I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether there were any complaints made against Mr. Clement Millard, superintendent civil engineer at Portland, before his dismissal; whether those complaints were inquired into by the Admiralty; arid, if so, when and how; whether notice of the grounds of complaint was ever given to Mr. Millard; and whether he had an opportunity afforded him of answering them.

The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension with regard to the reasons which led to the discharge of Mr. Millard from the Admiralty service. He was discharged, not as a result of complaints made against him, but upon a careful consideration of his general record, which had been increasingly unsatisfactory for some time, and which had previously necessitated his removal from Chatham to a less responsible post. The inquiry recently held at Portland was primarily concerned with investigating certain serious charges made by Mr. Millard against an officer who had formerly served under him. Those charges were found to be groundless, and whilst certain countercharges were brought against Mr. Millard by the officer referred to, they were not considered of sufficient importance to call for a more thorough investigation, nor was the decision of the Admiralty in any way influenced by them. The decision to dispense with Mr. Millard's further services was based solely upon his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office, and the Admiralty, after the fullest consideration, and acting under the authority vested in them, came to the conclusion that they could no longer retain him in the Government service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state who is the officer or what is the authority whose duty it is to make inquiries and obtain the information which enables officers to be selected for promotion, or any staff appointment, or special service; and whether the selection is based on personal knowledge or entirely on formal reports.

The confidential reports of officers of the Army are in the custody of the Military Secretary, who is also secretary of the Selection Board. Selections for command or promotion are made by this Board, and when further information is required about any officer it is obtained from General Officers Commanding by the secretary. These selections are made partly as a result of personal knowledge and partly from a study of the formal reports on an officer throughout his career. Staff appointments are made, on the same principle as promotions, by the member of the Army Council who presides over the branch concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any authority to which officers of the Army may appeal when they consider themselves aggrieved by the action of their superior officers; and what steps such aggrieved officers are permitted to take to obtain an inquiry into their complaint.

An officer who thinks himself wronged by his Commanding Officer may appeal to the General Officer Commanding, and if he thinks himself wronged by the General Officer Commanding in respect of his complaint not being redressed, may demand that it be forwarded to the Army Council. The Army Council examine into such complaint and give their decision thereon. If the officer considers that his complaint is still unredressed he may appeal to the Sovereign, which appeal will be submitted by the Secretary of State for War.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until very lately the Military Secretary received upwards of 100 officers every week to enable them to lay before him any points on which they were aggrieved, and that the Commander-in-Chief also held periodical levees for the same purpose? Is there now any opportunity afforded for personal statements?

I can assure my hon. and gallant friend that complaints are constantly received and dealt with, and no privilege has been taken away from the officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the system of linked battalions is still in force among the infantry of the Line; whether drafts for battalions serving abroad are still furnished from the battalions serving at home; whether, in all cases, one of the linked battalions is serving in the United Kingdom; or, if not, in how many cases are both battalions serving abroad; and how, in such cases, drafts are trained and furnished to both battalions.

The system of linked battalions is still in force and drafts are still furnished from battalions serving at home. There are four regiments which have no battalion at home. In these cases the drafts are furnished by the details with the provisional battalion formed for the purpose, or, if these are insufficient to feed both battalions, the battalion which is on short tour abroad is treated as if it were at home and is liable to be called upon for drafts for the other battalion, its link, which is abroad on its proper foreign tour.

May I ask whether the battalion of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, now under orders for the Mediterranean, would relieve one of the so-called home-service battalions, or whether this would not make a fifth regiment abroad without a linked battalion at home; and also whether, in the case of four battalion regiments like the 60th Rifle Brigade, the right hon. Gentleman considers that when each of these has three battalions abroad and one at home it can be held that each battalion abroad has a linked battalion at home.

No, Sir, it could not be. I must ask for notice as to the first supplementary Question.

I apologise to the House for pressing this matter, but it is of some importance to the profession. May I ask whether instead of counting four home-service battalions abroad it would not be well to take the Army List statement, which shows seven.

made no reply.

That's a poser.

in accordance with private notice, asked when the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee would be presented to the House; when the evidence would be available; and how and by whom the recommendations of the Committee had been communicated to the Press before being presented to the House.

said the Report had been received and communicated both to the Council of Defence and the Public Accounts Committee, as representing the House of Commons. The evidence would be presented as soon as it was printed. He was not aware how the recommendations of the Committee had reached the Press, and certainly it was not through the War Office

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the guns belonging to ships lately discarded by the Admiralty could be made available for Garrison Artillery Volunteers; and, if so, whether he will supply them to those Volunteer companies that still have nothing but muzzle-loading 64-pounder guns to drill with.

This question is at present under consideration. It is probable that a certain number of guns will become available at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has already communicated with any of the Colonial Premiers with a view to arranging for a conference of Colonial Premiers in 1906.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government, in view of the disturbances reported to His Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte, will enter into friendly conference with the Governments of France and Italy with a view to the early augmentation of the existing Consular staff in the European and Asiatic provinces of Turkey, by the appointment of travelling Consular attaches and assistants to the Consulates in those vilayets.

His Majesty's Government do not consider that there are sufficient grounds for suggesting to the French and Italian Governments a simultaneous increase of the Consular staff of the three countries in the Ottoman Empire. The Consulate at Adrianople has been recently reopened, and no further increase appears necessary at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can announce the steps which have been taken, or will be taken, for the safe escort of British Mahommedan natives of India travelling between Jeddah and Mecca, and Medina, during the present pilgrim season.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. The pilgrim season for this year is now over, and no complaints have been received from the Government of India in regard to the amount of protection afforded by the Turkish authorities to pilgrims from British India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the malicious burning of the house and property of Mr. Ripper, a farmer at Thelnetham: and whether, seeing that nineteen horses, cows, and pigs were burned to death, he will say what action has been taken by the police, and will Mr. Ripper get compensation for this malicious outrage.

No, Sir. My attention has not been called to this case. It would be a matter for the local police, and not one in which I have authority to take any action. The farmer would not be entitled to compensation from public funds unless the case came within the provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886.

Is there any official connected directly or indirectly with the Government who has any authority for dealing with these outrages?

Has not the Executive Government of this country the same duty in regard to crime and outrage as the Executive Government possesses in Ireland? Who is responsible?

The responsible authority in this case is the standing joint committee of the county in which the outrage is committed.

After Questions are over I shall raise this as a matter of order. I shall inquire if we are not entitled to ask from some representative of the Executive Government in England what special measures it is intended to take to put a stop to the commission of outrage in England. Are not the same steps taken as in Ireland?

Was not this man's house fired in two or three different places? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to that?

I shall be happy to get any information in my power.

Are such cases reported to the Home Office?

No; but when such cases are brought to my notice it is my practice to inquire into the facts.

Here we have a Minister willing to make inquiry. Surely, then, we have a right to ask for information such as is constantly given in the case of Ireland?

I do not think hon. Members can ever say I have refused information.

Oh, no! We make no complaint against the right hon. Gentleman. But several of our Questions have been refused at the Table, and I want to raise that as a point of order. Perhaps as the right hon. Gentleman has promised to make inquiry into any case as to which we require information, the Clerk at the Table will accept our Questions,

A solution might be arrived at if hon. Members would frame their Questions somewhat differently and invite the Home Secretary to make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Edward Robinson, a blacksmith, of Warmington (Warwickshire), applied four times (on January 25th, February 8th, February 22nd, and March 29th, 1905) for a vaccination exemption certificate to the Kineton bench of magistrates for his child born on December 4th, 1904, and on each occasion was refused; and whether, in view of the frequency of such cases before certain magistrates, he will bring in a Bill substituting a statutory declaration by the applicant to be filed by him at the time of the registration of the birth for a certificate of exemption.

My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I have no information as to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I may point out that proposals of the kind which he suggests were fully discussed when the Bill for the Vaccination Act, 1898, was before the House and that they were rejected. I am not prepared to introduce legislation dealing with the matter.

And what remedy has a man who conscientiously objects as in this case?

I must ask for notice of any further Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that in some districts women are occupied in trades and their names figure in the registers of existing labour bureaux, which may be taken over by central and other bodies mentioned in his Unemployed Workmen's Bill, the terms workmen and unemployed persons will be held to include women workers.

Having regard to the provision in Section 1 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, to the effect that, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender shall include females, the terms ''workman" and "unemployed person" as used in the Bill would include women.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now say when the scheme of the Department drafted to meet the conditions in the Post Office in 1903, as shown in the evidence of the men before the Bradford Committee, will be issued.

The scheme to which I presume the hon. Member refers was laid on the Table of the House at the end of March last and came into operation on April 1st.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the attention of the President of the Board of Trade had been called to the great improvement works, estimated at £10,000,000, to be guaranteed by the State, which are about to be taken in hand for the improvement and extension of the port of Antwerp; and what steps he proposes to take in order to place the port and docks of London in the hands of a public body, with a view to similar improvements being made on the Thames.

As stated by me in reply to previous Questions of a similar nature, the Government is not prepared to make any proposals with respect to the port of London this session.

The Government, having raised the question and paralysed the action of the dock companies, do not intend, then, to take any action to improve the port of London?

I have nothing to add to my Answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the plans of repairs to and improvements upon provided schools within its area, involving an outlay of more than £1,500, submitted by the Carnarvonshire Educational Committee, have been approved by the Board of Education; and, if so, whether they are now in course of being carried out.

