To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Poll-Tax Ordinance, 1905, published in the Uganda Official Gazette of April 1st, 1905, which enacts that a poll-tax of two rupees per annum shall be payable in the same manner as the hut tax by each adult male native, and that any person who has not the means to pay the two rupees in cash shall in lieu thereof work for the period of one month; and whether His Majesty's Government has sanctioned this system of forced labour. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) My attention has been called to the Ordinance in question, which has been sanctioned by His Majesty's Government. The payment of any taxes appears to me to involve compulsory labour except in the case of those who have savings or accumulated capital available to discharge them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the importation of intoxicating liquor into the Lagos hinterland, and its sale there, and particularly in the city of Ibadan, has largely increased of latter years; whether this is due to the facilities provided by the Government railway for the carriage and storage of spirits, among such facilities being a much lower freight on spirits between Lagos and Ibadan than the cost of carriage by road and the erection of special stores for spirits at various places on the line; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any steps to remove these facilities, and to discourage the importation of liquor, and particularly of overproof spirit, into the Lagos hinterland. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) As regards the importation of liquor into the Lagos hinterland by road, systematic records have only recently been instituted on this subject; but, as regards the spirits carried by the railway, the general manager in his last published report says that the demand shows little or no upward tendency, and that the rail-borne traffic bears an infinitesimal ratio of the total imports. The importation of overproof spirit into Abeokuta and Ibadan is prohibited. The duty on spirits imported into Lagos has recently been increased to 3s. 6d. a gallon, and it may be added that the duty was 8d. a gallon in 1891. The total imports of spirits into Lagos has considerably decreased in the last two years. In the circumstances there does not appear to be any necessity to take any steps in the direction suggested, by the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will explain why the walls of the waiting-room at the Colonial Office are crowded with placards, including an advertisement of special tours to Jamaica, by Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co.'s boats, a time-table of the firm's West African service, photographs of the steamships "Targerah" and "Nigeria," belonging to this firm, illustrations of their buoys, two drawings of the Lagos Office of the Bank of West Africa, a drawing of Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co.'s steamer "Porto Novo," and an advertisement almanac of the African Oil Mills, Limited; and will he say whether these advertisements were placed with his sanction in the waiting-room of the Colonial Office, in which there are no advertisements of other firms. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The waiting-room in question is that used by visitors having business to transact in connection with the West and East African Colonies and Protectorates, and it is for their convenience, as travellers to and from these countries, that such placards are exhibited in the waiting-rooms of the Colonial Office. The West African waiting-room is not exceptionally treated, nor is any preference shown to particular firms, and the placards referred to by the hon. Member are not the only ones in that room.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Miss Haines was appointed a pupil teacher by the Peterhead Burgh School Board in the month of July last, and commenced her duties in the following September, but has recently been informed that her appointment cannot be confirmed until it can be certified that she has been successfully vaccinated; and will he explain why this rule has been imposed. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) It is the fact that in accordance with a general rule to that effect the Department have refused to confirm Miss Haines' appointment on the ground that she has not been vaccinated. The rule was imposed in the interests of the health of the children.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware, that the action of certain capitalists of Middles-borough has resulted in a corner in pig-iron, which is disorganising the iron and other dependent industries throughout the North of England; and, seeing that, under the same gambling systems, the late corners in cotton and other commodities were operated, whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of promoting legislation, in conjunction with other Governments, to prevent these constant upheavals in trade. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am aware that the iron trade has recently been affected by a rise in the price of pig-iron, attributed to speculative purchases of Cleveland pig-iron warrants in anticipation for a demand by the United States. I understand, however, that this temporary rise of prices is now at an end. As regards the last part of the Question, I am unable to add anything to the Answers which have been given to similar Questions by the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on October 6th, 1903, the Board of Trade gave permission to the Isle, of Wight Rural District Council to construct an outfall sewer upon the foreshore, at Norton, near Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, in connection with the Freshwater and Totland sewerage scheme, upon condition that the length of pipe from high water mark to the point of discharge should be 1,300 feet and that the pipe was to be laid under the surface of the shore and sea-bed for the first 1,000 feet and partly under the surface of the sea-bed for the remaining 300 feet; and whether, seeing that the contractor has laid the pipe above the surface of the sea-bed, what steps the President of the Hoard of Trade proposes to take to compel the contractor to carry out the drainage according to the plan approved by his Board, in view of the danger to the sanitary condition of Freshwater and Totland, and the obstruction caused to in-shore navigation. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade on the 11th instant called the attention of the rural district council to the facts as stated in the Question, and inquired what steps the council propose to take in order to bring the works into conformity with the plans sanctioned by the Board. The Board are now awaiting the reply of the council. They are, however, not aware that any danger to the sanitary condition of Freshwater and Totland could arise from the pipe as now laid.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the annual increment and annual leave to assistant clerks of the abstractor class in the various Departments. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Heads of Departments were notified this month of improvements in the annual leave and in the annual increments which the Treasury has decided to grant to the class of assistant clerks.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many medical and dental practitioners have been struck off the register during the last ten years for infamous or disgraceful conduct; and in how many instances the names of practitioners have been restored to the register during the same period. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have asked the General Medical Council to furnish me with this information, and when it is received I shall be happy to communicate it to the hon. Member.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the materials used in the manufacture of beer in respect of which a caution as to their use has been issued, and those materials whose employment has been forbidden. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As regards the two years ending April 30th, 1905, the following is a list of the materials used in the manufacture of beer in respect of which a caution as to their use has been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue:—Heading Powders, etc.—Minoka juice, Dublin stout heading, optacreme, clarifoam, cortex quillaia pulvis. Preservatives, etc.—Alginol, universal preservative tablets, phylax, salicylic acid, kalia meta sulphite, antacid neutralisers, gypsum, magnesia sulphate. Hop Substitutes, etc.—Optanin, Bradley's hop supplement, Estcourt's hop supplement. In the following cases the use of the article was objected to by the Board of Inland Revenue:—Flavouring Essences: malt, yeast foods, glucose, invert sugar, etc., containing arsenic. Peptomides, containing arsenic and copper. Stoutine, Baines combined heading and beer preservative, optacreme, ecumin, moussine, clarifoam, heading powders and liquids, containing quillaia extract. Saccharin, sucramine, and other compounds containing saccharin.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland are inviting tenders for the erection of buildings at Glasnevin, and that a supply of Westmoreland slates is specified; and, seeing that Irish slates of first-class quality can be supplied at a much lower cost, whether arrangements will be made to allow of competition between the Irish and English article. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The fact is as stated in the first inquiry, but the Commissioners inform me that their architect will be instructed to allow any contractor, who so desires, to submit an alternative tender for the supply of Irish slates. The Commissioners will further consider the matter when selecting a contractor for the works.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Volunteer officer, injured in proceeding, in accordance with battalion orders, to attend a guard of honour, is entitled to compensation for injuries under the provisions of paragraph 617, Volunteer Regulations. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As the Answer depends on the nature of the guard of honour, and the authority by which the guard was ordered, it is not practicable to give a reply without further particulars on these points.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the statements contained in the report of the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty concerning the insanitary condition of the Island of Lewis, and the inability of the authorities to cope with the evils complained of until the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill becomes law, will he state whether arrangements will be made to take the Second Reading of the Bill before Whitsuntide. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Government are anxious to obtain the Second Reading of this Bill at an early date, and I can only regret an opposition to it which delays its progress.

