar, after all, was only a luxury, but he would like to point out that one of the results of the development of civilisation during the last half century lad been to convert what was at one time a luxury into an absolute necessity of life. Sugar was a part of the daily nutriment of his constituents in Donegal. It was as essential to them as tea and bread. A rich man thought nothing of the extra ½d. per pound, but in the little shealings which were found scattered all over the western seaboard, where the family were dependent upon the scanty produce of the five acres of land attached to the home, and where the rent had to be paid out of the harvest earnings in another country of the head of the household, this extra charge of ½d. per pound upon sugar too often represented at lest 15 per cent, of the income, and that fact justified his protest against a proposal to rob the poor of the very means of subsistence. He looked upon the proposal of the Government as most abominable, and he was confident that if it were persisted in Ministers would be deemed by the people of Ireland to be hypocrites and oppressors, who deserved any vengeance that might fall upon them.

^* : The hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member who has just sat down are opposed to this tax, not merely on its own account, but also because it is a tax imposed to meet the expenditure on the war. On that ground, I believe, they oppose it more strongly than on the merits of the tax itself. But that is a matter on which I do not think it right or proper to detain the House at the present moment. The House has sanctioned by a large majority the expenditure on the war, and it is necessary to provide means to meet that expenditure, and the only question I sha1 attempt to discuss is the question whether this is a proper tax for that purpose. Hon. Members seem to me to be a little unfair to my position in this matter. They have accused me of what they have been pleased to call a retrograde policy. They have credited me almost with a desire to tax an article of food because it is cheap, and they have charged me with initiating a new policy by re-imposing the tax on sugar. I hope they will believe that it is always an unpleasant and objectionable thing to a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have to increase taxation at all. If the expenditure of the country decreases, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day is in the happy position of being able to reduce or even to repeal taxation; but if the expenditure of the country greatly increases, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day must of necessity find some further means by way of taxation to enable that expenditure to be borne. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire himself, if he had been Chancellor of the exchequer to the Government which was responsible for the occupation of Egypt and for the military operations in the Soudan, would have had to propose increased taxation in order to meet the expenditure, and I think that when the right hon. Gentleman charges me with bad finance that is not an epithet which ought to be applied to anything I have done with regard to the sugar tax. On a former occasion I quoted the words of Mr. Gladstone him self when welcoming the repeal of the sugar duty in 1874—words which distinctly showed that the possibility presented itself to his mind that it might be necessary on some future occasion to reimpose the tax. It is suggested that this is a retrograde step because it is imposing a tax on food; but hon. Members who so argue forget that other articles of food are, and always have been, subject to taxation in this country. Tea, coffee, cocoa, dried fruits, and articles of that kind are taxed and always have been. No doubt it is a painful thing to be obliged to add to the list an article of food of such importance and so largely consumed by the poor as sugar, but it is the only way in which by any process of indirect taxation the revenue of the country could have been added to. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself, who characterized this tax as bad finance—

Bad in its consequences.

^* : I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he had stood at this box and had had to meet the expenditure of the year—an additional expenditure which ought to be borne not merely by direct, but also by indirect, taxation—could have hit on a tax which would be less objectionable. Still, while finding fault with the proposal on its merits, the right hon. Gentleman has announced his intention of supporting it as a necessary although an objectionable tax. I do not think it is necessary for me to say much on this subject. It has already been debated three times, and although I entirely recognise that those who are opposed to the tax have a perfect right to debate it again, yet I find myself in this position, that 1 have already said all I have to say, and I do not think it right to take up the time of the House by unnecessary repetition. The hon. Member for South Donegal has spoken feelingly of his constituents. There are very poor people in Donegal, and there are very poor people in London, and, indeed, all over the country, and I admit that very poor people will feel the pressure of the sugar tax; but I think the hon. Member has exaggerated the consequences of the tax. For what is it, after all? I have already pointed out that, looking to the present price of sugar and adding the duty to it, taking the price to the retail consumer as increased by ½d. per lb., the total cost will not be greater with the tax than it was without the tax in 1893. The constituents of the hon. Member were poor then, as they are poor now. Did they suffer in that year so materially from the high price of sugar? I do not believe there will be any sensible diminution in the consumption of sugar in this country through the tax I now ask the House to reimpose, and, when the hon. Member for Radcliffe suggests that the tax will be of material importance in connection with the fruitgrowing industry, that it will check the confectionery industry and raise heavily the price of jam, so that there will be less consumption of it than hitherto, I may say I have some facts sent to me with regard to the increase in the price of jam, and I find that, though no doubt there has been an increase not without importance to the poor, it is comparatively so small that I am satisfied that no serious injury will be done to the jam-making industry. If it were likely that there would be, should we not have heard a great deal more about it? The hon. Member says that the confectionery industry and the fruitgrowing and jam-making industries are not sufficiently well organised, but they are quite organised enough to protest very strongly in this House if they think their interests are seriously endangered. They do not like the tax, of course, and indeed nobody likes increased taxation, but I am quite certain they do not expect anything like the injury the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I hope that having already debated this question on more than one occasion, the House may now be allowed to proceed to a division.