Since September 30th, 1903, the Board have informed the Local Government Board that, so far as educational requirements are concerned, they have approved plans for improvements of six council schools, the enlargement of three council schools, and the building of one new one. There are probably, besides, a few cases of small repairs and improvements. As the Board have not received any intimation of the sanctioning of a loan in any case except that of the new school, I am afraid I cannot say precisely the cost involved in the carrying out of these repairs and improvements, but I think it is quite likely that they amount to £1,500, more or less.

The sum should be £15,000, not £1,500. It is a misprint in the Question. Will the hon. Gentleman inquire if the repairs, etc., will cost the large amount?

I will certainly inquire if the hon. Member desires it, but I am tolerably certain that further inquiry will only confirm the figures which I have given.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made on the 18th inst. by the chairman of the building committee of the Den bighshire education authority, to the effect that the council had appointed a surveyor before the appointed day to visit, inspect, and report upon the condition of every school in the county, provided and unprovided, and that the building committee had proceeded to execute the necessary repairs of the provided schools in accordance with the recommendations of the surveyor's report; and whether he is now in a position to verify the accurary of this statement.

I find on inquiry that a provisional survey of council schools in Denbighshire was made before the appointed day. Communications received from the local authority in March, April, and May, in response to requests made by the Board of Education for the remedy of defects in council schools, were to the effect that these matters were postponed until they could be reported upon by a surveyor and architect who was not appointed until the end of March and who entered on his duties on the 1st of this month. I cannot say what repairs were executed on the report of the provisional survey, but I infer from the communications which passed between the Board and the council that they were not of an important character. I will send the hon. Member a copy of my reply to the Denbighshire County Council.

The hon. Baronet has not answered the Question whether the same surveyor did not survey the council and voluntary schools under the same appointment; I think we are entitled to an Answer to that.

I am prepared to give a fuller Answer. The same surveyor did survey both the voluntary and the council schools. As regards the voluntary schools, they were required at the beginning of March to effect certain repairs and improvements by the beginning of April, whereas similar repairs and improvements in the council schools asked for by the Board of Education were deferred until the appointment of a new surveyor.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Denbighshire Education Act Inquiry Committee, which met at Chester on April 17th, 1904, appointing Mr. J. Price Evans to inspect all public elementary schools in the county, and to prepare a detailed report upon the school buildings within three calendar months of that date; whether he is aware that this resolution was confirmed by the Denbighshire County Council, acting as the local education authority, at its first meeting held on the appointed day, June 1st, 1904, and whether he has received a communication from the clerks of the Denbighshire Education Committee upon the subject.

I am not aware that the Board were ever informed of the resolution referred to.

Was not a communication sent to the hon. Baronet?

Yes, and I have addressed to them a letter, the reply to which, when I get it, I will communicate to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether, in view of the resolution passed at a meeting of the general committee of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, he will say whether the representatives of the Scotch Fisheries Board on the International Scientific Investigation Council are attempting to obtain the extension of the international territorial limit of three miles to that of nine miles.

The British members of the International Council represent the Government, and not the Fishery Board for Scotland. I am not aware of any foundation for the allegation that they are attempting to obtain an extension of the territorial waters to a nine-mile limit. So far as I am aware, they have never made and are not now making any attempt to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Constabulary Return of offences committed in Ireland from December 1st, 1904, to April 19th, 1905, what steps are taken by the constabulary authority to verify the genuineness of the eighty-five offences classed as intimidation under the head of threatening letters or notices.

These cases are first inquired into by the local police under the supervision of the county inspector. The cases are then submitted to the Inspector-General. If any doubt exists, they are re-investigated, and no cases are included in the Return unless he is satisfied that they are bona fide.

What steps are taken by the constabulary authorities to test whether in these cases of alleged intimidation the people complaining are not themselves responsible for sending out the notices.

Every possible step is taken to get at the facts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the special qualifications possessed by Mr. Arthur M'Clintock that induced the Government to appoint him to the office of public trustee under the Land Act of 1903; what were his place of education, previous occupations, and experience of finance; what are the names, place of education, salaries, and previous experience of the persons since appointed in the department; and how many of them were appointed by open competitive examination.

In reply to the first part of the Question, I beg to refer to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover to a similar Question on February 8th, 1904.^†

^† See (4) Debates, cxxix., 592.

I have no further information on the subject. The Estimates for the current year make provision for an allowance of £350 to the public trustee to enable him to obtain clerical assistance. The selection of clerks is left to him, and the two officials at present employed were not appointed by competitive examination. One of them served some years in the Land Commission, and the other had experience as an accountant.

Are we to understand he has a right to appoint his staff without any examination?

Yes, the clerical staff is entirely appointed by him.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Questions what were his place of education, previous occupations, and experience of finance; and what are the names, place of education, salaries, and previous experience of the persons since appointed in the department.

So far as I know, there is no record kept?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the particulars I have asked for are kept in the establishment register of every department?

I believe not.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is so. I will put another Question down.

): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the painting of crosses on the walls of the Presbyterian Church at Carntall, county Tyrone, by Orangemen, with the object of intimidating the clergyman of that church for having employed a Catholic mistress in the local national school, was reported by the police as an outrage; if so, whether it is included in the Return of outrages and other offences of an indictable character issued to Members on May 24th, or any preceding Return, and under what heading is it described; if not, can he explain its omission.

The Answer to the first inquiry is in the negative. The painting of the crosses on the church was doubtless intended to indicate disapproval of the appointment of the teacher, but this Act, however objectionable it may have been, does not constitute an indictable offence. The Return referred to includes indictable offences only.

Had it occurred in the South of Ireland a very different view would have been taken.

Why was not the case included in the Return under the heading of injury to places of worship, which I notice is blank.

Probably it was not regarded as an injury.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what date two men named Good and Black, who reside at Westport, applied for parcels of the grazing lands on the Clanmorris Estate, county Mayo, the quantity of land applied for by each of them, and the grounds given to justify the application.

The application was made by the vendor's agent on 11th October, 1904, when terms of sale to the Commissioners were being arranged. No formal application from these persons themselves has been received. The application on their behalf is made on the ground that they are tenants on the estate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has inquired into the charge made against two clerks named Good and Black, who are engaged in the office of Mr. Ruttledge, sub-sheriff for the county Mayo, of having induced two bailiffs on the Clanmorris Estate to consent to give them small patches of their holdings, with a view to enable them to obtain an advance of money from the Estates Commissioners; and if not, whether he will grant a full inquiry into the whole case, and, if the charge be sustained, order a prosecution of these parties for attempting to obtain money and land under false pretences.

No charge of the kind indicated has been made, and no necessity exists for an inquiry such as is referred to. But, as I informed the hon. Member on the 18th instant, ^† the Commissioners will fully investigate the claims of these persons before deciding whether they shall receive advances for the purchase of "parcels" of the land in question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an advance of money has been sanctioned for the purchase of the Annfield Estate, in the parish of Kilcommon, in the Ballinrobe Union; whether he is aware that there are about 300 acres of grazing lands on this estate, and that there are three congested townlands on its borders, Davros, Mollyroe, and Rathgranagher; and whether, seeing that over 100 acres have been given to one man who has already several large farms, and 180 acres to another man who has land elsewhere, leaving only about 20 acres of land for the enlargement of holdings on that property, he will see that these lands will be taken from these persons and divided amongst those whose holdings are uneconomic in the district.

This property, which has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board, contains 200 acres of tenanted land and 467 acres of untenanted land. It is not situated in or near a congested district. The Board's object in purchasing was, first, to enlarge those holdings which required enlargement, and, secondly, to exchange the remainder of the untenanted land for land in congested districts, so as to relieve congestion there. They have

^† See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 745.

arranged to give 183 and 112 acres respectively to farmers who are giving in exchange 382 acres near the Roche Estate, on which the holdings require enlargement. One hundred and seventy acres are reserved for the Annfield tenants.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of tenants who have bought or agreed to buy their holdings in North Kerry; the number of applications made by evicted tenants for reinstatement in their holdings; how many evicted tenants have been reinstated since November 1st, 1903, by the landlords to their evicted farms; and how many evicted tenants have been reinstated by the Estates Commissioners to their holdings or equivalent ones since November 1st, 1903.

One thousand six hundred and fifty-seven agreements for purchase have been lodged, and in fifty-seven of these cases advances have been made. Four hundred and twenty-four applications for reinstatement have been received, but, of these, ten are outside the operation of the Act. Nineteen of the applicants have been, or are in process of being reinstated by the landlords. None have yet been reinstated by the Commissioners.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any evicted tenants who are going through the process of reinstatement?

Of course not.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the landlords refuse to reinstate evicted tenants?

Obviously I cannot without inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has read the correspondence which passed between the Irish Executive and the Estates Commissioners, and in which the Attorney-General stated that there were instructions and orders contained in the correspondence; and, if not, whether he will examine this correspondence with a view to its publication.

Yes, Sir; but I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given. I have stated that no regulations of the character mentioned in Section 23, Subsection 8, of the Act were made, but that communications of a Departmental and confidential character passed between my right hon. friend the Member for Dover and the Commissioners. Neither this correspondence nor any instructions or orders contained therein will be published.

The right hon. Gentleman stated to us that he had searched the records and that nothing in writing conveying instructions to the Commissioners was to be found, and he further stated that he was not in favour of concealing anything and that there was no secrecy about it. I therefore repeat my Question, whether he is prepared to publish these letters containing the instructions referred to in the Report of the Commissioners.

Was the instruction under which Section 5 was altered made verbally or in a written document?

