I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any communications, with a view to peace, have been received from the Boer leaders by the authorities in South Africa, and whether the Government have any statement to make as to their nature.

I do not think it is possible for us to go farther at the present moment than to say that a message from the Boer leaders was communicated to us by Lord Kitchener on Saturday, that a reply has been sent to it, and that we are expecting a further communication.

I would further beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the uncertainties of the situation, and the strong hope of peace, it would not be wise to defer the making of any statement as to financial proposals which might have the effect of adding to the public burdens, and which in their nature must necessarily depend, to a great extent, on the results of the present events.

I do not think that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is one which can be complied with, for reasons which I shall explain when I make my statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Albert Cartwright, now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in Cape Colony under martial law, has applied to the Military authorities for permission, after the expiry of his term of imprisonment on 22nd April, to leave the Colony for England; and, if so, whether he stated in his application that he made it partly on grounds of health and partly on the necessity of earning a livelihood, for which he saw no opening in the Colony; and whether he has been informed that he will not be allowed to go to England.

Mr. Cartwright applied for permission to proceed to England, but the authorities in South Africa did not consider it desirable to grant it. His views, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, are strongly anti-British, and it was not deemed desirable by the authorities in South Africa to increase the number of persons in this country who disseminate anti-British propaganda.

Are we to understand from the noble Lord that these tribunals administering martial law not only have the right of excluding militant Dutchmen from South Africa but also of banishing Englishmen from England?

I have given to the right hon. Gentleman the answer my right hon. friend would have given if he had been able to be in his place. He is suffering from a chill in the throat which prevents him being here to answer Questions. At the same time I may say that the answer I have given has my right hon. friend's entire concurrence.

I am very sorry to hear the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's absence. I shall put the Question in another form.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that letters have been received in this country from Mr. D. I. De Wet, written from the military camp, Matjesfontein, showing that he is imprisoned there, and that he states in one. dated 11th February, 1902, that in another five days it would be five months since he had been away and placed in that camp; whether he is aware that Mr. Du Plessis was deported last summer to Port Alfred; and, seeing that these Gentlemen are British subjects, and were peace delegates to England from the Graaf Reinet Congress, whether he can state the reason of their confinement, and whether they have been tried for any offence.

Mr. D. I. De Wet has been detained in the military camp at Matjesfontein since 18th September for using seditious language and for furnishing rebels with information. Mr. P. L. Du Plessis was ordered to reside at Port Alfred in July last for omitting to report that rebellion was brewing in his ward; he admitted having used his influence against the formation of the district mounted troops. It appears that my reference to South Africa on this Question was previously misunderstood, and that the answer that these persons had not been interfered with had reference to their mission to England. The offences mentioned above were subsequent to their return and caused action to be taken.

Have the charges on which they are imprisoned been communicated to them, because their letters say they are not aware of them?

I do not know what may have been stated in letters.

That is not my Question. I ask whether the charges on which these gentlemen are imprisoned have been communicated to them, and I ask this because they themselves say they do not know the charges.

I cannot say.

I must further ask the noble Lord whether, seeing that these gentlemen are men of consideration—[Laughter]—certainly as worthy of consideration as any Member sitting on the opposite side of this House—whether he will make inquiries whether they have been furnished with the charges against them.

No, Sir. My right hon. friend has implicit confidence in Lord Kitchener's discretion, and is not prepared to interfere with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether General Delarey made a request of Lord Kitchener, either immediately before or shortly after the release of Lord Methuen, to allow medicines and bandages to be forwarded through the British lines by friends of the Boers; and, if so, whether he can state what was Lord Kitchener's reply to that request.

I have no information as to the request alluded to.

I gave three days notice. Has the noble Lord applied for information?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the Post Office Circular of the 18th March last contained a notice to telegraphists inviting applications for vacancies in the postal service of the Transvaal Colony, he will explain why, with this circular, a notice was posted in the Telegraph Department of the Glasgow Post Office intimating that the circular notice did not apply to the Glasgow Office; whether the Postmaster General is aware that many telegraphists at Glasgow are anxious to join the Transvaal service, and what is the reason for their being debarred from applying for vacancies.

The notice intimating that the circular notice in question did not apply to the Glasgow Office was posted because, as stated in the House last Tuesday, so many officers from the Glasgow Office have gone to South Africa in different capacities that the exigencies of the service rendered it impossible to allow more to go at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that forty-two British telegraphists volunteered for service with the Royal Engineers in May, 1900, for a period of twelve months or till the end of the war in answer to the call for recruits for the 24th Middlesex Field Army Post Office; and seeing that while other Volunteers have been allowed to return, these men are not being relieved, whether he can see his way to either relieve these men or reward them for their prolonged service in South Africa.

My attention has been drawn to the case of these men. Every effort has been made to relieve them, but owing to the increase in the number of telegraphists required in South Africa, it has been found impossible to spare them so far. I must remind the hon. Member that they are in receipt of full civil salary in addition to their military pay.

Seeing that these men have been treated differently from other men will they receive any special reward for this prolonged service?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to discontinue the issue of the white jacket to the Highland Regiments and to restrict the use of the kilt.

As regards the kilt I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given in the House on Friday last.† The retention of the white jacket is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the regulation prohibiting the use of the kilt by Highland regiments has the sanction of Lord Roberts.

The kilt is not prohibited.

Where can a copy of the new regulation be seen? Can it be furnished to the House?

The kilt is not prohibited.

I understand that a new regulation has been issued. Has it been approved by Lord Roberts, and where can it be seen?

did not reply.

May I press for an answer?

Order, order! The hon. Member had better give notice of the Question in the usual way.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now state what answer has been

† See page 13 of this volume.

returned to the Province of Ontario and the North-West Province of Canada in reply to their application that Government remount depots may be established in those provinces.

No such applications have been received at the War Office.

Do I understand that neither directly nor indirectly has any such application been received from Canada?

Not from the Government.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he can state the numbers of canned provision contracts for the Field Force in South Africa held respectively by Canadian and American firms.

Fifty-one Canadian and a hundred and one American contracts have been made since the beginning of the war.

When was the last contract made?

I think some are being made at the present moment, but I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the report on the results of anti-typhoid inoculation has been received; and, if so, will he say whether it shows a diminution in mortality in the inoculated attacked by the disease as compared with the uninoculated; whether it shows a diminished evidence of the disease in inoculated; and whether the full report will now be laid upon the Table.

The report has been received. It deals with only 4,138 cases and the aggregate results show a mortality of 8.2 per cent. in inoculated persons as against 15.1 per cent. in uninoculated. The report, however, does not appear sufficiently conclusive in itself, and it seems expedient to obtain further statistics from the Admission and Discharge Books before publishing it.

The noble Lord has not answered the last paragraph of the Question.

No, Sir, it will not be laid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many officers of the infantry of the line are members of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Army Canteen business, and how many members of this Committee were at one time members of the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society; whether there is any intention upon the part of the Government of taking over the above-mentioned society as the nucleus of a future general scheme of Army Canteen Co-operative Supply; and whether, in the event of it being decided to establish a society for the supply of the troops, he will consider the advisability of it being started as a new concern after a Committee of the leading commercial men in the country, and officers of the longest and widest experience in Army canteen management have carefully considered the matter in all its aspects.

This Committee is composed as follows—

• Earl Grey, President.
• Major-General Eaton, Grenadier Guards.
• Colonel Bridge, Army Service Corps.
• Colonel Lambert, 2nd Dragoon Guards.
• Major Stopford, Irish Guards.
• Captain Boehmer, late East Surrey Regiment.
• George Harwood, Esq., M.P.
• Colonel Barrington Foote, R.A., Secretary.

Major Stopford served previously in the Derby Regiment for eighteen years. None of the above-mentioned are members of the Canteen and Mess Cooperative Society or have had any financial interest in it. Colonel Bridge served at one time on the Society's Committee of management which is unpaid. I am not prepared at present, pending the receipt of the Committee's Report, to discuss the other points raised in the Question.

Then am I to understand that there is only one infantry of the line officer represented in the entire Committee?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the list he will find he is entirely wrong. The Grenadier Guards is an infantry regiment.

Of the line?

Then there is Captain Beecher, late of the East Surrey regiment, and Major Stopford of the Irish Guards who previously served for eighteen years in the Derbyshire regiment and may well be considered to represent the infantry of the line.