promised the right hon. Gentleman that he would not occupy many minutes, indeed he would not have intervened in the debate had it not been for a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous discussion, to the effect that the working-class population as a whole were satisfied with the tax, or otherwise they would have raised their voices in protest against against it. As the representative of one of the largest working-class constituencies in the country he had to say that those whom he had the honour to represent were very much opposed to the tax, and would not be satisfied unless he voiced their opposition in that House. There were good reasons for the objection to it. In the first place, it was a tax upon raw material. That, he believed, the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged to be the case. One half of the sugar brought into this country, or made here, was used for manufacturing purposes, and the other half for ordinary domestic purposes. Thus, then, the duty was also a tax on the food of the people, and it was the more objectionable because it fell most heavily on the poorest of the poor. Further, no one knew when it was likely to be repealed. All these were good reasons for the opposition of the working classes. Take first the point that it was a tax upon raw material. The trade in manufactured sugar, in jam, and in biscuits had increased wonderfully during the last twenty-five years, and it was easy to see that this tax practically handicapped the British manufacturer in favour of the foreign manufacturer. It altered altogether the conditions of the trade; it was a source of irritation and friction, and it put the manufacturers to considerably increased expense. Then, with regard to its being a tax on the food of the people, they all knew that the working classes consumed a vast amount of sugar. The 670 members of that House, with their wives and families, did not consume anything like the same amount of sugar as 670 working men with their wives and families. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the average consumption of sugar for domestic purposes in this country was 56 lb. per head per year. But suppose he put it at the lower average of 48 lb. per head, the ½d. per pound duty represented 2s. for each person, and thus a working man and his wife and three children would be called upon to pay 10s. per year. This constituted a very serious item of the family income. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said a good deal about its being necessary to broaden the basis of taxation. The same idea obtained some years ago, when proposals to put taxes upon matches and upon the wheels of the poor man's donkey-cart were actually laughed out of existence. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, in order to broaden the basis of taxation, proposed to tax the old woman's teapot. The three things which merchants and manufacturers of this country required in order to compete with the foreigner were cheap food, free elementary and secondary education, and better homes for the working man; not in the interests of the working man, but in the interests of the trade, commerce, and prosperity of the country. Instead of getting cheap food, the Government were taxing the food of the people. Of the 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of the children attending the elementary schools of the country tens of thousands only had bread and sugar for their dinner, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taxing the sugar put upon the bread of these poor children. He had always considered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire one of the best national financiers of the last century, but even he had given away the case in so far that, although he was prepared to vote against the tax upon coal, he was prepared to vote for the tax upon sugar. He could not understand the principle himself, and he should vote against both taxes, as he believed them to be an interference to trade and commerce.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 153. (Division List No. 322.)