Of course I could not ask the last Question. In regard to the Question by the hon. Member for Mayo, what I said, I think, was that I could find no record; and, so far as I am informed, no regulations such as those contemplated in the Question were issued or even framed. There were confidential communications of the ordinary Departmental character. It is quite obvious that it would be a departure of the gravest possible kind to enter into the confidential communications between the Executive and branches of the Executive.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the alteration of Section 5 was made by a confidential document and is a confidential matter?

It is a little difficult to answer these Questions, because I think there is a misunderstanding. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by the alteration of Section 5. I have repeatedly said that there were communications of an ordinary confidential and Departmental character between the Government and a branch of the Government. There is all the difference in the world between that and the issue of regulations. When my right hon. friend the Member for Dover was responsible for this branch of the Government the communications that passed were of a purely Departmental and confidential character, and it would be a gross departure from previous practice to disclose confidential transactions which took place under my predecessor.

said that he could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's Answer and he would repeat his Question on another occasion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why no pink schedule map or other record can be found either with the Clerk of the Crown in Cavan or in the Land Commission Office, Dublin, of the land case of Patrick Patterson Raffney, Virginia, county Cavan, tried by County Court Judge Waters, in Bailieboro, in May, 1888.

The obligation to frame a schedule and prepare a map was imposed for the first time by Section 1 of the Act of 1896.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two acres of land are now about to be taken from Patrick Patterson Raffney, Virginia, county Cavan, by his landlord, which compose the area on which his rent was fixed, as tested by competent surveyors both of landlord and tenant, and which have always been in his possession, to be given as bog plots to other tenants to enhance the price of the pending land sale; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.

An application for the sale of the estate, which includes Patterson's holding, has been received by the Commissioners. They have no information whether the facts are as stated in the Question, but will cause their inspector to inquire into and report on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay on the Table the minutes of the National Board of Education dealing with the proposed amalgamation of the Bellaghy boys' and girls' schools, and the correspondence on this subject with the managers of the schools.

It is understood that this Question refers to the male and female national schools at Ballynease, near Bellaghy. On 2lst June, 1904, the Commissioners made an order directing the amalgamation of these schools, but, the manager having objected, the Commissioners reconsidered the matter, and on 8th November, 1904, rescinded their former order. The Commissioners consider that, as the case has now been settled, no good object would be served by publishing the minutes and correspondence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for the restoration of Mrs. White, evicted tenant on the Boyce Estate, Bannow; and, if so, what progress has been made in giving back to the tenant her old home.

Yes, Sir; but no proceedings for the sale of the estate have yet been instituted before the Commissioners. The application will be inquired into should the estate come before them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a planter on this holding and that at the time of the eviction there was some £1,500 or £1,600 worth of property on it belonging to the tenant? Has anything been done to recover it for the tenant.?

I imagine that is one of the matters that will be inquired into.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 2nd April, whilst Thomas Sheridan, together with two of his friends named Murray and Noone, was standing outside his own door, Constable Daly asked why they were shouting, which they denied; that Sergeant Dumphy, although Noone had gone into the house, ordered Constable Daly to draw his baton and attack Sheridan and Murray; and that the constable struck Murray twice, and dragged Sheridan out to the road and then released him; whether he is aware that they subsequently followed him into his own house, where Noone was, and arrested Noone in the house, handcuffed him, and took him to the police station, where he was kept until a late hour and then taken before Mr. Hazel, J.P., Athenry, at midnight, a distance of eight miles, and released, when summons was served upon him; and whether, seeing that Mr. Villiers, J.P., lives within a few hundred yards of the scene of arrest, and that when the charge was heard before a bench of six magistrates the chairman commented upon Sergeant Dumphy's action adversely, and that the magistrates unanimously refused information, he will say what steps, if any, he intends to take in this case.

In this case a charge of assault has been preferred against the police, and it would obviously be undesirable to deal with the question while that case is sub judice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain for what reason twenty-five extra police were drafted into the village of Coagh on the 19th instant; and will the extra charge be levied on the district.

On this occasion a force of twenty extra police village to preserve the peace, in view of an apprehended disturbance. These police belonged to the established force of the country, and no charge, therefore, is leviable on the district.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to prosecute the search for firearms in other parts of Ireland as is at present proceeding in county Roscommon; if he will state the amount of ammunition discovered by the police to date; and will he state the number of searches made, with the result in each case.

I must decline to make any statement as to the intention to search for unlicensed firearms. On the 15th inst. searches were made in four houses in the Castlereagh district under the authority of warrants issued pursuant to the Peace Preservation Act, 1881. In each of two of these houses a loaded gun was found and seized. No separate ammunition was found.

Was this on the De Freyne Estate?

I cannot say.

Will further searches be conducted?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain persons are claiming ownership of, and preserving to the exclusion of the public the fishing of, certain portions of the River Shannon, near Limerick, the former owners of which sent in claims to the Shannon Navigation Commissioners in 1838, and who received the amount awarded them in 1839; is he aware that the Commissioners in making those awards paid the full market value of each such fishery and fishing at that time; and will he say if such portions of the River Shannon are vested in the Irish Board of Works.

If the hon. Member will communicate to me privately what are the particular portions of the Shannon referred to in the Question, and who are the persons who are alleged to claim ownership and the right of preserving to the exclusion of the public, and in what form the claim is expressed, I will make inquiries of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Shannon Navigation Commissioners recommended that certain fishery rights should be reserved for the use of the public, but reserved the right to give permission to fish such places, and that those recommendations were adopted by several sections of the second and third of Victoria, chapter sixty-one; and will he instruct the officers of the Board of Works in Limerick to have notices posted on the banks of such parts of the river, notifying to the public that such parts are the property of the Board, and are free to the public to fish and navigate until further notice.

As regards the public right to navigate the River Shannon, Section 36 of the Act 2 and 3 Vic., cap. 61, declares that the "River Shannon is and for ever hereafter shall be to all intents and purposes a public navigable river," and goes on to provide that the public may have and enjoy free passage upon the river for their boats, barges, etc., on paying the rates and tolls and complying with the regulations of the Commissioners. Section 44 of the same Act lays down that it shall be lawful for the River Commissioners from time to time to sell and dispose of or to demise for such term as to them shall seem expedient all fisheries and rights of fishing which are, under the provisions of the Acts or otherwise, vested in them. No section of the Act provides that any part of the River Shannon shall be reserved to the public to fish, and do not consider it necessary to issue such a notice as is suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can arrange that postal money orders shall be procurable at the post office, Portavogie, county Down, seeing that the nearest postal money order office is four miles distant.

I regret to find that the money order business which would probably be transacted is much too small to warrant the establishment of a money order office at Portavogie, even under guarantee.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that officers in charge of counter duties are compelled to make good all their losses from their salaries; that at Clones, Enniskillen, and Portadown junior men and learners are frequently employed upon duties involving monetary responsibility; and that recently a learner at Clones lost 7s. in one day; and whether he will order that only skilled and experienced men and women are to be entrusted with business of this character.

It is the general rule that officers employed on counter duties are required to make good deficiencies resulting from their errors. At offices such as those to which the hon. Member refers it is not infrequently necessary to employ junior officers on counter duties involving monetary responsibility, though such duties are entrusted as far as possible to experienced officers, but learners are not so employed unless acting as substitutes for sorting clerks and telegraphists. The learner at Clones was so acting, but he did not lose 7s. in one day. He had on one day an apparent deficiency of 7s. 5½d., but 6s. was subsequently found in the drawer of another officer, where he had placed it in error.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to resolutions relating to the findings of the Bradford Committee, adopted by the County Galway Branch of the Postmen's Federation; and whether it is his intention to redress the alleged grievances.

The resolutions to which the hon. Member refers do not appear to have reached me. I shall be glad to consider any representations the postmen at Galway or elsewhere may desire to make to me; but I have no intention of altering my decision with reference to the recommendations of the Bradford Committee.

I beg to ask whether the Government have any intelligence to communicate to the House regarding the alleged naval action in the Straits of Korea.

We have not received any official confirmation of the report.

