reported from the Committee on Group 9 of Railway Rills; That the parties opposing the Medway and Thames Canal Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of Mr. Richard Turner Tatham, of 11, King Street, Maidstone, was essential to their ease; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. Richard Turner Tatham do attend the said Committee tomorrow, at half-past eleven of the clock. Ordered, That Mr. Richard Turner Tatham do attend the Committee on Group 9 of Railway Bills tomorrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the gates on the crossing of the Bantry Extension Railway, at Old Barrack Road, Bantry, are always kept shut against the public; and whether, having regard to the Act of 1847 under which the extension to deep water was constructed, he can take steps to obtain from the railway company the opening of the gates. (Answer.) The railway company concerned have informed the Board of Trade that the gates at the level crossing in question are provided with wickets which are always open and available for foot passengers. They add that the gates are kept closed across the public roadway in accordance with Section 47 of The Railways Clauses Act, 1845, and that, as there is a sharp curve at this place, it is more conducive to public safety that they should ordinarily be kept so closed. The Board of Trade have no power to intervene.—(Board of Trade.)

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any reply to his inquiries with regard to the growth of expenditure under the Islington Board of Guardians, and whether he has yet decided to appoint a local inquiry, or what steps he proposes to take in the matter. (Answer.) I have given careful consideration to the matter referred to, but I do not see that the local inquiry which has been suggested would serve any useful purpose. I am aware that the expenditure of the Islington Guardians has increased, but for the last year for which I have returns it represents a rate in the pound which is about the same as the average for the whole of London. I have no authority to impose any limit on the expenditure of the guardians. If it is considered that any of their expenditure has been illegally incurred, it will be open to any ratepayer to attend at the audit and object to its being allowed by the auditor.—(Local Government Board.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether heads of departments had power to retire efficient clerks in the Civil Service at sixty with less than forty years service on 22nd December, 1886, when the Treasury framed the rule requiring copyists on promotion to the established service to forfeit the gratuity earned for faithful temporary service; and, if not, whether he will now arrange for such temporary service, when recommended by heads of departments, to count in full towards superannuation. (Answer.) Heads of Departments have always had the right to retire an officer at any time if they consider that the interests of the public service make it desirable. I am not prepared to propose any alteration of the kind suggested in the second paragraph of the Question.—(Treasury.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that subscribers to the Post Office Telephones who signed the Post Office Agreement six months ago were then told that connection with the new system would be completed in the Strand district in about eight weeks; and whether he can give any explanation of the delay, and any hope that the inconvenience thus caused will be shortly removed. (Answer.) The statements mentioned probably had reference to the opening of the service at the new Central Exchange in Queen Victoria Street, which took place on the 24th February last. The connection of the premises of subscribers has been carried forward as rapidly as possible since that date; but it is of course not practicable to deal with every ease at the same time. About 1,650 telephones are now working in connection with that Exchange. In Fleet Street and the Strand district the main cables for subscribers' lines were laid and completed some time ago, but in order to avoid unnecessarily opening the footways in the busiest thoroughfares, arrangements have had to be made to transfer the telegraph wires in the existing pipes under the pavement to other routes, so as to make these pipes available for the distribution of telephone wires. This work is of a difficult and complicated nature, but it is hoped that it will be completed along Fleet Street and the Strand in the course of three weeks or a month. As soon as this has been done the work of connecting the premises of subscribers in the Strand district with the main lines of telephone wires will proceed very rapidly.—(Post Office.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been called to the complaint of Messrs. May, Roberts, & Co., of 9 and 11 Clerkenwell Road, that they have been surcharged on invoices enclosed in halfpenny wrappers, as an insufficiently stamped letter, because one item of description on the invoiced goods was marked with a cross, and such cross so added was treated in the manner of a communication, and not in accordance with the Treasury warrant, while the words "Lines marked × the goods are to follow, and will be procured as soon as possible, and sent with the next order unless customers instruct us to the contrary" are permitted to pass at the halfpenny rate; and, seeing that the words, "To follow," on an invoice under the head of "conveyance" are surcharged, whilst the words "To follow by Sutton, or to follow by Pickford," are permitted at the halfpenny rate, whether he will give directions to the postal authorities to discontinue the practice, which causes delay, of opening the postal packets of this firm in transmission, especially when posted in their private letter box. (Answer.) The Postmaster General is aware of the circumstances of the case of Messrs. May, Roberts & Co., and holds that the invoices referred to were correctly surcharged on a proper construction of the Treasury warrant. As regards the latter part of the question, it is necessary to examine packets passing through the post at the halfpenny rate of postage in order to check any infringement of the regulations, and the Postmaster General sees no reason for exempting the firm in question from the operation of a regulation which applies to everyone else.—(Post Office.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the regulations will be issued under which the right of the public to free fair rod sea-fishing in Orkney waters will be set forth. (Answer.) The whole question of the sea-fishing in Orkney waters, so far as the Crown is concerned, is under consideration, and a decision will be come to as soon as possible.—(Treasury.)

To ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the Quarter Sessions Licensing Court held at Perth last month, when the Confirmation Licensing Committee was elected; and will he state what steps he intends to take in the matter. (Answer.) I have no authority or jurisdiction over the proceedings in Quarter Sessions. The remedy for illegality, if any exists, is at law.—(Scottish Office.)

To ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the magistrates of Hawick on the subject of a special grant during Coronation week to the outdoor poor in Scotland; and whether, in view of the doubts as to the powers of Parish Councils on this subject, any circular or other intimation could be promptly issued by the Local Government Board for Scotland, so that, while extra allowances are to be made to the inmates of poor-houses, some additional grant may also be sanctioned for the outdoor poor of Scotland during the week of the Coronation celebrations. (Answer.) With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member, I have substantially nothing to add to the general reply I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan on the 17th April.† I am informed by the Local Government Board that they answer all inquiries

† See (4) Debates cvi., 543.

made to them on the subject by local authorities to that effect, and it is not possible for them to issue a circular authorising what would really be illegal payments.—(Scottish Office.)

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in connection with the claim of Mr. Solomon T. Lidstone against the Colombian Government. (Answer.) A Report on the case has been received from Mr. Welby, His Majesty's Minister at Bogota, the substance of which has been communicated to the hon. Member in a letter from the Foreign Office of 13th June. Mr. Welby has brought the facts to the notice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and hopes to be able to obtain some small gratuity for Mr. Lidstone from the Colombian Government; but the Report proves, as was anticipated, that the circumstances do not warrant any claim for compensation as a matter of right.—(Foreign Office.)

To ask the Nice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of the headmistress of the Public Elementary School at Toft, in Cambridgeshire, by the Board of managers; whether he is aware that the Parish Council has protested against this dismissal; that the schoolmistress has consented to continue to teach, without any salary, the children of parents who wish for her instruction; and, seeing that she is now teaching half the children of the parish in the village chapel, whether he can take any steps by which this teacher may be restored to the position which she held for eight years, or the school which she is now conducting may be made eligible for the Parliamentary grant. (Answer.) The headmistress of the Toft School was dismissed, after three months notice, on the 20th May, 1901. The managers of the school are the trustees of Bedlow's Charity. She has since conducted a school in the village in the Primitive Methodist Chapel, but the Board of Education are not aware whether with or without salary. There is no Parish Council, and no protest against the dismissal has reached the Board of Education. But the Board of Education received on 27th April, 1902, an application from the chairman of the parish meeting of Toft and others, for an inquiry into the management of the charity, with a view to a fresh scheme providing for some representation of the parishioners. This application is now under the consideration of the Board of Education. The Board of Education have no power to require the trustees of Bedlow's Charity to reinstate the headmistress. No application has been made to the Board of Education to recognise as a public elementary school the school which is now being held in the Primitive Methodist Chapel. It could only be so recognised if it fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Code.—(Board of Education.)

To ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state who is responsible for the erection of wooden stands for Coronation Bay in close proximity to and in front of the National Gallery; whether the trustees of the National Gallery have been consulted and given their sanction to these erections; and, seeing that public money has been lately expended, or is in course of expenditure, for the purpose of acquiring brick fabrics in proximity to the Gallery to prevent risk of fire, whether, with the view of preventing risk from fire, he will take steps to prohibit those accumulations of wood; and will he state who will be held responsible in case of the destruction by fire of the works of art in the Gallery. (Answer.) The responsibility for the erection of these stands rests primarily on the Office of Works; but the trustees have been kept fully informed of what (following the precedent of 1897) has been going on, and they have raised no objection. No pains have been spared to secure the safety of the Gallery. As I stated in answer to a Question on 4th June, these stands are watched at night by police stationed there for the purpose, such police at intervals being visited by the chief police officer in charge of the building. The hose is connected at six points, and all is ready for immediate use. Hand pumps have also been supplied. I arranged a few weeks ago, by the courtesy of the County Council, that all the stands should be visited by firemen periodically, and that Captain Wells should advise as to any steps which he might consider necessary, having regard to the adjacent buildings. His recommendations will, in all cases, be carried out. In the National Gallery, fire buckets, hose, and every appliance are kept in the utmost readiness, and the staff is on the alert. I may add that similar precautions as to watching and as to the provision of hydrants and fire hose have been taken in regard to all stands which have been erected by my Department.—(Office of Works.)

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National teachers of Ireland who were in the service of the Board before April 1900, have been graded in accordance with the new Rules; and if not, will he explain why this has not been done. (Answer.) As a rule, the teachers in the service of the Board of National Education before 1st April 1900, have been; graded by the fixing of their consolidated salary. In many cases, promotion in grade will become possible on the award next April of the first increment of continued good-service salary.—(Irish Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what number of men of the Army regular forces, whose period of service has now expired, will have to be brought back at once from South Africa, India, and elsewhere, on discharge; and whether any measures are to be taken, in addition to those which have already been taken in India, to retain with the Colours any men who would otherwise take their discharge. (Answer.) It is not possible to give accurate figures, and further, I do not think it would be expedient to publish them. Measures are being taken to retain men with the Colours in India.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will furnish a reply to the protest, dated 14th September 1899, addressed to the War Office for consideration of the Treasury, by an abstractor clerk against the decision of the Treasury, which would bring him under the Order in Council of 29th November 1898: And, seeing that this abstractor clerk has been, notwithstanding that appeal, compulsorily retired at sixty, with less than forty years service, on £33, 1s. 7d. a year payable for three years out of a gratuity of £100 earned by temporary service, and surrendered on appointment to the established Civil Service, will he inquire into this case. (Answer.) The application of Orders in Council to abstractors has been fully explained to the hon. Member. The case of the clerk in question was fully considered prior to his retirement.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War if the Government has any official information as to the special metal called magnalium, of which swords for the Austrian cavalry are being made: and, if so, has the Government made any tests of it for military purposes. (Answer.) Magnalium has been tried for scabbards, and also for small arm cartridges, but has not been found suitable. It would be quite unsuitable for sword blades, as it contains aluminium.—(War Office.)

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is to be understood that all allowances for forage and servants to the Commander-in-Chief are included in the £5,000 a year salary allotted in the Army Estimates. (Answer.) The reply is in the affirmative.—(War Office.)

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been drawn to the murder of Mr. Willie Barnett, a British subject, at Luviria, in the Province of Cordoba, Argentine Republic, on 26th April; whether he has official information showing that the deceased was ordered by Grau, the son of the local chief of the police, to give up his revolver, and was then, without having offered the slightest provocation, murdered by the said Grau and an armed policeman; and if so, whether, in the interests of Englishmen in charge of estancias in outlying districts of the Argentine Republic, steps will be taken through His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres or otherwise to ensure that the murderers shall be brought to justice. (Answer.) No information with reference to this case has reached the Foreign Office, but inquiry will be made.—(Foreign Office.)