in moving the Amendment standing in his name, said that he desired to emphasise once again his objection to the unwisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making a differentiation between the duties of glucose and sugar. The evil effects of that differentiation were already becoming apparent, and they would continue to increase, and everybody who desired to see the food of the people pure and unadulterated would have sympathy with his Amendment in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman had said on a previous occasion that he had proposed a graduated duty upon glucose upon the proportion of sugarable properties, if he might coin the word, in that solution. He, however, maintained that glucose had ousted honest sugar, upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to the full yield as a preservative in the manufacture of jams and preserves. Since the last occasion he had obtained evidence in support of his contention. He found, first of all, that the use of glucose originated from the fact that it was cheaper than sugar. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the article doubly attractive to those who used it, because he had put a premium upon its use by making the duty upon it less than the duty upon sugar. Some seven of eight years ago a firm of ja manufacturers stated in court that they never used glucose; that they considered it an adulterant, and that it could only be used for making a cheap jam. Seven years after that opinion was given the manufacture of that particular firm was impugned and found to contain glucose. The defence of the firm was that they had discovered that their competitors were using it, and that it was appreciated by the public. A great body of opinion was brought forward in support of the assertion that glucose was not an adulterant, but the court held that it was an adulterant, unless the use of it was declared, and it would be noticed that all those firms who used glucose were careful to keep that fact from the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt attached the greatest importance to the opinion he held that the sweetening property of this article was not so great as that of sugar, and that, therefore, the percentage that was used was limited; but that was not so. According to an analysis which he had received, the old recognised custom, both domestic and in manufacture, was that every pound of fruit converted into preserve required a pound of sugar as a preservative. In those cases where glucose was used the proportions, however, were to one pound of fruit 35 per cent, of sugar and 15 percent, of glucose, and from those figures the right hon. Gentleman would see that unless he equalised the duties he himself would not only be the means of depriving the revenue of that to which it was entitled, but he would also be responsible for the large amount of falsification of food products which would spring up unless this equalisation took place.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, to leave out lines 25, 26, and 27."—( Mr. Kearley.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

^* said the, Amendment of the hon. Member would have the effect of leaving out of the clause the only words of the Bill that imposed a customs duty on glucose; therefore it was not an Amendment which the hon. Member himself would desire to have; carried. No doubt his object was to call attention to his view that glucose was not sufficiently taxed. He could only; say that his interest was to tax glucose as much as he could. He had discussed the matter as carefully as possible, and taken the best expert advice; and he was satisfied that, as matters now stood, glucose was fairly taxed. If there was any alteration in the manufacture or trade which disturbed the existing competition between the two articles, so as to make glucose more favoured than sugar, then of course that difficulty would have to be met. He could not accept the Amendment as it stood.

said that on the last occasion the chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he taxed glucose in proportion to its sugar value. What was the sugar value of glucose? If it were the case that in the manfacture of preserves it displaced sugar weight for weight, surely the sugar value of glucose was that of sugar. It was clear to his mind that the value of glucose in this particular manufacture was not its sweetening properties, but its preserving value. Everybody was aware that the reason for putting so much sugar into preserve was not to sweeten but to preserve it, and if that preserving quality could be supplied by glucose the sugar value of glucose was pound for pound that of sugar. Again, if the use of glucose had been held, as it had been, to be an adulteration, then by putting a small duty upon glucose the right hon. Gentleman was putting a premium upon adulteration. He complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the House no definition of the meaning of "sugar value."

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could arrange in next year's Finance Bill to insert these new taxes in the same way as the taxes on tea and tobacco, so that the House would be given the opportunity of going over the ground and seeing whether the basis on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed these taxes was correct or, whether the views of the hon. Member for Devonport were the more accurate. The House would then have an opportunity of reviewing the whole matter with all the light which twelve months experience of the Revenue Department would throw upon it.

^* said that he had already promised that the whole matter should be carefully considered before next year. In connection with new taxes, there must always be points which escaped notice at first, and required readjustment, and he had no doubt that any adjustments required could be made next year.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

in moving to insert the words—

"But where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs that the duty paid on any molasses imported during that period exceeds that which would have been paid after the said 11th day of June, and that the excess has not been recovered from any person to whom the molasses may have been delivered after importation, the commissioners of Customs may remit the excess"—

said that the Amendment having been accepted, he would not add any remarks except that by accepting this Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given another instance of the spirit of conciliation in which he had framed his proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

formally moved to insert the words—

"But tinned and bottled apricots in syrup or water, and apricot pulp, shall not be liable to duty as preserved plums."