moved as follows—"On and after the first day of August, 1905,. one penny shall be substituted for one shilling as the duty on coal under Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1901." The hon. Member said that, when the deputation from the coal trade waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer on April 12th, 1904, that Minister stated that he was keeping an open ear for any evidence and an open mind for the consideration of the Report of the Commission on Coal Supplies. This year the Chancellor was good enough to receive deputations both from the coalowners and coal exporters and the miners, and on those occasions he had said that he would make a statement in reply to the representations made to him on the Finance Bill. Those concerned in coal exports were, therefore, anxiously awaiting the statement. They expected to hear from the right hon. Gentleman to-day both in relation to the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioners on the coal supply question and also in reply to the statements made to him on the subject by the deputations he had received. Since last year they had received the Report of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies, and he ventured to say that they were indebted to that Commission for the most exhaustive investigations they made and for the lucid statistical and other information they had communicated. The main conclusions of the Commission were: First, that the coal export trade was of supreme importance to the country and essential to the prosperity of the coal producing districts; secondly, that there was no necessity to restrict artificially this export; and, thirdly, that the coal export duty did restrict such export. The Royal Commission rightly said that the coal export trade was of supreme importance to the country, and essential to the prosperity of the coal-producing districts, for no less than 5,000,000 people in this country depended for their livelihood on the coal mining industry, and no less than 80 per cent, of the cost of raising coal was paid in wages. Secondly, the Commission reported that there was no need to restrict artificially the exportation of coal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when he proposed the imposition of the tax in 1901, justified his proposal largely on the ground that we were so rapidly depleting our coal resources that it was, in his opinion, desirable to check the expansion of the export trade. The Report of the Commission was really of the most fascinating and interesting character. They reported that under 4,000 feet in depth there were no less than 100,914,000,000 tons of coal, a quantity sufficient at the present rate of production to last for the next 450 years; but, in addition to that, they had unopened coalfields containing nearly 40,000,000,000. This altogether, the Commission informed them, Was enough, at the present rate of production, to last 690 years. Then they were alarmed somewhat about the quantity of Welsh smokeless steam coal. The Royal Commission reported that we had got nearly 4,000,000,000 tons, which, at the present rate of production of 18,000,000 tons per year, would last 222 years. Therefore, he thought the somewhat alarmist view put before the House and the country to justify the imposition of the tax had been proved to be absolutely groundless. Not only, however, was this the case, but the Committee should remember that by the rapid substitution of electric power for steam power there was a probability that the output of coal in this country would diminish in the future rather than increase. The Commissioners, too, gave them another interesting fact. They expressed the opinion that, if the coal consumed in the United Kingdom were applied and used in a scientific way, a saving of from 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 tons annually could be effected. They were told that domestic consumers used 32,000,000 tons per year, and that, by the adoption of central heating, hot-water pipes, or stoves, they could reduce that consumption by one-half. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that, in his opinion, the tax did not artificially restrict the export of coal, but the Royal Commission took the opposite view, and, after the fullest investigation, they stated that the duty did restrict such export. The fact was that an extra 1s. duty per ton to be defrayed between the pit and the consumer must inevitably have a material effect, especially in markets where other sources of supply were available, and the British exporter had either been compelled to make a sacrifice of price to maintain his trade or to lose his position in the foreign markets. They found that the output of coal in the United Kingdom had gone up 7,250,000 tons since 1900, but there had only been 2,100,000 tons increase in exports, the other 5,150,000 tons having been absorbed by the home consumption or by the increased consumption of coal in bunkering. Bunkering coal had increased in the last four years by no less than 5,400,000 tons, mainly owing to the fact that it was free from any export duty, whereas in the coal subject to the tax the increase had only been 2,000,000 tons, though previous to the imposition of the tax our exports increased at a substantially greater ratio. He wished to state the case with absolute fairness, and he freely admitted that in 1904 as compared with 1903 there was an increase in the exports of coal of 1,300,000 tons with an increase of 400,000 tons of bunker coal in addition; but we had been fortunate in having abnormal demands springing up for coal in various quarters of the World. Last year the situation was saved by the strike in America, and this year, where in the first four months compared with the first four months of last year there had been an increase of 400,000 tons, we had benefited by the great strike on the Continent, affecting mainly Germany and the Netherlands. In the first four mouths of this year we sent to Germany and the Netherlands an increase of 1,455,000 tons, so that, except for that, our exports would have shown a decrease of 1,026,000 tons. In the grouping of the statistics prepared by the Government Departments they had put certain countries together, which made it difficult to arrive at the exact result of the tax so far as the counties in which he was interested—Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire—were concerned, and he had, therefore, abstracted the figures, and he would very briefly state what had been the effect of the coal tax on the export trade of the United Kingdom to Holland, Belgium, and France. The coal produced in Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire, was of an ordinary quality and had no monopoly of any market. So far as Holland, Belgium, and France were concerned, there had been a decrease of exports to those countries from the United Kingdom, since 1900, of 3,000,000 tons; whereas, on the other hand, there had been an increase of exports from Germany to those countries of nearly 3,000,000 tons. Let them take the example of imports into France: Our export trade in coal to France in 1900 was 8,500,000 tons and in 1904 it was only 7,000,000 tons, a decrease of 1,500,000 tons, whereas Germany sent 400,000 tons more in 1904 than in 1900. Again, Belgium's trade with France had only diminished 9 per cent., whereas our trade with France had diminished 17½ per cent. The larger output rendered possible by the export trade enabled the collieries to be worked regularly and to the fullest capacity, and, seeing that the cost of production was enormously increased if collieries worked only four days out of six, consumers might rest assured that it was to their interest that the collieries should work full time if they were to get their coal at reasonable prices. Coal, also, was so essential an element of outward cargoes that any diminution of our coal exports must cause a rise in the import freights of goods. If last year's output of coal in the United Kingdom were the highest on record, they should not lose sight of the fact that the trade of other nations had developed much more rapidly. The output of the United States had doubled in the last ten years, and the output of Germany had doubled in seventeen years, but it had taken thirty-five years to double our output. The Royal Commission had reports made to them by various British Consuls in centres where a large quantity of coal exported from this country was consumed. They stated that it was self-evident that the export duty must affect our competitive power and have an influence on the exportation of coal, and they stated that this view was supported by several British Consuls. The Vice-Consul at Rouen stated that the tax injuriously affected the introduction, of British coal into the French market; and again, the Director of Customs at Paris told them that the English coal tax enabled German coal to be sold 1s. per ton cheaper than Cardiff coal. Let them, for instance, take the question of gas coal. We had had a monopoly of French orders for gas coal, but since the tax had been put on there had been, for the first time, an inroad made on our trade with the Paris Gas Company, and at the present time they had entered into a contract for 250,000 tons of German gas coal. The Consuls reported that during the last three years our exportation of coal to France had decreased, whereas the importation from Germany had increased sensibly. Then let them take the case of Belgium. There was a Report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Antwerp, starting that the quantity of coal and coke imported into Belgium from the United Kingdom had fallen off considerably in the last four years, and the competition of German coal was undoubtedly the cause of the decrease. It seemed evident that the competition would continue, greatly to the detriment of British coal. So long as the powerful Westphalian Syndicate, whose object appeared to be to drive British coal out of the Belgium market, continued to supply coal at a much less cost than the British coalowner could afford to do, imports from the United Kingdom would necessarily fall off. Ho showed that since 1900 British exports to Belgium had fallen off 542,000 tons, while German exports had increased 750,000 tons. He (Mr. Walton) could quote further examples from the reports of Consuls in various parts of the world, and especially in Europe, but they represented exactly the same state of things as those he had already read. It might be said that a shilling export tax on British coal was no detriment to us in competing against Australian coal, but that was not so. Let them take the case of Valparaiso. In 1903 we sent to Valparaiso 317,000 tons of coal, whereas Australia sent 485,000 tons. The shilling tax meant an absolute bounty in favour of the Australian coal producer as against the English producer, and that was quite counter to the fiscal doctrines and proposals as they understood them of His Majesty's Government's present advisers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that the tax had not operated injuriously to the British coal trade, but he submitted that he had shown conclusively that, so far as Scotland, Durham, Northumberland, and Yorkshire were concerned, we had received 1s. per ton less at the pit's mouth on coal we exported in competition with Germany and Belgium than we should get if this tax did not exist. The tax violated the principle of equal incidence of taxation; it was imposed on one great industry, an industry which was taxed to the hilt in regard to every rate and tax, local and Imperial, levied in this country. In addition to all the other rates and taxes which the industry had to pay equally with every other industry, it had to bear the burden of this tax amounting to £2,000,000 a year. In 1901 the Member for West Bristol said that it there were one kind of taxation more odious than another it was unfair taxation, and he could conceive nothing more unfair than that increased expenditure should be controlled by the voice of the whole people if one class only should be left to bear the increased burden. This was true in the case of the coal tax. The coal industry only was left to bear the burden of increased expenditure to the extent of £2,000,000 a year, and he hoped that it did not require anything more to be said to demonstrate how absolutely unjustifiable and indefensible it was to continue the tax. The coal trade in 1900 was in a prosperous state; to-day three collieries out of four in the United Kingdom were being worked at a loss, and the value of the coal exported had gone down on an average 5s. a ton. He estimated that the 46,000,000 tons exported were worth £11,500,000 less than when the tax was imposed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would recognise that this placed an enormous disability on the trade to bear this imposition. He would give one example from his own constituency. He received a letter only last month telling him that the result of the tax had been that his informants had been compelled to sell their coal on the Continent at a heavy loss, that in consequence of this, they had decided to close the pit the next week. This would throw from 600 to 700 men out of employment and cause great distress in the neighbourhood. In 1901 Sir Michael Hicks Beach said that, if he believed the tax would be paid by the miners, he would not impose it. Representatives of miners would take part in the debate, and he was sure they would have given to them statements which would clearly prove that the miners had suffered substantially in the reduction of their wages in certain districts solely as the result of the tax. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was disposed to consider the question fairly, and though, perhaps, he would not see his way to take the tax off to-day, he hoped that the facts and figures in the Report of the Royal Commission, and which he had been able to produce, would lead him to say the tax was an unfair and an unjustifiable tax, and ought to be discontinued at the earliest possible moment. He would commend to him certain words of his distinguished father the Member for West Birmingham, who, speaking at a meeting of miners in 1903, said—

"You miners are only waiting to be eaten up. If you look, you will see that the production of coal in Germany, France, and America has been increasing with gigantic speed, and it is as sure as anything that in a comparatively few years they will want no more of your coal and that they will be, probably, exporters of coal here. What is your stand-by?"

He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be their standby by removing this flagrantly unjust impost by which the export trade was so seriously handicapped.