called Mr. Deputy-Speaker's attention to the fact that a "starred" Question addressed to the Colonial Secretary, which was not reached on the previous day, had not, according to custom, been answered with the printed Papers. He had asked the Colonial Secretary why the walls of the waiting room at the Colonial Office were hung with advertisements of Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co., and he desired to know how he could obtain an Answer.

The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Colonial Secretary why the Answer has not been circulated.

Thank you, Sir.

asked the Colonial Secretary why the Answer to his Question had not been circulated. He attempted to read the Question in full but was stopped by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

said it was a pure oversight that the Question was not answered. Owing to other events of a rather disturbing character that occurred the previous day, the matter escaped his attention, but he had sent to the Colonial Office for the Answer and it would be circulated with the next morning's Votes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been definitely decided to form a torpedo school at Sheerness; and, if so, when the formation of the school is to take place.

It has been decided to form a torpedo school at Sheerness, which it is hoped may be done very shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has definitely decided to remove the school of gunnery from Sheerness to Chatham; and, if so, when the removal is to take place.

This removal has been decided on, but no definite date can yet be stated, as this depends upon how soon the new accommodation at Chatham can be available.

When is it expected that the school buildings will be finished?

I cannot tell; the arrangements are not quite settled.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement of Lord Roberts on May 15th to the effect that only nine places had been found for retired soldiers during the past twelve months in Government Departments; and what he proposes to do in the matter.

My hon. and gallant friend has already drawn my attention to the number of vacancies among messengers in public offices, other than the War Office, which have been filled by pensioners last year. He may rest assured that I have not lost sight of the matter and that I am taking steps towards ensuring increased civil employment in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total cost, including buildings, upkeep, staff, and administration, of military prisons at home and abroad, exclusive of India.

The total cost, as provided in Estimates 1905–6, may be taken at about £65,000.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how much has been expended out of the money provided by Military Works Bills on the fortification of London.

A sum of £85,200 has been expended on the mobilisation centres around London, to which the hon. Member doubtless alludes, out of the loans provided by the Military Works Acts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the special terms under which Goorkas are enlisted in the Indian Army, he can state what steps, if any, the Government of India propose to take in order to compensate them for the losses sustained in the recent earthquake.

It is not correct to say that Goorkas are enlisted on special terms so far as any claim to compensation is concerned, but recommendations for special consideration to those who have suffered have been submitted by the Commander-in-Chief in India, and the decision of the Government of India will shortly be notified.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the efforts of the Mexican Government and the Superior Board of Health at Mexico to stamp out yellow fever and all malarial diseases by exterminating the mosquito by the adoption of certain scientific methods have met with considerable success; and whether, having regard to the fact that malarial fevers are constantly prevailing in parts of India, he will cause inquiries to be made in connection with the Mexico experiment with the object of giving it a trial in India.

I have seen a pamphlet on the subject by the Superior Board of Health at Mexico; and propose to send a copy of it to the Government of India. Experiments of a somewhat similar kind have for some time past been in progress in India, and the experts conducting them are doubtless aware of what is being done in the same direction in other parts of the world.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he knows when the publication of the Report of the Congo Commission of Inquiry may be expected, and the reasons given by the Congo Government for the delay; and whether, having regard to the correspondence with His Majesty's Government which preceded the issue of the Commission, any steps can be taken by His Majesty's Government to hasten the publication of the Report and evidence, in order that its value may be judged.

The three members of the Congo Inquiry Commission have, we understand, only just reassembled at Brussels after a brief holiday, and are now engaged in preparing their Report. His Majesty's Government will not fail to urge upon the Congo Government the importance of early publication.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state, for the financial years 1903, 1904, and 1905, the total amount of income-tax discharged by the Commissioners of Income-Tax on fines applied as productive capital under Rule 5, of No. 2 Schedule A, s. 60, 5 and 6 Victoria, e. 35.

There is no separate record of amounts discharged under this head. It may, however, be said that the number of cases of the kind in any one year is very few.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the electric cables for the pipes which are now laid between Carlisle and Glasgow are likely to be drawn in, and the telegraphic communication completed with Glasgow, before the stormy period of the equinoctial gales; and whether it is in contemplation to extend the underground cables to Dundee and Aberdeen.

The orders for the Carlisle to Glasgow cable were given at the earliest possible moment in this financial year, and were placed with three different makers in order to expedite delivery, but they will not be completed by the equinox. It is not in contemplation to extend the underground line to Dundee and Aberdeen at present.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freight for paper by the New Zealand Shipping Company from Rotterdam to New Zealand via London is 29s. per ton, whilst the freight for the same goods by the same line from London is 40s. per ton; whether he can state if this shipping company receives any subvention for the carrying of mails; whether any explanation can be offered of the fact that it costs less to send goods from London to Rotterdam, back again to London, and thence to New Zealand, than from London to New Zealand direct; whether he is aware that the difference represents over ten per cent, on the cost price of the cheaper kinds of paper; and whether he has instituted or will institute an inquiry into the effect of such discrimination on British trade.

(1) The Board of Trade, are informed by the New Zealand Shipping Company that the rate of freight on paper from London to New Zealand ranges from 28s. 9d. to 55s per ton according to quality, and that the rate from Rotterdam to New Zealand is as stated, viz., 29s. per ton. (2) The Board of Trade understand that the company receives no subvention for the carrying of mails, and the company regard this as placing them at a disadvantage as compared with German lines. (3) The Board of Trade are aware that freights from the United Kingdom to Australia direct are often higher than those from the United Kingdom via a Continental port. The reason is alleged to be that there is keener competition in the latter case. (4) I regret that the result of this competition is that the rates are lower from the Continent than from the United Kingdom, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry as is suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether there has been any cessation in the external work of the Government buildings at the south end of Parliament Street; and when approximately it is expected that the scaffolding will be removed.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The scaffolding will probably be ready for removal in about a year's time.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that sections of town property in Galway City are covered with ruined houses that the landlords will neither sell nor let, that such properties, although situate in some of the best streets of Galway, are free from municipal taxation, and also constitute a disfigurement of the city, and in view of the need for sites upon which to build habitations for the working classes, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation dealing with the subject.