Amendment agreed to

in moving to omit Clause 3 (coal duty), said he did not move this Amendment for the purpose of interposing with a speech of mere repetition or to invite a fruitless debate. It was for the simple purpose of making a final protest against this tax. Having spoken against the principle of the tax on a former occasion he would have left the matter there, but that he had some facts which he thought it was desirable the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House should know. Some of the predictions as to the operations of the tax had already been realised. He had pointed out over and over again that the free and cheap import of food stuffs was governed by the free export of coal, because it was the only article of bulk and weight with which we could load ships outward bound. He had also said America was coming into line with us in this matter and would be a great exporter of coal. At present her export was grain, and he called attention to the ballast rates at which grain was brought to this country. What had happened? As soon as the duty was announced and a strike was threatened the managers of the Atlantic lines telegraphed for coal to be sent from America to England. Grain freights fell to ld. a bushel; and the consequence was that shipowners now refused to carry grain as long as they could get coal. The result was that American coal was brought into this country at 13s. 6d. per ton. He had been told by the manager of a large Atlantic line that never again would their ships bring grain at ld. a bushel while they could get coal, and that bore out his contention that our cheap imports depended on our free export of coal. It meant that the food of the people would never be brought to this country again as cheaply as in the past; and that, where economic forces were fairly equally balanced, a small interference would affect the whole course of trade, if we could not hold our own in the home ports where the American steamers came, how could we hold our own in neutral ports? That is the question. What does the monopoly argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer amount to? He maintained that our monopoly was unassailable, and that, in spite of all the increases of freight and the fluctuations of trade, our export in coal went on increasing from year to year, and that the trade was so strong that nothing could injure it. From the Treasury point of view, for a man sitting in his office and judging solely from figures and statistics, that was a perfectly reasonable view. It was pointed out again and again that we had lost distant markets, especially markets beyond the Suez Canal—that we had absolutely lost some, and that our trade with others had very much decreased. But to this the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that, although we were losing the fringes of our monopoly, the countries that still took our coal had increased their demands, so that they more than made up for the loss—that over 60 or possibly 70 per cent. of the area of our old monopoly we still had an absolute monopoly, and that that 60 or 70 per cent, was more important than the whole 100 per cent, used to be. That was a natural position for the theorists, judging from the figures, and not acquainted with the actual facts of the trade to take up. The concessions which the right hon. Gentleman has made have been to the fringe of the trade, but while he has been looking at the frontier the citadel itself is in danger. In the area in which the right hon. Gentleman maintains our monopoly is complete our trade is threatened, and more than threatened. Our competitor in this case is America. America is systematically and scientific- cally attacking the Mediterranean and European markets generally. The right hon. Gentleman says that ocean freights are a sufficient protection. I say that they are not. Many hon. Gentlemen who know the trade agree with me. The difference of opinion may be perfectly harmless in this House, but there happens to be a third party to the dispute—the American capitalist—and he unfortunately agrees with me and not with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What advantages has America in this matter 1 In the first place, coal can be produced in America and put in the truck at 60 cents per ton, so that the American producer can get his coal delivered at his own shipping port, though it is some distance from the colliery, for less than half the present price of Cardiff coal at Cardiff. Since this measure was introduced I have had an opportunity of seeing plans of colliery boats, some building, and others ready to build, of a hitherto unknown size— boats capable of taking 10,000 tons, and these are being built for the Mediter-teranean trade. The Americans intend to assail our market there, and in my opinion they have a very good chance. This is a separate question from my first point—the ballast question. This trade the American ship-owning, railway-owning, coal-owning capitalist calculates can stand by itself. The ballast trade is a sort of by-product, while this is an independent trade, and it is calculated by those who are accustomed to careful commercial calculations that these steamers can run and return in water ballast and compete with the coal of Wales and Newcastle. This may be a ridiculous opinion to hold, but men are risking their money on it, and really, to use a phrase which has become almost classical, if I were to put my money on either horse, I think at the present moment I should put it on the horse which is not handicapped by this tax. [An HON. MEMBER: Then you would lose it.] I believe this tax is a bad tax commercially and economically, and at the present moment it is particularly unfortunate. Only those who are intimately acquainted with the trade know how near the competition has come. It would have come in any case, but this tax has hastened and assisted it. I fear that in the future the probably successful competition that we shall meet in our own markets will be dated in popular opinion from this Budget. Justly or unjustly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be regarded as the father and author of that competition. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the right hon. Gentleman; I admit that his I reputation as a financier is as high as that of anybody in the world, but I believe that he is doing that which will for ever associate his name, perhaps to an unjust extent, with a permanent turn in the tide of the prosperity of a trade which is in some respects our greatest export trade; and it is for these reasons that I move the motion standing in my name.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 40, to leave out Clause 3."—( Mr. Rea. )

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 3 to the second word ' the,' in line 43, stand part of the Bill."