Still am I not right in my contention that there is only one officer belonging to the infantry of the line on the Committee?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the chargemen and workmen at the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham have to strip and hang up their clothes together, and thus render it possible for a man coming in on a later shift to plant a match in some person's pocket, either for spite, or in order to get rid of an incriminating match brought in by accident; whether he will take steps to prevent the occurrence of such a thing in future by providing each man with a locker or chest with a padlock attached; and whether he will consider the possibility of making some compensation to persons discharged through mistakes of this kind by finding them employment in a Government factory where their services would count, or by the gratuity usually given to discharged persons on reduction of staff.

As men are not searched for matches when going out, it is not apparent what object would be gained by the transfer of matches suggested. The provision of chests would necessitate a considerable increase in the size of the shifting rooms which I am not prepared to undertake. Men discharged for coming to work in danger areas with matches are not blacklisted, so that there is nothing to prevent their obtaining suitable employment elsewhere, but I cannot consent to find employment for persons discharged for a breach of the regulations.

Will the noble Lord give me an interview on this matter?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that although there have been over 1,000 dismissals and suspensions of workmen at Woolwich Arsenal recently, there has been no reduction in the numbers of the foremen or of the official staff generally; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in this matter. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, while reductions are being made in the working staff at Woolwich Arsenal, and plant there is consequently standing idle, increasing quantities of Government work are being given to private contractors; and whether, in order to induce such contractors to tender for the work, the Government has given them guarantees or promises of future employment of their plant for some years to come.

In reply to the first Question. I am aware of the facts stated, and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter. In reply to the second Question, during the recent pressure increased quantities of work were given to the Ordnance Factories, who, therefore, took on extra men, and to contractors. As the work has now diminished less work is being given to both, and the extra men are being discharged from the Ordnance Factories. No guarantee has been given by the Government, but, in accordance with settled policy, a portion of the work is always given to the trade. It is not desirable to continue working the Ordnance Factories to their fullest power of production.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why ashes from the brass foundry and rolling mills of the Royal Laboratory and other factories at Woolwich are sold at £6 2s. 6d. per ton; will he state what are the component parts of such ashes which give them so high a value; and will he cause such changes to be made in the processes producing the ashes as will prevent such waste for the future.

The ashes are being sold at £6 7s. 6d. and £7 7s. 6d. a ton. They contain some splashes of metal, the larger of which are recovered. It would be expensive to pick it all out and reduce it. There is no waste, as there is every reason to believe that the fair value of the stuff is obtained.

Is the noble Lord aware that in every ton there is at least 2 cwt. of brass waste?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to a statement made by the district surveyor of the Pewsey (Wiltshire) District Council on the 24th of March at a meeting of that council, viz., that it cost£3,152 in the district to repair the damage done by the contractors to the War Office to the roads of the district; that this expense could have been almost entirely saved had the War Office specified that all material should be conveyed to the nearest railway station to Bulford Camp, viz., Porton or Grately, instead of to Ludgershall, which was several mile" from the camp, and that had this been done £500 would have covered the damage; and will he explain why the arrangement was made to deliver the materials at Ludgershall instead of at the nearest station, and if the War Office has accepted liability for the above sum of £3,152 or part of it, as damages for extraordinary traffic.

The sum of £2,042 has been paid to the Pewsey District Council in respect of damage to roads of the district alleged to have been caused by extraordinary military traffic, and a further claim is at present under consideration. It is not usual to specify a particular route by which a contractor shall bring his goods to the site of a proposed work, and no particular route was specified in this case. The contractor was subject to heavy time penalties, and doubtless chose the route most convenient and most expeditious under the circumstances.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a statement by Rear Admiral Lord Charles Beresford that the fleet is not properly organised and prepared for war and is therefore unable to act immediately if called upon; whether this statement is consistent with Admiralty regulations; and whether he has taken or proposes to take any action in consequence of it.

The attention of the Admiralty has been called to the statement referred to and it is to be regretted that a false impression may be created by it. The Fleet in case of war could act immediately. There is not, and never can be, finality in organisation for war. The improvement and perfecting of that organisation continuously occupies the attention of the Admiralty, and is the special responsibility and main function of the Senior Naval Lord. The interests of discipline do not require that the discretion of officers on half-pay should be regulated to the extent which is necessary in the case of officers on Active Service, who come under the Naval Discipline Act.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a letter was received by the Admiralty from the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station, covering a letter addressed to him by his second in command, in which the latter expressed anxiety at the shortage of coal in the Mediterranean; whether this shortage existed; if so, who was the official responsible for it, and what steps have been taken to remedy it.

In the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, all communications received from Commanders-in-Chief must be regarded as absolutely confidential. I am not, therefore, prepared to make any statement as to the contents of communications of this character. The Admiralty desire, however, to afford the House all information in respect of the coal supply to the Fleet which can be given consistently with the interests of the public service. The stock of coal in the Mediterranean—including in that term the current supply to the Fleet and the Reserve—has always been fixed by the Admiralty in communication with the Commander-in-Chief, and there has been no shortage from the authorised standard within recent years. Early in 1900 the Admiralty, in communication with the officers locally responsible for the maintenance of the supply, namely the Commander-in-Chief and the Admiral Superintendent at Malta, decided that the authorised Reserve was becoming insufficient owing to the increase in the size and I.H.P. of the Mediterranean Fleet. An increase was approved on the 5th February, and since that time the stock has been steadily and greatly augmented, and a new standard fixed. An increase of the stock, however, is no simple matter. Coal, if long stored, deteriorates rapidly, especially if not under cover, and it cannot be stacked more than a certain height without risk of combustion, for which reasons, the Admiralty two years ago decided to adopt patent fuel largely for part of these reserves; moreover, neither coal nor patent fuel can be advantageously or economically stacked except in close. proximity to deep water. Much additional storage ground has had, therefore, to be acquired or created at Malta and Gibraltar. This has been continuously done since the autumn of 1899, with the result that the stock has been greatly increased, and full provision was made in the Naval Works Loan Act of 1901, in respect of any further requirements of storage ground, and all accessories.

Arising out of that answer, Sir, will the hon. Gentleman say whether, when such confidential statements have been made in responsible quarters, the Admiralty think it desirable to take action upon them or not?

That depends entirely on the nature of the communication.

I meant the statement in my Question.

Whether it is the statement referred to in the Question or not, the same answer applies. The action of the Admiralty depends on the nature of the communication and the authority of the person making it.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my first supplementary Question, whether the Admiralty propose to take any action in this specific case in consequence of this particular charge.

Action was taken, not in consequence of the statement, but prior to it. The results are now being seen.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will arrange, on the day previous to or succeeding the proposed Naval Review at Spithead, in connection with the Coronation, for such Members of Parliament as desire to visit the various classes of warships belonging to this, and any foreign country that may take part in the review.

The Admiralty cannot make any arrangements with regard to foreign ships, but every facility will be given to hon. Members desiring to visit His Majesty's ships on the occasion of the Coronation review. If a sufficient number of Members desire to visit any special ship or ships, arrangements will be made for their convenience, and I shall be glad if hon. Members will communicate with me in respect to the matter.

Is it not possible to make arrangements for visiting foreign ships?

I do not think the Admiralty could undertake that responsibility.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any report has been made to the Lords of the Admiralty as to the new explosive called Maximite; if so, can he give the results reported, and state whether the Admiralty have acquired the right to use it.

Reports have been received of the results of experiments carried out in America. They have been referred to the Explosives Committee, who are carrying out experiments with various high explosives, the results of which are not published.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what was the nature of the experiments carried out by the Admiralty with anthratite and Scotch coal mixed, what were the proportions used of each kind in these experiments, and what was the calorific value determined by the engineers during these trials of the combination of such coals; also, whether similar experiments were carried out with north country coal; and, if so, what were the results obtained therefrom.

I cannot ascertain that experiments have actually been made with anthracite and Scottish coal in combination. Welsh smokeless coal has been tried on many occasions in combination with various qualities of bituminous coal, but the result has not been satisfactory. Experiments with anthracite are in contemplation, and I think trials may with advantage be made of the results obtainable with anthracite in combination with bituminous coal, including Scotch coal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff's Commission has already made progress in its investigations of existing projects for water supply in India; whether provision can be made for a larger allocation of funds for that purpose out of the Budget's surplus; and whether it is the intention of the Local Governments of Bombay and Madras to proceed without delay with the construction of such water works, tanks, dams, or embankments as can be provided by the provincial funds at their disposal.