, in seconding the Motion, stated that he spoke for the great mining community of workers in the country, numbering over 5,000,000, upon whose means of livelihood there could be no doubt that the tax had made inroads. They, therefore, protested against the retention of a tax which was so detrimental to their interests. Since last year they had had the Report of the Royal Commission, and it had done two things. It had exploded the popular impression that, in consequence of the limitation of the possible quantity of coal in this country, we ought to keep the coal in the country as a national asset, because we had at least 450 or 500 years possible supply, and they could therefore afford to be calm in their deliberations; and it had also exploded the fallacy that a tax would not restrain trade. The Report was very conclusive, and it indicated that the tax had very considerably interfered, and was likely very considerably in the future to interfere, with the exportation of coal. A gentleman from Durham last year told him that he had lost two contracts, one for 275,000 tons, and another for 40,000 tons, absolutely in consequence of the tax. He would give some quotations from the Diplomatic and Consular Report issued August 11th, 1904. In Belgium the imports from the United Kingdom during 1902 were, in money value, £463,520, and the report indicated that, as compared with 1901, there was a diminution of £100,000; in Denmark it indicated that the British export duty on coal had not very materially increased the supply of German coal but, it said, if the tax were reduced by 6d. then it would absolutely prohibit the German coal from entering the market. The total import of coal into the port of Bordeaux in 1903 was 891,858 tons, which was a reduction of 93,840 tons as compared with 1902. This, he thought, was a pretty clear indication that the effect of the coal tax had been to restrain the trade. Another quotation would show how the tax had injured the trade. The imports of British coal into Bayonne had decreased—Welsh coal from 160,539 tons in 1901 to 155,123 tons in 1902 and to 119,589 tons in 1903, and north-country coal from 75,876 tons in 1901 to 45,345 tons in 1902 and to 50,298 tons in 1903, whilst the imports of German coal had increased from 3,719 tons in 1901 to 35,760 tons in 1902 and to 60,705 tons in 1903. This showed that the tax had so handicapped the coal exporters of this country that Germany had been able to compete with British coal so successfully that whereas in 1900 they sent no coal at all to Bayonne, in 1903 they sent 60,705 tons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might reply there had been an increase of our exports, but this was entirely due to the strike in the Westphalian and Belgian coalfields, and, as had been pointed out by German delegates at, a conference, in supplying this coal "The British working men, in their judgment, had been cutting the throats of the Continental working men." But this matter could not be settled absolutely on the question of exports, however considerable it might be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might reply that there had been an increase of 1,455,507 tons, but that enormous increase had been due to the Westphalian and Belgian strike, in consequence of which we had supplied the market on the Continent that year. Coming to the question of the value of exports, he wished to say that it was the value of the exports which determined the question of the profits and ultimately of the wages. He was not going to postulate that the reduction in prices and following on that the reduction in wages was absolutely due to the shilling tax, but it had had a considerable influence upon it. While not postulating that the whole fact of the reduction was due to that, he wished to point out that if the condition of the coal trade in 1901 was such as to warrant the then Chancellor of the Exchequer imposing this tax that condition of things had now entirely passed away, as was shown by the present prices and wages, and therefore the tax ought to be now abolished. In the county of Durham in 1900 the price was 10s. 3·72d., in 1901 8s. 6·73d., in 1902 7s. 3·79d., in 1903 7s. 0·82d. and last year, in 1904, 6s. 5·97d. That indicated that between the putting on of the tax and the present condition of things there had been a reduction of price of 4s. a ton, which was sufficient evidence, if evidence were wanted, that the coal tax ought to be repealed. With regard to the question of wages. On the 1st January, 1901, in the same county, the wages were 65 per cent. above the standard rates, in 1902 40 per cent. above, in 1903 33¾ per cent. above, in 1904 32 per cent., and this year 27½ per cent. above. In other words, in the county of Durham they had had reduction of wages equal to 38 per cent. In the case of Scotland they stood at 100 per cent. above the standard rates early in 1900, and to-day they stood at 62½ percent. below that point. In South Wales they were 73¾ per cent. above standard rates in 1900, and since then they had been reduced 40 per cent. He did not wish to pursue this matter further. He had indicated by the Report of the Commission and in the evidence he had given that this tax had been a considerable restriction on the trade, and from the wages and prices he had been able to adduce he had shown that the shilling tax had considerably handicapped us during that time. Whatever the reason might have been for the imposition of this tax, that condition of things had now passed away, and the tax ought to be removed. When the right hon. Gentleman was looking for revenue he ought to find some other sources than the working man's wages out of which to take it. There were other interests which at the present time did not contribute one penny to the revenue of this country which might be tapped. The owners of royalties were getting now £6,000,000 out of the royalties of the mines in this country and did not contribute a penny towards the national expenditure. On the other hand, the colliery owner had to sink his capital in the pits, while the miners themselves had to invest their lives, as it were, day by day when they descended the pit, yet these were the men who were called upon to pay the revenue. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not abolish the tax this year, would next year tax those sources which had not yet been tapped, that the burden might be taken off the shoulders of the working man.

said that, as he intended to adopt a different attitude on this occasion to that which he had adopted in previous years, he would like to explain his reasons for so doing. He had in previous years supported the several Chancellors of the Exchequer in voting for the imposition of this tax. The reason was simple. In time of war and stress he thought it did not do to too closely examine the sources from which the Chancellors of the Exchequer collected funds either for the expenditure of this country or for warlike enterprises, but when the war was over he thought it was time now that, we were at peace to turn our attention to retrenchment and reform and take advantage of the opportunities to remedy injustices and to equalise the burdens of taxation, which might be much more evenly distributed than they were now. He considered this tax unfair and unreasonable. In the first place, the class of coal affected most severely was the cheaper quality of coal mined in Scotland and in the North of England, which entered into competition with German and Belgian coal. He did not regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a true disciple of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who told the House that taxes were not paid by consumers but by those who supplied the commodities affected. This tax was therefore borne by the British coalowners and the workmen who mined the coal. It affected us also in other directions. With the shilling tax the coalowner could not compete with the cheap German and Belgian coal. The shilling tax represented something like 16 per cent. and he, in order to compete, naturally attempted to shift the burden on to other shoulders. He therefore pressed the shipowners for lower rates, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to know whether the shipping industry of this country was flourishing or not. The steamship lines which paid income-tax other than those which received subsidies were almost nil. They were not only not paying interest on the capital involved, but they were not providing for depreciation. Moreover, on every ton of bunkers purchased abroad by British ships the shilling tax had to be paid, and on every ton of coal exported to railways abroad, owned almost exclusively by British subjects, the tax was imposed. There were many ways in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could obtain an equal amount of money, though possibly they would not be so popular, and they might mean votes. For instance, a tax on bicycles would bring in a large amount, but few Chancellors of the Exchequer would venture to impose one. The present coal duty was most unfair, and, with a view to conserving our great national asset (Smokeless Steam Coal), he suggested that a tax of 5s. or 10s. should be imposed on every ton of South Wales anthracite smokeless steam coal sold to a foreign Government. If it was thought that that would fall unfairly on the coal-owners, the Government themselves might purchase some of the collieries and keep the coal exclusively for our own Navy. In view of the fact that this coal would retain its quality almost indefinitely by being stored in submerged deposits, he submitted that its unrestricted supply to foreign Governments, who, while friendly to-day, might be our enemies tomorrow, was a grave mistake. If it was true that smokeless steam coal could not be obtained elsewhere, foreign Governments would pay almost any price to obtain it; therefore the Chancellor of Exchequer could supply any deficiency which might arise through the abolition of the present duty by the imposition of a considerably higher tax on coal sold to the foreigner. As he did not propose to support the Government on the present occasion, he had deemed it his duty to express his view to the Committee.

said it was very refreshing to hear supporters of the Government denounce the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Several colliery proprietors on the other side of the House were greatly interested in the selling of coal, but instead of speaking against the coal tax they sat quietly by for fear of offending the leaders of their Party. The tax was not only testing the loyalty of the followers of the Government, but also trying the patience of their opponents. Personally he had been connected with the coal trade as a producer for over fifty years, and he had never known such a tax to be imposed before. Predecessors of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged in reply to deputations that they had nothing to do with the late war, but that it was necessary for them to get the money, and as the coal trade was exceedingly prosperous they had placed this burden upon it. It was argued that the colliery proprietors would not have to pay the tax, but it had since been proved that they and the miners had had to bear the burden. Possibly at the time the coal trade was able to afford the tax, but since then the proprietors had been doing badly, and although he was more concerned with the miners, he liked to see the proprietors doing well, because they could then afford to pay their workmen according to the work they performed. In the present case they were suffering, and he failed to see how any intelligent gentleman like the Chancellor of the Exchequer could sit idly by and imagine that colliery proprietors and miners were escaping the tax. The mere fact that a particular trade was doing well did not make it fair that a heavy tax should be placed upon it. But the coal trade was now doing badly and the tax still continued. Unless something was done there would soon be a serious stir in the country. Miners could not go on for ever suffering reductions. Last year when the question was discussed, 600,000 miners were under notice of reduction, the coal tax being urged by the colliery proprietors as largely responsible. That reduction was quietly submitted to, and during the last two or three weeks further reductions had been made or notices thereof given. No business man would quietly allow his trade to be taxed in this way. In his, opinion it was wrong to tax trades; the Chancellor of the Exchequer should seek his money from some other source. It was recently stated that 500,000 people had incomes of only £50,000 a year; he wondered at the time how they managed to pull through, but they were the people who ought to pay taxes, especially for purposes of war, not the working man who were blamed in this House and elsewhere for encouraging the war—

I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me or my colleagues. We have never suggested that any blame attached to working men for supporting their country during a great war.

said he remembered reading speeches in which it was stated that, as the working classes had encouraged the war, they must not mind being called upon to pay.

said the hon. Member used the word ''blamed," and he misunderstood his point.

said he was not in favour of taxing any trade, and if the right hon. Gentleman took the tax off the coal trade he would be doing what a wise man ought to do. He could not understand any gentleman outside a lunatic asylum crippling so important a trade as the coal trade. It was said that Chancellors of the Exchequer nowadays were not satisfied with hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of pounds; they had to deal in millions. The coal trade could not afford to have millions taken from it; workmen and employers were suffering; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to sweep the tax off altogether.