To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether evening schools which were affected by the decision of the auditor, and which received sanction under the Education Act, 1901, may be continued during the winter of 1902–3, subject to Clause 20, sub-section (2), of the Education Bill now before Parliament, and whether such schools so continued must conform except as to management to the Regulations for Evening Schools recently issued, or to the Minute of the Board of Education, 3rd July 1901. Whether evening schools conducted by School Boards, and unaffected by the auditor's decision, may be conducted during the winter 1902–3, by the School Boards which have hitherto controlled them, or whether evening schools except those already possessing the licence of the local municipal authority are to be conducted under the Regulations for Evening Schools, to be enforced from 1st August 1902 to 31st July 1903, and, if this latter course be adopted by the Board of Education, will he state from what funds the local contributions referred to in paragraph 5 of the Regulations are to be obtained. (Answer.) Evening schools sanctioned under the Education Act, 1901, may be continued during the winter of 1902–3 under Clause 20 (2) of the Education Bill now before Parliament if it becomes law. If such schools are to receive grants from the Board of Education, they must conform to the Regulations for 1902–3, recently issued, which supersede the Regulations issued in 1901. There is nothing, which I am aware of, to prevent evening schools unaffected by the decision in R. v. Cockerton being carried on by School Boards as heretofore. I am directed to add that School Boards may rely on the assurance of the Government that their members will not be involved in any personal financial liability in respect of any proper expenditure in the ensuing school year in connection with evening schools and pupil teacher centres, or with any schools or classes that were carried on under The Education Act, 1901.—(Board of Education.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of regular soldiers now in South Africa, exclusive of men entitled to join the Reserve, and whose time has expired; also if he can state the numbers respectively in the latter two classes.

My right hon. friend, who is unavoidably absent, does not consider it would be to the public interest to publish the figures in question, which, moreover, could only be approximately estimated.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what date the SS. "Syria," with the Lincolnshire Volunteers on board, is expected to arrive at Southampton; and whether, if they arrive on 25th June, he will make arrangements for them to be disembarked at once, so that they can arrive in Lincolnshire in time for the Coronation celebrations on 26th June.

The SS. "Syria" is due, approximately, on June 25th, but the exact date cannot be fixed till the ship leaves Las Palmas, about the 20th instant. In event of the vessel arriving on the 25th, the Volunteer companies on board will be despatched so as to arrive at their destination during the forenoon of the 26th instant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the inconvenience and expense caused to British merchants having business in South Africa by the continued prohibition of the use of their private telegraphic codes; and whether he can now indicate after what lapse of time that prohibition will be removed; also, if he can say for how long the military censorship on press messages and correspondence will continue.

My right hon. friend is in communication with Lord Kitchener on this question, but it is not possible at present to fix a date when the censorship can be relaxed. He hopes that the period will not be distant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the names and professions of the jurors who acted at the inquest on the late Charles Vernon Freer, who died from an overdose of chloroform administered for the purpose of extracting teeth at the General Hospital, Kimberley, on the 12th April last; and what evidence was produced at the inquest other than that of the medical men engaged at the fatal operation.

My right hon. friend has no information on the matters referred to in the Question.

Was it a jury of Kaffirs?

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has said he has no information.

Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?

I have told the hon. Member the Question has been answered. It is out of order to ask further questions on it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House whether he intends to sell or return to England the horses and other animals used during the recent war; and, if so, will he state the ground upon which his action is taken.

The disposal of the horses and other animals is at present being carefully considered, and my right hon. friend is not in a position, therefore, to reply to the Question.

But are not horses already being returned by the transports?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that much inconvenience is being caused by the uncertainty as to where the militia artillery of the North-Eastern District is to train when the regiments composing it are not at their mobilisation stations; whether an inquiry will be held to select the most suitable place for this purpose; and whether the natural advantages of Berwick-on-Tweed will be inquired into and considered before the selection is made.

There is no intention of allotting militia units permanently to particular training stations, except when they train at their mobilisation station, and it is not proposed to make an exception in the case of Berwick-on-Tweed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has issued notice to contractors informing them that allowance will be made in payments for their contracts for the duty imposed on corn, Hour, and other grains, provided contractors produce evidence that the duty was actually paid; and whether this condition will be insisted upon in view of the fact that contractors who had goods in stock, in accordance with the usual custom of trade, prior to the imposition of the duty must replace them with goods upon which the duty must be paid.

The reply is in the affirmative. It is necessary to insist upon this condition, as there would be otherwise a waste of public money. The contractor is not entitled to be paid anything for duty which he has not himself paid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the breaches of discipline which have lately taken place on the part of cadets at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, including a demonstration against the Governor of the College; and whether, in view of these and similar occurrences, and of the recent Report of the Committee on Military Education, he will consider the desirability of at once closing the Royal Military College, or taking other measures to restore the discipline of the cadets.

There was a disturbance, but there was no demonstration against the Governor. The whole question is now being investigated by a Committee of general officers under the presidency of General Sir Robert Grant.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what transports he has hired for the return of the troops from South Africa; what prices he has contracted to pay; what intermediaries, if any, he is employing to hire transports; and whether he will take steps to ensure strict economy being exercised in these transactions.

In addition to the transports already in Government service, five fresh vessels have been engaged in anticipation of future requirements. It has not hitherto been considered to the advantage of the public service to publish the rates of hire, and it is considered inexpedient to depart from the practice at the present time. No intermediaries are being employed by the Admiralty to hire transports. Every endeavour has been made, and will be made, to secure thoroughly suitable vessels on the best terms obtainable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state if the arrangement carried out at the Diamond Jubilee Naval Review, by which a special train for Members left London at 9 a.m., and returned immediately after the Review, will be repeated at the Coronation Review of the Fleet.

No such arrangement as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was made in 1897 by the Board of Admiralty. The Board has on the present occasion undertaken the responsibility of arranging a service of trains in connection with all the ships chartered by them for the conveyance of visitors. I presume that any arrangements for a special train such as that to which the hon. and gallant Member refers were made by the officers of the House for the convenience of hon. Members.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Colonial visitors who are to witness the Coronation Naval Review from on board the "Teutonic" will also be allowed the opportunity of witnessing the illuminations of the Fleet on the night of the review from that vessel.

I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply to the hon. Member's question, as final arrangements have not been made. The Admiralty is doing all that is possible to meet the wishes of Colonial visitors in this as in other respects. I must remind the hon. Member that in view of the very large number of ships which will be present at Spithead, and of the number of visitors, it is difficult to make arrangements involving the landing of large numbers of passengers late at night without causing inconvenience and discomfort.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will arrange that the Boiler Committees Report shall be at once printed and distributed to Members of Parliament; if not, will he state the objections to this being done.

As I informed the hon. Member for Dundee on the 11th inst., the Report of the Boiler Committee has not yet been considered by the Board of Admiralty. When it has been so considered it will he presented to Parliament, and I must repeat that there will be no unnecessary delay in effecting the presentation.

What are the objections of the Admiralty to printing it now, so that we may have it at once?

We are pursuing the usual course. It is necessary that the Admiralty should have an opportunity of perusing the Report before it is presented. There will be no delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the district into which Fad-el-Allah committed a raid was within the French sphere of influence; will he say how long a time had elapsed between the above-mentioned raid and the French attack on Fad-el-Allah in British territory; how far within the British boundary the collision took place; and whether representations have been made to the French Government as to the violation of British territory.

The raid extended to Kousseri, on the German side of the boundary between the French and German spheres of influence. It took place towards the end of July, and the fight in which Fad-el-Allah was mortally wounded occurred on the 23rd of August. Gubja, where the collison took place, is about 120 miles within the British boundary. No representations have been made to the French Government on the subject, but stops were taken to occupy Bornu.

Is it intended to make representations to the French Government in regard to this invasion of British territory?

It must be remembered that when our sphere of influence was established in this part of Africa we came under what is at all events a moral obligation to protect the surrounding countries from any disturbance arising in our territory. At the time that this incident took place we had no military occupation whatever of the country, and in those circumstances, although it may be said that the French commander went rather far in pursuing Fad-el-Allah into British territory, I do not know whether it is necessary—at present, at all events, it has not been thought necessary—to make any representations to a friendly country.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the fact that the transfer of British shipping to Foreign flags trading to British ports will place the owners of such ships outside the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will give facilities for the Private Bill, suggested by him to the deputation from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress in February last, to remedy this state of affairs.

The Bill is one the principle of which I should personally approve, but I hardly think that anything which has lately happened renders it more urgent than before. The question of facilities is one for my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return of the number of visits paid by the female factory inspector to workshops, mills, and factories in Ireland for the year 1901; the time spent on such inspection; the districts visited; and the names of the inspectors; and if he will say what is the purport of the reports he has received as to the efficiency of the periodic visits paid by officers stationed in this country; and if he is aware that the female workers of Belfast have called for the appointment of a female resident inspector.

No, Sir. I do not see my way to give such a Return. If given for one year and for one part only of the country it would be very misleading; while, if given for a series of years, it would involve so much work as seriously to interfere with the proper duties of the lady inspectors. I am well aware that applications for a resident lady inspector have been received from Belfast and from various other industrial centres, but I am satisfied that the present organisation of the lady inspectors department by which their services are available at any time in the part of the country where they are most required is the best.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give any facilities for finding out what visits are paid by these ladies?

I have said they are paid as required in all parts of the country. The female inspectors are not allocated to any particular district. They go wherever it is thought desirable they should go.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the nature of the evidence given at the coroner's inquest into the death of eight men who were killed by the explosion of an accumulation of gas in Fochriw Pit on the 4th instant; whether he is aware that the pit was worked at one time by safety lamps and at another time by naked lights, and that at the time of the accident there was no overman in charge of the pit; and, in view of the fact that the Chief Inspector of Mines for the district stated, that the men should have been withdrawn as soon as the fall in the main drift was found, and condemned the type of lock on the lamps, whether he will institute further inquiry into the cause of the accident.

I have received from the inspector a brief provisional report on this accident from which it appears that the facts are as stated in the question. An overman was in the pit at the time of the accident though not in charge of the district where the explosion occurred. There seems to be no need for further inquiry as to the cause of the accident; but I will call for a full report from the inspector as to what steps should be taken in view of the dangerous practices alluded to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet ascertained the grounds upon which the General Electric Company had not registered their premises in Queen Victoria Street as a workshop; and whether he can state what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The company did not register the premises as a workshop because they considered that they were a warehouse only and not a workshop. There was one process carried on in part of the premises, viz., the putting together of the parts of an electric lamp holder, but I am advised that that cannot be regarded as a manufacturing process constituting the premises a workshop. In any case this question does not affect the duties of the company as regards means of escape from fire, and therefore I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that this process of putting together the parts of an electric lamp is not adapting the article for sale?

The matter has been carefully considered by the Home Office, and we have come to the conclusion that it was not a manufacturing process. I regret it, but I am afraid it is so.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that certain School Boards conducting centre classes for the benefit of pupil teachers in Board and Voluntary schools are now under the apprenhension that they may be surcharged any sums spent upon such centres; whether the Inspector of the Board of Education has power to withhold the Government Grant if the pupil teachers be not satisfactorily instructed; and, seeing that by the agreement with the securities of pupil teachers the School Board is bound to make a satisfactory provision for their education and training, whether he can give an assurance that, pending the constitution of new authorities endowed with sufficient power to carry out this work, the pupil teacher centres may be continued without risk of the members of School Boards being involved in personal financial liability.