Perhaps as I have not spoken on this question I may be allowed to say a few words on the principle of this coal tax, and to give my reasons for supporting it. This matter has been argued a little too much from a sordid and selfish point of view. It is quite possible that any tax which is levied may injure certain people, and this tax may injure coal owners, or miners, or shipowners. We all regret 1 that injury, and would avoid it if possible, but in spite of that possible injury it may be perfectly right that the tax should be levied. Somebody else has to be considered in the matter—namely, the nation. They have a right to be heard, and I speak on their behalf. Whilst I may allow all that has been said, and fully sympathise in the pitiful, though perhaps somewhat exaggerated, stories we have heard, I take my stand on another ground. Even though everything that has been said be true, and all the injury which has been alleged is going to be done, I still say that the tax is a just one. It has been suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was looking round for plunder, and, seeing a flourishing trade, said it ought to be taxed. I do not think that that is the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman has acted. This tax would be perfectly justifiable whether the coal trade was prosperous or not. The principle of the tax is perfectly independent of the temporary condition of the trade affected. There are two principles which have been somewhat misused in this matter. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have urged one principle which does not apply, and they have forgotten to use one principle which does apply. The first is that this is a violation of the principles of free trade, and all economists agree that you ought never to tax exports. One speaker after another has spoken as if coal was a product, and this a tax on production. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth is not in his place, as I wish to protest against a certain jeer uttered by the right hon. Gentleman against a writer who was once a very near friend of mine—the late Professor Jevons. Whatever be the particular facts in the book with which the right hon. Gentleman quarrelled, the one principle laid down by Professor Jevons is a true principle—namely, that coal is a national property, and that the nation, qua nation, has certain duties in regard to the way in which it ought to be treated. To talk of it as a product, like cotton, wool, or leather, is absolute nonsense. Coal is a gift. No more can be made of it. You cannot make a single ounce. It lies in a category entirely by itself, and is subject to economic principles of a totally different character. The hon. Member who last addressed the House spoke of the restriction of our export trade, and was alarmed at the prospect of America sending us their coal. I am a free trader, and should be very glad to get their coal—the cheaper the better. I am not one of those persons who are so anxious to shovel away our gift on to foreign nations. The House should remember that, whatever be the result of the tax, this fact remains true, that every ton of coal you part with increases the cost of raising the next ton, and when you have once parted with it you can never replace it. In my own part of Lancashire my own place stands on empty coal mines. We cannot replace the coal that has gone. We have to go miles and miles now for our coal, and the consequence will be the sac with the nation at large. Coal is an asset, a gift of nature, subject to principles entirely different from anything else, and therefore not to be governed by commonplace political economy.