said that although he did not agree with all the arguments adduced by the other side he thought sufficient had been said to show that there were other sources of revenue which for the country at large it would have been better to have touched, rather than the coal trade. Being to some extent interested in the trade he did not feel justified in taking a prominent part in opposition to this tax, and therefore he had not spoken in previous debates on the question. But he thought the position had changed considerably since last year. A variety of objections, had been put forward against the tax, some opponents making it clear from their own point of view that the coalowners paid the tax, and others that the burden fell on the miner, while many held that the consumer alone had to pay. It was very difficult to say upon whom the incidence of this tax fell, but it was a peculiar fact that some of those who were most ardent in their opposition to fiscal reform, and who would say, if this coal was exported from a foreign country, that the tax fell on the consumer, now believed that it fell on the producer. He remembered distinctly the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick saying that the incidence of the coal tax fell upon the miner. Of course it might be said that one was an export tax and the other an import tax; but that did not really affect the principle of the argument, as it made no difference to the argument whether the tax was paid on one side of the water or the other. The crucial test to apply to the tax was whether it was the best means for the country at large of obtaining revenue. He believed it to be economically unsound and involving a deliberate transfer of trade to German coalowners at the present time. His reason for saying that the position had altered since last year was based upon the Report of the Royal Commission. On April 12th, 1904, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to a deputation representative of the coal-exporting districts, who sought the abolition of the tax, said that he regarded the question as being in a manner sub judice, and that he could not deal with it until the Commission on Coal Supplies had presented its Report. As all knew, the Commission had now presented its unanimous Report, and the facts and conclusions to which the Commissioners drew attention were as follows:—(1) that the coal export trade was of supreme importance to the country and essential to the prosperity of the coal-producing districts; (2) that there was no necessity to restrict artificially this export trade; and (3) that the coal export duty affected our competitive power and restricted such export trade. Everyone would wish that a man should be taxed in relation to his power to pay, but that was impossible if worked out. An artisan, for example, who earned 30s. a week and drank two glasses of beer paid far more in proportion than the man who did not drink. Yet nobody in the House would think it wise to take the tax off alcohol altogether at the present time. It had been suggested that royalties should be taxed more heavily. He represented a firm which paid a very large amount in royalties every year; but he did not think that that would be the best means of obtaining revenue. If an extra penny per ton were put on royalties it would simply mean that the royalty owners would increase the royalties by the additional penny. There were other ways by which revenue could be obtained. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer's powers were limited under our present fiscal system, but he wished to remind him of the altered condition of affairs, and to express the opinion that it would be wise in the near future to remove the tax.

pointed out that every speech in the course of the debate had been in opposition to the tax. There was no doubt, as the hon. Member for Darlington had truly said, that the position had materially changed since the tax was first imposed. There had been started a tariff reform crusade, the object of which was to increase our export of manufactured goods and to enlarge the opportunities of employment for the working classes. Those were laudable objects, but this tax, which operated in the opposite direction, was imposed and had been continued by the votes of Gentlemen who supported the tariff reform movement. It could not be denied that the operation of this tax tended to restrict our competitive power in markets abroad. The recent Royal Commission had declared that to be self-evident, and if it restricted our competitive power it also tended to restrict the opportunities for employment. He could not help wondering at the situation in which the House frequently found themselves. When they were considering the question of the production of gold, it was necessary that it should be extracted with the greatest possible expedition, even though cheap indentured foreign labour had to be employed for the purpose; but when it was a question of extracting black diamonds in the shape of coal it was a matter of small consequence if the power of production was restricted—the commodity could remain in the earth as a sort of patrimony for generations to come. But the discoveries of science made it every day more likely that unless the potential wealth which we possessed in our enormous coalfields was realised quickly we might not be able to gain a single advantage from its possession. Labour Members and trade union leaders had been again and again charged with inconsistency in supporting trade unions and opposing protection as though there was any analogy between the protection which trade unions offered to the labourer Against the selfishness of capital and the protection which tariff reformers proposed to give to capital at the expense of the interests of labour. The inconsistency lay rather with the tariff reformers, who were responsible for the imposition and the continuance of this tax. Trade unionists, when charged with inconsistency, were entitled to say to the tariff reformers, "Pluck the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the mote of inconsistency from the eye of Labour Members and trade union leaders."

asked whether the hon. Member could name a single country where a protective system had been introduced and wages had not risen.

said it was often contended that coal was not a manufactured article. He maintained, on the contrary, that the moment coal was brought, to the surface it was as much the manufactured product of the miner as locomotives or steamships were the manufactured product of the engineer or the shipbuilder. It was true to say that coal was not a manufactured article only so long as it remained embodied in the bowels of the earth. Further than that, it was a manufactured article, the export value of which was greater than almost any other that could be named. From 6O to 80 per cent, of the export value of coal consisted in wages. Was there another article of manufacture where wages formed so large a proportion of the export value? In his judgment there was not. What they had to complain of was that this was not a tax upon a particular industry, but a tax on a particular portion of a particular industry. There might have been some defence to urge for the tax if it had been imposed on all coal raised, but instead of that it was only on the coal raised for the export market that the tax was levied. He considered that was very unjust. The Royal Commission stated in their Report that the tax was one which hit most severely those districts where the price of coal was slightly above the margin for which coal might be exported free. That was the peculiar position of Northumberland. According to the official figures for 1903, the latest available, the total revenue derived from the tax was £2,300,000, and of that no less than £583,000, or more than a quarter of the total, was collected from the two ports of Blyth and Tyne. Although it might be true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said when the tax was first imposed, that the export of coal of small value must form a very small proportion of our whole export, still it was equally true that in some districts the proportion sold at low prices was very great indeed. In the county of Northumberland there was a practice of ascertaining the average selling price of coal every three months. The figures for the last five ascertainments were 6s. 4·45d., 6s. 3·39d., 6s. 3·59d. 6s. 2·69d., and 6s. 2·94d., giving an average for a period of fifteen months of 6s. 3·33d. per ton, which was little more than 3¼d. over the margin at which coal would be free of duty. Could they imagine an industry which was in that position being able to bear an export duty of 1s. per ton? It was utterly impossible, and if it had not been for the fact that we had had the benefit during the past three years of strikes, first in America, then in France, and at the beginning of this year in Germany, there would have been several collieries in Northumberland absolutely closed down. While he was at home during the Easter recess, only a few weeks ago, he was told that several collieries were working only one and two days per week; the price obtainable was not sufficient to pay for the working of the coal, much less to find wages for the miners, and yet this tax was maintained on the industry. It was monstrously unjust to levy this charge on an industry which was in that condition. It had been said again and again—and this was the only justification he had ever heard for the continuance of the tax—that the duty would fall on the foreign consumer. He was at a loss sometimes to follow hon. Members when they were dealing with fiscal questions. If it was an import duty on corn it was said that the foreign producer would bear the tax, and if it was an export duty on coal it was said that the foreign consumer would pay it. If that was so why did we not propose to tax both exports and imports and get our revenue for nothing? But they knew perfectly well that the foreigner did nothing of the kind. He objected to this tax also, because there was no corresponding duty upon any other trade or industry in this country. He opposed the war policy as strongly as he possibly could. He still thought that it was wrong. Nevertheless, those connected with the coal industry were not unwilling to bear their fair and proper share of the burden of taxation rendered necessary by a war which was hateful to them. But why should they be saddled with more than a fair proportion of the financial responsibility required to maintain the government of this country? There were other industries in the country in connection with which both employer and employed had reaped as great advantages as the miners and mineowners during the last three or four years of comparative prosperity. Did anyone ever suggest that they should be taxed in the special way the coal industry was taxed? There was not a single member of the Government who represented a constituency that was at all affected by the imposition of this duty. If there had been, that representative would have been called upon long ago to resign and confront his constituents on the subject. He had little hope that, at present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to accept the new clause that had been proposed by his hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division. This coal duty was of such an exceptional character and so unjust in its operation that its absolute removal either by this or some other Government, could not be long delayed.

said that in speaking in support of the re- duction of the coal tax he would be only following the course he had taken in 1901, and he might say that four years experience had not diminished his belief that it was a bad tax. The objections, expressed by hon. Members to the imposition of the tax in 1901 had been amply borne out by the Royal Commission. The Commission had dealt with the matter in a broad spirit, and he thought the tax should be dealt with in a similar manner. It was a tax upon a locality and upon a single trade. If the revenue was necessary the taxes imposed should be spread fairly over all exports and not confined to coal. He was not scientific enough, to accept the doctrine that all taxes upon imports and exports were paid by the foreigner. In his opinion this tax was a departure from that freedom of trade which was the safeguard of our national industries. Why was this particular trade selected for taxation? At the time it was imposed the tax was supported on grounds of remarkable inconsistency. It was said that it would be paid by the foreigner; that coal-owners were so rich and prosperous that they could afford to pay a tax of two or even five shillings; that the tax was excellent because it would diminish exports and keep coal in the country; that by sending coal abroad we were getting rid of our national capital for the benefit of the foreigner; and that we should keep our coal in the bowels of the earth for the benefit of posterity. All these arguments had been shattered by the Royal Commission. That Commission had upheld, what every man with the most elementary knowledge of the coal trade knew, that the tax was, a burden and a hindrance to trade and must diminish our competitive power abroad. It also showed that the export of coal was a matter of national importance and absolutely essential to the prosperity of the coal-producing districts. The tax not only affected our coal trade but also our shipping trade. On general grounds he would oppose the tax as he represented a constituency strongly affected by it, and he thought it ought to be removed as an act of justice, because it. was a partial tax, detrimental to localities, carrying on a great national industry.