I stated in reply to a similar question on June 5th, that under the Education Act, 1901, pupil teacher centres, if now sanctioned by the local authority, can be carried on at the expense of the school fund until July 31st, 1902, and thenceforward, until the appointed day by Clause 20 (2) of the Bill now before Parliament should it become law. The Board of Education can withhold the pupil teacher grant from any managers who do not afford proper instruction to their pupil teachers.

Then may the School Board make application to the County Council for authority?

That is entirely a matter for the School Board itself.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can assure the House that all possible steps have been taken to provide against risk from fire to the collection of pictures in the National Gallery from the wooden stands being erected in its immediate neighbourhood.

I am assured all possible steps have been taken. For particulars I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the same subject to ray hon. friend the Member for the Bewdley Division on the 4th instant, and to a lengthy answer to the hon. Member for the Luton Division which will appear with the Papers tomorrow morning.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution adopted by the Kerry County Council on 16th May urging the Congested Districts Board to undertake the erection of a buoy or perch in the bar at Ballycarbery in the Caherciveen river; and whether this work will be carried out by the Congested Districts Board without delay.

The Board has offered to contribute one-half the cost of the erection of the buoy, provided the work be undertaken by the County Council, which, in the absence of a properly constituted Harbour Board, is the local authority.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it has come to his knowledge that flags were hung out, on a recent occasion, from three licensed premises in Cookstown; and whether, in view of the provisions of the licensing laws affecting such a display, he will state what steps will be taken to prevent its recurrence.

Flags were displayed from licensed premises in celebration of peace ensuing after a prolonged war, that is to say, on an occasion of national rejoicing and all but world-wide satisfaction. The Crown docs not propose to take action in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the judicial qualifications of the resident magistrates who presided over the Court held under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, which tried Messrs. Rahilly and Fitzpatrick at Millstreet, on the 19th of May; will he state the nature of the charge on which these men were sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour; and can he give any instances of persons being prosecuted under the Act mentioned in connection with political resolutions adopted by public bodies.

The magistrates have been certified by the Lord Lieutenant to be legally qualified within the meaning of the 11th section of the Act. One of them is a barrister and has been a resident magistrate for fourteen years. The other has been a resident magistrate for twenty-one years. The defendants were convicted on the charge of taking part in a criminal conspiracy to boycott the occupants of evicted farms. The convictions were confirmed on appeal. The County Court judge is reported to have said that if the sentence on Rahilly had been heavier he would not have altered it. I cannot accept the suggestion, if such there be, that these proceedings were undertaken because the illegality was embodied in a resolution passed by a public body. I am unaware of any other example of so scandalous a proceeding.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these magistrates was for many years a land agent?

Are these magistrates in the habit of attending these petty sessions? If not, by what method were they selected?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case against Fitzpatrick was based on a resolution adopted by a public Board?

The fact that the illegality was endorsed by a resolution passed by a public Board does not make it any the less reprehensible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Commissioners, by one of their Rules, promised that no teacher should suffer financially by the new Hides, he can explain why there should be such a difference as £17 10s. 1d. between the consolidated salary and the salary earned for the year ended 31st March, 1900, by the principal teacher of the Dromandoora National School, county Clare.

The Commissioners promised, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that each teacher should receive at least the average of his earnings during the three years ended the 31st March, 1900. This average was allowed to the principal teacher of the school referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that nearly 80 per cent. of the public offices, stipendiary and honorary, within the gift of the Government in Ireland are held by Episcopalians, who constitute only 13 per cent. of the population, to the exclusion of Roman Catholics and Presbyterians; and whether he will assent to the preparation of a detailed Parliamentary Return showing the precise number of appointments held by Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, and members of other denominations respectively.

The Government, as I have already stated, has no official cognisance of the religious denominations applicable to persons occupying official positions in Ireland, excepting in respect of resident magistrates, police officers, and the Commissioners of National and Intermediate Education. The figures in these cases would seem to suggest that the hon. Member has arrived at an erroneous result. The Question is speculative, and cannot be officially determined. I am, therefore, unable to give the Return asked for.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a Return so far as the public bodies are concerned?

said the Return with regard to the police and justices of the peace would be brought up to date. As to other appointments, he had no information, and he did not propose to start an inquisition.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, who has once again been arrested under the Coercion Act, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the overlapping and confusion that exist in Ireland in respect to congested areas, where County Councils levy a rate under the Agriculture and Technical Education Act, and where the proceeds of such rate, if applied in the congested areas, cannot be supplemented by proportionate contributions from the Department; and, whether, in view of the fact that the councils of counties, portions of which are congested, have shown themselves ready to raise contributions under the Agriculture and Technical Education Act, he will take steps to amend the existing law so that the Department, the Congested Districts Board, and the County Councils may be enabled to work together.

Legislation has been undertaken this session to remedy the anomaly pointed out. The Bill now awaits the Royal assent. An arrangement has also been made by the Department with the Congested Districts Board providing for a joint contribution towards the cost of approved live-stock schemes in districts which are partly scheduled as congested.

If the suggested arrangement is carried out, will it be made retrospective and apply to districts which have already paid contributions?

I will consider that point.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on how many occasions since the 1st January, the ordinary fortnightly Petty Sessions Court in Rathcormac has had to be postponed in consequence of the absence of magistrates; and, having regard to the public inconvenience caused thereby, he would consider the desirability of recommending the appointment of additional magistrates for the district.

On one occasion only, the 27th May. The Lieutenant of the County will be happy to consider any recommendations made to him in favour of the appointment of additional magistrates in this district.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Lieutenant is as unapproachable as the Shah of Persia?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. William Cassey, of Lyreen Kilworth, County Cork, was returned for trial to Quarter Sessions in March, 1901, for alleged housebreaking, on the evidence of Sergeant Molloy and Constable Devey, Royal Irish Constabulary; that a police inquiry into the matter was held prior to the Quarter Sessions, and, as a result, a nolle prosequi was entered by the Crown; and, seeing that the evidence at this inquiry showed that the police witnesses against Cassey made up this charge, will he explain why they are still retained in the Constabulary.

The prosecution was not proceeded with simply because the evidence, which consisted of the identity of footprints alone, was, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, insufficient to put the accused on his trial. The only inquiry held satisfied the officers of the force who held it that the conduct of the sergeant and constable was perfectly bonâ fide and proper in all respects. A charge was not made up against Cassey, nor was a nolle prosequi entered for the reasons stated in the question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of reading the report of the County Inspector?

Yes, I have gone very closely into the matter, and I am satisfied that the answer I have given is correct.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Corr, a prisoner in Clonmel Gaol, sentenced under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, applied on 16th May to the medical officer for an hour's additional exercise on the ground of ill-health caused by continued confinement in his cell, and that the medical officer refused the application on the ground that Mr. Corr was a hail prisoner and could leave the prison whenever he liked. And, seeing that the governor told the doctor that Mr. Corr could not leave as he had to serve a term of five months with hard labour, running concurrently with the bail sentence, will he say whether it is in accordance with the prison rules that the medical officers of prisons should decline, on the ground stated, to consider what medical treatment may be necessitated by the state of health of prisoners under their charge.

The Question is based on a misapprehension of the facts. The prisoner was committed on the 20th of March under a warrant, which imposed, on separate charges, three concurrent terms of imprisonment of one month with hard labour, and, at the expiration of the month, a further term of three months without hard labour, in default of providing bail. That warrant will run out on the 19th July, and Corr continues to be treated under it as a bail prisoner, notwithstanding that on the 15th April he was sentenced under a second warrant to three months with hard labour, concurrent with the sentences in the first warrant. He will have undergone, therefore, when discharged, only one month's imprisonment with hard labour. The medical officer is empowered to recommend an increase of exorcise to a prisoner if satisfied on medical grounds that such is necessary. He was not so satisfied when Corr made the application, and the fact that he was a bail prisoner could not possibly influence his decision in this respect. As a matter of fact, Corr has walked about six miles daily during his hours of exercise.

Is it not the fact that the medical officer declined to consider Mr. Corr's application on the ground that he was a bail prisoner?

I have stated that the medical officer was unable to extend the period of exercise on medical grounds.

Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired of the governor of the prison, in whose presence Mr. Corr was told that his application for extra exercise was refused because he was a bail prisoner. I am a visiting Justice of the gaol, and the man told me so himself.

Order, order!

That point was embodied in my Question.

The Question has been answered.

No, Sir, that portion of my Question was not answered.

The Question has been answered, and the hon. Member must give notice of any further Question. [Cries of "Order."]

I am addressing Mr. Speaker and not you. The Question I am now putting to the Chief Secretary was embodied in the Question I put on the Paper, but was cut out by the clerk at the table without acquainting me with the fact. It is absolutely true.

As I have said, the Question on the Paper has been answered. That is all I can deal with. If the hon. Gentleman objects to what was done at the table, he should consult me.

I shall put the Question down again, and see if you rule it out of order.

Are the clerks at the table empowered to mutilate Questions without notification to the Member?

I have answered that question very often. It is the duty of the clerks to see that the Question is in order, and, if it is not, to communicate with the Member if possible. I think they do their very best to do that.

Is it right that the clerks at the table—

Order, order! The question cannot be debated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission has fixed a sitting to hear appeals on 8th July in the city of Cork; and whether, in view of the fact that the greater number of the appeals listed are from the Unions of Bantry, Skibbereen, and Castletown Berehaven, and that the latter town is 90 miles from the city of Cork, in view of the difficulties for some of the tenants for prosecuting their appeals at Cork, he will take steps to suggest to the Land Commission to hold their court at Bantry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable that the tenant should be dragged eighty or ninety miles to Cork when there is suitable court house and hotel accommodation at Skibbereen and Bantry?

I think my answer will deal with that point. Only one-fifth of the number of appeals listed for hearing at this sitting of the Land Commission proceed from the Unions mentioned. The selection of the venue in such cases rests with the Commissioners, who endeavour to consult, as far as possible, the convenience of all parties. The Commissioners report that it would not be possible, in view of their other engagements, to hold a sitting at Bantry. But in order to detain in Cork the tenants coming from these Unions, the shortest time possible, their cases have been placed first on the list.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a sum of over £75,000 has been received by the Treasury during the period of the past five years for the redemption and purchase of quit and Crown rents in Ireland; whether he can say in what manner this sum has been invested; and what portion, if any, has been invested in Irish funds or applied to Irish purposes.

As stated in the Return recently granted, the sum referred to, which has been received, not by the Treasury, but by the Commissioners of Woods, has been merged in the General Capital of the Land Revenues of the Crown under the management of those Commissioners and invested in Great Britain. No portion has been hitherto invested in Irish funds, but the Commissioners expect to be able to make some investments in Ireland in the future.

As this money is raised in Ireland, is it not right that it should be invested there?

I have said that the Commissioners hope to make some investments in Ireland.

Has any portion of this fund been used for the purpose of subsidising civil action in Ireland against members of the United Irish League?

The fund is not under the control of the Irish Executive at all. It is administered by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

Then what fund has been used for that purpose?