I have no information as to the facts stated in the Question, but, in any event, it is not the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on the subject this session.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland is he aware that the boy, P. D. Williams, who is the principal witness in the charge against Sergeant-Major Murphy of the Connaught Rangers, has been arrested for desertion from his regiment which took place on 1st February last; and, if so, can he state who ordered the arrest of Williams, pending the hearing of the charge against Murphy, who is the sergeant-major of the regiment to which Williams belongs; is Murphy at present doing duty as sergeant-major; and, if not, when did he cease to act, and where is he at present.

The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The arrest was made at the instance of the military authorities. I cannot say whether Sergeant-Major Murphy is at present doing duty, but he is with his regiment at Mullingar, whereas the witness Williams is retained at Dundalk.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is proposed to start a steam laundry at Waterville; and whether, in view of the employment that would be there by given, the Congested Districts Board would be prepared to advance a loan towards the erection of the necessary buildings and machinery.

The Board have decided that they cannot make a loan for the purpose mentioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution, passed by the County Kerry Technical Instruction Committee on the 4th inst., to the effect that it would be impossible to continue to work satisfactorily technical schemes in that county if arrangements are not made between the Department and the Congested Districts Board to give grants towards the county schemes in respect of technical schemes in congested districts; and whether he will take steps to secure to the congested districts of the county the advantages of the county technical instruction schemes.

The resolution has been received. I informed the hon. Member on April 11th † that the Department's funds, under the county scheme, are applicable to congested districts and non-congested districts alike, but that the Congested Districts Board have no funds to contribute to the county scheme. I fear I can add nothing to that reply.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police, who have recently entered the houses of families in the neighbourhood of Athenry, have done so without first obtaining the permission of the owners; whether the police were furnished with special warrants or orders to enter the houses of certain individuals, or whether the police patrol exercises a discretion to enter the house of any person they think fit to enter; what instructions are given to police as to the action they are to take in the event of any resistance being offered to their entrance, and are they instructed to immediately leave the house if ordered by the owner to do so; and were there any criminal charges against the persons whose houses have been entered by the police.

The police have recently entered the houses of certain persons with their implied permission, as anybody else would enter. No express permission was asked for, and no objection was made to their entrance

† See (4) Debates, cxliv., 1275.

Did the police visit any of the landlords' houses on the occasion?

I cannot say, Sir; but the police in England have often visited my house.

Is it proposed to continue to allow the police who patrol this district to exercise this discretion of entering the houses of any peasant during the night?

If I had reason to think that the police entered the houses of the people against their wishes I would give instructions that the practice should be discontinued; but no such information has reached me.

Did the police enter the right hon. Gentleman's house after 10.30 at night without his permission?

My permission has never been asked, but the house has been visited late at night.

Do you leave your door open?

I wish to know how the permission he infers was "implied." Was any effort made before opening the door and walking in to know if the occupants of the house were willing?

I am informed that the police constantly visit the houses of the residents in the district in which they are stationed, and that they are on the best possible terms with the population. No objection was raised to these visits on the part of the inhabitants. If, however, I had any reason to believe that the police exercised their powers in an improper way I would take care to see that regulations were issued to prevent it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, for the information of English Members, what object the police serve in invading the privacy of those homes with or without permission?

I assume that the police have a general duty in regard to the protection of life and property in their district.

What was the purpose for which the police visited the house of the right hon. Gentleman?

The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution adopted at the last meeting of the Waterford County Council, with reference to the spread among the horses in the county Waterford of the disease known as the South African disease; and whether the Government will bear the entire cost of horses destroyed by orders of the veterinary inspectors in the county Waterford, with the view of exterminating this disease, which was introduced into Waterford by artillery horses sent there on the conclusion of the war in South Africa.

The resolution referred to suggests that a general order for the slaughter of diseased horses should be issued, but the Department of Agriculture consider that the requirements of the case have been met by the local order which has been issued, and which is applicable to the particular out-break. A further local order will be framed if necessary. The reply to the last inquiry is in the negative.

Is it not the fact that the disease was introduced into Waterford by Army horses?

I do not, know whether that is the case or not.

The Secretary for War has admitted it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in a case concluded in the Chancery Division, Dublin, on the 18th inst., at the suit of Miss Rose Sweeney, manual instructress of the National School, Carntall, county Tyrone, who sought an injunction and damages against Mr. William Coote, grand master of the local Orange lodge for conspiring to procure her dismissal from her position in the school, Mr. Justice Barton gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, with costs; and whether, under the circumstances, he will see that Mr. Coote's action is brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor with a view to his removal from the commission of the peace.

The judgment in this case was only delivered a few days ago, and there has been no time yet to fully consider it or ascertain whether there may be an appeal.

Is this the same gentleman who was charged with a similar offence in relation to the same school some months ago, and who paid heavy damages in older to avoid a public trial?

In the event of an appeal, will care be taken that the Crown Solicitor for county Tyrone and the Solicitor-General for Ireland do not appear for a man who has been found guilty by a competent Court of an attempt to intimidate a peasant Catholic girl?

I cannot answer a Question of that kind.

Let the Irish Solicitor-General, who is present, answer for himself.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?

I cannot.

I will raise the matter on the Estimates.

Is it intended to prosecute this man on a charge of boycotting?

Is this one of the cases returned as an agrarian outrage?

I do press for a reply to my Question to the Solicitor-General for Ireland.

You had better give notice of it.

When will this ruffian be removed from the commission of the peace?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board purchased a grazing ranch at Knocklane, Magherow, county Sligo, and that instead of dividing the ranch amongst the fishermen and the occupiers of non-economic holdings in the vicinity the Board has let it for grazing; and will he see that this ranch is divided up as soon as possible.

The Board have agreed to purchase these lands, but cannot divide them until they become legally vested in the Board. The necessary proceedings will take some months, and in the meantime the lands have been let for grazing.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will now give the House the report which he has received from the county inspector in reference to the action of police at Cappatagle on 7th inst. in regard to the Member for the Division.