The Irrigation Commission has not, I believe, submitted any Report, and its investigations will not be completed for about a year. In the meantime the Government of India have in their Budget made a special allotment to Local Governments for minor works, as they are of opinion that in this way the most direct and immediate benefit is likely to be realised; and that the larger schemes which they have in view require careful consideration, and should not be hurriedly undertaken. This allotment will be used by the Local Governments without delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a statement in the twenty-sixth half-yearly Report of the Bishnath Tea Company, Limited, Assam, which said that fifty-one deaths occurred in the gardens of the company during the half-year, including several deaths from excessive drinking at the Government grog shops; is he aware that the Commissioner of Excise for Assam, in his last published Report, 1901, says in paragraph 8 that the consumption of country spirits shows a net increase of 7.37 per cent. over the previous year, and in paragraph 11 that endeavours were again made by the Department to settle country spirit shops on tea gardens; and that the total excise revenue of the province was the highest figure vet attained; and, seeing that the excise revenues of Assam have increased 35 per cent. during the last ten years, and that the Tea Planters' Association have made repeated protests against the wax-in which the Government force liquor shops upon them, will he state what steps are being taken, if any, to remedy this growing consumption of liquor.

I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers in the first part of his Question. The Excise Commissioner's Report states that the increase of 7.37 per cent. does not relate to the consumption of spirits, but to the revenue, and that the Commissioner states that it was due to keener competition at the auction sales of licences. Country-made spirits are consumed in Assam almost exclusively by the immigrant coolies, and the consumption, as well as the revenue must tend to rise with their numbers. On the suggestion of the Assam branch of the Tea Association, attempts have for many years been made to get the planters to take control of the liquor shops already existing in the vicinity of their gardens. I consider this plan likely to conduce to good order and sobriety, and I am not aware that any protests have been made against it by the Tea Planters' Association. Any complaints as to the location or the management of liquor shops have received, and will continue to receive, prompt attention.

IS there any necessity whatever for forcing these shops on the planters who do not want them?

My information is that they are wanted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, can he state how many deaths from plague have occurred daily in the Punjab; and whether the recommendations of the Plague Commission, with regard to securing the cooperation of the people in administering plague measures which were followed in the Bombay Presidency, are being adopted in the Punjab.

I receive no daily returns of plague deaths. The telegraphic reports are for periods of four weeks, and these are subsequently supplemented by certain weekly return; and details. The numbers of plague deaths in the Punjab since the autumn of 1901 have, I regret to say greatly increased, and are as follows—

For the four weeks ending 18th Jan. 1902	9,438
For the four weeks ending 15th Feb. 1902	16,784
For the four weeks ending 15th March 1902	42,788

No later reports have yet been received Regulations enjoining measures based on the recommendations of the Plague Commission and designed to avoid coercion and to attract the co-operation of the people as much as possible, have been adopted, and a specially qualified medical officer has been deputed to supervise the preventive arrangements.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state in what public document the War Office have given an interpretation of Section 87 of the Army Act, justifying the recent order of the Commander in-Chief in India that 7 years service becomes 8¼ years, 12 years service becomes 13¼ and 21 years service becomes 22¼ and whether the words giving power to prolong the service for such further period not exceeding twelve months as the competent military authority, may order, are in practice construed as subject to a further addition of three months under the words directing discharge with all convenient speed.

In reply to the first paragraph, the public documents are the Royal Proclamation continuing soldiers in Army Service and Army Order 184 of 1899 giving effect thereto. It has been decided that three months should be adopted as the limit of convenient speed, and that after that compensation should be granted in accordance with the terms of Army Order 210 of 1901.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, the Government is empowered to conclude a general alliance on the part of Great Britain with any other European or American Power without prior consultation with or consent of Japan.

The only provision of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement which has reference to the point raised in the hon. Member's Question is Article IV. If the hon. Member will refer to that Article he will see that its language is perfectly clear.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say what public body has authority to regulate the speed of moter cars in the streets and suburbs of London; what is the maximum speed permitted, and what steps, if any, are taken to prevent excessive speed.

The answer to the first Question is the Local Government Board, and to the second, twelve miles an hour, or such lower speed as is reasonable and proper, having regard to the traffic on the highway, and will not endanger the life or limb of any person or be to the common danger of passengers. The police are under detailed instructions to check furious or reckless driving by strict enforcement of the law.

Are the drivers registered, licensed, or required to pass any test of efficiency?

I believe not.

Is it not the fact that on the roads leading to London many of these cars go at fifty miles per hour.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what is the exact present position as to any international conventions, agreements, or conferences touching the North Sea Fisheries; docs the Government propose to take any, and, if so, what steps, independently, with a view to the preservation of such fisheries.

His Majesty's Government have agreed to take part in the international scheme of investigation connected with fishery problems in the North Sea and adjacent waters as proposed by the Conferences held at Stockholm and Christiania, and Parliament will be asked to make a grant to defray the cost of the British share of these investigations. These funds will be administered by a Departmental Committee with the advice of scientific experts. The details of the investigations will no doubt be finally settled at the forthcoming meeting of the International Council at Copenhagen, at which Great Britain will be represented, but the date of which has not yet been fixed. The Board of Trade have also appointed a Committee under Minute dated 13th August, 1901, to inquire and report as to the best means by which the State or Local Authorities can assist Scientific Research as applied to problems affecting the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland, and in particular whether the object in view would best be attained by the creation of one central body or department acting for England, Scotland, and Ireland, or by means of separate departments or agencies in each of the three countries. Quite apart from this important question of Scientific Research the Board of Trade have, with the assistance of another Committed, considered how the present system of collecting fisheries statistics in England and Wales could be improved and extended. That Committee has already made a report. The Board of Trade have acted upon it and made certain arrangements which they hope will be beneficial to the interests concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Board of Trade intends to take any independent action to arrest the depletion of our North Sea Fisheries apart from the Conference?

No such independent action is at present contemplated.

Were the interests of Great Britain represented at the second Conference directly?

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with the Scottish Fishery Board in regard to this matter?

Yes. Sir, I am.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the Report of the Committee, which he states he has already received, as to the investigation.

So far as I am aware, there will be no objection. I may add I am in communication with the Scottish Office, not directly with the Scottish Fishery Board.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state in what districts of England the current rate of wages for skilled labourers is no higher than 16s. or 17s. per week.

If the hon. Member will specify the particular: classes of labourers whose rates of wages he wishes to know, any information in the possession of the Board of Trade shall be placed at his disposal. The term "skilled labourers" is too vague to enable an answer to be given to the Question.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been callen to a meeting of the Leigh Board of Guardians, held on 3rd April. at which allegations were made as to the ill-treatment of workhouse children at Tottington, and when it was stated that, out of 230 children in the school, only 84 were free from disease; whether industrial schools are subject to surprise visits from the Local Government Board inspectors, besides the annual formal visit of which notice is given; if not, whether he will institute such visits; and whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the school at Tottington.

I have already made some investigations with regard to the allegations concerning the children sent by the Leigh Board of Guardians to the school at Tottington, and I have decided to direct an Inquiry on oath to be held on the subject. Schools certified under the Poor Law Certified Schools Act, 1862, may be visited any time by a Local Government Board Inspector at any time. Notice of such visits is not required, and is not usually given.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a patient suffering from smallpox is now being treated in a fever hospital within a few yards of a public road between Hedingham and Halstead, in Essex; and whether he will take steps to secure the better isolation of the patient.

I am informed that by arrangement between the Hal-stead Urban and Rural District Councils, the hospital of the latter Council at Castle Hedingham has been exclusively reserved for the reception of any smallpox cases occurring in the district of either authority, any other infectious eases in the two districts being received in the hospital of the Urban District Council. Recently, a mild case of smallpox was, in accordance with this arrangement, removed to the Castle Hedingham Hospital, where it is still under treatment. I understand that this hospital is twenty yards from a highway, and is in a very isolated position—the nearest dwelling being 300 yards distant. The District Councils concerned consider that the arrangement adopted is the best that could be made in the circumstances; and at present I sec no reason for dissenting from their view.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any transfer to the County Councils of powers of certain Government Departments and other authorities has been made by his Department under the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and particularly whether any powers have been transferred, under sub-Section 3 of Clause 10, to the County Councils of two or more counties jointly, to be exercised and discharged by a joint committee of such councils; whether there has been any demand on the part of County Councils, either in England or Wales, to have any of the powers exercised by Government Departments transferred to themselves; and if he has any official reports indicating that, the attitude of the non-county boroughs has materially changed since 1889 in respect of such transfer.