I know nothing about that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that owing to the change in the mail service on the Limerick and Kerry line since the 1st instant, the English mails and the Dublin daily papers, formerly due to arrive at Rathkeale at 11.4 o'clock, a.m., do not now arrive till 2.47 o'clock, p.m.; whether he is aware that the towns of Newcastle West, Abbeyfeale, and Listowel on this line of route are placed at a similar disadvantage, and that it is impossible to reply to letters arrived by the day mail on the same afternoon, the despatch day mail leaving at 2.30 o'clock, p.m.; and whether, considering the disadvantages which these towns now suffer, be will enter into negotiations with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company with a view to a settlement of the matter in dispute between them.

The effect of the recent alterations in the arrangements for serving towns on the Limerick and Kerry line is correctly described by the hon. Member. The actual times of arrival and despatch of the mails are shewn in the Statement which was sent to him about a month ago. The Post-master General would have been glad if he could have prevented the inconvenience to which attention is called; but the reply given by the railway company to his last offer for the maintenance of the former day mail service was such as to give him no hope that they would now accept any terms which he would be justified in agreeing to. It may, however, be taken that the offer to the company in regard to the day mail train is still open.

What was the offer?

I must ask for notice of that.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Limerick County Court Judge had to travel by coach the other day because of this alteration?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state whether the rate per mile that the Post Office Department was paying the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, as successors to the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, for the carriage of the mails on the line between Limerick and Tralee, up to and ending the 1st instant, is the same as the rate per mile the Department is paying the same company for the carriage of the mails on the line between Dublin and Cork and Limerick; and if not, will he explain the cause of the difference, and state the rate paid in each case.

The payments made to railway companies for the mail service are not calculated on a mileage basis; and a comparison such as that which the hon. Member suggests would not afford any reliable information on the subject. In any case it would be impossible to make such a comparison in the present instance, as no specific part of the payment made to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company is assigned to the service between Dublin, Cork, and Limerick.

How much per mile do the Post Office pay the railway company?

They are not paid by the mile at all.

On what basis is the payment made then?

It is calculated, as far as possible, on the amount carried.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to move an Address to the Throne in connection with the Coronation; and, if so, when; and whether he can say when the Motion for the Adjournment for the Coronation will be moved, and for how long a period the Adjournment will last.

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the Question, I propose to move the Adjournment of the House at the evening sitting on Tuesday, June 24th, the Adjournment to take effect from the evening sitting on Wednesday, inclusive—that is to say, if this plan is carried out, we should not sit on Wednesday evening, and the Adjournment, beginning at the evening sitting on Wednesday, would last to the following Tuesday, inclusive.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the intentions of the Government with regard to imposing upon the local rates the whole cost of administering the Education Bill.

I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question, and I fear I shall hardly be in a position to answer it tomorrow before taking the Education Bill. I am sorry that this should be so, for I am aware that I led the House confidently to expect, as I had myself confidently expected, that I should be in a position to make a statement before the discussion on the Bill was resumed. Although I have been disappointed in this, I hope it will not cause any inconvenience, because Clause 1 is not affected one way or the other by any proposal that we may have to make with regard to the financial aspect of the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state the effect of the Education Bill upon endowments now applied to elementary education; if these endowments will be diverted; and, if so, to what purpose.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will take the general answer I gave on Thursday†, as dealing with this particular question. I am afraid it would not be convenient to go into details.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I asked the same Question a fortnight ago.

We will answer it when we reach that part of the Bill on which the Question can be properly dealt with.

† See Page 515.

How can the Question be debated if the Committee has not the information beforehand?

It is an entirely new and not a convenient practice to deal with the details of a Bill by Question and answer. If we have any proposal to make to the House we will put it on paper.

My Question does not deal with the proposals of the Government, but the intentions of the Bill.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, assuming that local education authorities become responsible for the maintenance of voluntary schools under the provisions of the Education Bill now before Parliament, the grants of the Board of Education which accrue before the date on which such responsibility is undertaken will be paid to the managers of the schools in full, or whether such portion only of the grants will be paid as is necessary to discharge outstanding liabilities on the current account of the school at that date.

I think I answered this Question on May 8, when I said the local education authority would not be liable for any expenditure incurred previous to the date of their becoming responsible for the maintenance of the school. The grants from the Board of Education which accrued subsequent to that date would be paid to the Local Education Authority. Those which had accrued to that date would be paid to the managers.

The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the Question. It is whether the grant will be paid in full, or only to the extent necessary to discharge outstanding liabilities.

I am afraid I can add nothing to my answer. If I have misapprehended the purport of the Question, perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give facilities for the discussion of the Report of the Committee on Military Education on Vote 11 of the Army Estimates.

I am, of course, ready to fall into the wishes of the House in this matter; and I am aware that a great deal of interest has been very naturally excited by the Report on Military Education. But I do not know that anything would be gained by a Parliamentary discussion on the point. The House is aware that the Committee has not reported at the instance of the House of Commons, but at the instance of the Secretary of State for War, and that it was presided over by a member of the Government. Probably the House will have more material for discussion when they see what action the Government are going to take on the Report of the Committee, which was their own proposal.

declared that the duty on maize was a tax not only on the food of the poor people of Ireland, but also on an important industry of the tenant farmers of the country. He had taken the trouble to get out some figures in regard to the matter, and they showed that the burden would fall even more heavily on Ireland than was at first supposed. Ninety thousand tons of this grain were imported into Cork, and this at 5s. per ton represented £22,500, a burden which fell heavily on the poor population on the Western seaboard, as well as upon those who were engaged in the pig-feeding industry. He found, too, that approximately the importation into Ireland was about 750,000 tons, which at 5s. per ton represented nearly £190,000. Surely such a tax on Ireland, which was admittedly already overburdened, was excessive and unfair. The duty on maize represented 5·5 per cent. as against 3·5 per cent. on corn generally, and again this was a tax on the food of the poorest of the poor in Ireland, which in times of the greatest scarcity would be felt with the utmost severity. He regretted to say that the present gloomy ungenial wet weather was calculated to have most disastrous effects on the agricultural prospects of the country, and yet the taxation of the wealthiest country in the Empire was to fall on the very poor people. This was no light matter, and he hoped that before the debate closed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find some means of getting rid of so odious a tax.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to agree to the remission of this tax. He was concerned for the right hon. Gentleman's own reputation. Last year, when defending his coal duty, he commended it to the favourable consideration of the Irish representatives on the ground that in imposing it he had had special regard to the condition of Ireland. But then, and since, he had asserted that the coal duty would fall, and had fallen only, on the foreign purchaser. In the matter of coal, therefore, Ireland had had reason to be peculiarly grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, for one, would gladly welcome any manifestations of consideration for Ireland coming from the Treasury Bench, and if the right hon. Gentleman really desired to show goodwill towards that country he had now an opportunity for so doing. The tax was odious in two ways. First of all, it was a war tax. That promising young understudy of the Almighty, the junior Member for Oldham, once told his hearers, when referring to the sugar tax, that every time an old woman put a knob of sugar in her tea she was firing a shot at Kruger. The old women had plied their artillery so well that lately the Hooligans of London had had another big night. No doubt this was highly gratifying to hon. Members opposite, but the case of Ireland was different, and the Irish were having to pay for a war which they had always condemned. This was also a tax upon a necessity of existence in Ireland. He knew not how to deal with the topic of Irish poverty in a House which recently applauded the Colonial Secretary when he poured his classic ridicule on the Irish Members for their poverty. Famine is endemic in Ireland. From the rainy nature of the present season there was every reason to fear a failure, total or partial, of the potato crop. With the loss of the potato and the tax on Indian meal, what was the poor peasant to do? The right hon. Gentleman had inclined his ear to the sweet jargonings of Lombard Street. He had had compassion on the out-at-elbows millionaire. He had dropped an iron tear on the proposed extra cheque tax, and blotted it out forever. But the City is near and powerful, while Connemara and Kerry were far away and weak. Would he listen to the cry of the emaciated figures who shivered like ghosts upon the hillside? or would he regard the rich rather than the poor, and let it be said of him that "he hath bent his bow to cast down the poor"? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to accept this Amendment, the people of Ireland might do worse than follow the example of the people of Boston when they flung the tea-chests into their harbour. The opponents of the Education Bill had threatened to resist the payment of rates if the measure becomes law. Let the Irish people go and do likewise.

explained that when, on a previous occasion, he expressed the hope that on each of the articles in the schedule there would be a discussion and a division, it was not with any obstructive intention, but simply because each article had special points of its own, and, in his opinion, the one now under discussion had an exceptionally strong case of reconsideration. The Opposition objected to the whole grain tax because it would materially affect those who were least able to bear additional taxation, but the case of maize was the worst of all. The Secretary to the Treasury had contended that they could not logically oppose the com tax, unless at the same time they argued in favour of removing the taxation from other articles of food and comfort of the working classes. But there was no question of logic in the matter. So long as the present expenditure continued, he thought there ought to be a certain amount of indirect taxation, but he felt with regard to this particular tax that the working-class households had been already severely hit by the war taxation on tobacco, tea and sugar, and this addition would, as the last straw, lead in many cases to a diminution in the articles of consumption. The right hon. Gentleman had been somewhat inconsistent in his argument, because in replying to a deputation representing the horse-dealers he had said they could pass the tax on to the consumer, while in regard to the bakers, he had declared that nothing of the sort could be done. In any case, the argument would not hold, so far as maize was concerned. The Irish peasants bought their maize almost entirely in the form of flour, so that before it reached them not only had the tax been put on but also, in many cases, the additional expenses involved by the taxation. Moreover, as maize was a considerably cheaper article than wheat, the amount of the tax falling on maize was proportionately much heavier than that upon wheat, so that not only would the poorest of the poor be hit, but, as was usually the case, they we 1d suffer for their very poverty. It was generally recognised that, if possible, the taxation on articles of food, and of raw materials should be avoided, but this tax would fall upon both. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that there was no Protection or discrimination in connection with the tax. If the tax did not discriminate as between home producer and home producer, it certainly did as between the home producer and the foreign producer as regards feeding stuffs, and that in favour of the foreigner. While he did not desire any such differentiation or Protection, if it was to be he would prefer to have it in favour of the home producer rather than the foreigner, especially when the latter already had considerable advantages over the former in regard to railway rates. In a short time the right hon. Gentleman would find it hard to resist the pressure which would be brought to bear upon him to get rid of this discrimination in favour of the foreigner, and the next proposal would be one for counter-vailing duties to those who used these materials for feeding purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a difficulty in resisting that demand, both on its merits and on the argument, and Protection of every different article of trade would certainly follow The tax was originally proposed on the ground of natural emergency, and on that ground it would have been difficult to resist. But that argument had entirely disappeared; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ample funds at his disposal, and he should therefore support his hon. friends below the gangway in voting against the inclusion of maize in the schedule.