I can only read this Answer, which has already been circulated, by the permission of the House. I have received the following report from the county inspector of Constabulary, to whom this Question was referred:— "No violence was used by the police. Mr. Roche persisted in maintaining that he had a right to address his constituents and he was moved away from the crowd by my orders. I had first informed him that the meeting was proclaimed and that I had a copy of a proclamation which I would give him. I gave it to him when he had been moved about twenty-five yards away. He was not dragged, nor was he moved off his feet. One policeman held him by each arm. District-Inspector Heard did not order his men to drag Mr. Roche down. I was the very first person to go to Mr. Roche and tell him he could not address the meeting, and when he began to argue that he had arranged two months before to address his constituents I took hold of his coat and pulled him off the stile, about eighteen inches from the ground, on which he was standing. Mr. Heard, I think, also caught his coat and said he must come down. No roughness was used, when pulled he stepped off. I then told him he must move on and told the crowd to disperse. He was moved on as I have already mentioned. He was not moved fifty yards, not quite thirty yards. I heard him say, 'Is the county inspector here'? I did not tell the police to let him go. When they had moved him from the crowd they loosed their hold of his arms. There were no reporters present or regular representatives of the Press. Mr. Roche says he held on to the platform. There was no platform. There was a proclamation posted on the wall opposite Mr. Roche, not twelve feet from him. Mr. Roche must have been well aware the meeting was proclaimed. He had been staying the night with Father Fahy, and I myself had told Father Fahy of the proclamation. The police did nothing that was not perfectly consistent with their duty in preventing the holding of the meeting, and no violence was used to Mr. Roche nor any rough treatment that could be construed as violence."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in a case lately heard in the King's Bench, Dublin, before Mr. Justice Kenny, at the suit of a man named Carroll, against Constables Masterson and Cryan, Royal Irish Constabulary, Mountmellick, for alleged false arrest, and imprisonment, and assault, the jury found for plaintiff on all issues, and assessed damages at £100; and whether he will state, as Constable Masterson has been suspended from duty, what course he proposes to adopt with reference to Constable Cryan.

Judgment was only delivered in this case a few days ago. The Inspector-General has the matter under consideration, but, I have not yet received his report.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, during the year 1904, a total of 206 agrarian outrages were reported to the Inspector-General of Constabulary in Ireland, including twenty-eight incendiary fires; eleven killing, cutting, or maiming cattle; 124 cases of intimidation; thirteen injury to property; twelve firing into dwellings; and that in 188 cases offenders were neither convicted nor made amenable; can he explain why such a large proportion of offenders escaped the consequences of their acts; and whether he will take steps to strengthen the powers of the constabulary in discovering the perpetrators of these outrages, and bringing them to justice.

My hon. friend has correctly stated the facts, which are set out in the Return of Agrarian Offences recently presented to Parliament. The immunity from punishment of so many of the offenders arises to some extent from the fact that many of the offences are committed under the cover of darkness, and that in cases of threatening letters and notices it is difficult to prove the handwriting of the offender. I think, however, that the chief cause of this immunity is an unfortunate and unwise reluctance on the part of the victims of intimidation to come forward and give evidence against the guilty persons. It is quite obvious that constabulary action alone cannot completely overcome these difficulties, but if the sufferers would only seek the protection of the law, and if those members of the community who are entitled to share in the administration of justice would do their duty, I believe that disorder would be effectually grappled with. There is no ground for any imputation against the constabulary.

In how many of the cases of alleged intimidation did the people send the intimidatory notices to themselves?

Seeing that there are 188 cases In which no one has been made amenable, can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the offences wore committed by the police themselves?

None.

Was any person injured in any of these manufactured outrages?

How many of the cases of cattle-maiming and killing were the work of Sergeant Sheridan?

Does the right, hon. Gentleman contemplate any further reduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what was the result of the recent investigation held at Mountmellick by order of the Inspector-General of Constabulary into the charge made against Constable Reddy of using offensive and insulting expressions towards respectable residents of the town; and whether, seeing that this policeman was obliged to make a public apology before the County Court Judge at Mountmellick within the past twelve months, in a case in which he was charged with assaulting and using insulting language towards a resident in the town (which offence was alleged to have been committed outside complainant's door), he proposes that the services of Constable Reddy should be retained in Mountmellick.

Constable Reddy was found to have made an unbecoming observation, but it appeared to have been made jestingly and in reply to a remark addressed to him. He has been cautioned by the Inspector-General as to his future behaviour. In the second case referred to, an action was taken against the constable for a technical assault, which consisted in his seizing a man whom he found hiding in a gateway at night. There was no charge of using insulting language on that occasion. The County Court Judge justified the constable's conduct, but suggested that he should apologise, which he did. It is not intended to transfer the constable at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Clause 9, Form P, under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, gives no protection to the tenant from the day he signs the agreement until the sale is sanctioned by the Land Commission; and that one or two years may elapse from the date of the agreement and the confirmation of the sale, the tenant in the meantime being liable for his old rent not withstanding his having agreed to pay interest to the Land Commission at £3 10s. per cent.; and whether, seeing that Clause 8 in Form F gives protection to the tenant between the date of his agreement to purchase and completion of sale, some similar protection can be given to the tenant in Clause 9 of Form P.

Form P is an undertaking signed by the tenant that he will purchase his holding from the Land Commission in case they purchase the estate of which it forms part. The signing of this undertaking does not alter the legal position of the tenant unless and until the Land Commission buy the estate. No ground, therefore, exists for making the arrangement suggested in the concluding query.

But why the difference?

Because in the one case there is a definite and in the other only a conditional agreement.

But have not the Estates Commissioners a right to either accept or reject the agreement?

No

I will ask the Attorney-General whether under Form F protection is given and inspection must take place?

The hon. Member is probably wrong, but I had better have notice.

Well, I am not paid a big salary like the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure I am right.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an inquest held to inquire into the circumstances attending the death of Michael Healy, an inmate of the Youghal Auxiliary Asylum, which took place on the 12th inst.; and whether, in view of the fact that the jury in their verdict urged a separate hospital for inmates suffering from infectious disease, and that the frequency of deaths from consumption and contagious disease is caused by the absence of isolation of such patients from other inmates, it is still intended to retain such cases in the auxiliary asylum.

It is the fact that the jury made a recommendation to the effect stated. The patient died of consumption, a disease which has only in recent years been recognised to be of an infectious nature. I am informed that, so far, a few of the largest asylums only have attempted to isolate such cases, but doubtless, as experience is gained, the question will receive further consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the result of the Inspector-General's inquiry as to why members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in C District, Belfast were obliged to seek medical attendance at their own expense other than that provided for the purpose.

The Inspector-General found that no sufficient grounds of complaint against the medical attendant existed.

In view of the facts that came out, will the right hon. Gentleman agree, to pay the expenses of the constabulary? Will the expenditure the men have incurred be refunded to them?

I will consider that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any communications, verbal or written, have passed during the past twelve months between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and any Irish County Court Judges or Recorders on the subject of their retirement from the bench.

No, Sir.