The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative. In 1898, a Departmental Committee, which had been appointed to consider, amongst other matters, how far it would be possible to devolve on County Councils certain work done by the Local Government Board, reported that the hostility of the non-county boroughs, and of the majority of the Urban Councils, to the transfer of any further powers to the County Councils, and their preference for the control of the central authority were declared, by the witnesses examined on behalf of these authorities, to be stronger even than they were in 1889.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state generally what powers and duties he has the right to transfer to Welsh County Councils under Clause 10 of the Local Government Act of 1888.

A Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board under the section mentioned may transfer any of the powers and duties referred to in sub-Section (1) of the section, provided that the draft is approved by the Government Department or body whose powers or duties would be affected. As the law now stands, however, any transfer under the section must he made to County Councils in England and Wales generally, and it would not be practicable to limit it to Welsh County Councils only.

My Question has not been answered. I want to know generally, what powers and duties can be transferred to County Councils?

And I have told the hon. Gentleman that any transfer can only be made generally, and not to individual County Councils.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether arrangements will be made to pay the wages of all workmen employed by the Government for the two holidays at the Coronation; and whether the Government will use its influence with all contractors employed by them to secure that this example is generally followed.

With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question that matter is under consideration; but with reference to the second paragraph, I cannot undertake to interfere between contractors and their men.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can state what facilities will be afforded to Members to see the Coronation procession with members of their family, whether in the precincts of the House or elsewhere.

It is proposed to provide the same facilities to view the Royal progress on June 27th as were afforded to hon. Members and the Officials of the House on the occasion of the Jubilee in 1897. The actual site of the stands has not yet been decided upon. The hon. Baronet is no doubt aware that on the day of the Coronation seats will be provided in Westminster Abbey for Members and their wives.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have yet considered the expediency of providing funds for the construction of the middle section of the road between Carloway and Stornoway: and, if not, will he explain why the Government decline to take the necessary steps to secure the completion of this road.

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative; and that to the second is that the advantage to be gained does not seem to be commensurate with the outlay involved.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that 2s. 6d. only is paid for dog tax in Ireland, will he consider the advisability of reducing the tax to 2s. 6d. in Scotland: and will he state the amount derived from this tax in Scotland and Ireland respectively.

The Quesion raised by the hon. Member is one that principally affects, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the local authorities, as both in Scotland and Ireland the proceeds of these licences are devoted to local purposes. In the year ended 31st March, 1901, dog licences in Scotland produced £42,459. The Irish tax is a police licence, and I cannot say how much it yields.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in the event of a parcel deposited with a post office for delivery being lost, and the postal authorities being able to trace such parcel through one stage or another of their system, he will provide that this should be deemed sufficient proof of depositing with them; and whether, under such circumstances, compensation will be made to the owner of the parcel so lost.

One of the published conditions governing the payment of compensation in respect of parcels lost in the post is that a certificate of posting shall be produced when required. But this condition is not insisted on when the particulars which a certificate of posting would have proved are established by other satisfactory evidence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in consideration of the increasing number of parcels carried by the Post Office, the Postmaster General will inaugurate some simple system of giving receipts for all parcels deposited at post offices for delivery.

Certificates of posting, prepared by the county officers, are already given for all parcels on which a special fee is paid for registration, and in the case of unregistered parcels anyone bringing a parcel to post can obtain a certificate of posting if he will fill up one of the forms provided for the purpose, and present it to the counter clerk. To give a certificate for every unregistered parcel, whether required or not, would involve considerable labour, and the Postmaster General does not think that the circumstances are such as to call for a modification of the present practice, which is advertised in paragraph 8, p. 8 of the Post Office Guide.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the statements made by the Secretary to the Treasury on 16th May, 1901, and 26th July, 1901, that legislation would be necessary to make the Order in Council based on the Report of the Ridley Commission applicable to the clerks of the several divisions of the High Court, and, considering the opinion expressed by the Judge of the Probate Court in common with the late Lord Herschell in favour of retiring rules working automatically, His Majesty's Government propose to initiate such legislation during the present session.

No Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will explain why sub-office rural postmen, who are not allowed free medical attendance, are compelled to furnish the Department with a weekly medical certificate when they are on the sick list at their own cost; and whether the Department will dispense with weekly certificates in cases where the men's illness is known to be of several weeks duration; also whether the Department can see its way to refund to the men the cost of these certificates.

All servants of the Department are required to furnish weekly certificates when absent through illness, and at places where there is no medical officer attached to the Post Office the certificates must be obtained from the patient's own medical adviser. The Postmaster General is not prepared to alter the rule which requires medical certificates to be furnished, nor can he undertake to refund the cost of them to those officers who are obliged to obtain them at their own expense.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the names of teachers who possess a certificate under the Code of Regulations for Elementary day Schools, but no further certificate, and who are now teaching in recognised schools, not being Elementary Schools, will be placed on column A of the Register of Teachers.

Column A will contain the names of all persons for the time being recognised by the Board as Certificated Teachers under the Code of Regulations for Elementary Day Schools.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the names of teachers who are, and for the past three years have been engaged in recognised schools not being elementary schools, and who possess not only a certificate recognised under the Elementary Day Schools Code, but also a university degree or some other diploma included in Appendix A and B of the Order in Council relating to the Registration of Teachers. will appear in both columns A and B of the Register.

If a teacher holds a certificate under the Elementary Day School Code and can also comply with the conditions of admission to column B, there is nothing to prevent his name appearing on both columns.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state what is the approximate annual expenditure for elementary education which the local authorities will require to incur, in addition to the present expenditure, for efficiently working the new Education Bill.

No, I am afraid it is impossible at present to make any estimate that could be relied on.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will lay upon the Table lists of the non-county municipal boroughs in England and Wales having a population of over 10,000, and of urban districts having a population of over 20,000; and whether he will also lay upon the Table copies of the Acts set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Education Bill (except those proposed to be wholly repealed) showing the effect of the proposed legislation: and whether section 13 (1) (d) of the Education Bill will compel the local authority to charge on the area which formed the school district any liabilities by them in respect of that area after the transfer.

As regards the first part of the Question, I shall be able to lay the statistics referred to on the Table of the House, though they may be easily extracted from the preliminary Report of the census of 1901. I do not think we can carry out the request of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the schedule of the Bill in the form in which he makes it, but I will consider how far it is possible to furnish a memorandum explanatory of the repeals effected by the schedule. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, the effect of the Bill as presented is to leave existing liabilaties upon the areas which are at the present moment bearing the charge, and to charge any future liability of the kind in the counties upon the parish or parishes served by the schools.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland wh is at the amount of the share of County Antrim in the residue of the Exchequer contribution applicable towards the cost of providing labourers' cottages under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, and what is the share respectively of the rural districts of Aghalee, Antrim, Ballycastle, Ballymena, Bally money, Belfast No. 1, Larne, and Lisburn No. 1 in this amount.

The share of the County Antrim in the grant is £12,321 9s. 2d. No cottages were completed in the county during the year ended 29th September last, consequently no rural district is entitled to participate in the grant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he canst ate approximately the date on which the Conolly Estate, Ballyshannon, will be sold to the tenants, who are about to become purchasers of their holdings under the fortieth section of The Irish Land Act, 1896, the land judge having requested the Land Commission upwards of a year ago to have the estate valued with a view to the sale thereof to the tenants; whether he is aware that the receiver and solicitor having carriage of the sale applied for the adjournment of the hearing of applications by tenants on this estate to have fair rents fixed at the last sitting of the Land Commission in Ballyshannon, on the ground that the fixing of rents would delay the sale; and, whether any measures will be taken to expedite the sale to the tenants of this estate.

The inspection of this estate has presented many difficulties owing to the numerous subdivisions and the nature of the tenancies. It is expected, however, that the inspection will be completed before the end of May. Every expedition will be used to conclude the preliminary steps at as early a date as possible, but it is not possible to state, even approximately, when this event will be reached. Several fair rent applications were adjourned for the reason stated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 8th February last the Commissioners of National Education ordered payment of salary to be made to the second assistant in Roll No. 1754, National School, District 33, for services rendered in the year ended 31st December last; and will he explain why this teacher has not yet been paid the amount to which he is entitled.