said he was delighted to hear the voice of the hon. Member for Darlington in this discussion. The side which the hon. Member had taken with a large amount of diffidence was a good augury that the cause of those who were opposing the coal tax was winning. They must peg away for a short time longer. They were sure to win when they were able to convert such an ardent tariff reformer to the belief that this tax was an economic fallacy. He would not follow the hon. Member into any fair-trade doctrine, but ha had his own opinion about it. He thought he knew as much about the Continental miners as the hon. Member could know and, without boasting too much about the situation of our own workmen, it was, he knew, infinitely better than that of the workmen on the Continent or any country where protection existed. Hon. Members must have gathered that there were two features about the miners' representatives, some of whom had been thirty, some twenty, and others a fewer number of years in this House. They had never interfered in discussion except they had something of value to say on the subject-matter before the House; and secondly, they had their full share of the British bulldog instinct. They were as persistent and tenacious as the animal which represented John Bull. In that case they had indicated from the beginning until now that they had no idea in their mind of slackening of their opposition to this coal tax so long as it remained in force. They would make the same objections to it, advance the same arguments against it, and the sooner that it was removed the better it would be for the welfare of the country and the interest of the men they represented. The hon. Member for Barnsley, in his clear statement of the case, made an allusion, in passing, to a matter to which sufficient attention had not been paid, although it was most important, and had been urged from the first by the miners' representatives. The hon. Member mentioned that a colliery in the neighbourhood of Barnsley had been stopped owing to the imposition of this tax. That was a matter that wanted looking into more closely. Whatever alteration might have come in the minds of the hon. Member for Darlington, the hon. Member for Liverpool, and others and whether they in their hearts were against this coal tax, or gave that opposition with their lips—they should be consistent and oppose it by their votes. He, himself, believed in the economic fallacy of this tax. He and his colleagues had always maintained that there were villages in every mining county in this country which depended entirely up on the mines for employment and for the support of their adjuncts—the village shop-keepers; and that to stop a mine employing 600 workmen meant the depopulation of a district; to deprive 600 men of their employment, and they and their families of bread, except they were kept by the voluntary subscriptions of their fellows, was to cut off the incomes of the men who had private property and had laid out their money in building shops. The result was to augment the volume of the unemployed, which was a soreness in the great social fabric; to increase the volume of labour seeking employment; and to render employment risky and precarious. Hon. Members talked of a 1s. tax as a mere bagatelle in the contract market. He did not think he had ever made a contract in his life, except one, and that he had never regretted from that day to this. He was persuaded to go on a certain journey; he went as a whole man and came back a half one. He trusted the bona fides of employers in this matter; and they said that the difference of 2d. or 3d. in the price per ton made all the difference between profit and loss. He believed that coal-owners on both sides of the House would admit that they had been shut out of contracts by a difference of 2d. or 3d. per ton. Employment had, in that way, been diminished, profits had been lessened, and wages had been lowered. They had been told by the hon. Member for Darlington that the foreigner paid the tax. He had always looked upon the foreigner as being as keen a business man as any Englishman, and as having as full a desire to buy in the cheapest market. He would not give 1s. per ton more for English coal if he could get the article for 1s. per ton less in his own country. Therefore the 1s. must come out of the profits of the employers in this country and out of the wages of the workmen. No amount of reasoning on political economy constructed in the study of a political economist, and no amount of help given by permanent officials to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer to frame his balance-sheet, would clear that principle out of the commercial life and industry of this country. Now, he looked upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being a sort of Hyde and Jekyll. He looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as a man and as an official. He was confident that when the right hon. Gentleman got up to reply he would say that, as a man, he sympathised with them. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Of course, he had heard the right hon. Gentleman speak so to deputations which waited upon him. On coming away from one of these interviews with the right hon. Gentleman, he told his fellows that after the genial expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his kindly tone, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman desired to sympathise with them; and that led him to imagine that if the right hon. Gentleman could by any possibility remove this tax he would do it. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer stopped him. Dr. Jekyll had laid his hands on Mr. Hyde; and while the man sympathised with them, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was seeking for an income. All human nature, like water, sought the least resistance. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that he was dealing with the least resistance. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that he was dealing with a very patient body of men—a body of men which, in 1901, if they had taken the advice offered them, would have struck against the imposition of this tax. They did not take that advice; they were too patient; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeking for income, traded upon that patience, while the Member for Worcestershire sympathised with them. So far as he was concerned this was no Party question. He did not speak thus on this matter because he was politically in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman. He told any prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if he came from his side of the House, that if this tax was not removed the same opposition would be given to him as to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He and his colleagues had no regard, no solicitude, no incitement, no impulse beyond the welfare of their people. That was their motive power. A great deal was heard about Imperialism; about extending the Empire, and rounding it off scientifically. There was talk about Little Englanders and Larger Englanders. He was Little Englander enough to confess that anything which impinged on the earning power of the men he represented; anything that lessened their ability to get bread for their families; anything that would bring a blight upon the conditions of their domestic life, he would oppose. That was the heart of the Empire to him. And he should make it his first duty and sole care that nothing whatever should impinge upon the possibilities of their lives. To the deputation, to which reference had been made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave expression to some words that were very pregnant to him. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"We cannot decide this question by general statements, however attractive; we must look to the actual facts of the trade."

But in conjunction with that expression he would quote what was said by the Royal Commission, the existence of which the right hon. Gentleman had always given them, with due courtesy, as a pretext for not going into the matter. That Royal Commission had proved, on evidence taken, that it was the competition of the world that our employers had to contend with. But what were the actual facts? The Royal Commission stated that the mining industry—one of the most dangerous, difficult, irksome, and unpleasant trades that could be carried on, had had their wages reduced 60 or 70 per cent. by this tax in some cases. The wages of miners in Scotland had been reduced by 67 per cent.; and the reduction had been accepted loyally, if not cheerfully. Hon. Members referred to an income-tax of one shilling; what was that to a man with an income of £5,000 a year? The reduction in the miners' wages was equivalent to an income-tax of 4s. in the £. Had not the time now arrived for the repeal of the tax? Not a single argument which had been advanced by the Government in favour of it remained. He sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was in a quagmire. The Royal Commission had reported against the tax; all the Consuls with one exception gave their verdict against it. It was said that not only were the owners making great profits, but that the miners were earning fabulous wages. In their very best days miners only earned 7s. a day; which, if it were five times as great, would not compensate them for the dangers and difficulties of their work. Wages had decreased fearfully; and in his opinion, if the tax were not removed, they would decrease still further. The tax could not be tested in a booming market. It could only be tested when the supply of coal exceeded the demand; and when producers were rushing into the market. Why should miners be specially taxed? One reason, which had been stated in the House, was that they were supporters of the Radical Party. They and their representatives opposed the war. Was that a reason why they should be taxed? When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget in a splendid speech he said—

"That it was one of the objects of any system of national taxation that every member of the community should contribute his fair share to the expenditure of a Government which in the last resort was controlled and directed by the popular will. But, it was obvious that such a change as he had described, without any change in taxation, might upset the financial equilibrium and, by altering the proportionate burdens of different classes or individuals might render inequitable and unjust a system of taxation which in other times and with other tastes was both fair and reasonable."

The right hon. Gentleman further said that the indirect taxpayer paid 51·8 per cent, of the total taxation excluding the tax on coal. Why should the mining industry be jeopardised and foreign competition strengthened in this fictitious way. During the Franco-German war the coal trade of this country was developed beyond the dreams of any man engaged in the industry. The result of the tax was to give an impetus to the coal trade of Germany, France, and Belgium. Where was the equity? He wished, in conclusion, to refer to the generosity with which hon. Members had listened to the arguments which had been advanced against the tax; and also to the kind attention which had been given to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be impervious to the arguments which had been advanced. They, the Labour Members, were connected with the working men in a manner the right hon. Gentleman could not know; they knew their hardships and dangers and how hard their lives were. He hoped that, if the Party of the right hon. Gentleman remained in office, the right hon. Gentleman would retain his present position, and that he would remove in his next Budget this most irksome and burdensome tax.