Do I understand that no communications have passed, whether direct or indirect, oral or written?

That is the information given me by the Lord Chancellor.

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has been again misinformed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with the sale of the Newman Estate, Dromore, Mallow, county Cork, it is proposed by the landlord to exclude from the scheme the holding of a tenant, Mr. T. O'Callaghan, D.C., although he holds under a judicial tenancy and is prepared to purchase on the same terms as the other tenants; and whether, in view of the fact that this case does not come under any of the sub-heads (a), (b), (c), and (d), which deal with the exclusion of holding in the Interim Report of the Estates Commissioners, the Commissioners will decline to sanction the advance in connection with this estate unless this tenant be included in the general arrangement.

The first part of the Question was answered on 21st February last. † As to the second part; the sub-heads referred to are merely examples of sufficient reasons for exclusion, and not a complete statement of such reasons. The advance to the landlord has been made.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mails used to be delivered at Sneem at 9.45 am., but that they are now only delivered at noon, and that it is consequently impossible for traders to reply to letters until the following day; and whether arrangements could be made, so that the mail car should leave Head-ford at an earlier hour, and thereby ensure an earlier delivery of letters at Sneem.

I will have inquiry made on the subject of the mails to Sneem and inform the hon. Member of the result.

† See (4) Debates cxli., 761.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether additional appointments are about being made under the Board of Irish Lights Commissioners; and, if so, will he state at whose suggestion those appointments are being made, what expense they will entail, and will the additional expense come within the purview of the House of Commons.

Two additional appointments under the Commissioners of Irish Lights have recently been made. An assistant inspector of lights at a salary of £250 rising by annual increments of £15 to £350 per annum; a typewriting clerk at a salary of £60 rising by annual increments of £6 to £96 per annum. The appointments were proposed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights and were sanctioned by the Board of Trade after being considered by a special Committee appointed by them for the purpose. The additional expense will not come within the purview of the House of Commons, as it will fall upon the General Lighthouse Fund and not upon any Parliamentary Vote.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the risk arising from the fact that fifty-nine foreign pilots are employed on our coast, he will consider the advisability of granting pilotage certificates for English waters to British subjects only.

It is quite true that a certain number of foreigners are allowed to be pilots in our waters, although there are no foreign pilots registered in other countries. I have great sympathy with those who think that, if we admit foreign pilots in our waters foreign countries ought to admit British pilots to their waters. The matter is engaging the attention of the Government, but I ought to add that I do not think the circumstances are productive of any serious national danger.

Has any complaint ever been made of the way in which they discharge their duties?

I gather that the complaint would come when this country was at war with some country to whom these foreign pilots belonged.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the impending legislation promised by the Government on the questions in dispute between the United Free Church and the legal Free Church, it is with his knowledge and sanction that the Solicitor-General for Scotland appeared in the Court of Session, on Tuesday, May 16th, as counsel for the legal Free Church.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland was interested in this case before he was Solicitor-General, and it would be a hardship to his clients to abandon the case which he has undertaken. It is perfectly consistent with the Treasury Minute that the Scottish law officers should undertake practice when it does not interfere with public duties. It is conceivable that cases might arise where there would be conflict. But the Solicitor-General ought not to have, and will not have, any part in the drawing up of the Bill which the Government propose to introduce before Whitsuntide.

Is it in the interests of the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman is about to introduce for the purpose of settling this serious ecclesiastical difficulty that a member of the Government should be closely associated with one of the parties?

I think this is a matter well understood in Scotland and Scottish practice. I confess that I think it is an unfortunate thing, but clearly the Solicitor-General is not to blame.

He ought to have given it up when he was appointed.

They never give up anything.

The only persons who would suffer if he were to withdraw would be his clients.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Solicitor-General shall not appear in other cases?

I agree that he ought not to take on fresh cases dealing with impending legislation.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice—whether, in view of the confusion created by recent declarations of Ministers with regard to fiscal policy, and in particular with regard to the proposed Colonial Conference, he will give a day on which we may bring forward a vote of censure on the Government.

Before my right hon. friend answers this Question, I crave the leave of the House to ask him one other Question—whether, in the possible event of his giving facilities for another discussion, he will make an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to offer at all events some expression of regret for the obstruction and insulting language levelled against a Cabinet Minister of the Crown for fifty minutes last evening.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I ask you whether it is in order to attribute insulting language to the Leader of the Opposition.

I do not think that expression was very happily chosen. There was a great deal of clamour and noise, but there were no expressions which I think could be called insulting—at all events, none which reached my ears. There were some expressions which were of a somewhat offensive character, no doubt, but not what would be called insulting.

I will withdraw the word then, Sir, and substitute the word you used from the Chair— "offensive."

I confess I was somewhat surprised at the note which the right hon. Gentleman has sent me, wherein he talks about the confusion created by recent declarations of Ministers. There were two Ministers prepared to clear up that confusion, if it existed; they were prevented from doing so by the disgraceful scene which took place last night, and I did not notice that the right hon. Gentleman took any steps to prevent that disgraceful scene. I have, so far as I am concerned, no objection to giving time for the further discussion of the matter, interrupted in the manner which I have just described, provided that we have some undertaking that the debate shall take place under ordinary conditions of decency and fair play.

Will the Prime Minister give that undertaking?

moved as an Amendment to reduce the tea duty from 6d. to 4d. He was, he said, very pleased that it had fallen to his lot to move that reduction, because if there was one tax to which he objected more than any other it was the tea duty. They had long been anxious for a free breakfast table, but so long as the present Government remained in office the vision of a free breakfast table receded more and more into the dim and distant future. When one considered the incidence of the tea tax he was driven to the conclusion that it was not defensible. It affected the rich infinitely less than it affected the poor. Very few wealthy people had suffered from the heavy duties which had been placed on tea by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, on the other hand, there could be no doubt that the poorest classes had suffered to a very considerable extent. On the preceding day one of the hon. Members for Ireland complained very bitterly of the effect which the tea tax had on the peasantry of that country, and anyone who knew anything about the poorer classes was bound to admit the existence of the grievance. In his own constituency there were a large number of agricultural labourers who consumed considerable quantities of tea, and this tax had proved to them a very heavy burden. Many of these unfortunate people were in receipt of out relief, and it was well to bear in mind that the increase of the tea duty had not been followed by a proportionate addition to their out relief. This was a class of people who lived very largely on tea and bread and butter, and they were consequently the chief sufferers by the tax. Again, the Colonies had been hit very severely by it. Of course, the burden was borne by the consumer and not by the producer, but when a tax was put upon an article one effect was to reduce the consumption of it and in that way the producers were hit. It was an extraordinary fact that a Government which was always boasting of its interest in the Colonies should have chosen that particularly thick stick with which to beat them. No doubt the money was required by the Government, but the necessity arose to a not inconsiderable extent from the inefficiency of the War Office. If the recent speech of the Prime Minister meant anything at all, it meant that there should be a reduction in the War Office Estimates, but instead of that they had an increase of £1,000,000.