The teacher's claim for salary in this case having been found to be excessive the Inspector was directed to visit the school and report. On his recommendation some deductions were made for absences. The balance has been remitted to the manager.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 20th March, Constable Dunleavy, of Pontoon, Castlebar, County Mayo, went about the country in the guise of a pedlar selling jewellery; is it usual for, and is a constable acting within his right in assuming such a character: has he had any complaints from the inhabitants of the district in which this constable is stationed that he, on 20th March, endeavoured to induce several of them to establish illicit stills; and will he cause a sworn inquiry to be held into the allegations against Constable Dunleavy and other constables of the same and neighbouring police stations that they, on several occasions, endeavoured to induce persons to establish illicit stills.

The County Inspector, who has made personal inquiry into this matter, informs me that the allegations made in the Question are absolutely without foundation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that railway permanent waymen and milesmen are not entitled to labourers' cottages and allotments of land under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and, seeing that they are labourers will he consider their case in the proposed legislation for the better housing of the working classes in Ireland.

The suggestion in the Question will be considered. I am inclined to think, however, that the housing of men employed on a railway is more properly a matter for consideration by their employers, the Railway Company.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that petitions under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts involving important issues were heard at the meetings of the Privy Council on Wednesday and Thursday last, he will lay copies of the evidence and decisions in each case upon the Table of the House for the information of hon. Members.

These inquiries tinder the Labourers' Acts are always open to the public. No useful purpose, commensurate with the great expense that would be involved, could be served by laying on the Table the voluminous evidence taken at the Inquires, and I am unable, therefore, to accede to the hon. Members' request. The decisions arrived at by the Privy Council in the particular cases mentioned will be published in the Gazette, and otherwise promulgated to the parties concerned.

:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the hon. Member for South Mayo, and Mr. Denis Johnston, who are at present confined in Tullamore Prison, under Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act sentences of four and five months respectively, are obliged to exercise in the ring with ordinary prisoners; and whether he will consider the advisability of relaxing the prison rules so as to permit Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Johnston to take exercise apart from the common prisoners.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the published statement of the hon. Member for North Mayo (as an expert) to his constituents that the moral tone in these institutions is much superior to that in this House?

I have not seen the observation, and in any case I am not prepared to draw invidious distinctions. The sentences of imprisonment without hard labour passed on the hon. Member for South Mayo and Mr. Johnston will respectively expire on the 16th instant and 14th May. After that they are condemned respectively to two months and three months as first-class misdemeanants. Under the first sentences they are, I am informed, exercised with prisoners belonging to the classes in which they have been placed. Under the second sentences, they will not be exercised with other prisoners.

Why is this treatment given specially to these men?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Coercion Act of 1887, those of us who were imprisoned were after a certain period exempted from taking exercise in company with ordinary criminals?

There is perhaps some misunderstanding as to the term "ordinary criminals." Prisoners are, under the rules which have been laid on the Table of the House, divided into three categories. Those rules are being put in force in this case. I am not aware of any special exemption such as has been suggested by the hon. Member, but if the hon. Member will give me further details I will inquire.

What object is to be gained by treating these men in this way?

Order, order!

Why is it that the Member for South Mayo is compelled to associate with ordinary criminals?

That Question has been answered already.

rose.

The hon. Member cannot continue the debate, for that is what it comes to.

I took no part in it before.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury is he aware that the Collector of Inland Revenue at Belfast made objection to a magistrate's certificate for renewal of publicans' licences in cases of rebuilding of premises, and in one case required the trader to produce a recorder's certificate; and, although the increased amount of duty was tendered, it vas refused by the collector, and he instituted proceedings against the trader for selling without a licence, and obliged the trader, who had erected new premises on the site of the old licensed property, to apply for a new licence for these premises, although the renewal had been granted with the approval of the police and the sanction of the magistrates at annual petty sessions; and will he state by what authority the collector has acted in this manner.

The facts are as stated. The Collector acted under the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who were advised that a fresh certificate from Quarter Sessions was necessary, and that a licence should not he granted on a renewal certificate. The proceedings have, however, been withdrawn, an understanding with the parties having been reached, under which the necessary application will now be made to quarter sessions; and deposit of the duty has been accepted meanwhile.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that delay and inconvenience are occasioned by the inadequacy of the arrangements at the Limerick Post Office, which is a distributing centre, affecting several surrounding counties, and that the enforcements of high averages has been found to be inoperative owing to the scarcity of expert operators at subordinate offices and the withdrawal of male officers for postal duties, and that such has been represented by responsible officials; and, seeing that reliefs cannot be obtained when necessary, and that supervising officers are forced to perform instrument duties, whether an inquiry will be made as to the delay which occurs in this office in making early provision for pressure of business. I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that females have been detained for periods up to thirty minutes beyond their official time without payment; and, in view of the strain imposed upon the female staff in an unhealthy building, will he cause an inquiry to be made in this case.

The Postmaster General has not the information necessary to enable him to reply in detail to the hon. Member's Questions; but he has ordered a personal inquiry to be made into the duties of the indoor staff at Limerick, both postal and telegraph, with a view to remedying any defects that may exist in the present arrangements and securing general efficiency in the performance of the service. In due course the hon. Member shall be made acquainted with the result of the inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in nearly every case when an officer was called upon to perform extra duty in the Dublin Sorting Office, three attendances had to be given, which commenced at 5 a.m. and ended at 8 p.m.; and that recently certain officers giving such attendances were paid at the rate of extra duty for an hour or an hour and a half; and, seeing that instructions have been issued to clerks supervising sections to compel men on extra duty to sign off early on the morning attendance, whether the Postmaster General will undertake that an arrangement be made by which officers compelled to perform extra duty under such conditions be allowed an opportunity of making at least three or four hours extra by way of recompensing them for the strain entailed by such duties.

It has been necessary to require a third attendance from sorting officers in the Dublin Post Office, on a good many occasions recently, owing to pressure of work and to the staff being somewhat under-manned. Whenever the total duty in each case, including such attendance, exceeds the regular limit, overtime payment is, of course, allowed for the excess; but the Postmaster General could not sanction payment for any extra duty beyond the amount actually required to be performed in each ease. He hopes, however, that under the scheme which is about to be brought forward for increasing the staff the necessity for a third attendance will be rendered much less frequent than has hitherto been the case.

The receipts of the Exchequer, under our system of taxation, depend so closely upon the prosperity of the people that it is always advisable, in arranging the financial proposals for the year which is to come, to consider what has been the state of the country in the previous year. But, Sir, the year 1901 affords us no very certain guidance in this respect. It was not a year of exceptional prosperity. The ebb in our commercial and industrial activity, which began in 1900, although not augmented, had not yet turned. Some trades suffered by the national mourning, others by the depression that prevailed in foreign countries, especially Germany, with which we have great commercial intercourse. The thoughts of all of us were occupied by the war, and thousands of workers were removed from productive labour by the same cause; and yet, owing to a decline of prices, in some cases there was a fall in wages. On the other hand, though the year showed nothing to elate us, yet it showed nothing to depress us. Such records as the returns of our Bankers' Clearing House, of deposits in savings banks, of our railway traffic and the coasting trade, showed no diminution of business at home; and, though there was a fall in value in our foreign trade, yet there was a satisfactory increase in its volume; and the fall in value was mainly due to the fall in the price of coal, which, however disagreeable to those connected with that great industry, was, I think, eminently satisfactory to everybody else, including especially the iron and steel trades, which I hope, in the year that is before us, will show an improvement in consequence. There has been, therefore, on the whole, in the course of the last year, no reason for us to consider that there is any falling off in the consuming power of the people, and that we may not have good hope for the revenue for the year that is to come. Certainly, in some great items of our revenue from Customs and Excise there has been a large falling off. The receipts from tobacco, from spirits, and from beer show a considerable decrease. So far as spirits and tobacco were concerned, that decrease was due to forestalments of duty in the previous year (1900–1901), which deprived last year of a considerable part of the revenue that properly belonged to it; and although, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to regret that there has been a decrease in the consumption of beer, yet perhaps the House generally may be disposed to feel that on the whole the great increase in the consumption of tea and cocoa is a countervailing advantage.

They have never had it.

Never had it!

No.