I understand the question before the Committee to which it is necessary to confine myself is the question whether maize should be included in corn that should be taxed under the first clause of this Bill. Now, it will be obvious to anyone who observes the large imports of maize, and the a mount of duty paid by maize, that it would be impossible for me to retain the corn tax if the Committee agrees with the proposal of the hon. Member to exempt maize. The total amount estimated to be yielded from maize is £600,000 a year, not far short of one quarter of the total yield of the duty. That is not all, because the imports of maize into this country in recent years have been in-increasing out of proportion with the other imports of corn, so I think if we impose duties on other imports of corn, as the Committee have already decided to do, and exempt maize, maize, although not largely favoured, might be sufficiently favoured to supplant these other corn imports. That would affect, of course, the yield in duty on other kinds of corn which would be reduced in proportion. Now, why is it proposed that maize should be exempted? I agree that the argument with regard to Ireland is most important. It cannot be said that the tax with regard to maize is Protective because, as everybody knows, maize is not produced in this country. Therefore, there cannot be any violation of any principle of Free Trade in this duty. It is suggested that the imports of maize will be much diminished by the tax, but I do not think that suggestion can be considered for a moment. The imports of maize, curiously enough, have not varied in proportion to the rise and fall in prices; there has been a general increase for many years with but little regard to prices. For instance, I find in 1896, when maize was as much as fourteen pence per cwt. cheaper than it was last year the imports of maize into this country were very nearly the same in amount as they were last year. Therefore, it is clear that a duty of 3d. a cwt. would not make any difference with regard to the amount imported into this country. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has referred to the present price of maize; undoubtedly prices are higher, but that is due mainly to the bad harvests in America last year, and I observe from the records that the average price of maize now is just about the same as it was in 1892. Then it fell until it reached the lowest point, very much less than it is now, in 1897, and then rose to its present point, giving us hope that these variations go in cycles of years. We have every reason to hope that we are now at the highest point and that the price of maize will fall in future years as indeed it has begun to fall already. With regard to the present prices, I would remind the Committee that the total imports from America between November and May were less than one-twelfth of the imports in the same period of the previous year, and if it had not been that this deficit had been largely made up by Russia and other European countries, as will always happen in cases of bad harvests in one particular part of the world, the price of maize would have risen much higher. I must remind the Committee it is a mistake to consider the article maize in the same light as the article wheat. Wheat may be fairly called the food of the people, maize, generally speaking, is certainly not the food of the people. I believe more than half the imports of maize are used for feeding stock, and nearly six-sevenths of the total imports were used for feeding stock, distilling, and brewing. In all these respects, maize compares more with barley and oats, and if barley and oats are to be taxed, maize should be taxed also. Now I come to the point that maize is used for human food. I am afraid that it is by no means always used alone. When maize is cheap I have no doubt that what is called wheaten bread is adulterated largely with maize, and that I think is an additional reason for not exempting maize from this tax at the expense of wheat. But, of course, this proposal is really based on the argument from Ireland. I am prepared to admit that the use of maize as a food in Ireland is greater than in Great Britain, but I do not think it is so great as the hon. Member thinks.

I got my figures from the largest importers of maize in Ireland.

I would rather not trust the figures of importers of maize in this matter, who, no doubt, would suggest the largest import that they could. I entirely admit it is more largely used in proportion in Ireland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is used, as I have said, for feeding stock and for distilling in Ireland, and a larger portion than in Great Britain is used for the food of the people. It is used no doubt by the very poor, the cottiers to whom the hon. Member refers and to whom the hon. Member for Waterford referred the other day. It is used by them as food in place of other kinds of meal. But what is the position of these cottiers as compared with the very poor in our great towns. The very poor in our great towns are practically at the mercy of the bakers. Whatever price—always bearing in mind the competition which exists in the trade—the bakers may fix the very poor must pay. They have no alternative but to buy the bread at the price which is charged. But that is not the case with regard to the Irish cottier. He has an alternative. If maize should become dear he always has his land. On his land it is open to him to grow oats, and oat-meal I say—and I am in the habit of eating it—is as good a food as anyone could desire. I should like to ask hon. Members, when they are regarding maize as such an absolute necessity at the present day owing to the extent to which it is used, what they suppose the population of Ireland did twenty years ago. The import of maize into the United Kingdom last year was some 51,000,000 cwts., in 1882 it was 18,000,000 cwts. The population of Ireland was greater then than it is now, the stock in Ireland was as numerous then as it is now, and I believe the people of Ireland then were rather worse off than they are now, though perhaps hon. Members opposite may not admit that. I should like to know how they managed then with their share of 18,000,000 cwts. instead of the 51,000,000 cwts. imported now. Of course more corn was grown in Ireland then, and they made it into meal, and it might be infinitely better for the people in this country and in Ireland, who occupy land, if they would use a little more of it for the purposes of arable cultivation instead of allowing it to go down to that miserable grass we often see which is called "meadowing" in Ireland. Then it cannot produce anything like what it would produce under arable cultivation. I cannot myself see even if it is admitted that this tax must increase the price of maize in Ireland, how the position could be so terrible as hon. Members suppose, but in my belief, as I have contended all through, the 3d. tax on maize would be as nothing compared with the variations in the price of the article. That anybody may see who studies our market reports year by year, month by month, or week by week. It is impossible for me to agree to this Amendment without imperilling in effect the whole tax. I therefore sincerely hope the Amendment will be rejected.

said the right hon. Gentleman was apparently determined to raise a considerable sum by this taxation, and it was quite clear that it must come out of someone's pocket. It was said it would not come out of the pocket of the consumer, but in the long run it was the consumer that would have to pay. In the previous debates upon this tax hon. Members had spoken on behalf of the poor of England, and pointed out how the tax on wheat would affect them. Those who spoke on behalf of the poorest of the poor spoke of bread as the fundamental food of the poor of this country. He was sorry to say the state of things with the poor of Ireland was not so happy; they regarded bread not as a necessity but rather as a luxury. With regard to maize it had been described by hon. Gentlemen as the food of cattle, and no doubt in the United Kingdom it was largely used as a feeding stuff for cattle and dogs, but it was used for no such purpose in Ireland. In many districts there it was the staple food of the people. The hon. Member for West Donegal had shown conclusively on a previous occasion that a considerable portion of this taxation would fall on the poorest of the poor of Ireland, but one would think from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that they had very little poverty in that country. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended a different system of cultivation and tillage, and he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had done so, because be had recommended exactly what the United Irish League, which condemned these huge grazing districts, had recommended. They had had an instance of the grinding poverty of these people in the last Parliament. Four years ago the Government was applied to to do something for these wretched people, who, it was feared, would otherwise starve, and the Government refused. Ultimately they were compelled to do something for them, and they commenced relief works in the western districts, and, notwithstanding the fact that the Government only paid 1s. a day, the poverty of these people was so great that they were glad to walk long distances to and from these works in order to get the 6s. a week which was offered them. One thing that Irish Members could not forget was that this was a War Budget—that the whole of the charges connected with this Budget were war charges. They had always been opposed to the war, and those who sent them to the House were opposed to it, and when he saw the poverty in which the people of Ireland were kept by British rule, he was sorry to see Ireland's sons, born among this poverty, enlist and fight and spill their blood in a war, the object of which was to extend the dominion of the nation which had kept Ireland in this state of starvation. And now, when all was over, these unhappy people were to be charged with the cost.

said in the three divisions which had been taken on this schedule he had taken no part. In speaking and voting against Clause 1 he thought he had said enough on the tax, and had abstained from voting further. But when it came to a question which touched Ireland very nearly, he thought the Committee ought to consider very carefully what it was asked to do before they imposed this tax. Maize was used in Ireland for two purposes; it was used by the farmers as a feeding stuff for animals, and if that had been the only use for it he was not prepared to say he would have assented to its being exempted from the operation of the tax. But this Indian meal, or yellow meal as it was more often called, had another use. There was a small class of farmers who fed their pigs and poultry upon it, but a considerable number of the poorest of the poor of Ireland were compelled to use it as an article of food. He wished the Committee to realise the class of people upon whom they were placing this import. He had over and over again pointed out what kind of place the west of Ireland was and probably nothing he could say would influence the Government on this matter. But it happened in the previous week that a London newspaper had sent a special commissioner to inquire into this matter, and he would quote two paragraphs from a letter that commissioner had written. [After reading an extract, the hon. Member continued.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt the position quite as acutely as anyone in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had been Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he knew the country. Sometimes he wished that the right hon. Gentleman were back. Sometimes he wished that they had his strong will and character in that country. A fortnight ago, accompanied by the Members for Oldham and North-West Lanark, the hon. Member stood on a farm of seven or eight acres on the De Freyne estate, in County Roscommon. He talked to the farmer and his wife in their little cabin. They were just the kind of people the Government were going to place this impost upon. For these seven or eight acres of bog they paid 15s. to 17s. 6d. an Irish acre, which was higher than the ordinary land of Ulster. He tried to find out from the farmer what his income was, and it appeared that by no sort of husbandry—whether the growing of potatoes or corn—could that man handle in cash more than £25 a year out of that holding. Out of that he had to pay his rent and rates, and to feed a family of six. He put this question seriously to hon. Members, "How was it possible for a man, no matter how economical he might be, to bring up a family of six children on a farm of six acres of bog land, every part of which he had reclaimed from the heather himself, with a cash income of £25 a year, and pay this impost?" What they were doing was to make the lot of these miserable people more intolerable than, Heaven knew, it was at the present moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was rightly keen to get at people who did not pay taxes. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not try to get at him? He did not drink spirits, he did not smoke tobacco, he abhorred sugar, and he used very little tea. The right hon. Gentleman had no means of getting at him except by the income tax. He would rather the Chancellor of the Exchequer invent a means of putting an impost on men like himself, than that he should put an additional tax on the Indian meal used by the poor people whom he had referred to. He was glad to say that the standard of comfort was rising in those parts. They used a little tea, and on that they paid duty. Many of the men smoked and paid the tax on tobacco, and he was sorry to say that at fairs and markets some of them drank, and paid the tax on, whisky. They were, therefore, not a class who did not pay taxes at all and whom the Chancellor was endeavouring to get at. They paid taxes now far beyond their capacity, and this was just another impost heaped on to the other imposts which they had to bear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the case was hard, especially with regard to Ireland, but he asked what the people did twenty years ago. The right hon. Gentleman said that instead of using this meal they ought to cultivate oats and use oatmeal. Nobody could say that that was an argument that would bear the test of examination. In the first place, those wretched people with seven or eight acres of bog land must grow potatoes. Their very life was dependent on that. They could not grow potatoes and oats both. They had not land to do it upon. Why, the whole thing was an impossibility, and the House had better realise the plain fact at once. There was no alternative for these miserable small holders of land in the West and North-West of Ireland but to consume the potatoes they grew, and when these were exhausted to fall back on the yellow meal, to the price of which they were going to add by this tax. The Chancellor had stated that this tax on maize was to produce £600,000 out of a total of a little over £2,000,000. What did that mean? It meant that if a tax was not imposed, the Chancellor would have a smaller surplus. By dropping the tax on maize the Budget would not be deranged, but, by dropping it, there would not be so much to give to the taxpayers in relief for English education. But was it not a miserable thing that English rates for education were to be paid by those wretched peasants in the West of Ireland? All parties in Ireland were perfectly clear that Ireland was overtaxed. He hoped the Chancellor, first as representing the Government, and the Committee in the second place, would think once, twice, and thrice before taxing these poor people in the West and North-West of Ireland, and making their lot still more miserable.