said that no part of the Budget discussion, whether this year or last, had been conducted with more moderation, or with greater power and ability, or with closer reasoning and attention to the points actually involved, than that part (which related to the coal tax. He ought almost to regret to part from the coal tax, for it seemed to him to be the only tax the discussion, of which was concentrated on the real issues. He shared the opinion that the Committee owed a great deal to the investigations of the Royal Commission, which had enabled them to approach this subject with a completeness of knowledge that otherwise they could never have attained. He frankly admitted that the discussion was taken in very different circumstances to those which prevailed when the tax was imposed or when the discussion took place last year, and he was free to make the admission that neither he nor did he think that any one would be prepared to initiate the tax in the present circumstances of the trade. But what had to be considered was not whether we should impose this tax now for the first time, but whether it should be removed from the statute. He did not propose to dwell at any length upon the tax as an important source of revenue which, in the circumstances of the present year, he could not afford to dispense with, and which at this stage of the Budget proposals he could not replace; but he did venture to observe that in considering the conditions of the coal trade at the present time and in the comparison which had constantly been made between now and the year 1900, the year before the tax was imposed, it should be remembered that the coal trade was, and always had been, subject to great fluctuations, and that the profits for everybody, for miners, for owners, for everybody interested, were abnormal in particular years; and if there was any prospect of such profits being permanently maintained, of course they would induce an influx of capital and create a demand for labour in that trade out of all proportion to what had been the case. But it was well known that following on these very good years—and this had always been so—there came bad years, and we had, therefore, the good with the bad years; and, just as he could not justify the tax by reference only to the best years, so the tax could not be condemned by arguments drawn solely from the bad years. The Report of the Royal Commission had undoubtedly cleared the ground to a certain extent, and had disposed of some of the arguments which had at different times been used in debate, arguments which he had not employed and to which he had not attached much importance in his replies. For instance, though they did not express in any number of years the duration of our coal supplies, they had shown it was still so large as to remove all anxiety lest the supplies should be exhausted. The Commissioners did say what hon. Gentlemen had repeatedly mentioned, that the export coal trade was of great importance to the country generally, not merely to the coal industry itself but directly to the shipping trade and indirectly to many other industries through freights being affected by the absence of outward cargoes should coal exports be greatly diminished or on their extinction, were it possible for a moment to contemplate such a thing; and, referring to the tax itself, they said the export duty must affect the competitive power of this country and must have an influence on the export of coal. Figures had been cited in the course of the discussion in respect to particular districts, or ports, or sections of the trade, but the Committee would perhaps, allow him to, present a picture of what the trade as a whole had been in 1904 as compared with the preceding year. It was obviously possible out of the great mass of statistics to select a particular port or market and there show a great falling off in the export of coal, and it was equally true that the increase in a market might be caused by a trade dispute, a strike, or some abnormal circumstance, such as the war in the Far East, creating a demand for a particular coal. It was, therefore, important, for a true appreciation of the case, to examine the trade as a whole and not look merely to individual instances. Doing that, the result shown was that the number of men employed in the industry in 1904 was larger than the number in 1903, and the number of days work in each week only fractionally less— 5·07 as compared with 5·09. The production of coal was greater in 1904 than in 1903 to the extent of over 2,000,000 tons, but the average price at the pit's mouth had fallen, as hon. Members knew. In all the export coal districts—South Wales, Monmouth, Northumberland, and Fife—there was an increase in the number of men employed and the coal produced; only in Fife had there been a reduction in the days worked. Such was the condition of the trade as a whole. Was there any other great trade in the country of which it could be said that employment was better than in the year preceding? [Several hon. MEMBERS mentioned the textile trades.] He had not the figures before him, but he doubted if such a result could be shown in the woollen trade. The cotton trade was very bad in the early part of 1904, though in the latter part of the year there was a great revival. But even if any hon. Members could find specific trades where that was the case, speaking generally, the condition in those trades was not better in 1904 than in 1903. The coal tax could not affect home consumption; it could only affect exported coal. In 1903 was recorded the largest export up to that time, and it was exceeded in 1904. Excluding coke, patent fuel, and bunker coal the exports in 1904 amounted to 46,255,000 tons as against 44,950,000 tons in 1903, an increase of 1,305,000 tons, or including coke, patent fuel, and bunker coal the exports of 1904 exceeded the exports of the previous year by over 2,000,000 tons. In relation to banker coal, which some gentlemen wished to exclude from this comparison because bunker coal was not subject to the tax, it should be remembered that up to 1900 no one had any particular interest in separating this from other coal, and to make a fair comparison about 2,000,000 tons would have to be deducted on this account and attributed to bunker coal which in previous years was not entered specially as bunker coal but included in the total actually shipped. He was also asked what about the coal not exceeding 6s. per ton. There was an increase of that coal in 1904 in round figures of 1,300,000 tons. To what was that increase due? Obviously the general fall in the price of coal must bring a larger proportion of coal within the limit of the exemption. That was probably the main reason for the increase in the exportation of coal not exceeding 6s. a ton, but another reason was mentioned by the Commission in their Report. In recent years there had been vast improvements in the methods and appliances for preparing and utilising small coal. A great deal of small coal previously unmarketable, and often left in the pit to the great detriment of the workings, was now brought up and found a ready market either at home or abroad. As coal was less able to bear the tax, so it came within the limit of exemption and the amount of coal exempted increased. In 1902 the percentage of all the exports which received exemption was 6·72. In 1903 it was 9·89. In 1904, when the value of coal had further declined, the percentage which received exemption rose to 12·32. It would thus be seen that, in spite of the tax, the export of coal had continued to rise, and was greater in the last twelve months than in any previous similar period.

Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us the rate of development since the imposition of the tax as compared with the rate of development before the tax was imposed?

The increase in exports last year is much more than accounted for by the abnormal demand of the Russian and Japanese Navies.

replied that one of the difficulties of discussing that subject was that they were told each year that the exports had been maintained by abnormal circumstances which could not recur, and hon. Members opposite were obliged to continue to advance the argument that although after each completed year the exports had increased, it was due to exceptional circumstances. At any rate, it was sufficient for his purpose to say, whether owing to abnormal circumstances or not, the export of coal, which dropped in 1901 from the very high figure of 1900, had now exceeded the latter figure and broken the record. It was said that the price of coal had fallen. That was true of the price abroad, perhaps, more than at home. He had had some letters from gentlemen living in coal-producing districts complaining that the price quoted by deputations to them as being the price free on board for exports was a price at which they could not buy at the pit's mouth even if they sent their own carts for it.

A different class of coal.

said that his informants told him it was the same coal. For the first three months of this year, when other abnormal circumstances had arisen, the increase was again retained and amounted to over 500,000 tons, of which coal not exceeding 6s. accounted for only about 160,000 tons, or less than a third. He invited the Committee to look to the proportion which coal exported from this country bore to the total output of the country. That the coal trade had been suffering from low prices and was going through a bad time no one doubted; but was it the export trade, part of which was subject to this tax, which alone had experienced these bad times? He had shown that the exports had increased in spite of the tax. What had happened with regard to the amount of coal kept for home consumption? In 1900 the export was 25·93 per cent, of the total output. It had risen steadily in each year since then. In 1903 it was 27·7 per cent., and last year 28·32 per cent, of the total output. So this export trade, which it was suggested this tax would kill, bore a larger proportion to the total trade in coal now than it did in any of the previous years. Since 1900 the total output of coal had increased by 7,230,000 tons. The whole of that increase, and something more, had gone in exports, the home consumption remaining about stationary.

But that included bunkers.

Of course it did. He was aware that the hon. Member for Barnsley thought that bunkers ought to be excluded altogether from exports, but he differed from him upon that point. He altogether disagreed as to omitting bunker coal from the calculation. Not only did last year show the largest export of coal they had ever had—an increase even upon the high figure of the twelve months before—but it had shown that the whole increase on the output of coal had been in coal shipped from these shores, and not in coal remaining at home, which was free from the tax. It would be difficult, nay impossible, with those figures before them to contend that this tax was having the ruinous effect upon the export trade that hon. Gentlemen had attempted to prove. It was alleged that the tax was particularly injurious to trade with France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Spain, Scandinavia, and the short trades, and yet the export to those countries continued to increase, In 1902 it was 15,800,000 tons, and it had risen to 17,700,000 tons in 1904. If they took the countries separately they would find the exports in each case rose to a higher figure in 1904 than in 1903, and the figures for Germany were not affected by the strike. In the case of France alone had there been a fall—from 6,976,000 tons in 1903 to 6,757,000 tons in 1904, not a very considerable fall, but one deserving attention and which they must expect to see continued in the current year. The same fall was noticeable in the first quarter of 1905. What were the reasons for their losing their hold upon the French market? Undoubtedly it was largely due to the increased development of the Westphalian coalfields. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said but for the coal tax those fields would never have been developed.

I never said that. I said they were helped to be developed.

said he thought the hon. Gentleman underrated the signs of development visible before the tax was imposed, the certainty that a great development would take place with the growing wealth and industrial progress of Germany, and that the competition of the Westphalian coalfields was further aided by the facilities for water carriage which they possessed, which enabled them to dispense with transhipment. That development was further stimulated by those favourable and preferential railway rates which formed no small weapon in the German commercial armoury. The Royal Commission reported that in this country coal exporters did not try to suit the requirements of foreign markets, and that the methods of Germany were more scientific and satisfactory. The great importance of cleaning, sizing, and sorting coal was insisted on. Our coal in a natural state was better and cleaner than the German, and the latter had only been brought into competition by careful cleaning and grading. Circumstances pointed to keener competition in the French market, where we should not in future, perhaps, hold the position that we had in the past. But the increase of our exports to a group of countries more than counter balanced this decrease in the case of France. The representatives of the miners had pointed to the fall in wages which had taken place since this tax was imposed. With the fall in prices there had been undoubtedly a fall in wages, but to prove that wages fell because of the tax it was necessary to prove that the prices fell because of the tax. In 1900 wages, like prices, were abnormally high, and it was certain that worse times must come. But he had not been able to ascertain that the miners in the exporting districts had fared worse in 1904 than the miners in the non-exporting districts. [Cries of "Yes."] He was conscious that this tax stood in a peculiar position among our fiscal weapons. It was the only export tax that we had, and its effect upon the trade must be carefully watched. He could conceive positions in which it might exercise a very detrimental and even a fatal effect upon the trade. But it could not be said that it had excited that effect yet, or that the deterrent effect of which the Commission spoke had been sufficiently serious to impair the prosperity of the trade. The Commission reported that the volume of the coal export trade had steadily increased during the last thirty years, and that the rate of increase in exports had been greater than that of the total output. This showed that many other factors much more important than the coal tax had been at work. There was a case for watching the tax and a case for greater energy on the part of those engaged in the trade and for careful consideration by them of how their methods might be improved.