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that.

said he did not propose to deal with the Prime Minister's speech. He was only pointing out it was because of the increase in the Estimates that this tea duty was imposed. He would like, however, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he reconciled his action in imposing this tea duty with the fiscal views he was known to hold? Did he consider that the tea tax was the best tax which could be imposed in the light of those views?

said he was prepared to support the Amendment. Having failed on the previous day to get Ireland excluded from the operation of the tea duty, he certainly felt justified in trying to get it reduced to as low a figure as possible. He had never heard any solid argument in or out of the House in favour of the taxation of tea at such a high rate. The hon. Member who last spoke had suggested that there might be something to be said in its favour if it were an ad valorem duty. Having regard to the fact that tea at 1s. Per 1b., such as was consumed by the very poorest of the poor, bore exactly the same duty as the higher priced teas, he did think no valid argument could be advanced for keeping it at its present level. Undoubtedly a duty of 6d. per 1b. was out of all proportion to the value of the article. Poor people had to consider every penny they spent, and when a protective duty to the extent of at least 50 per cent. was put upon their tea, they were driven to drink bad and deleterious preparations. In the days of the late Mr. Gladstone, who was one of the greatest Finance Ministers this country ever had, they very nearly approached their ideal of a free breakfast table, but since then they had travelled very far in an opposite direction. In the interests of the poorest classes of the country, and especially of the poor of Ireland, he supported the reduction of a tax which pressed the most heavily on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.

said he wished to press the Amendment on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to support his hon. friend in his endeavour to get the tea duty back to the point at which it stood before the war tax was put on. They had had increased taxes put upon beer, spirits, tobacco, tea, sugar, and other articles of consumption, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that the first tax of which there should be a remission was the tax on tea. Indeed, the right, hon. Gentleman had already realised that by reducing the duty on tea by 2d. He thought the time had come when they ought to make a protest against these war taxes being retained, especially those taxes which had been placed on the necessities of life. He was not speaking particularly of the taxes on beer and spirits, about the removal of which he was not specially concerned, but in regard to the taxes on tea and sugar he thought they ought to take every opportunity of pressing on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance and necessity of at once removing them. Of course they would be told by the right hon. Gentleman that there was a certain amount of revenue to be raised, and a certain amount of expenditure to be met, and that, therefore, it was necessary to look round to see where he could get the money. But he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better for him to direct his attention to the necessity for a reduction of expenditure. That was the best possible economy, and it would prove the easiest way of making a reduction in the taxation which was becoming such a great burden on the people.

said there could be no advantage in attempting to discuss on each individual Motion the far wider questions which were raised by the Bill, and he would therefore confine his remarks to this particular Amendment. This was a Motion to double the amount of the remission on the tea duty he had proposed. He had this year a much smaller sum than he could have wished for to devote to the remission of taxation, and, for reasons which he had already I explained, he chose the tea duty as the subject of remission, and he was bound to say that under this Bill the proportion of taxation was more favourable to the indirect taxpayer than it had been for a long time. He did not, however, attach much importance to that matter, though in the remission of the year and the amount he had available for remission, it seemed to him obvious that this tax was the best subject for that operation. It was complained that the tax stood above what it was before the war. Sir Stafford Northcote had once laid down the very true dictum that no progress could be made with paying off the burden of a great war except by retaining some proportion, at any rate, of the war taxes. But his defence did not rest on that only. His predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, had pointed out that the difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not to provide for the great and heavy expenses of a war which had lasted longer than any one had anticipated that it would, but to make provision for the increased expenditure that would remain in peace. For the expenditure of the present day they needed the money provided for in this Bill. They could not dispense with the money that would be involved in the further remission asked for, and it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for North Cork that the tea duty should be an ad valorem duty. There was a great deal that was attractive in the idea, but there were great difficulties in its practical application. No one in the tea trade would give him the slightest encouragement in any effort he might make to convert the tea duty into an ad valorem duty, their view being that it would cause much disturbance and interruption; in the trade as well as injustice to dealers and producers of different qualities of tea. An association which had been pictorially very active in this City recently, had not scrupled to use the arguments for a high ad valorem duty; but when a gentleman went to ascertain whether they were in favour of an ad valorem duty, they disclaimed all sympathy with the idea, although they had adopted this as the most effective method of stating their case against the tax. He did not think that was either very honest or very creditable to them. It was said by hon. Members opposite that the Irish people always drank good tea. If that were so, the effect of an ad valorem duty must be pro tanto to encourage them to drink inferior tea and discourage the drinking of the better class teas. On the other hand, if it did not change their taste—and so far as the Irish were concerned he did not think it would—it would impose a heavier tax upon them. He did not feel called upon to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Barnstaple as to how he reconciled the tea tax with his views on fiscal policy. That was not material to the issue before the House. He could only add that he saw no way in which the revenue necessary for the expenditure of the country could be better raised: than the proposals he had put before the House.

said the right hon. Gentleman had rather objected to his hon. friend's action in raising on that discussion the question of national expenditure, but, in his opinion, that was the only opportunity which Members of the House of Commons had of raising that important question and of pointing out that all these extra taxes on tea, sugar, tobacco, and spirits were entirely due to the increased expenditure to which the Government had put the country in connection with the late war. With regard to the tea duty they ought to bear in mind that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, said that that was specifically a war tax. The unfortunate thing, however, was that although the war was now over the tax was still retained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that it was necessary to retain a certain amount of taxation in order to pay off the debt incurred in time of war, but unfortunately that was not what the Government were now doing. They were not paying off the extra burdens imposed in time of war, and, therefore, he contended that the tea tax, as it was presumably put on as a war tax, ought now to be dropped. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the question of the importance to be attached to the proportion which direct taxation bore to indirect taxation. Well, he was bound to confess that he could not agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in the conclusions which he had drawn from those figures, but that question they would be able to discuss later on. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that he had a better way of raising revenue. Surely it was inconsistent on his part to make a proposal to the country which he believed to be not the best for the consumer and the taxpayers of the country. It was not a position in which he would like to find himself. But apparently the right hon. Gentleman had taken it in order to retain office. The Government were bound by the pledges they had given.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject of discussion is the tea duty.

said his point was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the country that he knew a better way of raising the revenue than by means of the tea tax, and they were entitled to ask him what that way was. The Opposition were not responsible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's inability to take off the 2d. put on as a war tax, and were entitled to protest against its continuance now that the war was over.