said the case mentioned by the hon. Member for South Tyrone was one of the most typical cases that arose in connection with this tax. The subterfuges and fallacies which the defenders of this tax had to resort to in order to hide its real meaning, and to justify its unfortunate and deplorable consequences, would be brought before the House and country again and again. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was nothing Protective in this tax. The article which they now proposed to tax would be taxed in its pure and native simplicity, and to the last farthing the tax would have to be paid by the consumer. In imposing this tax the House was entitled to look at it, not as part of a Budget, but from the point of view, whether the resources of the nation were so completely exhausted that they were bound, in order to raise a War Budget of something like £170,000,000 sterling, to tax the food of the poorest of the poor, and the poorest food of the poor. He repudiated that doctrine altogether. Except in the presence of a gigantic national emergency the House of Commons ought not to impose any burden on the poorest of the poor. In the case of Ireland the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and the Irish Members, of course, spoke with a personal knowledge which many hon. Members did not possesss. But it did not need even their experience to tell them that Ireland contained a larger proportion of the poorest poor than any other part of the King's dominions. Why should they pay this tax? The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to broaden the basis of taxation, and that was the specious reasoning put forward in favour of the tax. So far as these people were concerned, there was no necessity to broaden the basis of taxation. There was no Irish peasant who did not pay taxation in some form or another. He did not know that the hon. Gentleman, if he were living in the West of Ireland, would be able to do without his tobacco or tea; and he dared say he might find occasion for a little nip of whisky. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Never.] Strong temperance man as he was, he insisted that they had no right to dictate to people how they were to spend their money, so long as the sale and consumption of any article was lawful. They had no right to tax the poorest of the poor in order to raise the ordinary revenue of the country. Every step that had been taken in the debate, since peace had been declared, showed that the money was not wanted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not tell the House what he was going to do with the money he had in hand. The House of Commons would no doubt respond to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and give him a blank cheque. If the income taxpayers chose to do it, let them do it. If the large taxpayers chose to do it, let them do it. But they should not tax the poor people who had nobody to represent them in this House. This was a tax on the poor, not only in Ireland but in London and the great manufacturing towns of England and Scotland. The food of the people was not a legitimate subject of taxation, unless under an absolute necessity; and then it ought to be confined within reasonable limits. He rejoiced to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that the use of maize meal was extending. He thought it was a wholesome food, and its general use in England and Scotland as well as Ireland was not to be reprobated. But he asked the House of Commons whether there was any necessity for levying this additional taxation on the people of Ireland, and thus adding to the legitimate wrongs and sufferings of the poorest of the poor of that country.

said he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that maize in any shape or form, could possibly be as good food for the people as oatmeal. He had never in his life seen maize meal used as food by the people of Scotland; although, no doubt, Ireland stood on a different basis. He sincerely sympathised with his friends from Ireland, in their condemnation of this additional burden being placed on the poorest of the poor in that country. They in Scotland who had cattle and sheep would also be hit by this tax. There was also a small but growing industry which had been too much neglected in the past—he alluded to poultry rearing—which would be affected by this tax on maize. The peasantry in the West of Scotland used large quantities of maize for poultry feeding; and from the eggs and chickens I many of them paid half their rents of from £70 to £80 a year. He objected to the corn tax, the wheat tax, and the barley tax, but above all, the maize tax; because the latter hit all round—the poorest of the poor in Ireland, and farmers, breeders of cattle and sheep in Great Britain; and he regretted extremely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a large balance in hand, could not see his way to remit this tax on maize, which was almost a necessity, and allow it to come in free of duty.

said if the Irish Members spoke at any considerable length, they would be fully justified by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by saying that he could not exempt maize, because the tax upon that grain constituted a fourth of the whole tax put upon corn. He was surprised at that admission, because from the point of view of Ireland, that added strength to their argument against the tax on maize. The greater the amount of the tax derived from maize, the greater the injustice to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman gave another reason, which must have been addressed to the supporters of Free Trade on both sides of the House, when he said that maize could not be produced in this country, and that, therefore, there was no element of Protection about the tax on that grain; but if Ireland had been able to grow maize, there might have been something to be said for the tax. Apart from these reasons, he insisted that the imposition of this tax was a cruel and heartless device on the part of the Finance Minister of this country, considering the special circumstances of Ireland, particularly the West of Ireland, with which at present they were more particularly concerned. When he contrasted the condition of the poor people in the West of Ireland with that of the wealthy millions who lived in England, he could scarcely think of the imposition of this tax without a feeling of indignation. The part of Ireland principally affected was, of course, the congested areas, but there were people outside these areas who were almost as badly off. The holdings in the congested districts were valued at about 30s. a year, and the extent of arable land on it was scarcely more than two acres, and in some places only half an acre, and a great part of the expenditure of these small farmers was upon Indian meal. Now, he was not stating what was not admitted. The Government themselves—the present and former Chief Secretaries for Ireland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—had all admitted, over and over again, the extreme poverty of these unfortunate people in the West of Ireland, otherwise there would have been no suggestion for their relief and the establishment of the Congested Districts Board; there never would have been the employment of money for the Imperial Treasury without asking for any repayment, if the misery in these districts were not profound, prevailing, and even appalling. He had often thought that if money was wanted for this war, considering the poverty of the people, even in England itself, it would be a mighty good job, and an act of justice, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Government backing him up, to send the police to lock up the gates of Hyde Park during the Sunday parade, and exact from the people within all that was wanted to pay for this war. That would fall with far loss effect on these people than this maize tax would fall on the unfortunate peasants in the West of Ireland, who were perpetually on the brink of starvation. When he contrasted the condition of these two classes he could hardly believe otherwise than that this Parliament was acting, not in obedience to the dictates of justice or in the interests of the people, but in the interests of money and capital. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked—Why did not these small farmers grow wheat, and barley, and oats? Imagine the unfortunate farmer in Ireland, who had a couple of acres of arable ground, three-fourths of the little patch consisting of stones, with patches of green between them, growing wheat! The late Professor Darcy Thomson, professor of Greek in Queen's College, Galway, once visited these districts, and described them as like the ruins of Babel. It seemed to him a monstrous thing to put any tax on the tea, tobacco, whisky, maize, or any commodity on earth which those poor people used, while there were hundreds of thousands of people in the country who did not feel the taxation imposed upon them at all, and who spent every night as much on a single dinner-party as would keep hundreds of these poor peasant families in comfort for six months. Why did not these poor peasants plant vines and make champagne? That would be a much more profitable thing than growing oats! They might plant the vines and erect glass-houses; they might employ some scientific experts from the Continent to make a now sort of wine, and everything would be beautiful, and it would take the place of French wine! Why did not these poor peasants do these things? The reason was that they could do those things just as easily as they could grow oats. The one thing was just as impossible as the other. If they grew fine vines and produced splendid champagne, the landlords would take all the profit from them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked why they did not turn the grass lands in the West of Ireland into arable land? That was what the United Irish Land League had been saying for years past; and for preaching that doctrine the Government had arrested only the previous morning one of the Members of this House and were going to prosecute him. No doubt the agents of the Government would send that hon. Member to six months imprisonment, probably more. And, perhaps, some other agent of the Government would arrest the hon. Member again on his release for preaching precisely the same doctrine which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that night propounded without fear in the House of Commons. He thought that political economists, amongst whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a great authority, had for years past been preaching the doctrine that they in Ireland were wrong in sticking to old-fashioned methods in trying to grow wheat, oats, barley, and other such crops, and that they should turn their fields into grazing ranches. It appeared that this advice was all wrong, and that what they ought to have done, apparently against the laws of nature and foreign competition and grand political economy, was to persist in growing wheat for which they could not get any price, in growing oats which it would not pay to scatter on the ground, in growing barley when it would land the farmer into bankruptcy. It did not matter whether at the end of the season they could not get somebody to buy their wheat, or oats, or barley; the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Grow them anyhow, and eat what you grow." It might possibly be the case, however, that the landlord and the tax gatherer would step in and get some of that wheat, barley, and oats, and how then could they eat it? He could only wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should announce such a theory to the House of Commons. He did not want to touch on the financial relations of Ireland and Great Britain, but he could not help saying that this was a splendid example of the working of the system of common taxation. When they read in the London morning papers comments on an Irish debate they were always met with the argument that they were all taxed alike. Exactly; but take the maize tax. Everybody was to be taxed who used maize. But who used maize? Somehow or other the people of England and Scotland did not eat maize, while the people of Ireland did; and thus it was found that under this beautiful system, by which everybody was taxed alike, it was Ireland that was taxed, and England and Scotland were let off. Assuming, however, that the tax on maize would hit the poor in England, Scotland and Ireland equally, he ventured to remind the Committee that by a solemn Act of Parliament, which was called a Treaty of Union, this House had authority, nay, was bound to give special treatment to the people of Ireland—to the poor of Ireland; and that meant that the poor of Ireland were not to be treated on the same level in regard to taxation as the poor of England, and were entitled to lighter taxation. And, therefore, it was no answer whatever to say that if the poor of Ireland were hit by this tax, so also were the people of England. In conclusion, he wished to express it as his solemn conviction, that if Ireland had the power, in face of facts like this, she would be justified in rising armed insurrection against England.

said that he too, was certainly surprised when he saw in the Schedule the article maize. As had been already stated, maize was not an article of diet in either England or Scotland, even among the very poor; but it was in Ireland. He was one of those whose mission it was, when Ireland was in her worst straits, to travel around the west coast, where nothing but maize was served out to the poor people, which was purchased by subscription, some of it from this very House, and from England generally. Their American brethren also sent in most welcome shiploads of maize, which was distributed by those with whom he was then working. He had been through those districts since, and he found that maize still continued to be one of the staple articles of consumption by the poorest of the people. His hon. friend had remarked that oatmeal was mainly eaten in Scotland; but if his hon. friend went into any of the little shops that served the poor people in the West of Ireland with food, he would find that only about one-tenth of the supply was oatmeal, the remaining nine-tenths being maize in its various forms. There was another aspect of the case to which he wished to refer. Maize was not used for human food in cither England or Scotland; but it was an article which, in those countries, farmers continued to use more and more for cattle feeding. The district he had the honour to represent was, in many places, a splendid wheat growing district; but the Yorkshire valleys which were well-known to students of the picturesque, the Durham valleys, and the border land of Northumberland were all grass land, and the farmers earned a living by breeding and feeding young stock. Two Chambers of Agriculture to which he had the honour to belong, had reported to the Central Chamber that the only farmers who were really prosperous were those who had turned their attention to milk farming. Within four or five miles of his own house there were farmers with from keeping two or three cows in old times now kept eighty or ninety cows always for milk. They were fed on these and other foods and thus added very materially to the manure which was laid on the grass lands. The farmers who would get the benefit of the 1s. a quarter on wheat were, in very few cases, the same individuals who would have to bear the whole of the tax on the maize. On a particular farm he had lately seen in Cornwall, out of 500 or 600 acres of farming, there were only ten acres of wheat, and the tenant expected to have to pay in the tax on maize four times as much as he would get out of the tax on wheat. It was, in his opinion, very unwise, immediately after the depression through which agriculture had been passing to impose a tax of such a character, and he should vote against it.