The income tax rose to 1s. 4d. in the pound during the Crimean war, and when the war was ended it was reduced to 7d. in the pound. I am not prepared to promise so large a reduction, because there are other circumstances to be considered; but this I will venture to say, that the increase of 1d. in the pound which I now ask, ought, in our opinion, to be considered as the first item to be reduced when the happy days of peace and reduction of taxation are reached. That increase will produce £2,000,000 in the present year, and next year an additional £500,000

Hear, hear!

I am afraid that our old favourites, beer, spirits and wine, are even less promising subjects for increased taxation than they were a year ago. I think I have said something already to show the Committee that any attempt to increase taxation on those articles would not, in present circumstances, be likely to add to the revenue. Tobacco is in a similar position; nay, it is even in a worse position, for, although it has always hitherto been considered as a most peaceful and soothing article, it is now the subject of an internecine warfare on the part of rival manufacturers which I hope may result in ultimate benefit to the consumer, but which at present has utterly disorganised the trade; and I know from past experience how very sensitive a subject tobacco is to any changes in taxation, and how dangerous it is to attempt changes with a hope of greater yield to the revenue. Then, Sir, I come to tea. Well, I have listened to the pitiful cry of our fellow-subjects the tea-producers in India and Ceylon, and bearing in mind that tea, which is almost a necessary of life, is already taxed to as much as 75 per cent. of its average value, I confess I should be sorry to increase that tax. I turn to sugar. Several very astute individuals, who have no doubt cleared sugar very largely in anticipation of an increased duty, have suggested to me that sugar would well bear an addition. I have no particular desire to enable them to charge to their customers duty which they have not paid, and put it into their pockets instead of paying it into the Exchequer. But I may say this. The manufacturing industries which use sugar as a raw material undoubtedly were affected by the imposition of the duty on sugar last year. I do not think it would be fair to disturb those industries again, having before them, as they must necessarily have, the possibility of having to work under altered conditions when the bounties are abolished eighteen months hence. And therefore, Sir, I do not propose to increase the duty on sugar. But I have a stronger reason than anything I have named for preferring, in my search for new indirect taxation, to add some article or articles to our tariff—

Hear, hear!

Rather than to increase the taxation of articles already on our tariff. Sir, I ventured last year to impress strongly upon the Committee that the financial difficulty with which we had to deal was not only the war difficulty, but the rapid increase of our ordinary expenditure. I pointed out to them that in six years our ordinary expenditure had increased by no less than £28,000,000, and I think I went so far as to say that, in my judgment, if that rate of increase continued, the country must come within reach of actual financial ruin. Well. Sir, I am happy to say that that rate of increase has not continued—I am speaking, the Committee will remember, of ordinary expenditure, not of the war expenditure. Last year the ordinary Estimates and the Consolidated Fund services showed together an increase of ordinary expenditure over the previous year of no less than £12,468,000. That is what I was mainly alluding to. This year, Sir, I am happy to say, there has been a salutary change. The increase over the original Estimates for last year is £1,787,000, and the increased interest on our war debt is £1,650,000, a total of £3,437,000, as against nearly 12½ millions the year before. But, Sir, that is still an increase, and I cannot conceal from myself that, looking to the continual augmentations of military and naval armaments in other countries, looking to the ever-increasing demands made upon the Exchequer, flowing from our modern civilisation, we must expect some increase in our expenditure in years to come. I am therefore endeavouring now, as I endeavoured last year, when I asked the Committee to raise additional taxation in order to meet the charges of the war. so to frame that taxation that when peace returns and it is possible also to return to ordinary expenditure, we may have no difficulty in settling our financial system on a basis which will be equitable to all the taxpayers of the country. Sir, I have heard the cheers of my hon. friend the Member for Central Sheffield. I know that what he would tempt me to is a small tax upon a great many articles.

Foreign articles.

Now, Sir, I do not agree with that. In my belief the great clearance of the tariff with which the names of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone will always be associated, which cleared it of many—I might almost say of scores and hundreds—of articles, many of them producing very little revenue, was a greater relief to the springs of industry in this country, was a greater advantage in increasing trade and commerce and the chances of employment at good wages of our working men, and therefore in promoting their well-being, than the removal of any particular tax on any particular article, however necessary that article might be to their comfort. Therefore, in seeking for new indirect taxation, what I desire to find, as I desired to find last year, is an article practically of universal consumption, from which, therefore, a large revenue could be produced to the Exchequer without any injurious or oppressive burden on any individual or upon any class. I have had, of course I always have, many suggestions with regard to taxation; but in nearly all of them I have noticed this—that the interests of the Exchequer are not the first thing which my correspondents have at heart. There is a sort of thin veneer of regard for the Exchequer over the suggestions; but when I look underneath I discover generally that they desire to tax some odious object out of existence—such as, for example, betting advertisements in newspapers—and they would be perfectly satisfied if they were taxed out of existence; although, of course, that result would not yield one single penny to the Exchequer.

Well done; well done.

Assuming that to be the duty on corn and grain, what should he the correlative duty on flour and meal? In the years to which I have referred that correlative duty was 4½d. per cwt.—50 per cent. more. It was based, of course, upon a calculation of the average quantity of corn which it took to make a certain amount of flour. But since that time the circumstances of the milling industry have undergone a considerable change. In those days the amount of flour produced from, let me say, 100cwt. of wheat was calculated to be 80cwt., it was then produced by grinding with millstones, a process now practically extinct—at any rate in the countries from which our flour comes. Under the present process of grinding flour. 100cwt. of wheat would only yield 72ewt. instead of 80cwt. of flour: but the flour would be of much finer quality, because it would not include the offal which was formerly included in the old flour. Therefore, I think it is clear that in order to equalise the duty as between flour and corn we must put the duty on flour somewhat higher than it was before, and I propose to put it at 5d. per cwt,. The duty will be imposed on all kinds of flour and meal. The total yield of those duties for the current year I estimate at £2,650,000, making the total estimated receipts from new taxation £5,150,000.

I did not suggest that.

Well, that was what I thought was the suggestion. It may be felt that my demands are too large for the circumstances of the case. It may be felt that what I have asked for may never be required. But, Sir, I venture to say it is always best to choose the disagreeable task. It is not agreeable to me to feel that this year again I am to some extent undoing the good work which my predecessors have done, and which I imitated in more prosperous times, in the reduction of the National Debt. It is even more unpleasant to be obliged to ask a limited class of the community—those who pay income tax—to bear an additional burden, and to restore to our tariff an article of universal consumption which has been free from taxation for a generation. But, Sir, I remember something winch Mr. Gladstone said when, in the early days of the Crimean War, after a series of Budgets in which article after article had been freed from taxation, he had to propose new taxation for war expenditure. I remember he then warned the Committee whom he was addressing that, in the vista of expenditure opening before them, it was impossible to say how long a continuance of exemption from taxation would be accorded to the articles which he had himself freed from it, among which, it will be remembered, corn and flour were not included.