But there is a principle which does apply to the matter, which the House has not yet considered, and which my friends on this side have apparently lost sight of. I do not wish to introduce party politics, but if there is one principle more than another upon which the Liberal party must depend if ever they are to return to power it is the principle of the national rights in the land. That is the key stone of the arch across which they have to march if they are ever to march to victory. That principle lies deeper in the hearts of Radical electors than any other, and it is the principle which I uphold in advocating this tax. The nation has inalienable rights in the land and in the minerals therein contained; those rights cannot be taken away by any charter, legal deed, or Act of Parliament. I, as a member of the nation, have certain rights in this coal, and I ask, What are you going to do with those rights? What do I see? The landlord gets his royalties, and I have been told that I ought to attack the landlord who takes his royalties, but I am not going to do that, when by so doing I may miss something more real. I ask for my share of the property. The coal owner gets his profit, and judging by recent events it is not to be despised. The miner gets his wage. Where do I come in? You have all got your share; my coal is going; my property is being taken away—where is my share? Then I am asked, Why not put the tax on all coal? Another principle comes in there to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is said that this is an unfair tax because it taxes some districts and not others, and falls upon some kinds of coal while others escape. That is a mere accident of the incidence of the tax, and has nothing whatever to do with the principle underlying it. The principle is that where you export coal, the only way in which the nation can receive its share or secure its right in that coal is by an export duty. There is a difference between coal used and coal ex- ported. The chief value of coal lies not in its intrinsic value, but in its "potentiality for riches"—not in the 5s. or 10s. which it costs, but in the trade which it encourages and to which it is necessary. I speak on behalf of trade, which depends on coal, and I say that we are deeply interested in the preservation of our coal supply and its cheapness. Look at the map of England, and you will find that trade has followed coal. At one time Kent was the great iron district of the country, because the wood was there. The trade is no longer in Kent. In every case trade follows coal, and when coal goes, trade goes; there is no escape from it. We have been told that substitutes are coming in. Where are they? The imperial character of coal is as unchallenged to-day as ever it was. Somebody says "Electricity." Electricity is only another form of coal, and the more we use electricity the more coal we require. As to the force of wind, windmills have been given up, they do not pay when there is a chance of using coal. Others tell us to use oil or imported coal. When the day comes for the trade and the manufactures of the country to depend on imported coal or, oil you may write "Ichabod" over the door. Therefore I say that this is an; important matter for trade, and I want. my share in the nation's property. [Laughter.] I can quite understand hon. Members on the other side of the House, who do not share these views with regard to land tenure, laughing at me, but I cannot understand the merriment of hon. Members on this side, who are always prating about the national rights in the land, but who, because this tax touches their pockets or the trade of their constituents, are proving themselves false to the principle which lies at the very root of their political faith. I am told that I am an alarmist. I am not. I am not saying that our coal will be used up immediately. I say that if the coal goes and the nation does not use it for trade I will have a tax on it; whoever pays it, I will have my shilling. But the alarmist' view is not so ridiculous as some suppose. It is not a question of the coal being exhausted; it is a question of its production becoming so costly that it ceases to serve the pur- poses of trade. When you get to a depth of 4,000 feet, in addition to adding to the cost of raising the coal you increase the cost of ventilation, and the temperature is raised by 60 or 70 degrees. I am not referring in this matter to a fancied danger. It is to the interest of the nation that it should use its coal and not export it. Since 1869, a period of thirty years, whilst our total product ion of coal has not quite doubled, it having increased from 120,000,000 to 220,000,000, the quantity we export has quintupled; we are steadily sending away a larger and larger proportion of our coal without using it. That is contrary to our national welfare. It is said that if there is no coal to send there will be no ship.3. Do those who hold that view mean to say that because we do not send coal to the United States therefore there is no shipping trade between this country and the United States? It is not whether we shall send coal or nothing, but whether we shall send coal for which the nation gets no benefit or manufactured products for which the nation gets a profit. The cheaper we have coal at home and the more coal we use, the more manufactured products we shall export, and the better off the nation will be. Let me show the House that foreign nations take our coal regardless of the price. Dividing the last twenty years into periods of four years, what do we find? From 1885 to 1889, there was a fall in the price of coal of 2 per cent., and a rise in the exports of 20 per cent. in the next period there was a rise of 26 per cent, in price, and a rise of 21 per I cent, in exports; during the next period there was a fall of 13 per cent, in price, and a rise of 20 per cent, in exports; and during the next period a rise of 76 per cent, in price, and a rise of 26 per cent, in exports; that is to say, that while the price of coal fell one period and rose the next, the quantity exported steadily rose at the rate of 20 per cent. Hence it is that we are steadily sending away—if I may use a vulgar expression—our industrial guts. It is not easy thus to stand up against those with whom you are politically associated, or to vote with the Government, as I have had to do all along on this proposal. But I have other duties than those of party. I have duties to the nation of which I am a member, and I back up the Government's proposal on the sound principle that it is an assertion of the nation's right in its coal. [An HON. MEMBER: Put on 5s.] I would, if I could get it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not taken up the position of prohibiting the export of coal. That would introduce another principle altogether. His position is that if coal is exported it should pay its proper toll to the nation, which has a certain owner ship right in it.