admitted that the case of the agriculturists sank into insignificance beside that of Ireland. But he thought that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the argument that this tax would not affect the price of maize, he must admit that it would not affect it to the extent of £620,000 a year, because that was the revenue he expected to derive from it. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that one half of the imports of maize was used for feeding purposes; so that the farmers of the country would be taxed to the tune of something like £310,000 a year. That was a very serious and hampering tax to place upon those who, after all, were the most progressive part of the agricultural community, viz., those who had devoted their attention to the growing of cattle, the keeping of poultry, and so on. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to leave maize out of the Schedule, because it was bound to burden those who were producing meat, bacon, and poultry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had advised farmers to keep poultry, and so on, but by this tax he was going just the wrong way to encourage it. The competitors of the British farmer would be able to send their meat, bacon, and eggs to this country without any tax at all, and thus the British farmer would be placed in an absolutely disadvantageous position. Moreover, the cottager would feel this tax. In his part of the world, the agricultural labourer used maize for fattening pigs. He did not think at the last general election the agricultural labourers were promised a tax on maize, but they were promised old-age pensions, and they would not accept this as an equivalent. If the food of the pig was to be taxed, he wondered how long it would he before the right hon. Gentleman taxed the pig itself, it he went on at his present rate, broadening the basis of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a deputation the other day, said that the tax could be passed on to the community, but it was impossible for the British farmer to do that, because the price of meat and eggs depended on the price at which they could be sent here by the foreign producer, and not upon the cost to the English farmer. The imports of maize had increased enormously, and it had become greatly used for fattening all kinds of animals. It was not quite fair-play to the agricultural community, who had borne a heavy wave of depression, that the most progressive portion, who had turned their attention from wheat-growing to matters in which the foreigner could not compete so keenly, should now be taxed in this way. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in seeking for a new source of taxation he wanted to find an article of practically universal consumption, but it was impossible to say that maize was such an article. Without going into the question of the poverty of the people in England or Ireland, it did seem to him that when there were those who were ready to pay 10,500 guineas for a picture at Christie's, that was the class which might bear a little more taxation, instead of a burden being placed on maize, especially when used for fattening purposes. He, therefore, urged, first, that the tax infringed the canon of the right hon. Gentleman, that it should be a tax upon an article of universal consumption; secondly, that it could not be passed on to the community; and thirdly, that it hampered those engaged in a struggling industry like agriculture. He hoped even at this stage the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the omission of maize from the Schedule.

found it difficult to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to persevere with this tax, but after the Statement he had just made, it appeared that the Budget with its many blots was to retain this worst blot of all, and that he was going to tax not merely the poorest of the poor, but the poorest food of the poorest of the poor. It was much to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman's Statement had not been heard by every Member of the House, because if one had desired a speech which would show how far removed from understanding the conditions of Irish life even a well-informed Englishman who had lived a good deal in Ireland was, the Statement just made would admirably serve the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman, in comparing the consumption of maize in 1881 and 1901, and describing the condition of Ireland then and now, said he "believed" the population of Ireland now was less than in 1881. The population in 1881 was 5,174,836, and, in 1901, 4,456,546, so that even with an emigration of three quarters of a million, the right hon. Gentleman had not got beyond the stage of belief and conjecture on that point. That was the extent to which the condition of Ireland was realised by one who had twice been Chief Secretary, and from that might be deduced the amount of information existing in the minds of the majority of Englishmen who had never touched the shores of Ireland. For years it had been urged that Ireland was unfairly taxed as compared with England, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with imperturbable equanimity, proposed to meet that contention by imposing a new tax which was essentially a preferential duty as between England and Ireland, in favour of the former. It was exactly as if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to tax rice in India and in England. It would not mean very much in England but it would mean starvation in India. In this case the right hon. Gentleman selected for taxation an article of food which was little used in England but abundantly used in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that oatmeal was a better food, and had suggested that these people should grow oats and eat oatmeal instead of yellow meal. He quite agreed that they should do so if they could; but they ate yellow meal for the reason that the price of oatmeal was 15s. or 15s. 9d. per cwt., and that of Indian meal was 6s. 9d. or 7s. per cwt. And this was the sympathetic knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman had of the people of these districts! He did not even know that the population had decreased, but he believed it had! They all knew where this tax would fall. It would not fall upon Ireland universally, but mainly on the poorest of the poor of Ireland—people who even in a good year always had the dread of famine before them. In the most prosperous of the congested districts, the standard of life was very low, the diet being altogether vegetable, with a little salt fish at times, used more as a relish than as a food, and it was this particular section of the Irish people that the right hon. Gentleman had selected to bear the burden of the cost of a great war. It was an astonishing fact that bread in some parts of Ireland was regarded as a luxury. In England it was the food of the poorest of the poor, but to the still poorer poor of Ireland it was a luxury—Indian meal was the staple food of the people of the districts of which he was speaking. Indian meal was a diet which was only taken by these people because it was the cheapest they could get, and this was the article the right hon. Gentleman had taken to pay the cost of this war. It really required all one's experience of this House to believe that the right hon. Gantleman was going to impose this tax, and when he looked at the Irish people on the one hand, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other, this tax seemed to him a splendid epitome of the long struggle between the Celt and the Saxon. The Irish people had been against the Government in this war, and had expressed their feelings in the frankest manner; now, when all the shouting was done, the calm, cool Englishman knocked at their cabin doors and made them pay the penalty of their exultation by a tax upon their food.

said he was against this as he was against the imposition of every one of these taxes. There was one class in Scotland this tax was going to hit very hard. The tax on corn, coupled with the tax on maize, would heavily affect the stock traders, but there was another article in the schedule to which maize was closely related, namely starch, in which maize was largely used as a raw material, and that would produce a very curious result. The only manufactory of maize starch in the United Kingdom was in Scotland, at Paisley, where large buildings had been erected, and expensive plant had been laid down to carry on the industry. The tax on a hundredweight of maize was to be 3d.; the tax on a hundredweight of starch was 5d. The United States manufacturer could send in starch which paid a duty of 8s. 4d. a ton. But the manufacturers at Paisley, who had to use 2½ tons of maize to produce one ton of starch, would have to pay 7½d. per cwt. duty on their starch, or 12s. 6d. a ton. So that the tax would be Protective in the sense that it protected the foreign manufacturer. He suggested that this grievance might be met by a rebate of 1d. per cwt. on maize used for manufacturing starch, which would bring the duty on a ton of starch to the same as that paid by the foreign importer. Even this, however, would not completely equalise matters, as the British manufacturer would have to pay the duty some months beforehand, when he procured the maize.

said that only that morning he had had before him the matter to which the hon. and learned Member had just alluded, and he was carefully examining it. Assuming the facts to be as the hon. Member had stated them, he hoped they might be able to deal with the matter on the Report stage of the Bill.

said that the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said the House was about to give an open cheque to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would be well content to see that open cheque filled up in favour of the poor of the West of Ireland. We could not run the Empire except on terms of equality for all, and he who lived in a country where people did not eat bread and did not get meat, knew what the relative pressure on the poor of a rise in the price of maize amounted to. What the hon. Member for Clackmannan said in regard to oatmeal was perfectly justified by the fact, and he must add to his observations this, namely, that compared with the fibre of meat, the value of oatmeal was as thirty-three to twenty-eight better than the fibre of meat. But it was not so with maize. Maize was far below in point of nutrition, and yet at this present time he himself paid £6 12s. 6d. a ton for flat maize, and £8 a ton for round maize, and he knew what the effect must be of such prices as those applied to the west coast of Ireland. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer needed the duty on the ground of uniformity, and might be obliged to impose this tax, yet he did think the debate which they had just listened to would not be without useful effect in having drawn attention to the extreme poverty of the West of Ireland, and imposed on the Government the necessity of doing something to relieve it.

said this had been a very useful debate, as it had brought out the fact that this taxation is to be levied on the poorest of the poor of Ireland as well as those of England. He thought the method in which this matter had been met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had caused very legitimate surprise. This was not a main tax. It was, like a number of taxes in the schedule, a subsidiary tax meant to bolster up the tax on wheat. That was really the only justification for this tax. If it had stood by itself the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have dreamed of putting a tax on maize, either in regard to its operation on the food of the people, or upon its uses in agriculture. When this tax on wheat was introduced, the First Lord of the Treasury, speaking of its Protective operation, challenged them to say that it would cause another acre of corn to be grown in England. The landed doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the remedy for the grievances of the very poor of Ireland was to grow corn, and the increased growing of corn was to take place by the development of the growth of oats in the congested districts of Ireland. But the very poor of England had no land, and therefore they were in a position to envy the congested districts on the west coast of Ireland. This new landed doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman's was capable of very singular developments, and he hoped it would be discussed in all parts of the United Kingdom. They were told at this time of day that when people were reduced to the greatest pitch of misery the best thing they could do was to possess themselves of land upon which they could grow corn, and that was really the only consolation which the authors of this tax offered to the poor people in the congested districts of the West of Ireland, that if the poor people could only got land and grow corn they would be relieved of their distress. He commended the consideration of this landed doctrine to the House and the country. He should most heartily vote against this particular tax, which was the most unjustifiable tax that was ever proposed in this country, and voted by the House of Commons, if it were voted. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had said, there was no necessity for this tax. In the case of direst necessity he believed it could hardly be justified, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had £10,000,000 to dispose of, should insist upon imposing such a tax was contrary to all justice and all reason, and there was nothing that emphasised its injustice more than this tax upon maize.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had, as he very often did, twisted his argument into a meaning to which he did not think any one fairly listening to it would have thought it capable of being applied. The right hon. Gentleman accused him of starting a new landed doctrine in this country. All he had ever said was that, whereas in the year 1883 the people of Ireland, being then more numerous than they were now, were able, without any suffering, so far as he was aware, to get on perfectly well with an importation into this country of no more than 18,000,000 cwts. of maize, as compared with 51,000,000 cwts. imported last year, and were so able because they must have grown oats or other corn instead of maize, and used it for themselves, therefore, he supposed that if maize became dearer they would take the same course again, and that it would not be to the detriment of anybody except the dealers in maize. That was all he had said, and he entirely disclaimed the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had put upon his argument. The right hon. Gentleman said this duty on maize was merely proposed in order to bolster up the duty on wheat.

With the other taxes in the schedule.

entirely denied that. A duty on corn must be a duty on corn all through, or else it was useless to propose it at all. When it existed before it was a duty on corn all through, just as he proposed it now. It existed then for twenty years without those terrible consequences to which reference had now been made, and he believed it would be precisely the same in future when the tax had been passed by Parliament. He should like to say that he did sympathise with what had fallen from hon. Members for Ireland with regard to the condition of these very poor people in the west. But he would submit to the Committee that the way to meet that condition was not to reject a tax of which they, at any rate, would pay but a small part, and which would be borne by the, whole country at large, but to pursue the course of encouraging the Congested Districts Board in its admirable attempts to relieve the poverty and suffering of the people of Ireland, and to do that, as the House already did, by aiding the Congested Districts Board with such grants from the Exchequer as might enable them to carry out the policy on which they had already embarked, and which had already done so much for the improvement of that part of the country. He trusted that, as it was understood the debate on the Committee stage should be concluded that night, and there were several other points to discuss, the Committee might be prepared to come to a decision now on this question.