I am sure the House has listened with satisfaction to the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able, with all the incapacities from which he has been suffering, to introduce his financial statement tonight. With a great deal of what he has said and with many of the principles which he has laid down, I tonight, as I have on former occasions, have been able to cordially concur; but with the last proposal which occupied the conclusion or his speech I must express my entire and absolute disagreement. Much as we all regret the enormous burdens placed on the people of this country as the consequence of this war, I do not think there is anything that will bring home to them more completely the real results of the war in all its branches than will the taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight. In his third war Budget the right hon. Gentleman has been compelled to again increase the income tax, and has also been obliged to place, on the first necessity of the food of the people, a tax from which they have been so long free. I believe I can say that, on this side of the House at least, that proposal will meet with the most decided opposition. The right hon. Gentleman asked why there should be any more objection to this proposal than to the sugar tax. Well. Sir, sugar is a comfort, but corn is a tiring of the first necessity, and. therefore, a tax upon corn fails upon the very poorest of the poor. And it is a tiling in which they are not able to economise, for many of them are not able to obtain sufficient of the bare necessaries of subsistence. What is the argument on which the right hon. Gentleman relies? His argument is this—that this is so small a tax that it will not affect the consumption of the commodity. Why, Sir, that is the old fallacy of the old Protectionists; but, if the argument is true that the tax will not affect the price, why did the right hon. Gentleman say that he objected to putting a tax upon a great number of commodities? You may say of a great number of commodities that if you put a shilling duty upon them it will not affect their price. In that way you may go through the whole scale of commodities. The right hon. Gentleman's own arguments are self-destructive. I do not propose now to go into detail upon this Point, because we shall have and we ought to have many other occasions for discussing this tax before it is imposed upon the country. I think this is quite the most formidable proposal for taxation that has been made for many a long year. I think too, it is far the most objectionable proposal, and if I had to select the one tax which was the worst that could be chosen I should say it was the tax on corn. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is prejudice to say that it is a tax on the food of the people. It is a tax on the food of the people, and you cannot alter that fact. It is a tax on the very commodity which is the most extreme necessity of the poorest of the poor, and is a tax which of all taxes ought to be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman says it existed for a good many years, and so it did. Every body will feel that this means a great deal more than is implied. My sympathy is entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the position in which he finds himself. I do not know anybody who has suffered more from the vicissitudes of fortune in his financial career. He began with three years of extraordinary prosperity. He came into a land flowing with milk and honey. He revelled in surpluses, one after another, though he laid down the proposition that to enjoy a surplus was a proof of the incapacity of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and only showed what a bad calculator he was. If that is discreditable, he has retrieved his reputation, because his surpluses no longer exist. The right hon. Gentleman in that period when I say he revelled in surpluses was able to gratify a good many favoured interests, and he found, even in the extremity of his surpluses, an opportunity of reducing the Sinking Fund. Upon the strength of an Extraordinary Treasury Minute, which expressed its alarm at the prospect of there being a, Sinking Fund of £9,250,000 in the year 1906, the Sinking Fund was reduced by one-third. I think the Treasury need not have been alarmed. At all events, they may be reassured that in 1906 there will not be a Sinking Fund of £9,250,000. I doubt very much, considering the rate of taxation and the rate of expenditure, whether there is any one in this House who will ever see a Sinking Fund again. But the right hon. Gentleman has seen lean years, and year after year he has had to repeat the process, which he says is so painful, of increasing taxation. I am sure it is not congenial to the right hon. Gentleman to perform such a task. There is a celebrated comedy of which the title is "A Physician in Spite of Himself." I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a spendthrift against his will. But, Sir, what we are more concerned with than anything else, and what I desire to know is, what are the prospects we have of a diminution of this rate of expenditure and taxation? Is the taxation we are now paying likely to be diminished when the war is over? That is a question upon which the country ought to have some understanding. The right hon. Gentleman last year in his Budget speech made the remarkable statement that of the taxes imposed in the year 1900, which amounted to £12,000,000, if the war was over in the next month or two not a penny could be remitted. That is the situation. He stated that that £12,000,000 of additional taxation was voted by the House as a contribution to the war and as a war tax. In that year, however, nothing was contributed by taxation to the war. The whole of it was met by loan. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table of the House a statement which will show distinctly how much of the additional taxation that has been I imposed in the last three years has I gone to the war. He told us last year I that none of the taxation of 1900 went to the war, and that it would have been equally necessary if the war had not been going on. In order to ascertain how much of your taxation has gone to the war you ought to defray all your normal expenditure and then see how much of the additional taxation was available for the war. Up to last rear it is quite plain that none lad gone to the war at all. And I think we ought to have a statement in an official form of how much of the additional taxation has gone to the war after defraying normal expenditure. Last year you imposed £11,000,000 of taxation. How much of that has gone to the war? As I understand it, you imposed £12,000,000 in 1900, and £11,000,000 in 1901. How much of that additional taxation has gone to the war, and how much was necessary to meet your normal expenditure? You will find, then, that what has generally been supposed to be a contribution to the war out of taxation has been nothing of the kind. It has been merely ordinary taxation, which would be necessary without the war; and you will find that almost an insignificant fraction has been contributed by taxation to the war. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a clear official statement of the matter, and to let us see exactly how we stand in reference to it. I do not know that the figures are exact, but there may have been £12,000,000 raised in 1900 and £11,000,000 in 1901—that is to say £23,000,000 and of that nearly a half, at all events, has not gone to the war at all, but to ordinary expenditure. That is a matter which. I think, is not clearly understood, and has a very strong bearing on what are the prospects of a reduction of taxation after the war is over. So much for that. Then the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of what are going to be the consequences if, as he devoutly wishes, and as I hope everybody wishes, the war comes to an end. There are, I regret to say, in the War Press those who seem to desire that everything shall happen which will prevent the conclusion of peace. I feel sure that it is not the feeling of this country and of the Members of this House. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said quite truly that there will be heavy expenses in winding up a war. There is no doubt that bringing a war to an end does not bring the expenditure to an end, least of all where you are annexing territories of immense extent. I think we ought to endeavour to form some idea of the hopes that can be held out to the country as to the extent to which the present taxation which you have imposed is going to be diminished when the war is over. I doubt very much whether it will he diminished at all. In 1815, and at other times, when war was over the income tax was at once repealed. The deficit this year is practically as large as last year. You borrowed a margin of ten millions for war, which, as I understand, is all gone, and the £10,000,000 advanced for deficiencies, which was to be replaced at the end of the year, has not been replaced. You propose to ask again the sum of £10,000,000 or the rea bouts for the purpose of deficiency bills, and you have not repaid the "£10,000,000 you borrowed last year. You have taken out of that £10,000,000, £6,000,000, leaving only £4,000,000, which you propose to apply to the expenditure of this year. That, of course, is an entire failure to fulfil the conditions under which that £10,000,000 was voted by the House.

I explained to the House that if the war ended by the middle of the year, or at a reasonable time before its close, I should be able to pay off either the whole or part of the £10,000,000 which I borrowed for temporary purposes by redeeming Treasury bills; but I said that if the war went on the money would have to be expended for the purposes of the war. That was quite understood.

I do not quite understand why in the world this additional £10,000,000 should have been asked for only to meet deficiency bills. The only pretence for voting that money was that your income came in largely at the end of the financial year, and that then you would thus be in funds to repay it. That was the bargain, and it has not been fulfilled.

In discussing the Loan Bill I explained to the House that if the War ended I would be able to repay the money which I had borrowed by redeeming Treasury bills.

The only pretence for voting this money was because your income would come in largely at the end of the year. It was quite independent of the duration of the war. The country may endure this enormous expenditure with greater patience if they are satisfied that all of it has been necessary for the purposes to which you assert that you devote it. But the country is not satisfied of this, and that is why it is impatient under this enormous expenditure. If at the beginning you had perceived that you would need a more mobile Army, and if you had provided yourselves with a properly mounted force at the beginning or even at an early date, the war would have been over long ago. That which you are now beginning to do, you should have done much earlier, and so saved many lives and many millions. Everybody knows that the policy, the strategy in the earlier part of the war, led very largely to the continuance of the war. The country is not satisfied that the money paid on the contracts is money that ought to have been paid, that there has not been a great deal of waste; that when you bought too few horses you did not buy them at too high a price, and too inferior quality. One thinks of the meat contracts. Is not there disquietude in the public mind due to the feeling that, after all, this taxation and this borrowing to such an extent might have been avoided? You have refused an inquiry; you have removed all means of satisfying the country that this expenditure has been necessary and prudent. There is the Still more important question which the House has to consider: What is going to be the expenditure after the war is over, the expenditure on the country you have acquired? It has to be seen whether it is not more expensive to repair than to ruin a country. What is the situation in this enormous territory, in these two colonies which were once independent Republics? What is the condition of your Cape Colony itself? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of compensation, of restoration, in language which, I am sure, the House will agree with. He said that it was a policy to be applied, not only to out-own people, but to our gallant foes. But does anyone form a conception to himself of what that means? Where is the money to come from? What does it amount to? If we "think in continents" we have to pay in continents. This megalomania is a very fine thing, no doubt, but it is a very costly luxury. All this passion for the extension of territory and the annexation of independent countries involves a ruinous expenditure. Let us see a few of the things it involves. You have to pay first of all the compensations. What will that amount to? You are maintaining the people in the camps. What are you going to do with them when peace happily arrives? There is the settlement expenditure. Where are you going to get the people to settle in the conquered territory? I saw the other day a reported conversation with the late Mr. Rhodes, in which he gave his idea as to what the character of the settlement was to be. He said you ought to have 2,000 people, to whom you should give £4,000 apiece, to settle them as farmers in the Transvaal. That involves a sum of £8,000,000. But what would 2,000 people be, scattered over this enormous territory If you multiply this number by ten, you will not have an inadequate estimate. And who are to go there? I have no doubt you can always pick up people to go and settle anywhere if you give them £4,000; but I should like to see any gentleman conversant with land in this country giving persons without experience, going to farm country which they do not understand, and manage cattle which they have never managed, £4,000 apiece. What would become of that £4,000, and how long would it last? At the end of six months the £4,000 would be gone; and the recipients would not have settled in the country. They would have gone to the Johannesburg diggings to pick up gold there. That would be the history of a settlement scheme of the kind which, if carried out, would cost scores of millions, I see an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite who has studied these matters much. He will confirm me when I say that you can do nothing in that country, which has a great lack of water, without irrigation. Irrigation is costly; and if you are going to irrigate districts as large and France and Spain together, how many millions do you propose to-appropriate for the purpose? Then there is another thing to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded—the army of occupation. How many men do you estimate you will require to keep there? The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield informed us the other day that there ought to be 100,000; and, if possible, a still greater military authority—Sir R. Giffen—appropriates about £25,000,000 of English taxation for the annual cost of the new provinces we have acquired. Well, that means a shilling income tax. But I do not know what the Government estimate is, and I think we ought to have some idea of what the cost is likely to be. The men are to be mounted, and so the force will be more costly. What will be the cost of many thousands of mounted men as an occupation force? At least, you will require, I suppose, half as many men as you have in our Indian possessions, about 30,000, but for the force in India you make India pay. We are told this war is waged for the Empire; but it is to be observed that it is net the Empire that pays: it is this miserably insignificant part of the Empire called the United Kingdom that is to pay for it all. And this brings me to the consideration of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that we were Hearing the time when the Transvaal would be able to pay something. I know this—it has been said as a consolation to the country—that when peace comes the gold industry will pay; but that I believe to be founded on fallacy. If loans are made to the Transvaal with the hope of developing the gold mining, I believe the security would not be a good one for anything like the expenditure which will have to be incurred. I believe such loans would have to be defrayed exclusively by the British taxpayers. I have seen, within the last few weeks, some remarkable letters written by a Special Commissioner of the Economist newspaper as to the character of the goldfields in South Africa, and it is to be supposed that what is written specially for such a paper can be accepted with some confidence. He says there have been enormously exaggerated ideas of mining development and gold production in South Africa. I will not weary the Committee with long extracts, but this Commissioner refers to a remarkable speech recently made by Lord Milner, a speech made after dinner, and addressed to some of the leading citizens of Johannesburg, in which he referred to Johannesburg as likely to become "one of the greatest cities of the world, and, not wishing to encourage schemes that were doubtful and too ambitious," he was moderate in the expectations he formed. But, looking forward to 1904, he hinted at a population of five millions. Well, if the population of Johannesburg in two years was to exceed that of Canada and nearly equal that of Australia, by all means let them bear the whole of the war debt. Commenting on this statement, the Special Commissioner said—

"Lord Milner lately ventured the statement that before long there would he live million white people in the Transvaal—the inference being that they were to be supported mainly by the mining industry. If his Lordship knew that country as well as I do, he would realise that even in twenty years from now there will not be five million whites in the whole of South, Africa. The mistake of Lord Milner on a problem connected with gold mining in South Africa is typical of the far greater ignorance in the average lay mind on the same subject. I suppose that at the present moment there are really hundreds of thousands of people in Great Britain who believe that South Africa—and especially the Transvaal—is simply teeming with thousands of potential mines, which the narrowness and ignorance of the Boers caused to lie undeveloped, and which are about to be floated off by generous capitalists, and make rich everyone who is now shrewd enough to buy the shares. As regards the already flouted mines, they believe that, under an enlightened Government, there is now going to he an all-round reduction of live or six shillings a ton in the cost of treating the ore, and that the dividends are going to be far higher than before. No wonder, seeing how widespread are these beliefs, that there has been a strong market in South Africans, and no wonder that the company promoters are now preparing some hundreds of quite worthless flotations for the acceptance of this gullible multitude.

"In this paper, for the twelfth time, let me say that the Transvaal has been prospected over and over again from one end to the other, and that no payable patches of ore are known to exist which have not already been worked for years. When I first went to the Transvaal to mine, not only was the Rand an important field, but there was much activity at Heidelberg, Klerksdorp, De Kaap, Lydenburg, and all over the Low Country.' As the years passed by, one mine after another in these outside districts closed down. When the war started there were, I suppose, not six outside mines working at a profit. And yet there had been hundreds of companies to commence with. There are hundreds of reefs all over the country—banket reefs, or any other variety you fancy—but they are no good. Not only are they unpayable, but no sophistry can make them anything else. They might get dynamite for nothing, and be relieved from all the other oppressions of the 'corrupt oligarchy.' and still they would be unpayable. And yet all these mines are going to be refloated very soon, and pulled in the good old-fashioned way, and the public is again going to lose heavily on them. This time I expect the losses will be greater than before. The promoter floats with a bigger capital now, and will have a bigger public to sell to."

Without wearying the House with further quotations, I may say that there are three or four letters in which this gentleman proceeds to show that the production of gold is limited, and that outside mines already worked the re is little to be expected, and that the whole of these representations are really in preparation for a great scheme of flotation for mines not promoted for working but for selling. This I believe to be perfectly true, that in South Africa enormous fortunes have been accumulated not by the productions of mines, for the mines have failed, but by the sale by projectors of worthless mines to ignorant and credulous people. That is the real secret of the enormous fortunes that have been made. Therefore, the notion that these millions to be spent in the development of the country would be realised in any considera le part from new gold fields of payable gold in the Transvaal is a delusion by which the country has been deceived, and is likely to be still more misled. The Chamber of Mines, through its chairman, has spoken very much in this sense. The chairman has expressed his opinion that a great extension of production cannot be expected, and that little taxation ought to be imposed, and he expressed the utmost confidence in Lord Milner. But Lord Milner has nobody to rely on except these gold gentlemen; there is no other population, there is nobody else Lord Milner can act with or upon, and they oppose taxation. The hope, therefore, to realise this money from the Transvaal is an utter delusion. These are matters upon which we really ought to have a great deal more information than we possess, and I hope that before the debate closes the right hon. Gentleman will place us in a position to form some idea what the future chances are of this heavy burden of taxation being less than it is at present. He has pointed out, unfortunately too truly, that great as has been the expenditure at home, it is still going on increasing, and it is likely, with the spirit which has been developed in the country, to increase in the future. If this is so, there is very little hope that when peace is concluded the people of this country will be released from the weight of taxation it has been his painful duty to impose. One thing I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, and that is what opportunity will be given to the House for the discussion of his proposals. A good many people will not be satisfied with them, and they would like to have full opportunities of considering their effect. There was a misapprehension upon this subject last year, when it was said we might discuss the general bearing of the question at a later stage. Such a statement as has been made tonight by the right hon. Gentleman, is one that cannot be discussed in the course of one night. It seems to me that there ought to be an opportunity given on which we should have a discussion on the whole financial position as it has been affected by the war, and as it will be affected by peace. There was a misapprehension on this subject last year, and I think we ought to have a clear understanding on the matter tonight. It should be understood, too, that the chairman of the Committee is a party to the arrangement, so that it may be carried out. I hope that, before these debates close, we may have a statement as to what the Government propose to do in this respect.

I merely wish to say a word with regard to the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. It is the invariable practice for the Committee to grant the new Taxation Resolutions the first night, with the understanding that a future opportunity should be given for a renewal of the debate. If we are permitted to obtain tonight, as I think we should obtain, the new Taxing Resolution, we should endeavour to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, and, by arrangement, set aside a night for a full debate on the subject. Then there is a second consideration. I have stated that it will be necessary for us to borrow on loan, and that, for obvious reasons which any one acquainted with financial matters will understand, is a matter that must be dealt with promptly by the House. What therefore, I would venture to suggest is that, if we are permitted to take the Resolution with regard to the loan as well as the corn duty, the Government will arrange that some other Resolution, like the Income Tax Resolution, should be taken on a future night for the general discussion. That, I think, would meet the general wishes of the Committee, and would be in accordance with the practice of previous years.

With reference to the loan I do not think that any inconvenience occurred last year in consequence of the loan being postponed. Last year the difficulty was that the Chairman of Committees understood he was bound on the introduction of the Resolution to allow nothing to be said on the general question and that understanding was strictly adhered to in all the other Resolutions. I raise the point because I think it is only fair to the House to do so.