Lastly, let mo refer to the patriotic side of the question. It has been acknowledged throughout this debate that Welsh steam smokeless coal is not only a gift, like all other coal, but a peculiar gift. I have made some inquiries for years past, and I believe 1 am right in saying that there is no such coal anywhere else in the world. In connection with submarine boats I have had occasion to visit a good many ships of other fleets, and I will mention one incident that occurred. I was on board one of the French flagships, and I asked the admiral about the coal he used. He said. "Ordinarily, of course, we use whatever coal we can get, but I may tell you that in emergencies there is one coal and one coal only that will do for us, and that is Welsh steam coal." I asked what difference it made. He said, "It will make to this ship, because I have tried it, a difference of two knots an hour, beside being smokeless in case of battle." Now, is it not suicidal to shovel this coal on to the foreigner 1 See the advantages it would give you in naval warfare. In the first place, the enemy could not run after you as quickly, while, secondly, which from an Englishman's point of view I think is more likely, they could not run away from you as quickly. That is a point we ought to bear in mind. I contend that coal must not be talked or reasoned about as an ordinary product. It is a special gift, and it is almost our only asset. We are apt to jeer about our duty to posterity, but when I see the way in which we are— probably inevitably—piling up debt and increasing our obligations, I say we ought very seriously to consider how we manipulate our national assets. Those assets stand against our debts, and they are the only things that do, and the way to treat this supreme asset of the nation is to encourage its use in our own country, and not to encourage its being sent abroad, merely in order that my friends behind me may pocket additional profits. 1 ask the House to support th Government in this duty, because 1 believe it to be both economically sound and patriotically wise.

^* said he did not agree with the hon. Member's view with regard to [tenure of land, but he certainly supported everything else he had put forward. He was strongly in favour of the principle of the coal tax, and believed that the opposition to it was more political than real. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had exhibited the greatest patience, skill, and consideration in the conduct of the Bill, and had fairly and rightly met the reasonable demands of north country coalowricrs. He believed there was no one in the House with a longer or more varied experience of the trades affected by this tax than himself, and he was amazed at the views put forward by the hon. Member for Gloucester. The hon. Member had failed to put before the House facts which, from his position as chairman of the Taff Vale Railway Company and as a carrier of coals by sea, must have been within his knowledge he should have stated; but he (Mr. Maclver) would endeavour to supply some of the omissions. As to the suggested coal strike, long before the coal tax was suggested a strike was in contemplation in South Wales. The price of coal was falling rapidly, and it was thought that by restricting the output the price could be kept up. The idea had nothing whatever to do with the Government proposals, and it was abandoned because it was not thought likely to succeed. As to American competition, it existed only because of the present abnormal absence of freights. There was a time, when coal was at its highest price, when even English railway companies had before them proposals for the supply of American coal. He did not know that any company had actually bought American coal, but they came very near it, because of the extravagant pitch to which those interested in this country had run the price of coal. With coal at a normal price and the freight market in its normal condition American competition was a mere bogey, but with extravagant prices it might come in. A great deal had been made of the proposals for building immense colliery steamers for carrying American coal to the Mediterranean. He remembered very well the newspaper paragraphs on which the statements with regard to that matter were based, and, in his opinion, the whole thing was a piece of American bluff. If such vessels were in existence they would not be employed in the coal trade, but in some other trade out of which they would be more likely to make money. Coal carrying was really the chief element in his own business, but he did not expect to lose anything by reason of this tax. The fluctuations in the coal carrying trade were far more than Is. a ton. He had known freights to fluctuate between 10s. and 24s. in a series of contracts running practically at the same time, and with such facts as that before him he did not see how any man in his senses could believe that 1s. a ton would injure the trade. He liked the tax so far as it imposed the burden on the foreigner, arid that it certainly would do with regard to Welsh coal. It was repeatedly asked why, if the foreigner could be made to pay the tax, the Cardiff' people did not put the Is. on the price. The reason was the competition amongst the Cardiff people themselves. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the case of the Channel Islands, the inhabitants of which were British subjects.

It being half-past Five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.