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to justify the tax on tea, by his statement that he required the money, but on that ground they could justify any other tax by saying that so much money was required. The answer to that was that the expenditure of the country ought to be kept within reasonable limits. It should be borne in mind in regard to the duty on tea that a great proportion of the tea received in this country was now obtained from our own Colonies, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was closely allied to those Members in the House who believed in the preferential treatment of the Colonies, this extra 2d. per 1b. in excess of the duty prior to the war was probably being retained to give to the Colonies in exchange for some advantage which it was suggested they could give to us but which was purely mythical. It certainly did appear unwise on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep up the extra duty on tea, a duty which was imposed for the purposes of the war, and the necessity for which ought no longer to be existent. In his opinion the duty was unfair, it was unnecessary, and had pressed extremely heavily upon the working people of the country. They heard a good deal now-a-days about the unemployed, and about people who were starving in all parts of the country, and it certainly did seem to him to be unwise that they should keep up a tax upon tea equivalent to 100 per cent. of its value whilst at the same time they had to legislate to find employment for the people who paid this tax. He thought, therefore, there were very considerable and strong reasons for rejecting the proposal of the Government.

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that those who tad proposed the reduction of the tea duty had not suggested any alternative, but he thought that there was an alternative which might well have been used, and that was a revision of the duties upon licences.

Order, order! That is scarcely relevant to the tea tax. At present the Committee is only asked to decide as to the imposition of the tea duty.

said he had respectfully to submit that in discussing whether the tax on tea should be 4d. or 6d. they were entitled to suggest an alternative method of raising the money, and he was attempting to do so. He was simply pointing out that there was an injustice in the present scale of licence duties, and if the Government would only level up those duties and make them to accord with the views which the Government expressed when the Licensing Bill was before the House they would produce the necessary revenue, and it would be unnecessary to tax the tea consumers of the country.

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that for his part he attached very little significance to any equality between direct and indirect taxation in the allocation of revenue, but he seemed to think that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House attached very great importance to that subject. As one who had had to trouble the House two or three times on the point, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that none of them attached the smallest importance to any equality in the total sum raised by indirect or direct taxation. What they did attach importance to was the weight of taxation resting upon individuals, and they held that that weight of taxation should not be greater on the average poor man than it was upon the average rich man. They wanted a Committee of inquiry which would give them some authoritative information upon this question. Those of them who had honestly and laboriously made inquiries had come to the conclusion that the actual burden of taxation was heavier on the working classes than upon the middle and rich classes, and, so long as the contrary was not proved by an official inquiry they should feel it their duty to vote against the present unfair system of indirect taxation. It was a sound principle that each man should pay according to his; ability to pay, and as that principle was not observed in our system of finance, it was their duty to vote against maintaining the tea duty at its present level. The right hon. Gentleman had justified this tax by saying that after the war it was necessary to keep on war taxation in order to meet additional charges which the war had necessitated. The present Government had increased the expenditure of the country by £49,000,000, and out of that total only £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 could properly be attributed to the war. The other £45,000,000 or £44,000,000 had nothing whatever to do with the war; and therefore it was absurd to justify this expenditure by saying that it was necessitated by the war. For these reasons he hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division.

said he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow this debate to close without giving the House some assurance on the points brought forward by his hon. friend Without discussing the whole question of war taxation, surely they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, it was his intention to regard the present taxation as a permanent peace taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made many statements on this subject, and they wished to know whether if he occupied his present official position next year, he would keep in mind the pledge which had been given to the House, that the tax they were considering was a war tax which ought to be repealed with the least possible delay. With regard to the tea duty he was pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with it as he did, and he ventured to say that that was one of the principal reasons why the Budget was so generally popular, because the great mass of the people benefited by it. It was felt that there was a stronger claim for relief in regard to tea than any other article. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Budget, admitted that he was largely influenced in the course he took by the fact that his proposal would benefit the Colonies. That showed that, after all, there was something in agitation, and there was very little doubt that, but for the vigorous agitation which had been carried on by the Colonies, the importance of the reduction he had made would not have been brought home to him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them about his enormous sympathy with the Colonies, and surely that was a reason why he ought still further to reduce the taxation upon tea. The case put that afternoon was absolutely reasonable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do anything which would be more gratefully received by all classes than to still further reduce this tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept this Amendment he thought they would be able to find some other direction from which to raise the money which would be more acceptable to the House. While they were grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for small mercies they were not unwilling to accept others. This duty was one of the first things which ought to claim his attention. Of course they could not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them any outline of his policy in regard to a future Budget, but if he would tell them that he was fully alive to the justice of what they were demanding it would be received with satisfaction by the Committee. Some very distinguished authorities were absolutely at loggerheads as to the actual bearing of direct and indirect taxation, and they were to some extent in the dark as to the actual facts. Therefore he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the appeal made by his hon. friend and consent to the appointment of this Committee. This had been asked for several times, and he could easily select certain financial experts in the House, thus showing some indication of a desire to meet the reasonable request which had been made from the Opposition side of the House.

said he wished to support the appeal which had been made by his hon. friend for the appointment of this Committee. He thought there ought to be no tax at all upon tea. From a temperance point of view, and because tea was a necessity of life which came from other countries, it ought not to be taxed, more particularly when it was so largely consumed by the working classes. The ratio of indirect taxation was only 50 per cent. in the case of the English taxpayer, whereas in Ireland, with a much poorer population who drank more tea in proportion than the people of Great Britain, the ratio of indirect taxation was 72 per cent. A labourer in Ireland earning 15s. a week paid as much in indirect taxation as a labourer in England earning 25s. to 30s. a week. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not adopt a non possumus attitude, because there was a very large amount of public feeling in favour of lessening taxation on tea, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that he owed to the country and to the House some recognition for receiving his Budget so quietly, not withstanding the large expenditure which it entailed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the appointment of this Committee.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he would consider the propriety of appointing a Select Committee or a Departmental Committee to inquire as to the way the tea tax affected the various classes of the community. On his side of the House they would like to see a Committee appointed to consider the whole question of the incidence of direct and indirect taxation. He was quite in favour of everybody contributing to the funds of the State, and he thought they should do so in proportion to their means. Such a Committee as had been suggested by his hon. friends might ensure a recommendation which would do away with the taxes on necessary articles of life. He believed tea was a necessary article to the working classes as they at present lived in this country. The tax pressed unduly on the working classes, and especially the class he represented. To agricultural labourers with 12s. a week the tax upon tea was a very great burden, and it was more than their means justified.