said that as the representative of a large number of people, who would suffer by the imposition of this tax, he could not allow this opportunity to pass by without making another protest against it. With reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Wick, he must say that he was grateful for the observations that he made, but when he said that this debate would be of use to the Irish people, he must, if the tax was passed, take leave to differ from him. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? He compared figures in 1881 with those in 1901, and said that the imports in the first year were only 18,000,000, as against 50,000,000 in 1901, and he asked how the people managed to get on with the much smaller quantity imported in 1881, although the population of Ireland had decreased in the meantime. Was there ever a more misleading argument? And he must have known it to be misleading, because he did not give the Committee the Irish and English figures, because this enormous increase in the consumption is duo to the use of the maize for the feeding of stock and fowls, and had no bearing at all upon the question of food of the people. The Chancellor was really throwing dust in the eyes of Members when he used that argument. What was the remedy he suggested? He said that the people there had always got their land to fall back upon, and he asked why they could not, when a tax was put upon maize, and the price of yellow meal went up, grow oats or wheat. He did not really think that the right hon. Gentleman understood the economic condition of these unfortunate people. No one could understand it better than he did, because he represented 8,000 voters, although he was sorry to say chat over 7,000 of them had holdings valued at only £5 a year, and were driven, by the extremity of their poverty, to the cheapest form of food. This staple food is the potato, which was the cheapest of all human food, and when the supply of that was exhausted, they were obliged to fall back upon flour, as far as they could afford it, and to yellow meal, when they were not able to afford it. "Why don't they grow oats and eat that?" the right hon. Gentleman said. Well, when the land allowed them to grow oats, they did so, and sold them to pay the rent. Really the lecture of the Chancellor upon agricultural economics was very interesting to him because in it he preached the doctrine of the Land League first, and the United Irish League now. He did that without knowing it. What else had they been preaching for the last twenty years as a remedy? The Chancellor said there should be more agriculture and less grazing and meadows. He said, why don't they grow oats and wheat? What land had they in the west of Ireland? Did he not know that every acre of good land had been taken from the people for the accommodation of graziers, and that in Mayo, Roscommon and Galway the people were driven to the bogs and marshes? This was the land upon which they were told to grow oats! They were obliged to struggle with land upon which no farmer in this country would waste his time if he got it for nothing. They were allowed to live on it upon the terms that they continued to pay a rack-rent. On this land, reclaimed by the patient and unrequited toil of generations, on these patches recovered from the waste, they have got to pay 10s. an acre—land which was not worth sixpence an acre, and which no English farmer would take the gift of. He asked an hon. Member opposite to come over to the De Freyne estate, to go over it, look at it, and then say if he was exaggerating. They would see land assessed at 15s. or £1 an acre, which no one who knew the value of land would put more than sixpence an acre upon. It was this land—the rent of which was paid for by the toil of the men who came to work here at the harvests in England, men driven from home in search of means of satisfying the rack-renting landlords of Connaught, who had been a disgrace to Irish landlordism for generations—it was upon this land that they were going to impose this fresh taxation. It was one of the most unjust things ever done in the history of this House. The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this tax was to his mind a most valuable illustration of the whole course of English administration, and especially financial administration. This great Empire, overflowing with wealth, and having multitudes of trading interests all over the world, pursued its course front year to year, and from generation to generation, without the smallest care or reference to the effect of its financial policy on the people of Ireland. Their whole social circumstances and their whole trading interests, so far as they had trading interests, were absolutely different and divorced from those of England, and the Government had never in the course of the last century given a thought to the effect of their taxation of Ireland. Forty or fifty years ago they made the starvation of the people an excuse for throwing open the ports of the United Kingdom to the admission of this yellow meal, but by that method they ruined the agriculture of Ireland and reduced our people to infinite misery. That measure was the means of destruction to hundreds of thousands of Irish people. It was done in order to make way for grass which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come to see was one of the evils of Ireland. Now after they had ruined Irish agriculture they proceeded to extract a tax from the wretched, starving, miserable people whom he represented, in order to pay for a war against which the Irish representatives never ceased to protest. It was almost incredible that a great nation should be so mean, and so lost to all sense of humanity as to justify a tax like this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his second speech showed how much he felt the injustice and the cruelty of what he was proposing. He said that the proper way to meet the case which he admitted was unanswerable, was not by giving a remission of the tax, but by encouraging the work of the Congested Districts Board. There was more force in that if he would give compulsory powers and make the Board a reality. What was the use of telling them to encourage the work of the Congested Districts Board in the present state of the law? The Board had been of great advantage to the poor people where it had worked, but as in regard to four-fifths of the people it had done nothing, and its progress was so slow that it might have been in operation for ten or fifteen years before it could do anything for them. The Government had refused again and again to give the powers asked in order to make the Congested Districts Board a reality. Nobody had given more testimony than himself as to the work of the Congested Districts Board. He had spoken of the operations of the Board in his own constituency on the Dillon Estate. But what about the neighbouring estates? The work done would only aggravate the discontent, misery, and despair of those people on the neighbouring estates when they saw the people on the Dillon Estate to some extent alleviated out of their misery. Instead of getting similar benefits themselves, they got a tax imposed which would increase the price of Indian corn. They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that grass was the great evil of Ireland, and that they wanted more agriculture. Yes, grass was the great evil of Ireland. That was what they had been saying in the West of Ireland, and they had started an association to try to put that down. But the Government had no better remedy than to throw into jail, and to treat as convicts, those who advocated that remedy. Out of Bedlam there never was a worse Government than the present. He believed that if they went to Bedlam and let loose a set of lunatics they could not make a worse hand of it than the present Government. Everything was turned upside down, and when the people clamoured for a remedy they were informed by an intelligent English Minister that grass was the evil, and they should get more agriculture. Whenever they tried to do that they were all clapped into prison. He could promise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the present experiment in taxation would certainly not recommend to the Irish people the present financial policy of England, the Government of England, or the Union. Never since the days when, he thought it was the French Queen, Marie Antoinette, made the famous observation which had come down the stream of history. When crowds were clamouring for bread in the streets of Paris, one of the Ministers was speaking to her and telling her that the situation was serious, and she replied, "Why don't they eat cake?" From that time there never had been such a monstrous proposition as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said, "Why cannot these people eat oatmeal"

said that as one of the strongest supporters of the United Irish League he hoped the Government who were instituting prosecutions against its members would at the same time prosecute the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who that day had said what the members of the League had been saying all along—"Divide up the grass lands and we will get rid of starvation." He maintained that the whole province of Connaught, which comprised a seventh of the population of Ireland, would be hit by this tax. The average valuation in the province of Connaught was £1 18s. 4d., and he asked if there was any one in this House who would say that a man whose holding was only worth £1 18s. 4d. was a subject for taxation. One out of every twenty-three of the population of the province of Connaught had to come over every year to England and Scotland to earn from £7 to £12 in order to pay toll to the British Treasury and the Irish landlords. The average size of the holdings in Connaught, leaving aside the grasslands was from three to five acres; and how were these unfortunate people able to make a living out of such holdings? Free trade had ruined the tillage of Ireland, and had driven the people to the growing of potatoes. Then the potato blight came in 1846, and they had to sell their cattle in order to pay the landlords their rents. The landlords got £1,500,000 from the British Treasury in order to improve their estates, but the moment the estates were improved, the landlords said to the tenants, "Out you go, unless you pay treble the rent you paid before." 1,500,000 people died of starvation, 3,000,000 emigrated, and the rest were crushed into the bogs of the West of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "why did they not grow oats on their patches of land?" but the people had not sufficient land to grow oats. They renewed their patches of ground by going out to sea from two to seven miles, and collecting sea-weed, and though the sea-weed was the property of the Crown the landlords prosecuted those poor people for so collecting the sea-weed. He had often thought there was no hope for the Irish people; and he had come to the conclusion that the only remedy lay in what Mr. Disraeli called a revolution. The only reason why there was not a revolution was that Ireland was bound to England, and therefore England was the cause of all the miseries of Ireland.

said that although he opposed the imposition of this duty on maize, he must candidly admit that the fact of its inclusion in the Schedule robbed the corn tax as a whole of its Protective effect, and made it a registration duty. The duty on maize deprived the agricultural interest undoubtedly of any benefit which they might have expected from a duty on corn. The hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham said that he had been in the West Country lately, and had found that farmers themselves regarded this tax with dislike. He himself had been in the west country at Whitsuntide, and was told by the farmers that they condemned the tax, as it would not do them any good whatever. He had had an interview with the Secretary of the Importers of Food Stuffs Association, who told him that the tax would be a burden on the agricultural interests of Great Britain, exclusive of Ireland, to the extent of £375,000 a year. As a matter of fact, the only kind of farmer to whom this tax as a whole would do any good would be a farmer who farmed only arable land, who had no cattle, and who worked his land by machinery. Of course they knew that there were no such farmers, and therefore the tax was bound to hit the agricultural interests very hard. There was no substitute for maize which could be grown in this country. Maize was most valuable for fattening stock. It was very rich indeed in oil and nitrogenous materials. Cattle-breeding and fattening was becoming more and more an important industry in this country. The number of cattle was steadily increasing in England. In 1871 they numbered 4,054,074; in 1891 they numbered 4,841,852; and in 1900, 4,848,698; and if they looked at the agricultural returns they found that there had been a steady growth in the amount of permanent pasture in the country. That proved conclusively that stock raising was becoming a more important industry every year. Foreign competition was becoming keener than ever, and the amount of fresh meat imported into this country had more than trebled during the last few years. He thought the Government had chosen a singularly unfortunate time for putting this burden on the agricultural interest. Tenant farmers were experiencing great difficulty in regard to the labour question. It is perfectly true that some assistance had been given them by means of the Agricultural Bating Act, but they all knew that the benefit of that Act had gone from them and fallen to the landlords. [Hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches: No, no.] They were going to put another burden upon the farmers by the Education Bill, and by laying this duty on the raw material of agriculture, there was no doubt whatever that it would render it more difficult for the tenant farmers to pay their rents than in I the past.

said he must deprecate the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the debate should now conclude. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer' had any right whatever to stifle discussion, or to stop the voice of the representatives of the Irish people, when they pleaded for their starving constituents. He opposed this tax, because it was a tax on the stall' of life of the great majority of the Irish people. This debate was a specimen of what he regarded as the infamy of Irish Government by England. The power of external legislation had been employed against Ireland as an instrument of oppression to the enrichment of England and the impoverisation of Ireland. A hundred years ago Burke asked—

"Is Ireland united to the Crown of Great Britain for no other purpose than that we should counteract the bounty of Providence in your favour? "

The Government were counteracting the bounty of Providence by taxing the food of the people in the poorest districts of the West of Ireland, which would have the effect of exterminating them altogether, in order to save those who had organised the war. However, amid the cheers and huzzas of the Coronation, there would still be heard, and they would not be able to hush it, the still small voice of the starving Irish peasant. Of all persons in the world, the Irish peasant was the last who should have his food taxed, because he had been deprived, by British legislation, of every industry except the land. The woollen industry, the glass industry, and the other industries of Ireland had been destroyed; and it was now proposed to rob the poor for the benefit of the rich. That ill-accorded on the pledges which were given at the time of the Union. When Mr. Pitt was asked what security the Irish people would have that they would be treated fairly, he replied, "The honour of England." They had been playing the confidence trick on Ireland for a hundred years. He himself never used strong language, but he sometimes stated strong facts; and he said, in full responsibility for his words, that the Irish peasant would be more than justified in resorting to armed resistance to that tax if he had any chance of success.

I hope the Committee will now come to a decision. The question has been discussed at very considerable length, and there are several other points to be considered. Moreover, there was an understanding that the Committee stage should finish tonight.

said he did not regard the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as unreasonable, and, for his part, he did not intend to stand between the Committee and a division. But he wished to refer to one point which had not yet been touched upon. In the very modest speech with which the debate was initiated, there was an estimate of the amount of maize consumed in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer questioned that estimate, and put it much lower; but the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had no knowledge of the facts. Was it not, therefore, astounding that a tax should be placed in Ireland, which the right hon. Gentleman admitted would be a terrible burden, when they knew nothing of what its effect would be. They knew nothing about the imports or the exports of Ireland; but these facts ought to be known before the tax was imposed. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted his ignorance of them, and on that want of knowledge he founded an extraordinary argument. The right hon. Gentleman gave the figures for 1882

rose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put."