said he could not undertake to deal at once with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Nobody who had spoken had contended that an inquiry into the tea tax alone would be of any value. What hon. Members really desired was an inquiry into the circumstances of the whole system of taxation. Those who had given any attention to the subject at all knew that probably a more difficult question to solve could not be submitted to any body of individuals, and the suggestion really was to devolve upon a Committee, he did not know exactly how denominated, duties essentially pertaining to this House—those of seeing that their system of taxation was just and fair. Hon. Gentlemen had some idea that possibly a Committee of that kind could demonstrate to the satisfaction of everybody and place beyond dispute the exact incidence of their present system of taxation. He believed that to be impossible. Great minds, learned men, deep students, had devoted a great deal of attention to that subject, but he was not aware that anyone had arrived at conclusions satisfactory to any other expert, and certainly not to conclusions which were generally acceptable. The task which would be propounded to a Committee would be, he thought, an impossible one, and unless they could show him there was practical work to be done, which he had not yet appreciated, he could not agree to appoint such a Committee as suggested. Of course, if the mover had a definite idea which he would care to discuss with him, he would be pleased to do so. He submitted, with all respect, that it was extremely difficult for a Minister or for the House to discuss a Bill of the present kind if on every clause, and at every stage, wide issues such as would be raised on a Second or Third Reading were raised again and again. He did not believe it had ever been attempted to be done before, and he ventured to submit it did not tend to the efficient discharge of business.

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not quite fair to the House in giving this lecture as to how the debates should be conducted. This was the first Motion on which they could deal with direct and indirect taxation, and the hon. Members who had spoken had conducted the debate with due regard to the rules of the House. With regard to the appointment of a Committee, he thought that all the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said had rather strengthened the suggestion made by his hon. friends. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he had not been able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the question at issue, and that itself was a reason why he should agree to the appointment of a Committee. Great advantage had been derived from the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Certainly the Government had not dealt with the question as it might have done, but in the evidence, and in the conclusions which the Commission had laid before the House they had a valuable mine of information. He submitted that the same advantages would follow if the right hon. Gentleman consented to the appointment of the Committee which in this case had been asked. He wished to press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that the tea duty of 6d. now proposed included 2d. which was put on for war taxation. While it would not be fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to outline his future policy with regard to finance, or what he intended to do in his next Budget, he might inform the House as to his views with regard to the tea tax remaining at 6d. in time of peace. The tax was equal to 75 per cent, of the value of the article, and that, he submitted, was far too high a percentage in time of peace. The Committee would certainly appreciate the statement if the right hon. Gentleman could really tell them that he did not consider 6d. the normal duty to be imposed on tea, and that he would take the first opportunity of bringing it back to the old level of 4d. which existed before the war.

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exceedingly well advised in declining to remit this question to a Committee. What the difference was between direct and indirect taxation no man had ever been able to pronounce with certainty. One school of economists held that one kind of tax was direct, while another school held that it was indirect. The different schools of economists were not agreed, and therefore it would not be reasonable to expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree where the doctors so considerably differed. Could any hon. Member say whether a licence was a direct or an indirect tax? He got no answer. In the rough-and-ready classification adopted by the ordinary financier at the Treasury it was classed a direct tax, but he himself held that it was absolutely indirect because the licensee put the charge on the price of the beer. Customs duties were generally held to be indirect, but he held that in one respect they were very direct. This was a very complicated question which a Committee could not solve. He went further.

You are travelling away from the Amendment before the Committee.

said this was a Ways and Means Bill for raising money to meet the supply of the year. In his opinion it did not afford a field on which economists should assert themselves in moving the reduction of taxation. It was in Supply that should be done. Once they had agreed to the grant they must find the ways and means. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He admitted that there might be different methods. When hon. Members came forward with a proposal to take two pence off the tea duty they should be prepared with an alternative.

We have been ruled out of order on that point.

said he did not rule the hon. Member out of order. He thought it was pertinent when a reduction was moved to show that there were other means of raising the money. Many hon. Members opposite were as anxious as he was to reduce the expenditure of the country, but he wished to impress upon them that this was not the best opportunity. It should be done not only in Supply, but when Works Bills were brought before them. Every one of these Bills ought to be strangled remorselessly. He very much doubted whether any reduction of taxation would be in the true interest of economy this year. The present need was to get rid of the load of debt, and that implied rather increased taxation.

said the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the purpose for which the Committee was proposed. They were dealing now with the tea duty, and the argument that the tax was heavier on the poorer than the wealthier classes. The question of the whole incidence of these taxes should come before the Committee. He was assured that the consumer paid the tea duty. Of course, such a Committee as had been suggested would have to exclude from its purview the coal tax; but it would be its business to assess the proportion of taxation which ought to be borne by certain articles——

The hon. Gentleman is out of order in pursuing that line of argument.

said that he ventured to move last year that the tea duty should be reduced from 8d. to 6d. per pound, and he was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken his advice. But there was another piece of advice he had given the right hon. Gentleman which had not been adopted. He felt assured that if the right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee on the incidence of taxation, the Committee might have approached more nearly than now to a solution of this great problem, which was to adjust taxation so that it should fall on the shoulders of those who could bear it with the least inconvenience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on his advice last year, made this reduction on the tea duty; but he wished that the right hon. Gentleman could have carried it further, because the very poor who bought their tea in very small quantities would not derive much benefit from the reduction. He was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Budget Bill, say that this reduction would be beneficially felt in every household in the United Kingdom. That was sound economic doctrine, because it was undoubtedly the consumer who had to pay this impost, although the foreign producer gained a certain benefit. He ought to say that in the case of tea it was the colonial producer in India and Ceylon. Undoubtedly the tendency of a large tax on a particular article was to diminish consumption. It should be remembered that India was a miserably poor country, and anything which diminished employment in India diminished the chances of these poor natives of obtaining a decent existence. India was the most thickly populated portion of His Majesty's dominions. It had been afflicted with plague and famines, and all the ills which afflicted humanity; and anything which could benefit that country would benefit this country. They heard a great deal about colonial preference and the desirability of doing anything we could for the benefit of the Colonies. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conferred, by this reduction of the tea duty, a practical benefit on India. In Ceylon the tea industry had been the industrial salvation of the island, the population of which was the most loyal in the whole Empire. Ceylon, twenty years ago, was in a state of bankruptcy, and the tea cultivation saved it. The tea duty, imposed a few years ago, crippled that colony; and he

said that this discussion had been largely academic, but he could not let pass the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite who urged that such a tax as the duty tea fell wholly on the consumer. He was old enough to remember that the late Earl Russell said he was quite convinced that moderate indirect taxation fell in equal proportions on the producer and the consumer.

said he had only quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was following his lead. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not also follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer.