Commons Sitting of 16 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Highland Railway Bill; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill; Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill; Dundee Water Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Thursday.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cheltenham and Horsham (Rural)," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred
460
to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]
Local Government Provisional Older (Poor Law) (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Southampton Incorporation," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.

1. "That, in the case of the Wigan Corporation Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

2. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to introduce their Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

3. "That, in the case of the Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to introduce their Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

4. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways) Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

First three Resolutions agreed to.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Dublin Police Acts Amendment Bill. Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Dublin Police Acts Amendment Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Clancy.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Amendment to Holy Trinity, Portsea, Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove doubts as to the validity of a certain Decree, dated twenty-second November, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, of the High Court of Justice (Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division) dissolving the Marriage solemnised on the eleventh July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, between John Richard Malone and Charlotte Mildred Malone, then Charlotte Mildred Yarde-Buller, Spinster, and to confirm the said Decree." [Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Charles George Gamble (formerly of No. 14, Rostrevor Terrace, Orwell Road, Rathgar, but now of Mount Jerome House, both in the county of Dublin, and of 39, Fleet Street, in the city of Dublin), Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland, with Ida Gertrude Gamble, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes." [Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Jane Sarah Victoria Lautour, of Ansty House, Erdington, in the county of Warwick, with Ernest Lautour, her husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes. "Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the County Council of Middlesex to pay certain sums agreed to be paid by them to the Alexandra Park Trustees; and for other purposes." [Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords.]
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords]; Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords]; Lautour's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

PETITIONS.
  COMPULSORY VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Sanitary Institute, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Reigate, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  Petition from Old Monkland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition of Royal Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition of Royal Sanitary Institute, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition of Royal Sanitary Institute, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Manchester; and West London; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th June, 1904; Mr. Graham Murray]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 165.]
  UGANDA RAILWAY ACTS, 1896 AND 1902.
  Account presented, showing the money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Uganda Railway Acts, 1896 (59 and 60 Vic., c. 38), and 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 40), and of the money expended and borrowed, and Securities created under the said Acts, to 31st March, 1904, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 166.]
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 14) Warrant, 1905, dated 22nd March, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments). Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments performed on Living Animals during the year 1904, under licences granted under the Act, 39 and 40 Vic. 3. 77, distinguishing painless from painful experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 183, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the names of the Lay Assistant Commissioners acting as Purchase Inspectors under the Land Purchase Acts; (2) date of original Appointment; (3) date upon which Appointment expires; (4) age on Appointment; (5) residence at time of Appointment; (6) Locality in which practical experience of Land was acquired; (7) where Educated; (8) previous Occupation; (9) acreage of Land farmed; (10) whether held as Cwner or Tenant; (11) what other experience in Agriculture; and (12) what experience in Valuing, Mapping,
  464
  and Surveying; and like Particulars with reference to others than Lay Assistant Commissioners, if any, who have been appointed Inspectors under The Land Purchase Act, 1903."—(Mr. Delany.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Discharges from Government Dockyards.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the total number of workmen discharged from Portsmouth, Chatham, Devonport, Sheerness, and Pembroke Dockyards since June, 1903, for causes other than misconduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The total number of men discharged from the dockyards since June, 1903, for causes other than misconduct, are as follows:—

  Portsmouth

  1,842

  Chatham

  1,967

  Devonport

  2,492

  Sheerness

  679

  Pembroke

  252

  These figures include men discharged at their own request and on superannuation, but not those entered for casual employment.

  Estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of estates or untenanted farms purchased by the Congested Districts Board in unscheduled districts since the Congested Districts Act of 1901 was passed; and the number of cases in which, in respect to such estates or untenanted farms, the Congested Districts Board requested the Lord-Lieutenant to exercise the power conferred upon him by the 3rd Section of said Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of estates and untenanted farms purchased is thirty-eight. The number referred to in the second inquiry is one. In the case of untenanted farms it is not necessary for the Board's purpose to put into

  465
  force the powers of Section 3. This is only necessary in the case of tenants or tenant purchasers to whom the Board desire to give additional land for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings situated in non-congested districts.

  Irish Mackerel Fisheries
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Board of Agriculture has been called to the complaints made regarding the injury done to the mackerel fishing industry of Ireland by captures of immature mackerel by Scotch fishing boats engaged in the herring fishery at an early season of the year; and whether, in view of the fact that the Scotch Fisheries Board prohibit fishing for herrings in the Scotch fishing grounds before the middle of June, steps will be taken to protect the Irish fishing grounds from this destructive practice.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that injury is caused to the autumn mackerel fishing and fish curing industry in Ireland by the extensive capture of immature mackerel in herring fishing nets or seines at an early period of the fishing season, and that the haak fishing is threatened with destruction owing to the growth of this practice; and whether steps will be taken by the fishery inspectors of the Irish Board of Agriculture to prohibit all herring fishing in Irish waters before the first or second week in June.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is the fact that small mackerel have been captured in large quantities by the herring boats that fish from Kinsale during the month of May. This could only be prevented by stopping the spring herring fishing off the south coast during that month, the only month in which it can be profitably carried on. The entire question was investigated at public inquiries held at Kinsale and other places in 1892, with the result that no by-law could be framed that would satisfactorily meet its different aspects. The scientific adviser to the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture is of opinion that the capture of small mackerel by herring nets
  466
  in serious quantity is sporadic rather than regular, that it is, in fact, an accident in a most important industry, and appears to have recurred through a great number of years, which commenced long before any failure of the mackerel fishery, spring or harvest, could be laid to its account. The Department are not aware that the Scotch Fishery Board prohibit herring fishing on the Scotch fishing grounds before the middle of June. At the inquiries above referred to, evidence was submitted as to the destruction of considerable numbers of small and unsaleable haak by the herring nets. This seems to be unavoidable, but it does not afford sufficient justification for prohibiting a profitable herring fishing in the month of May.

  Anæsthetics Administered by Unregis- tered Dentists.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the death of a young woman at Carlisle, whilst having teeth extracted by an unregistered dentist; and whether, in view of the frequency of deaths from anæsthetics administered by unqualified dentists, he will consider the advisability of promoting legislation for the protection of the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have received a report of the facts of this case from the coroner, and I shall communicate them to the Privy Council Office for the Lord President's consideration. The propriety of the action of the unregistered dentist in this case may be considered open to question, but I do not think further proceedings are called for. It should be remembered that unregistered practitioners who undertake serious operations resulting in death may be prosecuted for manslaughter.

  Sale of Poisons.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR; To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest at the City Coroner's Court, n the 25th April last, at which the jury unanimously expressed the opinion that

  467
  it should be made compulsory for all poisons to be sold in bottles of standard shape, and easily distinguishable by touch; will he state whether he will introduce legislation this session; and, in view of the possibility of early legislation, will he seek the opinion of Metropolitan coroners on the subject
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The rider to the verdict of the jury in the case referred to was communicated to me by the coroner. I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 13th March† respecting legislation. The matter is under the consideration of the Privy Council Office, who will have full information before them.

  Case of James Nicholson at South-Western Police Court.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the case of James Nicholson, who was sentenced at the South - Western Police Court some ten days ago to fourteen days imprisonment for stealing a loaf of bread; whether he has been able to order his discharge; and, if so, on what date was the prisoner released.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have made inquiry of the magistrate who dealt with this case and find that it is true that the prisoner, whose age appears to be nineteen, and not seventeen, as stated in the Question, declared to the policeman who arrested him that he was hungry and that stealing was the only way in which he had been able to live. It appeared, however, that he was charged with an offence last month and allowed to go to a Salvation Army Home. That he left this place after a few days because, according to his own account, he did not like the people or the work, and that previously to this he had given up respectable employment that was open to him. I have also received a letter from the Police Court missionary, to whom the hon. Member referred in his previous Question, in which he points out that the newspaper report of the statement he
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 1204.
  468
  made in this case is imperfect and inaccurate, and explains that the trouble he had taken about Nicholson on a previous occasion had been of no avail. In these circumstances I see no reason for advising any interference with the lenient sentence passed by the magistrate. I may add that the reports of Police Court cases which appear in the daily Press are necessarily brief, and, in my experience, are often extremely misleading.

  The Underground Cable to the North.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what progress has been made with the underground telegraph cable to the North.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The cable is complete as far as Carlisle; the pipes are all laid between Carlisle and Glasgow; and the cable for these pipes has been ordered, and will be drawn in during the present year. The underground line from London to Glasgow will then be complete.

  Holy Rood Roman Catholic Church, Swindon.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if Holy Rood Roman Catholic Church. Swindon, was, prior to 1903, certified for worship and the registration of marriages; and if, on the sale of this church in 1903, Holy Rood temporary church was similarly certified and the usual fees paid; if it is the case that a new church has now been completed on what is substantially the same site for the congregation of Holy Rood Church, Swindon, and that the Registrar - General has thereupon decided that a fresh certification of the church is necessary for the purposes of worship and to licensing of marriages; and what are the reasons for this decision; and what is the total amount in fees which will have been paid in respect of the original church, the temporary church, and the new church of the Holy Rood, Swindon.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have communicated with the Registrar-General on this subject, and I understand that the circumstances are as stated in

  469
  the Question. The Registrar - General informs me "that his decision is based on the fact that, although the new Holy Rood Church is built on the same property as the temporary church, there is no internal communication between them. The two churches cannot, therefore, be held to be one and the same building, the only ground on which the statutory fees could be remitted. This ruling is in accordance with Section 19 of 6 and 7 William 4, c. 85, and with precedent, and it is necessary, therefore, that the new church should be certified for worship and registered for marriages, if it is desired that marriages should be legally celebrated therein. The fees that have been paid and are payable are—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Original church.

  3

  2

  6

  Temporary church

  3

  2

  6

  New church

  3

  2

  6."

  Cutting down of Standing Timber in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the action taken by various county councils and other representative public bodies in Ireland in the direction of reafforestation, and the feeling in Ireland on the subject, measures will be adopted for the purpose of preventing Irish landlords from cutting down the standing timber on their properties when selling to their tenants under the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Land Commissioners have no jurisdiction such as is suggested, nor are they aware that timber has been cut down by landlords in anticipation of sales. In the case of tenant-purchasers, however, the Commissioners possess the ordinary legal rights of mortgagees to restrain the purchasers from committing waste of the nature indicated, and thereby depreciating the security.

  King-Harman and Sandford Estates.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can state the number of cases
  470
  on the King-Harman Estate and Sandford Estate respectively in which they have approached or negotiated with tenants in possession of grazing lauds or non-residential holdings for the sale to them of the tenant's interest in same for the purpose of the division of these lands amongst the holders of uneconomic holdings; in how many cases have these negotiations been successful; and on what terms is the money proposed to be repaid which is advanced for the purchase of the tenants' interests.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In five cases on the estate of E. C. King-Harman, the Estates Commissioners have intimated that if the vendor should buy up the tenants' interest and offer the holdings to them as untenanted land, they will be prepared to consider favourably the question of their purchase for the purpose of the enlargement of smaller holdings on this estate. The advances will be made for the purchase of the fee simple of the lands as untenanted.

  Punishment of Chinese Coolies in the Transvaal.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in some of the compounds in South Africa Chinese who refuse to go down the mines unless paid 2s. per day are tied up to a pole by their pigtails in such a way that their toes only just touch the ground, and are then thrashed; and will he give instructions for an immediate discontinuance of such punishment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) No, Sir; I am not aware of this.

  Royal Army Medical Corps—Reserve of Civilian Surgeons.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is his intention to form a reserve of civilian surgeons in connection with the Royal Army Medical Corps, in view of the experiences gained in the South African War.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The subject is receiving consideration.

  Reorganisation of the Auxiliary Forces.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any intention of carrying out in the near future the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission appointed to consider the reorganisation of the Auxiliary Forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I have every hope that it may be possible to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the direction of improving the organisation of the Auxiliary Forces. But for reasons which I have frequently pointed out in debate, these changes cannot be made on a large scale at once. Most of the recommendations involve the expenditure of money which is not at present available for this purpose.

  Government Stores.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that it is impossible to ascertain who supplied a large portion of the stores destroyed in South Africa, he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions that all stores supplied to the War Office should bear a distinctive mark, in order that the contractors of all stores may be identified when necessary.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Under existing instructions, stores supplied to the War Office are required, as far as possible, in the case of those which are capable of being stamped or branded, to bear the distinctive mark of the contractor concerned. It must be remembered that there are some stores which do not readily admit of being so stamped or branded.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Elder, Dempster Contract.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the contract of April 19th, 1900, between the Crown Agents and Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Co., has been fulfilled in respect of Clauses 2 and 3 thereof; and, if not, have any steps been taken to bring about the full services contracted for.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and eamington): The contract has been fulfilled in regard to all the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, except in so far as two of the steamers now on the line have at times failed to show themselves capable of maintaining the speed required by Clause 3 (b). This matter has formed the subject of correspondence and negotiations between the Jamaica Government, the contractor, and myself, with a view to securing satisfactory fulfilment of the intention of the contract.

  Motor-Cyclist's Accident at Petersfield.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the recent accident near Petersfield, in which a naval officer riding a motor-bicycle was knocked down by a cart, which was immediately driven away by the man in charge, while the officer lay stunned and wounded on the ground; whether any steps have been taken to ascertain the identity of the cart.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): Yes, Sir; and I have obtained a report upon the case from the Hampshire police. I find that the identity of the driver and of the cart has been ascertained, and that inquiries are being made by the police with a view to proceedings being taken against the driver for an offence under the Highway Act.

  Post Office Counter Duties.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether he will make inquiry into the system existing at many provincial head post offices whereby junior and unestablished officers are placed on counter duties in positions involving monetary responsibility; and whether, in view of the fact that all losses have to be made good, the staff shall have adequate opportunities for learning the work before being entrusted with the responsibility, and that only officers of experience shall in future be entrusted with counter duties.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): If the hon. Member will furnish me with some concrete instances of the system to which he refers I will make inquiries; but I may say that it is the general practice to assign important counter duties, involving considerable monetary responsibility, to the more experienced officers as far as possible.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: When I give the noble Lord information in a concrete case he answers me in the abstract.

  Overseerships in Provincial Head Offices
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when it is intended to issue the scheme dealing with the increase of overseerships, and whether promotions will date from April 1st, 1905; whether the claims of members of the staff in provincial head offices, who have performed supervising duties of three or four months duration annually for several years, will be considered; and whether, in connection with the proposed scheme and promotions, it is intended to take into account the fact that at many offices ordinary members of the staff are in full charge of the business during the despatch of important mails.
  LORD STANLEY: The examination of the duties at the various offices is not yet quite completed. The resulting promotions will take effect from the date of my approval, and I am not prepared to date them from April 1st. Due consideration will be given to duties involving supervision.

  Motor-Car Speeds.
  MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state the names of the local authorities who have applied for power to limit the speed of motor-cars within their area to ten miles an hour, and have had their application refused; whether in each case the application has been successfully opposed by the Automobile Club, the Motor Union, or other motorist clubs; and whether, in
  474
  view of the many recent accidents caused by motor-cars driving at a high speed through populous places, he will look more favourably upon the application of local authorities to limit the speed of motor-cars to ten miles an hour in those places.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The names of the local authorities who have made applications of the kind referred to which have not been complied with are—The Common Council of the City of London, and the town councils of Beverley, Bury, Dover, Kingston-on-Thames, Leeds, Leigh, Newport (Monmouthshire), Todmorden, Winchester, and Whitehaven. The application was in each case opposed by an organisation such as is mentioned in the Question, there was a local inquiry at which both sides were heard, and the inspector reported the evidence to the Local Government Board together with the result of his own observation. As regards the last part of the Question, I can assure the hon. Member that I will give unprejudiced consideration to any application that may be made to me for the imposition of a speed limit in populous places.

  Private Burial Grounds in Monastic and Conventual Institutions.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of private burial grounds that exist in connection with monastic and conventual institutions in the United Kingdom; does he from time to time give his sanction for these private burial grounds; and, if so, how many have been sanctioned within the past five-years.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The jurisdiction of the Local Government Board under the Burial Acts only extends to England and Wales, and their approval of the opening of a new burial ground is required where the ground is in the Metropolis as defined by the Burial Act, 1852, or within two miles of any part of it, or where there is in force an Order on Council which for

  475
  the protection of the public health renders such approval necessary. Since the transfer to the Board on January 1st, 1901, of the jurisdiction which the Secretary of State previously exercised in this matter, their approval has been given to the opening of five new burial grounds in connection with monastic and conventual institutions.

  Gwydyr House.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the increased office accommodation shortly at the dis-po al of the Government, and with a view to preserving a valuable open space, he will consider the possibility of removing the recently erected one-storey extension of Gwydyr House.
  LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to give any assurance in this matter before the completion of the Government buildings now in course of construction.

  Scottish Herring Fisheries.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the period of the year prior to which the Scotch Fishery Board prohibits fishing for herrings in the Scotch fishing grounds.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): No prohibition of herring fishing by the authority of the Fishery Board exists in Scotland, but for local statutory regulations I may refer the hon. Member to 52 and 53 Vict. cap. 23, Section 5, which relates to that section of the coast extending from Ardnamurchan Point to the Mull of Galloway.

  Scottish Board of Manufactures.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate what steps have been taken by the Secretary for Scotland, or are going to be taken, to carry out the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Board of Manufactures of two years ago.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Secretary for Scotland has recently discussed the situation with representatives of the Town Council of Edinburgh and various bodies interested, and has the whole subject under his immediate consideration. He hopes shortly to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

  Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891—Refund of Postage.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if, in view of the fact that postage to the local officers under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, must be prepaid and registered, and that the local officers obtain a refund for postage and registration of their replies, will he say why the public have not the same facilities.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): Local registrars of titles are refunded the cost of postages officially incurred by them because they are public officials. I am not aware of any reason why the public should have the same facilities; but the matter is one for the Postmaster-General.

  Trinity College Commission Report.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the Report of the Trinity College Commission will be issued; and whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House as a Parliamentary Paper.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): As already stated, I have received, and am considering, this Report, which will be laid on the Table in the course of the present week.
  MR. FLAVIN: The Attorney-General promised it should be published last March, and you promised it for the middle of April, yet we have not got it yet!
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not remember any such promise on my part.

  Flax Culture in Ireland.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much money has been spent in trying to improve flax culture in Ireland since the Government commenced to make special loans and grants with that object; and whether he will lay Reports showing what success has attended these efforts.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Since 1900 the net expenditure of the Department of Agriculture in this matter has been £8,490. The results of the experiments are detailed in the Department's Annual Reports and Quarterly Journals.

  Irish Agricultural Department— Veterinary Branch.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since it appears that a number of Catholic gentlemen in the veterinary branch of the Irish Agricultural Department are restricted to practically stationary salaries of £95 a year, while increases of salary have been granted to certain other officials, he will state what steps he proposes taking in order to secure that any economy effected in the remuneration of the Catholic officials shall not be availed of to increase further the salaries of higher paid officials.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This Question repeats an insinuation which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is entirely unjustifiable. I have nothing to add to the replies already given, except to say that the officials in the veterinary branch are on the scale of salary fixed for the grade to which they belong, and that their salaries are not stationary.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these clerks will not reach their maximum for twenty-five years?
  MR. O'KELLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to granting an inquiry into the alleged grievances of these clerks?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I see no reason why an inquiry should be granted.

  Warden Estate, Sneem.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that none of the evicted tenants have as yet been reinstated on the Warden Estate at Sneem; can he state the reason of the delay; and can he say whether any negotiations have been opened with the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of the remaining portions of the estate.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have no information as to the first part of the Question; no responsibility for any delay in the reinstatement of the evicted tenants can rest, however, with the landlord. The estate, which is a large and complicated one, is being dealt with by the Commissioners, but some time must elapse, I understand, before the sale can be completed.

  Irish Education—Mr. Downing's Report.
  MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. E. Downing, late chief inspector under the Irish Board of National Education, made any report on the state of education in Ireland since that published in the Appendix to the 68th Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1901; if so, why his report is not published in the Appendix to the 69th Report or in the Appendix to the 70th Report recently issued; will he cause such a report to be laid on the Table of the House; and whether, if Mr. Downing's report was not presented to the Board as customary, he can state why the usual course was dispensed with on this occasion.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; both of the chief inspectors, Messrs. Downing and Purser, made general reports for 1902 which were not published. These reports consisted largely of extracts taken from the reports of the senior inspectors, and the Commissioners decided that it was preferable to publish the latter reports in their entirety. This

  479
  was accordingly done. Mr. Downing did not furnish any subsequent report. He has since retired from the service.

  Cragg and Ardcrone Farms, County Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Cragg and Ardcrone Farms, county Kerry, purchased by the Congested Districts Board over a year ago, are practically derelict and cannot be used for any suitable purpose by the Board owing to the circumstances under which they were purchased; and, if so, whether the Board would be prepared to reconsider the question of these farms with the view of effecting a reinstatement of the original tenants who were evicted from them.
  MR. WALTER LONG: These lands have been fully stocked with cattle during the past year. As to the remainder of the Question I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to his previous Question of the 10th April.†
  MR. MURPHY; Is it not the fact that the cattle are merely the property of the local graziers and farmers and that no practical use is being made of the farms?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not know who are the owners.

  King Harman Estate Bog Lands.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. John Drury, chairman of the Boyle United Irish League, has been appointed by the Estates Commissioners, at a salary, to distribute the bog lands on the King Harman Estate to the tenants.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed by the Commissioners that Mr. Drury has been provisionally appointed secretary to trustees in whom it is proposed to vest certain bogs on this estate. The appointment, however, is one for which the Commissioners are not in any way responsible, and no payment in respect of it will be made from moneys within the control of the Commissioners.
  † See (4) Debates, exliv., 1028.

  Corglass and Cornakelly Estate, Longford
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Corglass and Cornakelly Estate of Mr. O'Brien is yet in a position to be offered for sale to the tenants; whether the negotiations which were on foot some months ago have been suspended or are proceeding; and when these tenants may expect to be vested.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The difficulties experienced in completing the arrangements for the sale of this estate have now been surmounted, and active steps are being taken for its sale to the Estates Commissioners.

  Intermediate Examinations in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask
  the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reasons which induced the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland to abolish the preparatory grade in examinations under the Board; and also why it was that the age limit for the junior grade was increased.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The preparatory grade has not been abolished, but the award of exhibitions in that grade has been discontinued for some years, for the reasons stated by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover in reply to a Question on June 20th, ‡ 1901. The age limit for the pass examinations of the junior and higher grades was increased in order to enable students between sixteen and nineteen to qualify for certificates. The limit of age for candidates for exhibitions and prizes has not been increased.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is this to be a permanent arrangement?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Irish Education—Rule 127 (b).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask
  the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed
  ‡ See (4) Debates, xcv., 915.

  481
  at meetings of the four deaneries of the diocese of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise; and whether the protest against Rule 127 (b) contained in these resolutions will receive attention.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

  County Longford Magistracy.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the present appointment of Mr. Alexander W. Percival, of Minard, county Longford, as a justice of the peace for county Longford, and will he say on whose recommendation the lord-lieutenant of the county made this appointment; how many Catholic and Protestant magistrates have since April 1st, 1899, been appointed in county Longford; and whether, in view of the fact that ninety-one per cent, of the population of county Longford is Catholic, he will suggest to the Lord Chancellor the desirability of more equitably manning the magisterial bench in that county.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Mr. Percival was, in the usual course, appointed by, the Lord Chancellor upon the recommendation of His Majesty's lieutenant of the county. Ten magistrates have been appointed since April 1st, 1899, of whom it is believed six are members of the Irish Church, three are Catholics, and one a Methodist. The Lord Chancellor and the lieutenant of the county are always ready to consider the names of any properly qualified Catholic gentlemen which may be brought to their notice.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on several occasions public boards in the county have sent forward the names of responsible Catholic gentlemen, and no attention has been paid to them?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware of that.

  Youghal Auxiliary Asylum.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  482
  Ireland if, in view of the fact that appointments to the office of visiting physician to Irish lunatic asylums have been abolished, he will explain how the Lord - Lieutenant has been able to sanction the appointment of a visiting physician to the Youghal Auxiliary Asylum.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The appointment of visiting physician was abolished prior to the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898; but Section 84 (1) (b) of this Act empowers asylum committees to appoint an assistant medical officer, who is under the control of the resident superintendent. This is the appointment the Lord-Lieutenant sanctioned.

  Underfed School Children in Ireland.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board is willing to adopt the Order issued by the President of the English Local Government Board, dated April 26th, 1905, and addressed to the several Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, making provision for the supply of necessary food to underfed children attending elementary schools, in view of the extent to which poverty exists in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Local Government Board are advised that they have no power under the Irish Poor Law to make such an Order. The legal question will be referred to the law officers for advice.

  Enniskillen Assizes—Case of Owen Cleary.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a man named Owen Cleary was convicted at the summer assizes, held in Enniskillen on July 8th, 1904, and sentenced to three years penal servitude, that subsequently the statements made at the trial were found to be untrue, that a memorial was afterwards presented to the Lord-Lieutenant narrating all the facts as to Cleary's innocence, that the prayer of the memorial was refused, that after the

  483
  publication of the Beck case Cleary was requested by the Governor of Maryborough Prison to send forward another memorial, dated January 12th, 1905, and that his sentence was commuted by the Lord-Lieutenant on February 1st; and whether, seeing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, he will say what steps the Government propose to take by way of compensating Cleary for the injury he has sustained.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This man was, in the opinion of the learned Judge who tried the case, properly convicted of rape. The only new information subsequently obtained was that the woman had not given her true name, and that there was some suspicion that her character was not so good as she had represented it to be; but nothing transpired to show that the accused was not guilty. The Judge, however, informed the Lord-Lieutenant that had he been aware that the woman's character was not as represented at the trial, he would probably have passed a less severe sentence. The memorials only prayed for a reduction of the sentence, and His Excellency, taking into consideration the matters I have mentioned, ultimately ordered the release of the accused on January 28th last. No miscarriage of justice, as is referred to, occurred in the case. The Governor of the prison made no request or suggestion to the prisoner.

  Youghal Auxiliary Asylum Accounts.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the auditor has not yet signed the accounts in connection with the Auxiliary Asylum at Youghal.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The audit of the accounts of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, which embraces those in connection with the Auxiliary Asylum at Youghal, has been completed for the half-year ended 30th September, 1904. The audit for the half-year to 31st March last has not yet been undertaken.

  Youghal Asylum Chaplain's Residence.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the house
  484
  built by public money for a resident medical superintendent in connection with the Auxiliary Asylum at Youghal is at present occupied by a Roman Catholic chaplain; and, if so, will he explain whether this change has the sanction of the Inspectors of Lunacy.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. There is no legal provision which requires that the sanction of the inspectors should be obtained in such a matter.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the physician lives within a very easy distance of the asylum, and that no complaint has ever been received that the welfare of the patients is neglected, but that, on the contrary, the arrangement gives complete satisfaction.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No complaints have been brought to my knowledge.
  MR. SLOAN: But is it legal for this house thus to be occupied?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot answer that until I have looked more fully into the circumstances. I am inquiring into all the matters connected with this asylum just now.

  Irish Local Government Board Auditors.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the Local Government Board auditors in Ireland were previously accountants, or held or hold any certificate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants or any kindred body; whether he can state if the Public Bodies Order, 1904, for Ireland was approved of by the present staff of auditors; whether the effect of the Order will be to confine the duties of the auditors to the correction of figures and the noting of illegal payments, and to throw upon the local bodies the onus of preparing for the auditors a draft accountant's statement; and whether he is aware that such a system was unanimously condemned in the Report of the Joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Ten out of the staff of seventeen auditors had experience of public accounts prior to their appointment. The Answer to the second inquiry is in the affirmative. The Order will not have the effect suggested in the third inquiry, but will render the audit more searching, and consequently of greater value. The Joint Committee on Municipal Trading expressed the opinion that the duties of auditors should not be confined to the mere certification of figures; but such limited system of audit does not prevail in Ireland. The recommendations of the Committee did not apply to Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: How many have a certificate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants or some similar body?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I can. There are none.

  Appointment of Auditors by the Irish Local Board.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the recommendation of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Municipal Trading that none but members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or of the Incorporated Society of Accountants and Auditors should be appointed by local authorities as auditors, he will undertake that in any future appointments as public auditors in Ireland the same qualifications will be insisted upon that the Joint Committee urged in the case of the local auditors who are subject to the public auditors.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Local Government Board auditors in Ireland have to satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners not only of their knowledge of accounts, but also of their general proficiency, including a knowledge of the Poor Laws. The questions which come before them for decision are questions of law quite as much as of accounts. No change in the present system of appointment is proposed.

  Irish Local Authorities' Accounts.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Municipal Trading laid down that the Local Government Departments should consult the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the Incorporated Society of Accountants and Auditors before prescribing a standard form of keeping accounts for local authorities; and whether any such conference or consultation took place prior to the issue of the Public Bodies Order, 1904, for Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This recommendation of the Committee had special reference to the question of municipal trading, and was not extended by them to the case of Ireland, where such trading has made little headway. The Answer to the latter inquiry is in the negative. Local authorities in Ireland, before embarking on any large scheme of municipal trading, will be required to submit their accounts in such matters in a form which will meet the Committee's recommendations on the subject.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid that, as a matter of fact, the local authorities had themselves to do certain work because the auditors were not competent.

  Case of Constable Anderson, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the persistent attacks made on a permanent official of the Irish Government in connection with the case of Constable Anderson, he will grant a public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the dismissal and reinstatement of Constable Anderson.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir. I see no reason to grant the proposed inquiry.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of the exceedingly serious nature of the accusations which are being made by hon. Members against certain members of the Irish Government, and in view of the conflict

  487
  that has arisen between the Member for Dover and certain Members of the House on matters of fact, the right hon. Gentleman will not say that it is in the public interest to grant a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: May I ask whether the Under-Secretary for Ireland has authorised the hon. Members for Waterford and East Mayo to take up this question?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will at once answer that insinuation. I have had no communication, direct or indirect, with the Under-Secretary on this question.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Then the hon. Member is unauthorised?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were you authorised by Lord Londonderry?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am certain that my hon. friend is mistaken as to the Under-Secretary having any knowledge or any share in the putting of this Question. As the hon. Gentleman who put the additional Question is aware, a controversy has arisen over two totally different subjects—first, whether or not the case of Constable Anderson was properly dealt with; and, secondly, the share which the Under-Secretary had in the conduct of the case. On the first head I have to say that there seems to be no necessity for an inquiry, and on the second point my right hon. friend the late Chief Secretary has stated that the charges against the Under-Secretary are unfounded and ought not to have been brought forward. I have examined the Papers dealing with the subject, and my view agrees with that of my right hon. friend the Member for Dover that there is no necessity for an inquiry, nor could a good result come out of further investigation, which, as I am advised, is unnecessary.
  MR. DILLON: In view of the fact that recently in the House a statement was made by the late Chief Secretary, which I cannot accept as having been accurately repeated by the right hon. Gentleman, and was challenged——
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I rise to a point of order——
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Mayo is in possession of the House.
  MR. DILLON: Hon. Members opposite are evidently very much afraid of the facts. I notice with interest their extreme anxiety. I ask whether, in view of what occurred recently in the House, when the hon. Member for North Antrim flatly contradicted the right hon. Member for Dover, and asserted publicly in the House that the charges made against the Under-Secretary for Ireland were absolutely true——
  MR. T. L. CORBETTagain rose to order amid loud cries of "Sit down."
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: He is rising to a point of order.
  MR. REDDY: Why do not you name him?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member wait and see the purport of the Question.
  MR. DILLON: Whether in view of the fact that the Chief Secretary will not either grant a public inquiry into all the facts of this case or inform the House whether he has studied the facts himself, he will make a public statement in reply to the charges brought publicly in the House by the Member for North Antrim?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have already stated that I do not consider any inquiry necessary, and that no good object could be served by holding it. I do not understand what form it is suggested that the inquiry should take, nor what its scope should be in order to carry out the object of the hon. Member. I stated just now that I had myself examined the case, and I confirm absolutely the view expressed by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover and the action taken in this matter—action for which he was alone responsible—that the charges made against the Under-Secretary of having unduly influenced the policy of the Government were unfounded. I do not

  489
  see that any good object would be served by an inquiry, nor do I realise what form any such inquiry could take.
  MR. DILLON: My Question on the Paper indicated fully the form and the scope of the inquiry—namely, "A public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the dismissal and reinstatement of Constable Anderson." Inasmuch as so much public scandal has arisen, I desire that all the facts should be made public. We are not afraid of facts. I ask tine right hon. Gentleman, however, whether I am to understand his reply as implying that there is not an atom of foundation for any of the charges made against Sir Antony MacDonnell in connection with this case.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said on the subject. I have stated frankly what I believe to be the true story of this case, and I cannot in answer to Questions deal more fully with the subject nor add anything to what I have said.
  MR. DILLON: What we desire is that all the facts should be made public. We are not afraid of facts.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: You are making a speech.
  MR. MACVEAGH: That is more than you can make.
  MR. DILLON: Am I to understand, from what the Chief Secretary has said, that there is not an atom of foundation for any of the charges made against Sir Antony MacDonnell?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have said frankly what I believe to be the true history of the case, and I cannot deal further with it in answer to a Question.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to give notice, then, that I shall raise this question again on the Chief Secretary's salary.
  MR. MACVEAGH: And the Ulstermen will run away.
  MR. REDDY: The cowards.

  Irish Police and the Rev. Father Dunne, C.C.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why on last week the Reverend Father Dunne, C.C., on being changed by the Bishop of the diocese from the parish of Cappatagle to Ballymackward, had to telegraph to the district inspector for permission for his friends in Cappatagle to accompany him to his new sphere of duty, which is in the neighbouring parish.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am unable to explain why the reverend gentleman telegraphed this inquiry to the district inspector, but the reply given by the latter was what might have been anticipated, namely, that there would be no interference with the band on such an occasion.

  Ballinasloe Petty Sessions Clerk and the Mahon Estate.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Rothwell, the petty sessions clerk of Ballinasloe, is in possession of eighteen acres of the Mahon, Ballydonlan, property purchased by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, how long has he been, and what is the nature of his tenancy.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answers I have already given him. No further proceedings before the Commissioners have taken place.
  MR. ROCHE: I have never got an Answer to the Question: is Mr. Rothwell in possession of these eighteen acres. I know for a positive fact he is.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It seems to me that our positions should be reversed, for the hon. Member is giving rather than asking for information. I cannot help thinking the hon. Member is referring to the desmesne lands.
  MR. ROCHE: No, I am not.

  The Mahon Estate.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  491
  Ireland whether Martin Shea has signed an agreement to purchase a portion of the grazing land on the Mahon, Ballydonlan, Estate, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, which he previously held on the eleven months system; and, if so, what was his rent per acre then compared with future rent to the Government; and whether several of the tenants who signed agreements to purchase have since petitioned the Commissioners to take back the land, as they consider the future rent an impossible one.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Mr. Shea has purchased ten acres on this estate, which he held as tenant. His rent was £1 8s. per acre, and the purchase annuity amounts to £1 3s. 6d. per acre. No such application as is mentioned in the last inquiry has been received by the Commissioners.

  Clerkships in the Dublin Law Courts.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when it is intended to hold the next examination for clerkships in the Dublin Law Courts; and whether there will be open competition for future appointments.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): I am informed that the next examination for junior clerkships in the High Court in Ireland will, according to the ordinary course, be held whenever the necessity shall arise for filling a vacancy by open competition.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is an examination always held when a vacancy occurs?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes, Sir, whenever it is thought desirable.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Are any clerks appointed without examination?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I must ask for notice of that.

  Pirrie-Iveagh Motor Scheme.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to
  492
  state if any, and, if so, what, progress has been made with the Pirrie-Iveagh motor scheme during the past six months; and, if not, whether he can state if the scheme has been abandoned.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. and learned friend to the hon. Member's previous Questions of 2nd† and 9th March.†
  MR. MACVEAGH: My Question deals with the last six months only.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scheme has been abandoned?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not sure. There was a condition that the county councils should make certain improvements of the roads, and that has not been acted upon.
  MR. MACVEAGH: What progress has been made in the last six months?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I believe none.

  Afforestation in Ireland.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that with a view to promoting afforestation in Ireland it has been decided to have an Arbor Day celebrated in November; and can he say whether any, and, if so, what, facilities for the purchase of trees will be given to local associations throughout the country which desire to celebrate the day.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No representations have been made to the Department as to an Arbor Day celebration this year. Facilities are given under the county agricultural and horticultural schemes for encouraging the planting of trees. These include the purchase and re-sale at cost price of trees to residents in counties which adopt the scheme.

  Sitting of Land Sub-Commission at Killarney.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 187, 929.

  493
  of Ireland when the next sitting of the Sub-Commission will be held in Killarney.
  MR. WALTER LONG: On the 27th June next.

  Belturbet Postal Service.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why there is a postal service from Cavan to Belturbet by the 9.50 a.m. train, and what is the cost of same; whether, seeing that Cavan has this service, he will explain why Belturbet is denied similar facilities; and will he say what would be the cost of a service from Belturbet to Cavan by the 9.10 a.m. train.
  LORD STANLEY: The mail from Cavan to Belturbet by the 9.45 a.m. train was commenced many years ago. If the hon. Member desires me to inquire whether its continuance is justified, I will do so. Its cost cannot be precisely ascertained, but it is probably about the same as the cost of the suggested bag in the other direction which, as I told the hon. Member recently, would be about £6 or £8 a year. The amount of correspondence which it is anticipated would be included in a bag from Belturbet to Cavan would be so small that there is no sufficient ground for the establishment of the proposed despatch.

  Dublin Bricklayers Lock-out.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the lock-out by the master builders of Dublin of their bricklayers; whether he is aware that the masters' association have refused to submit the question upon which the lock-out took place to arbitration; and whether, seeing that work on several Government contracts has been stopped owing to the lock-out, and in view of the distress existing among the families of the labourers and others owing to the prolonged stoppage of work, he will use his office, as head of the Conciliation Board, to induce the employers to submit the point which led up to the lock-out to arbitration.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): My attention has been called to the dispute in the Dublin building trade. I understand that the employers are prepared for arbitration on certain conditions. No application has been received from either party by the Board of Trade to take action under the Conciliation Act.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the employees are prepared to accept arbitration which the employers are not, and will he see that Government work is not stopped by this dispute? Will the Department put in force the Arbitration Act?
  MR. BONAR LAWwas understood to reply in the negative.
  MR. NANNETTI: Then what is the use of the Act?
  MR. BOXAR LAW: I am informed there is no Government contract concerned except one involving about £30.

  Marine Insurance Bill.
  MR. JAMES REID: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Marine Insurance Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I cannot fix a date for taking this Bill, but I do not think there need be any serious obstacle in the way of passing it as I understand that the measure is practically uncontroversial.

  Ecclesiastical Discipline Commission.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the findings of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the ritualistic practices and abuses in the Church of England are likely to be published; if the Commission has made an Interim Report; and if a complete Report on this subject may be expected before the general election.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to another Question put on February 21st† with regard to the same two subjects—namely, the date of the Report of the Commission and the date of the general election—I expressed my inability to forecast the particular time at which either of those events will fall; and that inability is still maintained.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Is there any time limit for the sittings of Royal Commissions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is there any time limit for the Government?

  Scottish Churches Bill.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when he will introduce the Scottish Churches Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill is in an advanced state of preparation, and I think I can promise to introduce it before Whitsuntide; but there is no chance of taking the Second Reading before Whitsuntide.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will this Bill take precedence over the Unemployed Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that Question.

  The Colonial Conference.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a statement reported to have been made at a public meeting at Farnham by the Secretary of State for India, to the effect that the subject of preference to the Colonies has been reserved by the Government for consideration with the Colonies; that they will call the Colonies into council, and propose to confer with them next year on that very important subject: whether the Secretary of State for India has correctly stated the intention of the Government; and, if so, whether it is now proposed that the
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 780.
  496
  fiscal question shall be dealt with during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only read the hon. Gentleman's notice this morning, and I can find no such passage in the only report of the speech which I have been able to consult—namely, the report in The Times. [Cries of "It is in the Standard."] I have not seen that. But I see no necessary inconsistency between that statement and the often-declared policy of the Government—namely, that the question of fiscal policy shall not be dealt with by the present Parliament.
  MR. SOARES: Then I am to understand that the Secretary for India did correctly state the intentions of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend made a statement which is not inconsistent, as far as I know, with the declared policy of the Government, which is that of not dealing with fiscal reform in the lifetime of the present Parliament. Nor do I see any inherent improbability in the hypothesis on which my right hon. friend may have proceeded—namely, that before the last day of 1906 the Party now in power shall have returned in possession of a large majority.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the declaration made by Lord Lansdowne that the question of colonial preference will not be submitted to a Colonial Conference without first seeking the mandate of the country on the question of the conference.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I venture to say that it is not very convenient to discuss this interesting topic in this rather sporadic fashion at Question time; but I am not aware of any statement of Lord Lansdowne's which conflicts with opinions which I have previously expressed in respect to the position the Government takes up in regard to the fiscal question in this Parliament, and it is only in this Parliament that

  497
  Members have a right to question me. They always tell me that I, at any rate, shall be one of the most insignificant members of the next Parliament.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Owing to the very important nature of the statement made by the Secretary of State for India and the Answer of the Prime Minister, I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the statement made by the Secretary of State for India at Farnham that it is proposed to confer with the Colonies next year on the subject of colonial preferences, notwithstanding the declarations of the First Lord of the Treasury and of Lord Lansdowne that the subject will not be dealt with by the Government during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the view of the Secretary of State for India.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This cannot be brought within the plea of urgency. The speech of the Secretary for India was made some days ago, and therefore, so far as urgency is concerned, the hon. Member is too late. Then, again, as the Conference is only to be held next year, it can hardly be said that the matter is one of urgent importance.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On the question of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, surely Motions for adjournment have been allowed in reference to the fiscal question, although the Prime Minister has declared that it is not going to be dealt with during the present session of Parliament. May I submit also that it is a declaration made by the Minister responsible for India, which will be represented at this Conference, in respect to a perfectly new policy, departing from the policy of the Government in respect to something which may happen during the lifetime of the present Parliament? Therefore, I submit that it is a question of urgency. As to the second point, the fact that the speech was made some days ago, I may say that it was only yesterday afternoon
  498
  that we saw it, for it did not appear in the ordinary reports—the report in The Times is very summarized—and we could not move before, because there was a Motion for the adjournment yesterday.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the merits of the importance of the question of course I say nothing. I dare say the hon. Member has a very good case on that. But I really think it would be stretching the rule too far. After all, whether a decision is come to to-day or in a month's time, or before the end of the session, really seems to me immaterial.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: We cannot raise it at all unless you accept this Motion.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It can hardly be said that instructions to be given in reference to the holding of a Conference next year is a matter of urgent importance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I be permitted, in justice to my right hon. friend, who is not here, to say that I have his distinct authority for saying that he has been misinterpreted. All that he said was subject to the view which I have constantly expressed.
  MR. SOARES: Do we understand that he repudiates the report then?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask a Question as to the order of business. The first order of the day—the appointment of the Committee on the Telephone Agreement—was announced last night, and considerable objection was taken to it. I hope it may be postponed. Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time indicate the general arrangements for next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to the Telephone Agreement Committee I shall be glad to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman as far as possible, although time is rather of the essence of the matter. There is a general wish on both sides that the Committee shall

  499
  report, and that before the end of the session the Government shall be in a position to find a day for the discussion of the Report. I shall be prepared to postpone the Motion for the appointment of the Committee until Monday next, and I hope that the debate will not assume undue proportions, but that the House will assist the Government to carry through the appointment of the Committee, which has been nominated in Reference to the general wish of the House. To-morrow Committee on the Agricultural Rates Bill will be resumed. On Thursday Votes 10 and 12 of the Navy Estimates will be put down first, and the remaining Votes afterwards, except Vote 8, which it is usual to leave till later in the season. On Monday the appointment of the Telephone Committee will come first, and then the Committee on the Budget Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY: Can the Local Government Board Vote be taken at an early date, in order that questions relating to the driving of motors may be discussed.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I also ask whether, when that Vote is taken, the First Lord will see that the whole time is not monopolised by the discussion on motors, in order that there may be some discussion of the Order relating to the feeding of school children.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Perhaps in the arrangement of Supply next week the Government will take into account the fact that Irish Supply has not been discussed at all this session. I hope the First Lord will in this matter consult the convenience of the Irish Members.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the rumoured seizure of a port in China by Germany?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess that this mixture of Questions is rather perplexing. As to the Local Government Board Vote, I think there are reasons for believing that the House would like a discussion at an early period, and, though
  500
  I cannot give a pledge, I suggest that it may be convenient to allot Thursday week for this Vote. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asks whether the whole day is to be monopolised by the discussion of motors, and whether room cannot be found for a discussion—not the first discussion, though a discussion of a very important point—dealing with the feeding of school children. It does not rest with me to decide as to the order of topics on a Vote. The only control the Government have over the order of topics is that of moving the closure when they think a topic has been sufficiently discussed, but that is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with the order of business. Another hon. Member asks me a Question in regard to a rumour of some German action in China. I have heard the rumour, but I neither have nor can give any information on that subject. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Waterford, I have to ask him to communicate with my right hon. friend near me through the usual channels.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind before definitely fixing the Supply next week, as there are several matters connected with the government of Ireland which we are most anxious to discuss.
  MR. CROOKS: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he will help the people who are endeavouring, during the summer months, to make some provision to deal with the unemployed during the winter? Will he press forward his Bill? That is the most important Question addressed to him to-day.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Notice must be given of it.

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  Ordered, That the Evidence of the Select Committee on Workmen's Trains in Session 1904 be referred to the Select Committee on Workmen's Trains.—(Colonel Bowles.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill: Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Mac-Veagh.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Question again proposed.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. MCCRAEsaid he did not think it too much to suggest that the proposals embodied in the Finance Bill as placed before the House came as a welcome relief, not on account of their intrinsic merits, but rather on account of the fears which they had had as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have proposed. They all knew that he was hankering after protection, but he had a hope that the right hon. Gentleman's experience at the Treasury would give him that education which his predecessors had enjoyed, and would cure him of the old-time, foolish, and exploded theory that it was possible to make people more comfortable by increasing the cost of living. If what they saw in the newspapers was correct, the fiscal proposals of the Government were now to be dropped in view of the meeting of June 2nd, and therefore they might take it that by that time the education of the right hon. Gentleman in a sound fiscal policy would be complete.
  They should first look very briefly at the burden of taxation to be imposed in the Finance Bill. That was a very serious problem, especially in view of the fact that when they considered the outcome of the last year's revenue they found that taking taxation on the basis of the previous year the produce displayed a diminution of £1,300,000,
  502
  which proved that they had come to a stop in the productive power of their taxation on its present basis. He did not intend to go back to the last Liberal year of Administration in order to compare it with the financial position as it stood to-day, but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to glance for a moment at the year 1899 under the present Administration—the last year before the outbreak of the war. The expenditure had increased during the previous four years by about £14,000,000, but he started from 1899, and he found that the taxation—and he was going to exclude Post Office and all untaxed revenue, and to deal only with taxation which was placed on the people—he found that the product of the taxed revenue in that year was £89,450,000. The taxation as proposed in the present year in this Bill would produce £119,000,000, an increase in that short period of £29,500,000, on the taxed revenue of the country. If they looked at the total revenue the comparison was even worse, because they were going to impose taxation for the current year amounting to £142,000,000, while the produce in 1899 was £108,000,000, or an increase of £34,000,000 sterling. They had the war taxes still—the taxes on tea, sugar, tobacco, beer and spirits, which were imposed on account of the war, and he thought they were entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they were going to get remission of those war taxes. Now, in the present year he had given them a relief to the extent of 2d. per pound on tea, but that only bore a very small proportion to the extra taxes which were placed on the people for war purposes, and which were now being continued for ordinary expenditure.
  It was no doubt easier to preach economy than to practice it, but he did think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not really recognise the gavity of our present financial position—the disturbance of the money market, the prejudicial effect on trade, and the dislocation of commerce which had been caused by the increasing burden of taxation they now had to bear, and he thought the time had come when a protest should be made against excessive expenditure. No one denied in the abstract

  503
  that it was excessive, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the first to uphold economy. Not the least injurious effect of the South African War was the fact that it occasioned an utter disregard for economy. It gave full vent to the natural Departmental craving for expenditure, and while they were taught to think in millions the Departments thought that if they only spent in thousands they were making a real saving, whereas before they had only been spending in hundreds.
  The estimated expenditure for the present year was £142,000,000, a ghastly total, and if they added to that the local taxation expenditure and the expenditure on the naval and military works, they got a total for their annual Budget of £160,000,000. If that total was compared with the total in 1895, namely, £102,000,000, they got an increase of £58,000,000 a year. If they looked only at the ordinary expenditure there was an increase in that period of £48,000,000 a year. The expenditure in the present Budget was slightly less than that estimated for last year, and he supposed they ought to be thankful for small mercies, but he was convinced that the House would agree that the time had come when that excessive expenditure should be diminished, and he should like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer take a bold stand for economy. He, however, hardly ever mentioned it; he rather seemed to think that his duty was to justify the existing expenditure of the Departments instead of putting the brake on, and making some reductions. He would concede this, that on last year's expenditure there was a reduction of nearly £1,000,000 sterling. That was to the good. If they looked at the expenditure of the current year they found that on the Navy Estimates they had a reduction of £3,500,000, and considering that this was Nelson's year, he thought that it showed considerable courage on the part of the Department to make that reduction—it showed some return to sanity. He would like to point out that in the year which he had chosen for comparison, namely, 1899, the year before the war, the Navy Estimates were £24,000,000. This year,
  504
  however, they were £33,250,000, even giving effect to the reduction which had been made. If they turned to the Army they found an increase in Army expenditure of £1,000,000 over last year's Estimates. He thought that in these times of peace that was entirely indefensible. They had a statement from the Prime Minister on the preceding Thursday showing that in the view of the Committee of Defence there was no risk of invasion, and surely in justice they were entitled to believe that the Army expenditure ought to decrease. But again, if they took the same year for comparison they found that in 1899 the military expenditure was £20,000,000, whereas they were budgeting this year for an expenditure of £30,000,000, or an increase of £10,000,000 on the Army. This was in addition to an increase of £9,000,000 on the Navy, and if they put the Army and Navy expenditure together for 1899 they got a total of £44,000,000, whereas the total for the present year was £63,000,000. That was entirely exclusive of the expenditure on naval and military works. Really, the ways of the Government were past finding out. They had the statement of the Prime Minister——
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The total includes annuities, whereas you said that it was irrespective of the expenditure on works.
  *MR. MCCRAEsaid that it was irrespective of the loan expenditure on naval and military works, a point with which he proposed to deal later on. It was, of course, inclusive of the sum budgeted this year as annual contribution in respect of naval and military works. They had three Army schemes. They had that of the Committee of Defence; they had that of the Army Council; and they had, in the third place, that of the Secretary for War, who evidently differed from both the others. If they looked at the military position at the present time any fair-minded man would say there ought to be a large diminution in our Army expenditure. No doubt there was a great deal of extra expenditure occasioned by the war, but he would give the Chancellor

  505
  of the Exchequer a precedent which he hoped he would follow. The same thing happened after the Crimean War. When Mr. Gladstone became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1859 the Army and Navy expenditure amounted to £26,000,000, and in the intervening period between 1859 and 1866 it rose to £28,000,000. Mr. Gladstone set himself to reduce expenditure largely occasioned on account of the war, and the consequence was that when he quitted the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1866 he had brought back the naval and military expenditure to what it was in 1857. That was what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to put before himself to-day; he ought to attempt to bring back the naval and military expenditure to the point, not at which it stood when the present Government took office, but at which it was in the year before the war—in 1899. He had hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would follow Mr. Gladstone and say that economy was the first and greatest article in his financial creed.
  But that did not sum up all the financial shortcomings of the present Government. They borrowed too largely for war expenditure, and as a consequence we had added to the National Debt a sum of £160,000,000. Might he point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what had been done previously by this country in relation to expenditure of the same kind? Take what was done during the Crimean War. In 1854, before that war broke out, the National Debt amounted to £802,000,000. By 1857, on account of the war expenditure, it had gone up to £837,000,000, an increase of £35,000,000. The country set itself to get rid of that debt at the earliest possible opportunity, and the result was that within ten years—by 1867—they had wiped off a sum equivalent to what was spent on the Crimean War, and which had been added to the Debt. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to wipe out in ten years or even in twenty years, the addition which had been made to the National Debt on account of the South African War?
  He had a still more serious charge to make against the present financial arrangements,
  506
  a charge altogether apart from expenditure on the war. For the first time, he believed in the history of this country, the National Debt had been added to in times of peace. He did not know whether the House really realised the true significance of that. Did they realise that in a year of peace the National Debt had been added to? Last year we increased our national indebtedness by £2,250,000. That was unprecedented, unjustifiable, and indefensible, and it really brought them to the German method of finance, whereby they were borrowing for ordinary current expenditure. To put it in another manner, the Government was not paying its way. Now the gross liabilities on March 31st last amounted to £796,700,000 sterling, a sum almost equivalent to the National Debt away back in 1854. That was a comparison which should cause them to pause. He noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech gave no comparison between the gross debt as at March 31st, 1904, and debt as at March 31st, 1905. He gave a direct comparison in regard to the Funded Debt which had been reduced, but for the first time he did not place before the House in parallel columns the gross liabilities of the State in 1904 and 1905. The consequence was that no one reading the Budget speech, or listening to it, could have realised that in that year the National Debt had been increased by the sum he had mentioned. No doubt he spoke of the Sinking Fund, but then most people were rather disinclined to consider the question of the Sinking Fund, and they appeared to think that there was some mystery about it. He did not know that there was any mystery at all about it. It was merely an annual contribution to wipe off debt, and if the Debt, instead of being reduced, was increased, anyone would see that the Sinking Fund was inoperative, and, therefore, that something was wrong. It was clear that there was no adequate provision for the reduction of the Debt. The man in the street could understand that; it did not require a financier to point out that if there was no reduction being made the Sinking Fund was insufficient. Now the Sinking Fund as regarded the Funded Debt was meant to reduce

  507
  the Debt by about £7,500,000 a year. From 1893 to 1898 they did reduce their gross liabilities year by year by about £7,000,000 sterling, notwithstanding the capital expenditure on naval and military works. Now they were borrowing more than they were paying off and the naval and military works were mainly responsible for that.
  Might he point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they had had really no opportunity before the Budget of discussing the amount that these works would cost during the coming financial year? In regard to the other estimates of expenditure they were discussed before the close of the preceding financial year, but the Naval and Military Works Bills were not, and even the one for the current year had not yet been produced. All that, he thought, tended to extravagance, because it really obscured the issue from the House. They had gone on spending year after year without realising how the expenditure on account of the naval and military works had increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, in reply to some observations he had made, said they had a sinking fund carried on the Votes which he described as abnormally high. But he would like just to draw the attention of the House to the figures to show how vain the boast was. He was taking the figures for the last seven years. In 1899 the outstanding debt on account of naval and military works was £7,000,000; two years later, in 1901, it was £14,000,000. In 1902 it was £20,000,000; in 1903, £27,500,000; in 1904, nearly £32,000,000; and in 1905, £41,500,000, while the estimated expenditure for the current financial year brought it up to £47,500,000. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about an abnormally high sinking fund he begged him to remember that while he was laying aside under this head of expenditure a sum of £1,500,000 a year he had been borrowing since the first date at the rate of over £8,000,000 a year. How long would that increase of £7,000,000 go on? In his opinion this expenditure ought to be added to the ordinary taxation of the year. It was not capital expenditure in the real sense. It was bad finance to treat it as such,
  508
  and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could he really defend it?
  Now, in the present Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to increase the Sinking Fund contribution by £1,000,000 a year, and here let him say that he thought it was very unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hit upon the lottery method of dealing with these Exchequer bonds. The lottery system was entirely foreign to our finance; there had been no advantage reaped from it. The interest to be paid was very high, and he begged to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would have been better if he had simply added the £1,000,000 a year to the ordinary Sinking Fund, and he would then have given to any future Chancellor of the Exchequer a free hand in dealing with it. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expected to be in his place next year, but if he were his criticism as to a large Debt conversion scheme would not apply. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have dealt this year with the floating debt, which amounted to £71,633,000, according to the National Debt Returns issued yesterday morning. He would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he did not propose to deal in a comprehensive way with this floating debt. He had before pointed out a way in which he might have dealt with it by means of terminable annuities. Of course, he quite realised that the right hon. Gentleman could not have dealt with the floating debt without facing up to the question of the Transvaal contribution. That was an essential part of any comprehensive scheme to deal with the Unfunded Debt. Although £30,000,000 seemed to be a large sum to ask from the Transvaal, this country was laying aside for the payment of principal and interest for the reduction of debt over £30,000,000 per annum. He would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider that in 1885—twenty years ago—we laid aside a sum of £29,649,784 when the National Debt was less by £60,000,000 than it was to-day, and when there was no Naval and Military Works expenditure. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer frankly tell the House, first of all, what sum he

  509
  intended to spend this year on Naval and Military Works; and secondly, what was the amount of all the Sinking Fund which was to go during the current year to redeem the Debt? There was an estimate on the first head of £8,000,000, and on the second head of £10,100,000. Was that so?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): Yes.
  *MR. MCCRAE: That meant that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to reduce the National Debt by £2,000,000, so that there would only be an effective Sinking Fund of £2,000,000 to go to reduce the gross liabilities of the State, instead of £7,000,000 a year which we were paying off before 1899. He thought he had shown that whether they consider the burdens on the people—the ordinary expenditure, the capital expenditure, or the state of the National Debt, they had to face a grave financial position. He hoped that they were at the end of this period of lavish expenditure, unprecedented borrowing, and no adequate provision for the extinction of debt. It was a position which required great courage and ability to deal with. This Finance Bill, although it avoided any gross defiance of the principles of sound finance unhappily experienced in the past, did not meet the requirements of the very grave financial position in which the nation found itself after ten long weary years of incompetence and gross extravagance under the present Government.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that undoubtedly this matter of the Debt could not be too often brought before the House of Commons and the nation. The Debt had increased, was increasing, and was not going to be diminished. The Debt would be greater next year than it was now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deny that. If the right hon. Gentleman could show that he was wrong in that assertion, he should welcome the demonstration. He thought he could prove to the House that not only was the Debt greater this year than last, but that it would be greater, as a whole, next year than this. Exception must be taken to the Treasury terminology. The Treasury treated
  510
  one part alone of the Debt as Funded Debt, but, in fact, all debt that was not Funded Debt was Unfunded Debt. Instead of putting all these debts together and calling the total Unfunded Debt, the Treasury made a selection from them, called that Unfunded Debt, and set up a capital account which did not exist. As showing that it did not exist the Treasury put down the assets of the British Empire at £40,000,000—less than one-third of the total annual revenue.
  He earnestly begged the attention of the House to some very simple figures. A Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brought in his Budget, was mainly occupied in omitting from his Budget statement large sums that ought to be in it. When he talked of the Debt he talked of deadweight debt. All debt was dead-weight debt, even if it had a sinking fund attached to it. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the Funded Debt and told the House it was being reduced. But the right hon. Gentleman left out of account a far more important, far more obnoxious debt which was not funded, regularised, or duly provided with its own sinking fund as a permanent charge—and which was consequently the most dangerous form of debt—the unfunded debt of various kinds. The form of debt which he would first desire to see decreased was not the Funded, but the Unfunded Debt; but the contrary was the case. The Funded Debt was decreased by £2,000,000, on which interest at the rate of 2¾ per cent. was paid, while the other debts on which a higher rate of interest was paid were being increased. The Funded Debt had been decreased by £2,000,000; that part of the Unfunded Debt which the Treasury chose to call Unfunded Debt by £2,000,000, and the terminable annuity liability had been reduced by £3,600,000, or a total reduction of £7,600,000 this year. But what was called capital liability debt, which he held was an unfunded debt, and the most serious form of it—incurred for works—had been increased by £9,800,000. So that although the former kinds of debt had been decreased by £7,600,000, the nett result for the year was that our total absolute debt had not been decreased,

  511
  but had been increased by £2,200,000. The final result was that the total absolute debt of the country was £796,700,000 at the end of the year.
  Now, he had spoken of the capital liability debt incurred for works as being the most important and dangerous part of the whole debt; and it was so in this respect. It was the most dangerous because the Government could, within large limits, add to it at its will, and when it pleased. There were still £14,500,000 of that debt, which the Government had power to borrow, still unborrowed. And consequently without any assent of the House, without the knowledge of the House, the Government could borrow up to £14,500,000 in addition to this most obnoxious form of debt used for works. That was a very serious state of things. The House had, no doubt, given the Government authority to do this very dangerous thing, but he earnestly hoped that these discussions would have the effect—he believed that they had had already some effect—of making the Government far more wary in exercising their borrowing powers than they had been hitherto. There was another abuse connected with capital liability debt. The Government last year took £2,000,000 from the Treasury balances and applied that sum to the reduction of debt; but they borrowed £2,830,000 more than they required to issue for the works for which it was borrowed. There was really no necessity for borrowing that extra sum. The right hon. Gentleman would find in his own financial statement, page 5, that there was borrowed to meet capital expenditure £10,912,000, and that there was issued to meet capital expenditure £8,069,000. The difference was £2,843,000, which the Government borrowed for the purpose of issuing for these works, but did not issue.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would point out that the hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice the fact that we had temporarily drawn on the Exchequer balances to the extent of £2,000,000 in the previous year on account of these works, and therefore we had to borrow in 1904–5 the £2,000,000
  512
  to repay the amount drawn from the Exchequer balances. The amount of money we over-borrowed last year was somewhat short of £1,000,000 of the amount required, which was a miscalculation on the part of the Department.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the right hon. Gentleman explained the discrepancy by explaining that there was not one error, but two. The Government under-borrowed the previous year and over-borrowed this year to make up the deficiency, and even then there was at least £2,830,000 which went to swell the Treasury balances. There was a gravely dangerous power of borrowing under these Capital Expenditure Acts. Let the House observe that the Treasury balances were in this way repleted by nearly £3,000,000 which really did not belong to them.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is a matter which I explained in my statement. It was taken out of the Treasury balances the year before last. It was taken from the Treasury balances for the purpose of these capital accounts. The National Debt Commissioners were unable to supply this amount, and the first thing that had to be done when we had new borrowing powers, or when fresh money came into the hands of the Debt Commissioners, was to relieve ourselves from what we had paid. The hon. Member will find the whole transaction set out in my Budget speech.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought the National Debt account suggested, if it did not actually state it, that this £2,000,000 was taken from the Treasury balances this year. But, however that might be, it was an undoubted fact that the Government had this dangerous power of borrowing, and although they might exercise it with great skill and prudence, it was perfectly possible for them to borrow either less money or more than they required, and when they borrowed more it went to swell the balances, and this would make them look greater than they really were at the moment.
  He had shown that the absolute debt at this moment was £2,200,000

  513
  more than it amounted to last year, but the House must not forget that there were other very serious liabilities this year. There were the guaranteed loans of £152,700,000, though, of course, the liability for those was not to the same extent or of the same completeness as that for the £796,000,000. Still, there was the liability, and they would perhaps never know how much of that they would have to bear. The guaranteed loans, he might point out, included this year another £10,000,000 for Irish land purchase. In addition to the guaranteed loans there were the contingent liabilities, including that to the Post Office Savings Bank. The particulars of the contingent liabilities were not set forth this year, but they could not amount to less than they did last year, which was £19,000,000. So that if they added the contingent liabilities to the guaranteed loans they had a total of £171,700,000 to add to the £796,000,000. If to those two added together was added £500,000 the House would see the total liabilities of the State amounted to no less than £968,200,000, although he admitted that all the liabilities were not of the same quality, some being more and others less absolute. There was, in addition to those liabilities, the awful local debt of near £500,000,000, which was also a liability of the subjects of the State, but which he did not add to the other because it had yet another quality. How had the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that?
  He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had shown considerable courage, but he had not dealt adequately with the matter. Let the House take what were called the lottery bonds. He asserted on a previous occasion that in effect by the issue of these lottery bonds the existing Unfunded Debt was extended for five years to the extent of £5,000,000. Section 7 of the Act showed that that was so. If the right hon. Gentleman could explain Section 7 taken in conjunction with the Supplementary War Loans Act of 1900 in another way he would be glad to hear the explanation, but otherwise it was impossible to read Section 7 without coming to the conclusion at which he had arrived, that in respect to £5,000,000 the right
  514
  hon. Gentleman had assented to an extension of five years longer than it would have otherwise taken to extinguish.
  He did not wish to raise again the ghost of the £30,000,000 war contribution, except to say that unless we got the £30,000,000 from the Transvaal he did not know how we were to provide for the repayment of the war loan, when its repayment became due. He did not envy the right hon. Gentleman who might be in office when that time came. He contended that they were entitled to recover that £30,000,000 at the hands of the Government; it was promised by a former Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, as an inducement to the House to guarantee the loan of £35,000,000. It was stated to be a payment in commutation of a sum of £100,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman thought was due, and to the extent of £10,000,000 was to be underwritten by competent persons in the Transvaal. As to the conditions, which were three, they had all been fulfilled. There was a bargain. We were to take £30,000,000 instead of £100,000,000, or at least £70,000,000, and that £30,000,000 was all to be paid in three years. Two and a - half years had gone by and we had not received a penny of that sum. So complete a bargain had never been presented to this House as that presented by the late Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, speaking on behalf of the Government, under which the House guaranteed the loan of £35,000,000, and if that obligation was now to be thrown to the winds and explained away the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had to pay off the war loan would be put in a desperate position, while the greatest reproach would rest on the Government for the abandonment of that engagement. It was a most solemn engagement; none of the conditions had been violated; it was a freely accepted burden by the gentlemen who undertook the obligation to underwrite it, and a very serious damage would be done not only to the Government itself but to the cause of public faith in England if it were now abandoned. It did not behove the House to condemn the

  515
  conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in the production of this Bill. He had risen more to emphasise that great concern he felt at the increased and still increasing debt of this country, and the insufficient means taken to provide funds to wipe it off.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he desired to emphasise what had been already said on both sides of the House in reference to the reduction of debt. It was a question of the utmost importance to the country, and it was one upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome the expression of the views of the House in favour of the more rapid reduction of debt. Ten years ago the net reduction of the debt was £7,000,000 a year. Since then we had had a war which cost us £260,000,000, and last year there was not only no reduction of debt, but an increase in the National Debt of £2,000,000. During the last six years the total debt of the country had increased by £160,000,000, and we had not up to the present moment reduced the war debt by a single penny. This was not the only instance in modern times of the National Debt being added to in time of peace. At the present time, in the fourth year of peace, we had no less than £23,000,000 of additional taxation, and the amount the right hon. Gentleman had promised by way of the utmost reduction would only be some £2,000,000, though there was all this enormous amount of additional taxation. This increase of taxation was attributed to what was called capital expenditure, the amount of which in naval and military works and things of that sort was really greater than really appeared on the face of the Financial Statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech had referred to it as being about £40,000,000, but it was in reality much larger, because during the period from 1894 to 1898 there was each year a large sinking fund which used to go to the reduction of debt which had now been utilised for this purpose, in addition to which through the Sinking Fund something like £5,000,000 had been paid for capital expenditure. This expenditure was really £57,000,000; that
  516
  was to say, one-third more than appeared in the accounts. In two years the country had borrowed £60,000,000 for the purpose of capital expenditure, which was a matter to which he thought consideration should be given.
  The right hon. Gentleman, when dealing with debt, put it into two categories; one he called dead-weight debt and the other capital expenditure, against which he held assets in ships and works. But he (Mr. Buxton) denied that these naval and military works could in any sense of the word be regarded as assets. Assets were things which could be valued and at a favourable time sold out and the borrowed money repaid in that way. That was not the case here, and therefore the capital expenditure was as much a dead-weight debt on the country as the other expenditure which the right hon. Gentleman placed in that category. One of the worst tendencies of this borrowing on the one hand and paying off on the other and thus increasing the capital expenditure was that it resulted in an increase of the National Debt. As he understood, the Unfunded Debt had increased in the last six years by no less than £100,000,000, but during the same period the Funded Debt had been diminished by £40,000,000. Under these circumstances he asked, Would it not be better to apply the whole of the Sinking Fund to the purposes of diminishing not the Funded Debt but the Unfunded Debt, which at the present moment was far too large? The right hon. Gentleman had declared his strong desire to diminish the amount of capital expenditure, under certain conditions. That was necessary, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would admit that a considerable amount of money borrowed for these purposes would be much more usefully met out of the expenditure of the year. He had not much hope at the moment that the right hon. Gentleman, unless he took very strong action, would be able to reduce that expenditure on the naval and military programme to any extent. The expenditure, he supposed, must take its course, but they would warmly support the right hon. Gentleman in any proposals he made to reduce that expenditure and to bring it, as it ought to be brought, into the ordinary

  517
  Budget of the year, instead of its being had by means of Supplemental Estimates.
  Having said so much with regard to the debt itself, he would now say a few words as to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman for the reduction of the debt. The amount to be applied to the Sinking Fund this year was £10,000,000, but the real significance of that was not the amount to be utilised in one year for that purpose, but the specific amount the right hon. Gentleman intended to apply to it out of the taxation of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer surely admitted that the Unfunded Debt was too great, and it would, therefore, seem to be better policy to apply the money solely to the reduction of that debt, and not to the purchase of Consols in the market. He did not share the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sanguine hopes that he would be able to reduce capital expenditure. While he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having added £1,000,000 to the Sinking Fund, he did not think he could have done anything else, looking at the position of the Debt and the Sinking Fund. The figures of national expenditure were certainly very disheartening to the economists in the House, whose numbers, he was afraid, were few; and still more disheartening was the expenditure on certain branches in regard to which they could not feel that the nation got value for its money.
  For a good deal of the expenditure the country did not get full value. This was particularly the case in regard to education and the Army. In connection with the Army there had been brought forward several schemes, each extremely costly, and the last of which, while showing no diminution in expenditure, had practically disorganised the Regulars, disheartened the Militia, and disgusted the Volunteers. This was a very unfortunate result for any Army scheme to have upon a service founded not upon conscription but upon popular favour and support. One matter upon which the Government might be congratulated was the fact that at last there was some hope of the cessation of expenditure in the wilds of Somaliland. The apparent result of a wise arrangement made by the
  518
  Italians with the Mullah was that that so-called mad person had been given a large slice of territory, turned into a Potentate, and granted a port. He did not know that this House had ever gone so far as to suggest that the Mullah should be given territory and a port, but they had, at any rate, always contended that terms should be come to and a check put upon these costly and bloody expeditions into Africa. His chief desire in speaking, however, was to emphasise what he regarded as two really serious matters in connection with our national finance at the present moment. The first was the fact that we were not reducing the debt anything like so rapidly as we ought to do, and the other was that our annual expenditure was of such a type and taxation was so heavy that it could not fail very seriously to affect the consuming power and the comforts of the working classes, and also to injure and jeopardise our commercial position in competition with other nations.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill was usually not so much a discussion of the contents of the Bill itself as a part of a general discussion of the financial position of the country. Not unnaturally a considerable amount of attention to-day had been directed to the question of taxation, and so far as he could gather, the general feeling seemed to be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted rightly, so far as he had gone, but that it was desirable that he should go still further in the direction he had taken. In his Budget speech his right hon. friend clearly and distinctly intimated that he would discourage the idea of adding to our Rational Debt by naval, military, or public works, and the House might rest assured that any assistance they could give in that direction would be welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as the question of debt was concerned it would probably be advisable that he should leave many of the technical and complicated points to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with later on, but he might be permitted to deal with certain matters which came more immediately under his own personal observation.

  519
  So far as the Army and Navy were concerned, the important speech of the Prime Minister on Thursday last had doubtless had the effect of bringing more clearly before the country what our obligations were, and if while bearing those obligations in mind it were found possible to reduce the expenditure on the Army and Navy, it would be a result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome with acclamation. He would remind the House, however, that when such reductions were made they frequently caused considerable inconvenience, and in some cases distress. That being so, he hoped that when the reductions took place and the inevitable dislocation followed—which the Departments concerned would endeavour to make as little onerous as possible—Members would assist by not raising questions concerning this or that district, or this or that particular class of Government servants. In the debate of a year ago he was accused of having lectured the House. It was said that every Financial Secretary had lectured the House and always would do so. Possibly his speech was somewhat open to that charge, but he certainly had no intention of lecturing the House, and it was not his wish to do so to-day. At the same time, with all due respect, he would venture to call attention to two occurrences in the present session. Possibly of all the Estimates, Class I. was the section most capable of being considered in its minutest details. There were many matters dealt with in that class to which it would have been the wish of the House to devote careful and minute inquiry. But the Government were pressed to put down the House of Commons Vote first. Two hours of the afternoon were occupied in a discussion mainly concerned with the comforts and conveniences of Members, and if it had not been for the timely intervention of one of the Members for Islington the whole of the afternoon might have been devoted to that topic. He was not at all sure that he ought not to congratulate the noble Lord who was in charge of the Vote upon the fact that the net result of the debate was a promise to look into the question of telephonic communication between the House of Commons and Westminster Hospital, and into the advisability of providing a
  520
  swing door in some portion of the House. Speaking as the representative of the Treasury, he thought they got off very cheaply on that occasion. The second debate to which he wished to refer took place on Wednesday last, when he was absolutely alone in endeavouring to press upon the House that what they were doing might create a fresh charge upon the Exchequer. A fair case for inquiry was made out by hon. Members from Ireland in reference to art accommodation in Dublin, but he was certainly surprised at the somewhat vigorous assistance—whether altogether in favour of art or in anticipation of favours to come be could not say—rendered to Irish representatives by hon. Members for Scotch constituencies, and he looked in vain for support from those quarters in which were generally found certain critics of the national expenditure. Whatever the result of the promised inquiry might be, he hoped Irish and Scottish representatives would not be altogether unmindful of the possible dangers arising from extra expenditure.
  He wished to put before the House some figures connected with expenditure, and although they would probably fail to satisfy the House, he hoped they might do some good. He would go back ten years, not only because it was convenient, but because it also coincided with that moment which possibly hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded as the inauguration of everything that was bad in expenditure and administration. Omitting the Army and Navy and comparing the total Estimates of the Budget Services for 1895–6 with the Estimates presented this year, there had been an increase during that period of £21,500,000. That increase was made up roughly as follows:—Service of the Debt, £3,000,000; Civil Services, £9,000,000; Postal and Revenue Services, £6,000,000; and Local Taxation Relief, £3,500,000. He would not go at any great length into the details of the figures he had referred to. There were, however, two or three items of interest. For instance, there was an increase on works and buildings of £850,000, and of this total £235,000 was in respect of Revenue Buildings and £210,000 for rates. He thought it only right to point out to the House that much of the

  521
  increased expenditure for the Revenue Services included the Postal and Telegraph Services, and much of that had been incurred for the convenience of the public. They nevertheless continued to derive considerable income from the Postal Services as a whole. During the last two or three years the expenditure upon public buildings had shown a considerable rise. The reason for this was that in this respect much economy was practised during the war, and it was felt most undesirable that they should continue to diminish this expenditure after the war was over. Obviously they should endeavour to make up those arrears as much as possible, and consequently they had for the last two or three years had to place on the Estimates heavier sums for this purpose. He scarcely liked to venture to hold out any hopes of economy, but he believed that his right hon. friend the Postmaster-General would be able, when the arrears had been caught up, to discontinue this heavy expenditure, or at any rate would not continue it at such a rate. There was another item which had shown an alarming increase during the last ten years, and that was in regard to the rates paid upon Government property, which showed an increase of £210,000. A Question had been asked which implied that there was a chance of still further demands being placed upon the Imperial Exchequer in this respect, but he would advise the House not to make any departure from their present system.
  There had been an increase in Class II. of the Estimates of £600,000; it was perfectly well known and admitted that with the continual growth of population they must expect to see the cost of civil administration increased. He was afraid it was not possible to deny that that would always be the case, but the greater part of this increase was due to carrying out those obligations which had been placed upon the various Departments of the State by the action of the House. He did not complain of this, and he had no right to complain. Great improvement had been made in regard to the supervision of dangerous occupations under the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, and the Home Office, but they had had to appoint a number of additional inspectors to deal with very important
  522
  matters concerning the lives of the people, conditions of labour, and the actual conditions of employment of almost every class of the community. If there was that continuous and continual desire expressed on the floor of the House and constant pressure put upon the heads of Departments that still more should be done in those directions, then it was almost impossible to venture to hope for any reduction in expenditure upon those heads. He did not complain of the action of the House in those matters, because he believed that such expenditure was justified; but when they insisted that there should be more inspection, and that more protection should be given in those various directions, then they were not justified in complaining when they had to pay for those services.
  With regard to the total increase in the cost of the Civil Services, during the ten years under review more than two-thirds of the total increase was due to education. The expenditure upon Class IV. during the year 1895–6 was £10,250,000. In the year 1905–6 this expenditure had been estimated at over £16,250,000, and of the whole of that increase the Education Vote was responsible for £5,963,000, or practically the whole of the increase. He was aware that he was now raising questions which had been bitterly fought out upon the floor of this House, but he had never yet heard that there was any likelihood of suggestions being made to diminish the contribution which they were now making towards education. The tendency was rather in the direction that the State should bear still further expenditure in regard to education. He did not know whether the House fully realised the burden which education was now placing upon the taxpayers of this country, but at the present moment, as he had already stated, the direct tendency was in the direction of attempting to place a still bigger share of the burden of education upon the Imperial Exchequer rather than upon the local authorities. He wished to remind the House that in consequence of the generally expressed feeling both inside and outside of the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer had

  523
  increased the grants to the University colleges to £100,000. That was a Vote which would probably come up for discussion, for there were several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen anxious to have that Vote put down for consideration, as they desired to discuss it on broad principles.
  He thought it would perhaps be a source of satisfaction to the House if he stated that he thought they were beginning to see signs of the various protectorates demanding less assistance from the Imperial Exchequer than they had in the past, and he hoped that the day was not very far distant when they would be self-supporting. In the statement he had made he had not taken into account the benefits which those Protectorates abroad might confer upon British trade and commerce as a whole; the great interest which had lately been developed in Lancashire with reference to certain of those protectorates was well known and admitted by all, and although they had in times past incurred very heavy expenditure in many of these directions, he thought they were now able to show some justification for their policy in that respect.
  Referring to the Revenue Departments, he said that the cost of the Customs and the Inland Revenue had increased in ten years by £468,000, but in the meantime the revenue had increased by more than £36,000,000. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that the additional cost was most minute. He knew that in many quarters of the House, and also outside, there had been a strong feeling that the conditions in the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue were not fair and that they required consideration. He knew how much depended on the smooth working of those Departments in connection with the collection of the very large amounts which passed through their hands. Any representations made to him would, of course, receive at his hand, as they had always received at the hands of his predecessors, the most careful and the most thorough investigation. He wished with all respect to place before the House a consideration which he thought they were sometimes inclined to overlook. The country was fortunate in these services in possessing men who
  524
  desired to do their work, and who did it admirably. At the same time the matter must be regarded as one of business, and the remuneration paid to the staff must be regarded not so much in respect of what was due to the individuals themselves, but as to what ought properly to be paid for the work which had to be done. He should not like to state absolutely, but he could not help feeling that in certain of the Departments the conditions which had hitherto prevailed had been the means of attracting to those services individuals who possibly in many respects were rather too good for the work which they had to do. While they were fortunate in having the services of those men, he thought he could at the same time without fear of contradiction lay down as a principle that in that House they must have the scale of remuneration on the actual class of the work that had to be done. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen who had interested and were interesting themselves in these matters that they should bear this consideration in view. No doubt there would be further opportunities during the session for the discussion of these matters more in detail. He should like to take this opportunity of thanking many hon. Members for their courtesy in bringing these matters before him without raising them in a controversial way in the House. He thought these matters were far better settled outside the House.
  The only other matter to which he wished to call attention was the Post Office. In the period of review the Post Office Votes had increased by £5,787,000, while the postal and telegraph revenue had increased by £6,330,000. There was thus still a net slight additional revenue derived from the Post Office. But there again the expenditure had been considerably increased by concessions which had recently been made to Post Office employees and which he understood were still likely to be the subject of further consideration when brought before the House. In the course of the past ten years the larger portion of the increase of £21,000,000 in the Civil Service expenditure had been due to the Postal and Telegraph Services, which had at

  525
  the same time been the means of increasing the revenue of the country by a still larger proportion. That increased expenditure had been incurred to carry out the policy which had been adopted by the House.
  There were two considerations which they ought to bear in mind in judging whether this expenditure was necessary or not. It was very easy to look at totals and make comparisons with the figures of five, ten, or twenty years ago, and then say that the expenditure had gone up, but the two questions which he should ask were, first: Is the country able and willing to bear the burden? and, second: Are we getting value for our money? On hardly any occasion had the debates in the House tended to show that the country had been unable to bear the burden, or that the people had been unwilling to make the sacrifices they had been called upon to make. He did not suppose the present House of Commons would determine, but if any future House of Commons should determine that economy was the sole object of its existence, and should be content with what might be called the barest necessities of government, it would be perfectly possible and easy for any Cabinet or Chancellor of the Exchequer to make very serious reductions in expenditure. Nothing was easier than by a stroke of the pen to take off grants of one kind and another. He had seen opportunities of making very drastic and considerable reductions in the amounts given to societies which came under the head of scientific investigation. He was bound to say that at the present moment there was nothing filled the Treasury with greater alarm than the approach of men of science and men of art. If necessary very serious and far-reaching reductions, almost with the stroke of the pen, could be made, but he should be very much surprised if for a long time to come the House of Commons were to adopt a policy of that nature. If the Government attempted to do so he was bound to say that he should not be envious of those who were responsible for such a policy. He thought he could with justification claim that although the expenditure was heavy—he did not deny that the expenditure was heavy—there was
  526
  nothing to prove that the country was not able to bear the burden, or that we were not getting value for our money.
  MR. LOUGHcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on the review he had given of certain branches of expenditure which might otherwise have been overlooked. Having had some little experience in meeting the heads of the Customs during the past few years he could heartily second the remarks of the hon. Gentleman in regard to the excellent services rendered by them. He did not think the House really appreciated the great efforts made at the Custom House, and also by the Inland Revenue Department to make the duties of these offices work smoothly with the traders of the country, who were in a great measure dependent on the facilities they gave. The testimony borne by the hon. Gentleman to the excellent manner in which their duties were discharged were fully deserved.
  The hon. Gentleman had told those who had been grumbling at the national expenditure that so far as the Civil Service was concerned there had only been an increase in ten years of £21,500,000. Of that sum £9,000,000 might be traced to questions over which the Revenue Departments had no control whatever, and £3,000,000 were for the service of the Debt. The Debt had been increased by the Imperial statesmen who had adopted such a high-flying policy in recent years. The £6,000,000 at the Post Office was really not an increase of expenditure at all. It had proved to be profitable outlay. If they took off these £9,000,000 they found that there had only been an increase of about £12,000,000 on the Civil Service expenditure. Of the £12,000,000 there might be traced to education £6,000,000. The hon. Gentleman had said that no one had dared to object to the expenditure on education. He supposed the hon. Gentleman did not take notice of the remarks which a humble individual like himself made from time to time. He did not think there was anything sacred in the expenditure on education. There was no connection between a good and effective system of education and the huge expenditure

  527
  which had been made upon education in the extravagant period they were passing through. The expenditure on education required to be surveyed as closely as any other branch of expenditure. There were six Education Acts and it was not at all certain that our system of national education was improved according to the increased expenditure upon it.
  The hon. Member opposite had said that the nation was quite satisfied with the present condition of affairs, but that if expenditure was to be reduced that might be done by striking off some of the grants to Universities. That would not be at all easy to do without causing great inconvenience. It was when the grants were being given that care should be exercised, because the cruelty arose from setting up expenditure in the first instance which the country really did not want. He quite agreed with reducing expenditure which would cause as little suffering as possible. That might be accomplished not by reducing the Government establishments but by reducing the amount of work done in outside yards. The Government itself was to a large extent responsible for the men whom it employed, and there should not be the amount of fluctuation of employment that had sometimes been the case and which had caused much suffering. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether the country was satisfied that for this expenditure good value was got for the money, and had answered that the country was satisfied. He had been all over the country at elections, and found the greatest dissatisfaction with the current extravagant expenditure; and he ventured to say that no Government ever made a greater mistake than in imagining the country was satisfied. The country was thoroughly dissatisfied, and was resolved on the reduction of expenditure. Then, as to the country getting value for its money, look at the Return just issued, which showed that £248,000 worth of stores were destroyed in South Africa, and at all the revelations made connected with the war. Again, millions had been wasted on the fortifications of London. The Prime Minister himself had admitted that the other day; and his only excuse was that men were
  528
  human, and liable to err. What value were we getting for the stones in the forts which were rotting on the Surrey Hills?
  As to the extraordinary growth of the public debt, he joined with those who protested against the distinction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn between the various kinds of debt. What was the use of speaking of dead-weight debt, and unfunded debt and capital liability debt? All these accounts were kept open to bamboozle the House and puzzle the country. If hon. Members would only look at the black figures in the Annual Return of debt there would be much less confusion. He was glad that there had been no attempt to introduce a Party bias into this debate so far, unless it might have been by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who gave credit to the Liberals for what they had done to reduce the national indebtedness in former times. The Return showed that the total amount of the Unfunded Debt when the Liberals were in power was £10,000,000, while to-day it was £72,000,000. That was what had been done by a Tory Government in ten years. The capital liability debt was only £4,000,000 ten years ago; now it amounted to £42,000,000. That was a bad record for those responsible for the finances of the country in the meantime. For the past six years the Debt had been steadily increasing with the exception of last year, when there was a reduction of £3,000,000; but that was accounted for by the money received from the Transvaal. No attempt had been made to see that the country paid its way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a statement in which there was an adumbration as to what would take place next year. He believed that both this year and next the indebtedness of the nation would continue to rise. That was a most serious condition of affaire which no Government had ever neglected until the present; and unless the Government grappled with the difficulties of finance they ought to make way for another which would do so. Of course this was a matter which reflected more on previous Chancellors of the Exchequer

  529
  than the hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench.
  He wished to call attention to the way in which the growth of the Debt had been excused in debate in recent years. He held in his hand the last three Budget speeches made by the respective Chancellors of the Exchequer. The first was by the right hon. Member for Croydon. In dealing with the Debt the right hon. Gentleman made out a splendid case for reduction of debt and for economy of expenditure. He said that the Sinking Fund would be nearly £7,000,000 more, and went on to show that the Sinking Fund presented a larger proportion to the whole debt of the country than in any previous year; and he calculated that by March, 1008, it would amount to nearly £9,000,000 more. And the right hon. Gentleman wound up by saying that if the Debt was not added to, the whole charge for this gigantic debt would be swept away in fifty years. Now, not a penny of that debt had been reduced. It was larger now than when the right hon. Gentleman spoke. Then the present Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago in his financial statement said that the Debt would be reduced in the course of the year by £5,600,000, but the Debt had not been reduced at all, as was shown by the black figures in the Return issued the day before. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there had been a total reduction of the dead-weight debt in the course of twelve months to the amount of £7,500,000. There would, however, not be a penny of reduction, but £2,000,000 would be added. All this language about reduction of debt ought to be excluded from Budget speeches if there was to be no reduction at all.
  He wanted to explain to the House how the nation was puzzled, if not disgusted. At the beginning of the session speeches were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they had great difficulty in finding out what the borrowings would amount to on the capital account. All they now knew was that there would be no real reduction of debt this year. The matter was becoming very serious and he thought it was time some step was taken. What was the reason that better control could not be obtained by the House over the finances of the
  530
  nation? He thought that in the first place the responsibility rested with the Treasury and mainly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He must say, however, that the position of the Treasury among the Departments of the State was not what it used to be a few years ago. He would venture to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was not a mere cashier to find the money for his colleagues' extravagant projects. It was not his duty to go round the Departments, cap in hand, as it were, and say, "What do you want?" It was his business to keep down the expenditure of the country. The Treasury had been in years gone by the most autocratic controller of every Department, and it had been given this control in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might exercise it. He should not invite claims, but should inform the Departments that there was the necessity for rigid economy, and enforce it by preparing the Estimates in a way which the nation could afford. In the past they had had Chancellors of the Exchequer who recognised that that was the reason for the peculiar constitution of the Treasury. That was why it could go into all the other Departments, do what it liked, and exercise a firm control. Therefore he thought the Treasury ought to make itself the mouthpiece of the sentiment of economy so as to check extravagant Votes. He was willing to admit that the country had had an extravagant fit; at the time of the war he had protested against the expenditure, but at that time those who did so were in a minority. Now, however, they were in a majority and everybody thought with them. Every improvement in the price of the Funds seemed now to pass away rapidly. At the time the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget things looked better in the City and Consols went up two or three points. He did not know whether it was the consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's loan, but now things had got gloomy again. Consols were down, high-class securities had declined in value, and a spirit of fear and caution prevailed, the same as they had had to deal with in former times. The reason was that the nation was not satisfied that we were meeting our obligations.

  531
  The question was, How were we to get back into a better state of affairs? There was only one answer that he could give to that question, and that was that expenditure must be reduced to a degree of which he recognised no sign on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the other members of the Government up to the present time. He was glad that there had been some reduction in the Navy, but it was not, in his opinion, sufficient. He thought the naval expenditure should be reduced down to £25,000,000, and that there should be a corresponding reduction in the Army Estimates. There was one aspect in Army expenditure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might deal with. That was the huge expenditure upon our Colonies and upon foreign countries. In Egypt quite unnecessarily large amounts were paid. It was true that Egypt paid us £100,000 for military services. Why, then, should not the expenditure be restricted to that amount? The military cost in regard to Malta was £800,000, and he did not see why that should not be reduced to £250,000. The garrisons abroad in other places might, he considered, be reduced by half the amount which they at present cost? There were £6,000,000 spent in this way, and in his judgment the sum could be reduced to £2,500,000 or £3,000,000. He also thought they ought to listen to the appeals which the Secretary of the Treasury had made to them, and that they ought to endeavour, without causing any suffering to anyone, to assist the reduction of the national expenditure by declining to force new enterprises upon the Government. The moral of this story lay in the fact that the Debt was not being reduced. How could the Government say that the nation was going on well if it was not paying its debts? He observed that the Prime Minister, when he spoke about national defence, never spoke about our greatest national defence, that was the feeling of the capacity we had for, and our ability to incur, large expenditure if necessary. The Government by their policy had driven this country out of the position that it had occupied in those respects, and he trusted that if the Administration meant to remain in office much longer it
  532
  would try to pick up some of the good traditions of its predecessors.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he confessed that as he listened to the most interesting speech of the Prime Minister he was quite unable to reconcile his statement with the demands which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made upon the taxpayer, and ever since in thinking of this subject he had been continually saying to himself: What is the necessity for the British taxpayer to bear the great burden which is put upon his back. He wanted to address the House upon that speech of the Prime Minister in the hope of getting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury and the clauses of the Finance Bill. The statement made by the Prime Minister was not a mere speech upon a large national position. It was a statement arrived at after taking the advice of the greatest and best naval and military experts which the country possessed, and it represented the deliberate policy of the British Government upon the subject of national defence, a policy known to and adopted by every member of the present Cabinet, and announced to the nation and to the world at large as the fixed determination of the British Government. One of the most striking parts of that declaration dealt with the impossibility of the invasion of this country. That subject was not new to the House of Commons because it had been dwelt upon by the Secretary of State for War in proposing the Army Estimates, but it was stated, of course, by the Prime Minister with much greater authority and much greater weight. And he supposed that they might take it as the deliberate opinion of the British Government, with access to all the expert advice and all the knowledge which was possessed by the Members of the House or by the nation at large, that they might be satisfied that the country could not be invaded. The view which was put before the country by the Government twenty years ago in the Army Estimates was that it was supposed to be necessary to make provision some possibility at least of the invasion of this country, and therefore the discovery

  533
  and the determination that such an invasion was impossible ought to lead to a reduction of Army expenditure from that expenditure which they all thought and which the Government told them was essential twenty years ago.
  The second remarkable statement made by the Prime Minister was one made in direct contradiction to what had previously been stated to Parliament by the Secretary of State for War when that right hon. Gentleman was defending the increase of Army expenditure notwithstanding the opinion which he and the Government had formed as to the impossibility of invasion. The Secretary of State for War based his statement upon the necessity of being ready immediately to defend the frontiers of India against possible incursions by some other Power. He mentioned Russia, which, of course, was the only Power which could attack us in that part of the world. He had listened to the statement of the Secretary of State for War with very great astonishment because twenty years ago he had the honour of holding the office of Under-Secretary for India, and he was quite familiar with the military opinion on the defence of the frontiers of India which then prevailed. He did not like to intervene in the debate because he thought he might make a fool of himself, and that matters might have been discovered in recent years which changed the situation, or that military opinion had altered, and that if he were to attack the Secretary of State for War on the subject he ran the risk of placing himself in the position of an ignorant Member of Parliament who was not qualified to speak on the subject. But what was his amazement when the Prime Minister not only contradicted the statement of the Minister for War, but actually announced as the fixed, the stable policy of the British Government the opinion held by military authorities twenty years ago, namely, that it was impossible for Russia or any other Power to make an attack upon the Indian frontier until they had constructed railways through Afghanistan. Between the two Empires there was the wild and inhospitable country of Afghanistan, and no force could cross to attack the Indian frontier unless railways were first made in that country. The Ameer in former days was very reluctant to allow railways
  534
  to be made. At one time there was a proposal to construct a railway to Kandahar, but it was abandoned because Abdurrahman, a very wise ruler, objected to it. On the other hand there was no reason to suppose that Afghanistan would be more complaisant to Russia. Russia could not make the railway to Herat without incurring the deadly hostility of Afghanistan. The moral which the Prime Minister drew was that there was no hurry at the present moment about the advance on the Indian frontier, and that there was no need this year to get up a great force in order to reinforce the troops on the frontier of India.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the Prime Minister's statement as to the reinforcements which would be required in the first year of a war?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he quite remembered the Prime Minister's words, but he did not think that Russia for many years to come would think of making an attack upon India. They did not know how long the present war might go on, but no attack on the part of Russia, to whom he did not impute any intention to make one, could be made until the present struggle was over and until Russia had somewhat recovered its finances and its strength after the terrible conflict in which she was at present engaged. Under those circumstances there was no hurry to make preparations for a struggle on the North-West Frontier of India, and he asked whether, if that was so, there really was any necessity for this increased military expenditure? Just contrast the condition of things twenty years ago and the condition of things now. Twenty years ago we thought that we were liable to invasion and had to make some provision against it. We also held the same views upon the protection of the Indian frontier that occurred in the Prime Minister's statement. Now, therefore, when we were in consequence of those views relieved from the necessity of keeping an Army at home in order to protect our country, our military expenditure was enormously greater than it was twenty years ago. We had the largest military expenditure of

  535
  any nation in the world, except Russia. If any steps were to be taken against our great dependency of India they could not be initiated until preliminary works had been completed which it would take years to construct. In view of these facts what he wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell them was on what ground, after the Defence Committee had come to the conclusions which were announced last week, the expenditure on the Army had been increased. He quite agreed that it was necessary for us to keep a great and powerful Fleet, but if it was possible to diminish the expenditure on that Fleet during the current year by a sum of not less than £3,500,000, when they turned to the Army he should have thought that there would have been a still greater reduction there because there economy would appear to be more easy than in the Navy. But they found that so far from there being a decrease there was actually an increase in Army expenditure, and as a humble ratepayer he could not conceive why after the statement made by the Government, after consultation with the Imperial Committee of Defence, there should be an increase on the Army, which was defended by the War Minister on grounds which were diametrically opposed to the statement of the Prime Minister.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had, as a conspicuous Member on the Ministerial side of the House, together with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, drawn attention to the necessity for a great reduction of expenditure, especially as regarded the Army. This debate, as he had said on other occasions during the last year or two, was rather conspicuous for the absence of financial experts. Of course Sir William Harcourt was no longer with them, but they had the right hon. Member for Croydon, who had just left the House, and his predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, who year in and year out constantly complained of the growing weight of expenditure. The latter right hon. Gentleman had, however, never insisted upon his wishes being carried into effect but he was very sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not
  536
  contributed to this debate, any more than the other experts had, any suggestion of how the enormous burdens of of this country might be diminished. As to the speech of the Secretary for the Treasury, although it was perfectly true that he suggested one or two comparatively small economies, and although he urged with great propriety how wrong it was for Members of Parliament to put pressure on behalf of their constitutents against any reduction of public works or expenditure, yet he did not suggest any way by which that expenditure might be diminished and he did not express any wish that it should be diminished. The hon. Gentleman said that the country was perfectly able to bear the weight of the expenditure and perfectly willing to do so, and if they were to look upon the hon. Gentleman as an exponent of the policy of the Government it was manifest that there was no desire on their part to reduce this burden, and that there was no necessity either for themselves or any other Government to undertake that task. If that was their opinion all he could say was that they were living in a fool's paradise; he believed that there was a very strong feeling amongst people of all shades of political opinion that it was impossible with safety to go on at the present rate of expenditure, and that some method of reduction would have to be found or else the country would get into serious difficulty. If the experts did not assist them he supposed that men of business and common-sense might be allowed to offer a, few remarks as to the way in which expenditure might be reduced.
  The hon. Member for King's Lynn had pointed out, and his observations had been endorsed more than once by the findings of the Committee, that a good deal might be done by a more adequate control by the House of Commons over the expenditure of the country. It was impossible to pretend that they had any control now; they had accounts put before them in a form which no business firm would tolerate for a moment. When discussions arose with reference to finance ho distrusted the use of expressions such as "dead-weight debt," which really

  537
  Concealed the facts of the case, although he did not accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of wishing to do so. Whatever their meaning they only had the effect of concealing from the House and the public the real extent of the burdens of the country. As a matter of fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech had never explained that last year the total liabilities of the country had been increased instead of diminished, notwithstanding the fact that so many millions a year out of the Sinking Fund was paid for the service of the National Debt. There ought to be clearer accounts, and he thought there ought also to be an examination In Committee of the particulars of the Estimates as was recommended by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Such a Committee, however, should not merely sit and take one class of Estimate each year, but there should be a constant and regular service of Members all through the year for the purpose of examining the Estimates and of calling persons before them to explain them. He believed that a great deal might be done in that way. But the House should never lose sight of the fact that, after all, policy governed expenditure, and unless there was a change of policy there would never be any substantial diminution of expenditure.
  There were three great heads of expenditure. According to the Annual Return of Revenue and Expenditure issued in July last, during the ten years preceding that Return, Civil Service Estimates increased by about 45 per cent., a great part of which was for education. He was not at all satisfied that considerable reductions might not be made in the Civil Service Estimates, to which alone the Secretary to the Treasury referred that afternoon. Then came the service of the National Debt, which had increased from £25,000,000 to £28,750,000, an increase of 15 per cent. due to the enormous increase in the National Debt itself. The third head was naval and military expenditure, which had gone up from £35,000,000 to £71,000,000, an increase of more than 100 per cent. That £71,000,000 did not at all represent the present naval and military expenditure, as was shown in the admirable
  538
  pamphlet of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, but he was content to take the figure given in the Treasury Return, from which it appeared that there had been an increase of over 100 per cent. in ten years. That was the cause of the expenditure, and until they were prepared to cut down those Estimates courageously and thoroughly there would never be any great improvement in the finances of the country. In 1895 the home Army consisted of 116,000 men; this year 156,000 had been voted. The force in India remained substantially the same, but the colonial forces had increased from 37,000 to 61,000. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had pointed out with unanswerable force, this increase in expenditure was wholly inconsistent with the Prime Minister's recent speech on Imperial Defence. Personally, he was not sure that the Prime Minister did not take too sanguine a view as to the actual number of men necessary to resist invasion, but if his estimate was anything like accurate it was obvious that we were maintaining a large force at home not for our own protection, but exclusively for parts of the Empire which, with the exception of India, provided very little for themselves.
  So, too, in regard to the Navy. The Navy was required in its present strength not for our own defence, but mainly for the defence of outlying parts of the British dominions, and also for the defence of the commerce common to us and to them, and of which one-fourth had no direct relation with the United Kingdom at all, but was simply either inter-colonial or between the Colonies and foreign countries. And yet, although this was the case, the whole of the burden was being placed upon the shoulders of the British taxpayer. He desired to see that burden removed, first, in the interest and for the protection of our own people, and, secondly, because he was satisfied, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham stated at the Colonial Conference, that the people of this country would not be content indefinitely to continue to bear the whole of that burden. It would disgust them with the great Inheritance into which they had come, and the more they were caused to suffer real privation and sacrifice in the matter of health and in other

  539
  respects, the zeal for Imperial greatness would wane instead of wax. He submitted that the policy of the country ought to be altered, and that the self-governing Colonies and other dependencies should do more than at present to provide for their own protection. There were places such as Malta, Gibraltar, Hong-Kong, and Egypt from which the garrison could not be wholly withdrawn, but he felt that it was incumbent upon the Government to reduce the number of British garrisons maintained in Colonies and dependencies of the Crown to the scale which obtained ten years ago. It was more difficult to suggest reductions in the Navy than in the Army. A reduction, however, had been this year undertaken, and he thought that that policy ought to be still further continued. He held it to be the duty of the Government to place itself in communication with other Powers with a view to securing some contemporaneous reduction or cessation in new building by common consent. There was one argument which might be used very effectively. The United States of America had always advocated that private property at sea should be exempt from capture, and if that proposal were agreed to one of the greatest inducements to foreign nations to maintain large navies would disappear. To this country, owing to its position, a large Navy was indispensable, but for them the necessity was not so great except for the purpose of protecting their commerce. It would not be in order to discuss that matter more fully, but the United States had always advocated that policy, and at different times it had received the support of Russia, Austria, Prussia, Italy, and practically every considerable Power in the world except France and Great Britain. The suggestion was now being urged with great force by President Roosevelt. In any case the proposal deserved full consideration, and might lead to a large simultaneous reduction of armaments among the nations of Europe. It was the duty of the House constantly to urge the necessity for reductions in expenditure, and he was confident that although proposals now put forward might not meet with general acceptance, yet in any new Parliament, no matter what its
  540
  political complexion might be, nothing would be more strongly insisted upon than a reduction of the burdens borne by the people of this country.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid the hon. and learned Member opposite had suggested that Members of experience should contribute their views as to the best method for checking the ever-increasing national, expenditure, which everybody in the House regarded with apprehension. In response to that invitation he would venture to make a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After long experience of the modern system of finance in India, and of the working of our own financial system as a member of the Cabinet, he unhesitatingly said that the machinery which the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India had at their command was far more effectual in supervising and checking expenditure than the machinery at the disposal of the financial authorities in this country. He remembered the time when the most gloomy anticipations were indulged in as to the future of Indian finance; reference was made to the absence of representative people from the Government of India, and to the fact that military men were strongly represented, and it was confidently prophesied that expenditure would rapidly increase beyond the capacity of the Indian Exchequer to bear it. It was a curious thing that during the past ten years India, notwithstanding all its difficulties, had been able continuously to reduce its taxation, while in this country, the home of representative institutions, taxation had been continuously increased. In India the Secretary of State and the Viceroy had two very efficient instruments for supervising and checking expenditure. The first was the Finance Council, which was always in session, and had to do with all parts of expenditure, and was therefore able to give an opinion upon any fresh proposals for expenditure; the second was the fact that in the Government of India itself practically all the members were throughly acquainted with their work, and the Viceroy had at his disposal a Committee which was always able thoroughly to investigate proposals

  541
  for fresh, expenditure and to knock off any existing expenditure which might be unnecessary. There was no machinery of that kind in this country.
  The hon. and learned Member opposite had said that policy regulated expenditure. But the curious feature of the Estimates of this year was that in the admirable expositions of naval and military policy which had been given by the Prime Minister the views put forward, which were excellent in themselves, were not new. The views with regard to the possibility of invasion were those which had been held by the Admiralty for several years, while the views as to the possible invasion of India were those which for many years past the Government of India had held. Therefore, the real importance of his right hon. friend's speech was that it clearly laid down that in the opinion of the Government the antagonistic views of the War Office, the Admiralty, and the India Office had come up for consideration, and that a decision had been given by the Government in favour of the views of the Admiralty and the India Office. If it were so he agreed that it was the duty of the Government£he did not say at once£to regulate their Estimates according to that policy. It might fairly be said that the Army Estimates of the present year were not in accordance with the policy laid down by the Prime Minister.
  What were the checks on expenditure? The first was the House of Commons, the second the Cabinet, and the third the Treasury. Everybody must admit that the House of Commons could not effectively control expenditure. He believed there was not an occasion on which the House had investigated questions affecting expenditure when their recommendations had not tended rather to increase than decrease expenditure. It was also the fact that the more time given to the discussion of Supply the more proposals emanated from both sides for further expenditure. He thought, therefore, the House of Commons could not be looked upon as being likely to afford effective machinery for checking expenditure in future. As to the Cabinet, it had largely
  542
  increased in numbers and the individual work of its members had enormously increased. This had been recognised by the Prime Minister in the constitution of the Committee of Defence, which had practically taken away from the Cabinet the whole control of naval and military questions. Therefore, in future, there would be this compact body of members of the Cabinet and of persons interested in pressing on naval and military expenditure to be dealt with. With regard to the Treasury, he did not think the old methods by which they checked expenditure were for the public benefit. For so many years the head of the Government had been either Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister that the Treasury came to regard themselves, not as a Department of the Government but as the Government itself, and they addressed other Departments in that tone. They exercised their authority well but not wisely. Twenty years ago we were in a deplorable condition, when a large number of forts were built and there were no guns to put in them, when we had ships that had guns but no ammunition, mainly due to the Treasury being all-powerful. Since then the Treasury had been deposed from this position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, still had a certain power of checking expenditure, but if he objected to a certain item, and was overruled, it was hardly reasonable to expect him to resign on some small detail if he was interested in the other portions of the policy of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have behind him, inside the Cabinet, someone who would look impartially at the question from a financial point of view, and use his influence against the pressure brought to bear for the increase of Army and Navy expenditure.
  What he suggested was that the possibility should be considered of forming out of the Cabinet something like a permanent Finance Committee with a permanent secretary on the same lines as the Defence Committee. Let the House consider what an advantage that would be. Supposing there were a change of Government. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been out of office for practically twenty years. How could they

  543
  possibly control expenditure when they had really had no previous experience? But if there were a Committee of Finance such as he had described, with a permanent secretary, they would have all the information relative to past expenditure at hand, and he believed that future Chancellors of the Exchequer would find in such a Committee an effective instrument for supervising and overhauling expenditure. What really was wanted was not so much to stop new expenditure as to cut off old expenditure which fresh expenditure had rendered really unnecessary. He had read with much interest the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; his right hon. friend's Budget appeared to give general satisfaction; he evidently earnestly hoped for economies, and, whilst wishing to maintain the efficiency of the fighting services, he was evidently desirous that fresh burdens should not be added to the existing taxation. He sympathised with his right hon. friend in those aspirations, and he had ventured to put forward these suggestions knowing that such a Committee had been of immense benefit to the Indian Government, and in the belief that the establishment of some such similar institution associated with the Cabinet might yield equal advantages to our own system of finance.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the noble Lord opposite and the Member for Cambridge University had made it abundantly clear that the speech of the Prime Minister was inconsistent with the proposals contained in the Army Estimates for the year, and he could only hope that those right hon. Gentlemen would repeat their speeches when the salary of the Secretary of State for War came up for consideration. As to the desirability of establishing a Finance Committee, that was probably a point upon which only an ex-Cabinet Minister could speak with advantage, but it certainly seemed most desirable that if the Cabinet was to be oppressed by the Defence Committee there should be support given to it by the co-existence of a Finance Committee. He thought that some of the criticisms of Treasury terminology were a little unreasonable. The National Debt was
  544
  primarily divided into two parts, the first of which fell within the fixed debt-charge and the second of which was outside the fixed debt-charge, and it was only reasonable that there should be two separate names for those two portions of the Debt. The first part was divided into three heads. First there was the Funded Debt in regard to which the State was not under obligation to repay the capital sum at any particular date. Next there was the Unfunded Debt as to which the State was under obligation to repay the capital sum at a particular date. Thirdly, there was the debt which was neither funded nor unfunded in respect of terminable annuities. These were the names given to them by the Treasury. The names given to them by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were the dead-weight debt and capital liabilities. He would suggest that the customary names for these two classes should be the Consolidated Debt, that was the debt provided for under the consolidated services; and secondly the Supply Debt, that debt which was met out of the Supply services. The use of these names would, he thought, very much simplify matters, and would do away with the undoubted slight misrepresentation which was maintained in the use of the term capital liabilities, which was applied to the debt outside the fixed debt-charge.
  It seemed perhaps a little unreasonable to criticise the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on this Finance Bill on the ground of the inadequate provision for the Sinking Fund. The right hon. Gentleman had, after all, given £1,000,000 more than was given by his predecessor. Of the two the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was the much worse offender. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon came to settle the fixed debt-charge he actually reduced the provision for the Debt by £500,000. The ordinary liability was £23,000,000, and the liability in respect of the war debt was £4,500,000, making together £27,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman fixed the charge at £27,000,000, and he justified that on the ground that he was getting £30,000,000 from the Transvaal. Hon. Members warned him that

  545
  that hope might not be realised. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had increased the amount of the fixed debt-charge by £1,000,000, but that amount was not nearly sufficient. In the first place we had not received the Transvaal money, and in the second place we had increased our liabilities in the course of the last two years. We had nominally increased the amount by £2,000,000, and we had added to our assets by increaing the balances to the extent of £800,000. In order to get that total we had used up assets of £7,000,000 in two sums of £3,000,000 each, and £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividend fund, so that while we had on the one hand improved our position to the extent of £2,800,000, on the other hand we had gone back to the extent of £7,000,000. On balance, therefore, we had not paid our way during the last two years by over £4,000,000. Was it reasonable that with this huge debt we should not make more ample provision for the Sinking Fund so that we should at least pay our way?
  What was the principle on which we ought to proceed in settling the amount of the fixed debt-charge? Speaking in Committee last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down two guiding factors which ought to determine the amount of the fixed debt-charge—What was the total amount we set by for the Sinking Fund? and did that amount bear as good a proportion to the total Debt as it bore in preceding years? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had set down a satisfactory principle upon which we should be guided. Historically his principle was inaccurate. Previous Chancellors of the Exchequer until the latter days of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had not been guided by that principle at all. Previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had always looked to the ability of the taxpayer to bear the burden. In 1875, when Sir Stafford Northcote proposed the original fixed debt-charge, he settled it at £28,000,000, in spite of our having only at that date a revenue of £77,000,000. It was true that the Sinking Fund bore the proportion to the total debt of ·53 per cent., but year by year as the ability of the taxpayer became
  546
  greater the proportion of the Sinking Fund to the total debt increased up to the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when the figure of ·53 had actually doubled. The proportion of the Sinking Fund to the total debt stood then at over 1 per cent. Why should the Sinking Fund increase suddenly have been stopped? As the nation had got richer we had year by year paid off a larger proportion of our existing debt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol stopped this increase, because, among other reasons, we were paying off debt by the purchase of Consols in the market at £110, £112, and £114 for every £100 extinguished. The right hon. Gentleman showed the Committee at that time that £20,000,000 of Consols had been repurchased at a cost to the nation of £2,000,000 above the par value, and he said with a certain amount of reason that the taxpayers would not go on increasing the Sinking Fund if they had to repurchase Consols at an exaggerated premium. On that basis he reduced the total amount of the fixed debt-charge at the time. How did the position stand now? Consols were at about 90, and now was the moment for a return to the old days when year by year the proportion of the Sinking Fund to the total debt was an increasing figure. When Sir Stafford Northcote put the fixed debt-charge at £28,000,000 the total revenue was £77,000,000, and the total debt was £766,000,000. Now, when the debt was about equal, and the revenue £152,000,000, it appeared to him that the Sinking Fund was not so large as it ought to be.
  Referring to the increasing amount which was raised by loans, and which increased what were called our capital liabilities, the hon. Gentleman said that the additional loans for this year were to be £8,000,000, and in future years the additional loans which were already authorised would amount to £14,000,000. How was that going to tell upon the taxpayers in future years? They would have to meet on the Estimates no less than £3,000,000 to cover the interest and Sinking Fund on these capital liabilities. Was the future taxpayer to go on borrowing, or was he to discontinue that policy and meet

  547
  capital expenditure out of the capital of the year. The future taxpayer would have to find an additional £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 to cover the capital expenditure of our borrowing in addition to the £3,000,000 for interest and Sinking Fund. Was it reasonable to the future taxpayer that that burden should be put upon him without our making a strong effort to take advantage of the favourable opportunity we had now to reduce the total amount of the dead-weight debt.
  He asked the House to consider the costliness of the present system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to go to the market during the current year to borrow no less than £40,000,000. Part of this would be necessary for the renewal of Treasury bills and Exchequer bonds, and part of it on account of the Irish Land Loan. The right hon. Gentleman borrowed last year at an average of £3 4s. 4d. per cent., so that for the £40,000,000 which he was going to borrow in the course of the year he would have to pay interest presumably at the same rate. If we could get Consols back again to par our credit would stand at 2½ per cent., and we should save 14s. per cent. on the £40,000,000 we had to borrow. That was to say, by the mere restoration of our credit we should save £280,000 a year on the additional amount which we now had to pay for the sums we had to borrow. It was surely very unwise finance for us not to make the most strenuous effort to restore Consols to par. He admitted that when Consols were at par in the open market we should not buy them on as advantageous terms as we could now, but the buying of Consols cheap did not repay us for the additional amount which we had to pay in interest. He would point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that last year Consols were bought to the amount of £1,116,000 at the price of 88·86. That was to say, we bought Consols in the market at the price which gave a return on the investment of £2 16s. 3d. per cent. We were at the same time borrowing money on which we were paying £3 4s. 4d. per cent. He suggested to the Treasury that that was not a particularly good transaction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in defence of the fixed debt-charge that
  548
  he was making a larger provision for the Debt than had ever been made before. That was true. Owing to the reduction of the interest to 2½ per cent., the £28,000,000 of fixed debt-charge did give the right hon. Gentleman a larger sum for the dead-weight debt than ever they had had before; but what provision had the right hon. Gentleman made for the £160,000,000 of the war debt? Before the war the fixed debt-charge stood at £23,000,000. The actual interest on the war debt was £4,500,000, while the total interest was £27,500,000, so that the whole provision which the right hon. Gentleman was making for the war debt was only one-third of 1 per cent. of the amount of the war debt. He submitted that that was not a sufficient buttress of our credit. As his hon. friend the Member for Islington had said, our ability to borrow at a low rate of interest was one of our best national defences, and he submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was unwise parsimony on the part of any Government which did not put the fixed debt-charge at a sufficiently high rate to restore our credit.
  SIR GEORGE HARTLEYsaid he always liked on these occasions to say a word in favour of greater economy in the public expenditure. He thought that we were in greater danger from extravagant expenditure at the present time than from invasion. The debates which so often took place on this subject of greater economy did not seem to have the practical effect which all desired, and there seemed to be no real check on the expenditure of the country. He regarded the House of Commons as practically no check at all. Everyone seemed to desire some great work to be done to improve the condition of the people, but all these matters led to a very great expenditure. Only last week, when discussing the expenditure on their own comfort and luxuries, he had shown that that had increased in twenty years something like 30 per cent. Some drastic power was required at the head of the Government—whether by a Committee of the Cabinet he would not say—to see that each Department kept down expenditure. When he was in the public service Mr.

  549
  Gladstone laid down a law that a certain sum could only be set aside for each Department. He knew that that was an exceedingly difficult thing to do, but on the other hand the growth of expenditure, both Imperial and local, each acting and reacting on the other, was becoming a very alarming and serious matter.
  He had read the other day with great concern the last statement of the National Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech did not state, although he wished that the right hon. Gentleman had done so, that the Debt last year had really increased. That was a very serious question. It was all very well to say that the Debt was being repaid by £10,000,000 a year, but it was not enough if they paid off £10,000,000 in one way and increased the debt in another way by more than £10,000,000. Last year the absolute debt of the country was increased although we were at peace. That was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. There was a spirit abroad of great extravagance, and one of the most efficient ways of meeting that would be largely to increase the repayment of their debt. He had always advocated that all debt, municipal and Imperial, should be made for shorter periods. He knew that it was always more popular to advocate expenditure, rather than the payment of debt. A short time ago it was urged that the cost of lighthouses amounting to £500,000 should be made a public charge, and there was a large vote in favour of it. It was astonishing that on a Friday afternoon a Bill should be passed throwing an additional £500,00 on the public expenditure. Then there was something like £503,000 for public buildings, and now they were proposing to feed the children at public schools. Those who advocated that measure were afraid to put the cost of it on local taxation and wanted to make it an Imperial charge. If this charge were to be put on the Imperial Exchequer, before many years had passed it would amount to many millions. Then the Government had brought in a Bill to provide employment for the people at the cost of the State or of municipalities. When once this principle was introduced they could readily understand that the cost would ultimately be thrown upon the Imperial
  550
  Exchequer, and that would be a large addition to the expenditure of the country.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge University had referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the subject of Imperial defence, and he must say that upon him that speech had had a somewhat sobering effect, because the only possible logic of it seemed to him to be extremely useful. Surely if it had any meaning at all it meant that they should insist upon the reduction of the Army and the Navy. Indeed, he was so led away by the speech that he thought it meant that we wanted very little Army at all. He thought, however, that it was unreasonable to complain that it had not had any effect upon the present Estimates, but it must have a result upon the finances of the next year or two in a decrease in the expenditure upon the Army and Navy. No doubt good came out of ill, and surely the result of this great war which was going on would be to tend to decrease the enormous armaments which were being created throughout the world. The two nations engaged, and certainly Russia, would not for many years be in a position to be a source of danger, and he hoped that this meant a considerable reduction on our war expenditure.
  He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had devoted £1,000,000 to the reduction of the National Debt. He regretted that it was not more, and if the right hon. Gentleman had put his whole surplus to the reduction of debt it would have been wiser. He regarded the increase of this habit of spending and the gigantic growth of our expenditure with great alarm. It was an extraordinary thing that when the matter was looked at over a period of years, and when by some unforeseen circumstance or by war the Estimates became swollen, it was extremely difficult to get them down again. He said, however, that they should put their shoulders to the wheel in order to reduce this great expenditure. It was no use to attempt to do it by theory or abstract principles, they must put their finger upon every point and every detail. Above all things they must pay their debts.

  551
  Thirty or forty years ago, when the nation was far less wealthy, larger sums were applied to the reduction of the National Debt. It was really, however, illusory to say that they were paying off their debt when, while on the one hand they were paying it off, on the other they were increasing it. The last Return showed that they had not reduced the amount of the Debt, and this was a very serious consideration. He hoped the House would give up these panics in regard to war, and that they should learn to defend themselves in the best possible way by reducing their expenditure, paying off their debts, and by being in a position to meet their enemies by the best possible weapon, viz., a large and substantial balance at the bank.
  MR. BLAKEsaid it was with a feeling of intense interest, tempered with some feeling of despair, that he had listened to the arguments which had been addressed from various quarters of the House in favour of a serious and radical change in the direction of economy. It had been said that the primary function of the House of Commons was to be the protector of the revenue, and to prevent improper expenditure, but the very principle of constitutional rule which laid down the method by which expenditure could be effectively brought before the House of Commons showed the danger of leaving the question, to that Assembly. No Vote could be propounded except upon the recommendation of the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and the very reason that it could not be brought forward, except in that way, showed the danger of trusting the initiative in such cases to a large body of men. It might, of course, lead to log-rolling, and one set of Members might support another set of Members in regard to increased expenditure in exchange for support for another item of increased charge. The primary check was, of course, with the Cabinet, which was responsible for all the expenditure. He did not say but that the influence of an extravagant House of Commons, or of an extravagant Party behind the Ministry, were not evil factors in producing increased expenditure, and that the House of Commons did not share the responsibility of producing
  552
  increased expenditure, but undoubtedly the first responsibility was with the Cabinet of the day.
  Another consideration they had to take into view was that as expenditure increased the Estimates increased. They became accustomed to deal with tens and twenties of millions, and they did not regard hundreds of thousands of pounds as they did before. When there was a large and extravagant expenditure occasioned by war there was always a general swelling of Estimates, and it had always been impossible to reduce them. He said that as guardians of the public weal they ought to recognise these difficulties in order to overcome them, and although there had been, owing to this vicious principle, a general rise of expenditure in all Departments it was their duty to check it. There was no use in saving by the spigot if they wasted by the bunghole. They knew where the big elements were. They were in the expenditure, unproductive in one sense, on defence, expenditure on the Army and Navy. Another mischievous element in English finance was the short loans for purposes which ought to be met year after year out of the revenue of the year. They saw the folly of the system. They saw small amounts first proposed and how they had grown. It was so much easier to create a little debt than to raise by taxation what ought to be met each year out of the expenditure of the year. They knew what the result of such a policy was in private life, and although he did not say that ruin would ensue in these islands, he did say that the system of raising loans for unproductive expenditure during the past few years was a pernicious system, and that when the House saw this system going on they ought to set their faces against a continuance of it.
  He sympathised with the views which, had been expressed in this debate as to the effect which ought to be produced in this class of expenditure if defence were the policy which was propounded by the First Minister the other day. The right hon. Gentleman divided his subject into three heads. He spoke of the defence of these islands, and of India, and as a middle head he alluded to colonial defence. As to the first he put the very worst case

  553
  that could be put and proved to his own satisfaction that under the worst conditions possible to conceive, these islands were inpregnable from the assault of a foreign foe, and upon that the right hon. Gentle man laid down views which tended very largely to the reduction of the Army expenditure of the country, in so far as it might be supposed to be justified by the necessity of not having a large force at hand to repel an invasion which he said it was proposterous to suppose would ever be attempted, or if attempted would never result in an effective landing. With regard to the Indian problem the right hon. Gentleman set up a casus belli in the case of a strategic railway being built into Afghanistan. The Indian problem was different to the French problem, because in the Indian problem the great country which was to be the aggressor and build the strategic railways was now engaged in deadly conflict with an Eastern nation, and whether she won or lost she would be left the severe task of restoring her finances to a sound basis and the severer task of restoring her domestic relations to their normal condition before she could set out on the grave task referred to by the Prime Minister. For the Prime Minister, therefore, to say that that necessitated the keeping up of a great Army outside the Indian Army in order to meet Russian aggression was as far-fetched a suggestion as it was possible to conceive.
  The middle head of the problem, that of colonial defence, divided itself into two parts: the defence of the numerous naval bases or possessions, like Malta, Gibraltar, Hong-Kong, and others of that character, the consideration of which was a naval matter; and the defence of the North American, the South African, and the Australian self-governing Colonies of this country. He did not propose to touch on the question of the Australian or the South African Colonies, but he would just say a word as to the North American possessions of this country and ask the House to consider the problem as it really existed with regard to those possessions. Two entirely different sets of considerations arose with reference to the quarter from which any possible attack might be made.
  554
  He himself believed that the danger in, regard to the North American possessions of the Crown, in so far as an attack with a view of obtaining and retaining them as a prize of war by any enemy of the United Kingdom outside of America, was very trifling indeed. The difficulty to which any other nation—take France, Germany, or any other country, for example—would be exposed in fighting the North American possessions of the Crown would be extremely serious, owing to the distance of its base from the scene of operations, the difficulty of guarding a fleet of transports to the scene of action, and the difficulty of dealing with a country of that vast extent. Those difficulties would be aggravated by the circumstances of the doctrine which the United States of America had adopted, called the Monroe Doctrine, and that itself would be an indication to the other nations of the world that they could not expect to retain it as a prize of war even if they obtained military possession of that country. From all points of view there was but a slight danger of a successful attack upon, those possessions, except from the United States of America. He did not see that that was a reason, considering the impregnable condition of this country, for making the suggestion that the commerce and the outlying possessions of the Crown did not demand some Fleet, but the danger of a successful attack from such quarters as he had referred to should not be regarded as very great. There might be some attempt to harass us, but the danger of that country being conquered did not exist.
  Dealing with the attack from the land side, he had heard a good deal of the military forces now being maintained for the defence of the Colonies. Arrangements had been made by which the Dominion of Canada had undertaken to supply the troops necessary on the sea-board of the Atlantic at Halifax and Victoria, which up to the present time had been supplied by this country. Arrangements were also being made for fortifying the city of Quebec. He could imagine an attack by the United States upon Canada, but the conditions of such an attack, if regarded as possible, were such that no lover of this country would for an instant suggest that the defence of the

  555
  colony, so far as it was conducted from this side of the Empire, should be otherwise than defence on the ocean. No one would suggest that this nation, with its vast obligations and population of 40,000,000, should seriously propose to engage in a land war with the United States, with its 80,000,000 of population, when they reflected upon the conditions of former conflicts between these two countries under entirely different conditions, and when they reflected upon the enormous difference in favour of defence which had been produced by the altered conditions of modern warfare. The course which would be taken in such a calamitous juncture as that which he had contemplated would no doubt be a war upon the sea. If any troops of this country were to be used in such a contest, they would have to be troops accompanied by the Fleet, using the Fleet for their base for those operations on the seaboard. Therefore the people of these islands did not need to consider seriously the question of the military forces of this country being required in reference to any conflict in connection with the North American possessions of the Crown. Canada had 4,000 miles of land frontier, and it was in a large part level and fertile and gridironed with railways. It contained many fertile fields and thriving towns, and was admirably adapted for marching into. No doubt it would be defended with all the gallantry which his countrymen could exercise, and they would be prepared to die in the last ditch, but 5,000,000 of people under these conditions could not successfully resist the persistent attack of 80,000,000 of their enemies, and the military position of Canada would in the end be taken by the United States; but the question of who should hold Canada afterwards would be decided upon the sea and not upon the land. That was the state of the case.
  The Canadians believed that they had the best Constitution in the world, and they believed that there ought to be a unification of the continent. This country did not think so. But he thought it would be a shortsighted policy and a public calamity, calculated to dash the realisation of their hopes,
  556
  to attempt to keep these 5,000,000 people in apprehension of such a war. He was only pointing out the limitations which should exist in case there was this calamity—whether from beyond the seas or from the North American Continent—of a war which involved the fate and fortunes of the North American possessions of the Crown. These conditions ought to be considered with reference to the naval and military expenditure of this country. They did not involve the suggestion that there was no regard to be paid to the possibility of an attack from the shores of North America, but they should be attended to when the suggestion was made that these outlying possessions ought to contribute very large sums in the same proportion as Ireland, which had a population not so large as them, towards military and naval expenditure. Their conditions and relations were such that they had effective control over the policy of this country upon which depended the issues of peace or war, and willing as they were to run the risk, and anxious as they were to obtain the advantages of their present connection with the Crown, it was absurd to suggest that they should be called upon to pay for a policy which the people of this country controlled. What effective control did Ireland exercise over the policy of the present Government? What were the feelings of Irish representatives in regard to the last great and calamitous war? How much did their protests affect the circumstances which led to that war? With that lesson before them how could it be suggested that our colonial possessions would have any effective voice in the circumstances which decided the issue between peace and war. He believed they were perfectly prepared to do what they ought to do in a liberal and just spirit, to bear that portion of their responsibility in the anomalous condition in which the Empire stood. If they could co-ordinate the Empire in some such way as would give a common interest to all concerned it was one thing, but until they succeeded in that task they would find it necessary and just to face the great bulk of their naval and military expenditure from the resources

  557
  of the islands which, initiated and controlled the policy upon which depended the chances of the issue of peace and war.
  He and his friends were prepared to give the utmost support to all those who objected to the bloated military and naval expenditure which was the great and prime cause of the change in the financial condition of this country in the last few years. They objected to the continuance of the system of borrowing for what ought to be paid for out of the yearly revenue in respect of these matters. They objected to it being put forward that these were assets when the only sense in which they were assets was that they were a double liability upon which they not only paid interest on the debt incurred, but had also to provide more money, more guns for the forts, and more men to occupy the forts and work the guns. So far from this expenditure being merely unproductive, it consisted actually of assets which caused expenditure. They were liabilities and not assets. They would assist in every way possible the adoption of a saner system in reference to the naval and military expenditure of this country, in the full belief that that saner system would enable them to reduce taxation, relieve the springs of industry, and enable the process of accumulation of wealth not merely amongst the millionaires, but also amongst the daily toilers in the land. Such a policy would produce contentment and prosperity all through the country, and so render it strong with a real and greater strength than any free nation could obtain in the issue of war.
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid this debate had turned upon issues of profound importance ever since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University and the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries raised it to the higher level of the general policy of the State which must determine the course of expenditure. In what he wished to say he rather desired to protest against the whole policy underlying this Budget. He thought they had a right to protest against the present unsatisfactory financial position
  558
  of the country as an intolerable wrong. In face of the speech made by the Prime Minister the other day, and when many suggestions had been made which pointed in the direction of economy in regard to expenditure upon armaments, and when measures had already been taken with regard to the Navy, it seemed to him a very monstrous thing that they should have this great increase in the debt of the United Kingdom. Setting aside the repayment by the Transvaal of the sums advanced for resettlement there had been a distinct increase in the total indebtedness of the United Kingdom. Further, this total indebtedness had been allowed to go on accumulating with perfect knowledge of the tremendous problems of local taxation and local indebtedness with which the country had been almost over whelmed in the last few years. Most earnest appeals had been made by the local taxpayer in every possible form for relief, while at the same time this policy of accumulating, rather than decreasing, debt had been continued. He had had the curiosity during the past few days to look up the facts with regard to the debt of the country, and he found that not only was it true that the debt of the country was going on increasing year by year, but that if they looked back twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, Mr. Childers initiated then his wise policy for a sweeping and general reduction of the National Debt by the introduction of a new form of annuities, and a new scheme for superseding the annuities falling due in 1885, the new scheme to effect in the course of twenty years a reduction in the Debt of £176,000,000. That was the situation, the heyday of Liberal finance—a time not only of great social happiness and freedom from oppressive taxes, but also a time when this country had great strength in the councils of Europe and was in a position of far less peril than it was at the present time. In a speech made twenty-two years ago Lord James, then Sir Henry James, dealing with the financial scheme of Mr. Childers, stated that—
  "They (the Liberal Government) have anticipated the filling in of the terminable annuities in 1885, and in advance have created others. The result is, that in twenty years

  559
  £176,000,000 of debt will be paid off, and if at the end of that time a Finance Minister shall be found courageous enough to maintain the same amount of payment on account of debt, and if we are wise enough to avoid war, and not to add to the debt, not only some who are now living, but even men old enough now to the enjoying the franchise, may live to see the day when the country shall be entirely free of its National Debt."
  Under this scheme the Debt had been gradually reduced till in 1900 it stood at £628,000,000. Now we saw staring in our faces, in the appalling Return issued a few days ago, this tremendous debt of £800,000,000, in addition to the vast indebtedness of the local authorities, amounting to nearly £500,000,000, which formed an equal, if not a severer burden on the taxpayers of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always laid his case before the House with a lucidity and a consideration for his opponents which was deserving of all praise, but it seemed to him to be an absolute duty in the interest of the classes whose special taxable capacity had been so conspicuously neglected in the finance of the last ten years to enter an emphatic protest against the financial position in which we found ourselves to-day. The raising of such a sum as over £140,000,000 in time of peace was, to his mind, a wrong which the House should not hesitate to denounce and condemn whether as regards just incidence on the several classes who had to bear the pressure of the taxes or as a burden on industry, or as draining national resources which should be husbanded for great emergencies. This taxation had been a dead weight on our industries, and though there had been in the last two years a tremendous expansion in our foreign trade, home trade had been suffering. The Secretary of the Treasury had said to-day that the country was rich enough and willing enough to bear the burden of taxation. He himself completely traversed that proposition. The right hon. Member for West Bristol in his Budget speech in 1896, proved that while the produce of taxes had increased 15 to 16 per cent. in twenty years to that time, expenditure had grown 68 per cent. or four times faster. He had himself calculated the figures for the past ten years to 1904, and found that in ten years the present Government expenditure
  560
  had grs
  own 65 per cent. and had gone up from six to eight times as fast as the increase in the produce of taxes.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL (By ORDER).
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GRENFELLsaid he rose to support the Second Reading of the Bill which had been deposited upon behalf of the Thames Conservancy. He did not know that the fate that had been dealt out to other Bills on the same subject, such as the Port of London Bill, encouraged anyone very much in promoting a Bill of a somewhat similar character; but this Bill was rather different from the other Bills which had been introduced by the Government, or the one introduced by the London County Council, in so far as it appertained to the Thames Conservancy, and affected the river as a whole. He had found in regard to the Thames Conservancy that there was a good deal of doubt as to how its business was transacted and as to how its funds were provided. The Thames Conservancy had jurisdiction over the whole of the River Thames, from its source practically down to within a short distance of the Nore. The funds were entirely distinct. They were divided into two parts, the Upper Thames Navigation and the Lower Thames Navigation funds; and those who contributed the sums of money for the lower navigation might rest assured that they were absolutely devoted to that purpose. As regards the upper portion of the river there were two principal committees, the River Purification Committee and the Upper River Committee, and this Bill proposed to effect certain changes with regard to river purification. Under the jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy there were altogether some 5,200 square miles;

  561
  under the jurisdiction of the Purification Committee there were 3,800 square miles, and those were above the intakes of the London water companies, and, therefore, it was of the most supreme importance that those clauses of the earlier Bill should be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter.
  He believed that the Thames at the present time was the cleanest river in Europe. At all events it was the river in Europe which had the least drainage flowing into it, and it was the river which was more analysed than any other in the world. It was analysed by the London County Council, it was analysed by the London water companies, and it was analysed by the Thames Conservancy. This Bill proposed to make some slight alterations in regard to the function of the Thames Conservancy of seeing that the river was kept absolutely pure. It was proposed under this Bill that the power of the inspectors should be extended throughout the whole of the tributaries of the Thames, above the intakes of the London water companies, and should not be restricted, as they were now, to within three miles of the main river, and also that the power of inspection should be distributed as regards trade refuse over the whole of that area and the tributaries. They also proposed under this Bill that the powers of the inspectors should not be confined to between the hours of ten in the morning and four o'clock in the afternoon, but that they should be empowered to inspect at any time. There was also another small matter in regard to the purification of the river. The mill-owners when they cleaned out the mud of their mill beds should be compelled to take it and spread it on the land, and should not be allowed to stir it up and pass it down the river.
  The Thames Conservancy had jurisdiction over the whole of the River Thames, including the whole of the fresh-water portion of the Thames. That was 136 complete water miles and comprised forty-seven locks. In carrying out their duties they in many respects met with a certain amount of difficulty which they sought under this Bill to remedy. Clause 7 dealt with land. They had had great difficulty in
  562
  securing land for building locks, lands for making the necessary locks, and so forth. It would have been absolutely impossible for the Thames Conservancy to have built certain of their locks if they had not been able to employ the Lands Clauses Act. Under this Bill they sought to have the same power of securing land as would be given them under the Lands Clauses Act. There were one or two other matters of minor importance, but he did not wish to detain the House by going into them.
  With regard to the lower river, of which they had heard very much of late, this Bill, the Bill of the Thames Conservancy, as deposited, sought practically to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It sought to carry out certain works of great magnitude for which it asked power to borrow the sum of £3,000,000. The Port of London was practically forty-one miles in length. It was still, and had been for the past 200 years, the largest port in the world, and even of late years it had been increasing, though of course there were indications that with the great works being carried out at foreign ports that supremacy would in a short time be contested. London, unfortunately, had ceased to be the great transhipment port of the world, which it used to be for many years in the past. Large ships were able now to go to foreign ports instead of coming to London, whence in the old days the merchandise used to be transported to foreign ports in smaller vessels. They had heard that the Port of Antwerp intended to make large improvements, and it had been the intention to have an access to that port thirty-nine feet in depth, with numerous quays and docks all down its length, and it certainly was borne upon the attention of anyone who had the welfare of London, he might almost say the welfare of this country, at heart, that they at all events should make some slight attempt to keep the trade which they already possessed, and prevent it being attracted in this way to other ports.
  The Bill which had been deposited attempted to make some move in this direction. The main provisions were that a sum of £3,000,000 should be

  563
  borrowed in order to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Thames Conservancy was at present the body in charge of this great waterway. Its duties were manifold, but its income, unfortunately, very small. He believed that London, as far as the large portion of the merchandise in the Port of London was concerned, and as far as the river dues were concerned, was certainly the cheapest port in Europe. As far as the money which went to keep up the waterway was concerned, the port authority received lower dues in London than it did in any port in Europe. The charges of the Thames Conservancy were ½d. per ton for coastwise trade, and ¾d. per ton for the trade in and out, and in return for this miserable pittance they had certainly very important duties to perform. In the first place, dredging was committed to the charge of the Thames Conservancy. They were the only body authorised to carry it out, and it was perfectly obvious that with the small sum of money which the Thames Conservancy received it was absolutely impossible for them to carry out any of these large schemes of dredging which were carried out in the ports abroad. They all knew that in foreign ports these ports were assisted by the public or municipal funds. That had not been, as regards public funds, the practice in this country; and if they took the other ports of this country, they found that the ports were maintained by charges which were levied both on the tonnage of ships and by dues on goods. There were no dues in the Port of London on goods, and they only received a very small return from the tonnage dues on the ships. The duties of the Thames Conservancy were first of all the dredging. They had expended a larger proportion of their funds in dredging than any other port. During last year they spent something like £27,000 in that way. Besides that the duty fell on the Thames Conservancy of carrying out the whole of the survey of the port. A survey had just been completed. Something like £20,000 was involved in the survey of the river from the Nore up to Gravesend, and something like £40;000 in a survey of the river from Gravesend up to London Bridge. They provided moorage and anchorage free; they provided
  564
  causeways and landing stairs, and so on. Besides all this they had to regulate the traffic, and were the guardians of the shipping against the dangers of explosives. That was a great deal of service for very small dues, and it could not, therefore, be surprising that in a large scheme of dredging such as must be carried out in the Port of London, the Thames Conservancy should come to the House and ask for more money to enable them to carry out those duties.
  The scheme as defined in the Bill was founded on the Report of the Royal Commission. A large sum of money, £3,000,000, was to be borrowed, and the dredging was to be carried out from the Nore right up to the Royal Albert Docks. Under the Bill the Thames Conservancy would finance itself in carrying out these large improvements. It was proposed in the first place to levy dues on goods, as was done at other ports, to increase the dues upon shipping, and to levy dues on barges. The Thames Conservancy provided seventytwo moorings for barges free, and there were something like 12,000 barges ins the Port of London, which went in and out of the docks and used the river. It was also proposed in the Bill to give increased representation to shipowners and traders in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
  There was one matter which he would venture to draw the attention of the Government to for a very short space of time, and that was the danger under which the Port of London lay with regard to dangerous oils. The Thames Conservancy had already approached the Board of Trade, and he believed the Board of Trade had been in communication with the Home Office on the subject, but he would like to call the attention of the House for one moment to one fact. Though the very greatest care was taken with regard to the carriage of these dangerous and inflammable oils up the river—they were only allowed to carry them in certain ships which had been inspected, and to deposit them in certain places—when these dangerous and inflammable oils went down the river there was absolutely no care taken to see that they did not endanger, by accident or

  565
  criminal neglect, the enormous amount of shipping—33,000,000 tons in the Port with 12,000 barges—and all the quays and docks With which the river was so closely studded. Therefore he wished respectfully and publicly to call the attention of the Home Office, and also the attention of the Board of Trade, I to this lamentable state of affairs. Some of the members of the Thames Conservancy made a few experiments, on a small scale only, with regard to some of these inflammable oils. They put some on the water, and lit it with a match, and convinced themselves that there was a very terrible danger indeed.
  It was the scheme of the Thames Conservancy under this Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But anyone who had made himself at all conversant with the intricate nature of the interests on the Thames, the interest of the docks, the interests of the wharfingers, the interests of the barge-owners, and the interests of the traders, could not but feel that this scheme was certainly not of a character to be a settlement of the question of the Port of London. The Thames Conservancy were fully alive to the absolute necessity of some real attempt being made to try to bring together all those divergent interests, and to bring a Bill to the House of Commons which would have the consent and the concurrence at all events of a very large proportion of all those bodies. It was a very difficult task, and it might be an impossible task; but still if the attempt was made, and then representations were made to the Government of the day on that basis, he felt confident something would be done for the Port of London on a big scale, which might bring it up to date. This scheme was practically a dredging scheme. He differed to some extent with the very important Report, the admirable Report, of the Royal Commission, with regard to the dredging scheme. Being more or less conversant with the river, he felt rather doubtful himself as to the propriety and necessity of a deep narrow channel right up into the heart of London. He felt that there were many difficulties in regard to that scheme besides its expense. There was a danger to the
  566
  river bank. There was also the danger of starting running water, and there was a still greater danger of starting running sand, which he believed would be a very difficult matter to deal with. In regard to a narrow channel on the river, he had had conversations with the dockowners, and they told him that at low water with a channel only 600 feet wide, with ships 600 feet long, very few pilots would have the courage, or rather the audacity, to bring ships up. These and many other considerations with which he would not weary the House had led him to try to see himself, in a humble way, if he could not suggest to the House a somewhat humbler scheme, at all events, a scheme which had had in the past a very great deal of support, the unanimous support, of two important inquiries held into this subject.
  Giving up this scheme of dredging out the river fifteen feet right up to London, they found if they went lower down they came across a portion of the river as to which it had been unanimously stated that it was absolutely necessary that there should be deep water, at least thirty feet. That portion of the river, twenty-one and a-half miles, extended from the Nore to Gravesend. In 1896 a Commission was appointed, the Lower Thames Navigation Commission, whose special duty it was to inquire into this portion of the river and to make recommendations. This Lower Thames Navigation Commission unanimously reported that one of the first essentials to be provided in the river was a channel thirty feet deep and 1,000 feet wide from the Nore to Gravesend. The reasons they gave for this were, that it would be greatly to the interests of the Port of London if any ship leaving the river outward bound could be absolutely certain that when it got to Gravesend, whatever the state of the tide, it could continue its journey, and if howemard bound that at the lowest state of the tide it could be absolutely certain of getting up to Gravesend, in which case they would very often save a tide later on. This view was supported by all the ship-owners who were examined before that body. They all expressed themselves strongly in favour of the thirty-feet channel from the Nore to Gravesend. In

  567
  addition to that the evidence subsequently taken by the Royal Commission unanimously endorsed their view that there should be a deep-water channel up to Gravesend. The short-sea trader might naturally think that as his vessel did not draw much water a deep channel from Gravesend outward would not be a matter of very great importance to him, but some of these short-sea traders took rather a wider view of the matter as to what might happen. They testified that their prosperity depended upon the prosperity of the port, that the interests of the smaller vessels were bound up to a large extent in the interests of the larger ships, and that if larger ships came to the port there would be more work for the smaller ships to do. They were also face to face with this fear, that if real attempts were not made to improve the Port of London, as the trade now was to the big vessel, the Port of London might lose all those big ships, and a great deal of the work now done by the small vessels would be driven away with them. What he wanted to try to impress on the House was that it was perhaps, even for shipowners, not a wise thing to take a narrow view as regards this matter, even if they did not themselves see how they were going to benefit by the deepening of the river. If the river was deep enough at Gravesend it fell in with any scheme of developing the port that had been brought to the public notice. The deepening of the river up to Graves-end must be done. Therefore, any money which was spent on the river below Gravesend, from Gravesend to the sea, was money that certainly would not be thrown away, but which would fall in with any scheme, and not only with any scheme but with any body which had in time to come to regulate the affairs of this port.
  That being the case, he ventured to make the following proposition to the House. Knowing that the scheme was a large scheme, and in some of its aspects net an entirely satisfactory scheme of settling this great matter, he ventured to suggest that he might be allowed to withdraw all those clauses from the Bill which suggested interference with the upper river, or with the Port of London with regard to dues, and merely to retain those clauses which
  568
  would enable the Thames Conservancy to carry out this scheme of deepening the river from the Nore to Gravesend, and also give them the means of obtaining a certain amount of the expense of that deepening. He observed that though when he read the evidence given before these various Commissions the millowners were unanimous in desiring, a deep channel, when he talked on the subject of payment they were not as entirely enthusiastic as they were before. An outline of the scheme which he should lay before the House was that the Thames Conservancy should be empowered to borrow £400,000. Their contribution to this great work would be that they would borrow this great amount of money, and would be liable for the repayment of interest and capital. He believed the money they borrowed before they borrowed at 3 per cent. with 1 per cent. for sinking fund, which made it 4 per cent., it amounted to £16,000 a year contribution from the Thames Conservancy for fifty years. Then he would ask the shipowners to contribute something, not for fifty years but for three years, and he believed that during the three years they should be able to complete the whole of this scheme, so that there would be from Gravesend to the Nore a channel thirty feet deep at ordinary low water spring tide, and 1,000 feet in width. As he had already said, the only dues which the Thames Conservancy levied were dues on ships, and they were at present ½d. coastwise and ¾d. in and out. He would propose at this period, to double those dues, and make them 1d. and 1½d. He need not go through the various comparisons of the ports, but he found that in those ports which charged dues on goods the charge would be a great deal more than those increased charges, even with the tonnage charge on ships. He thought that would be a scheme that at all events would be worth while the consideration of this House and of a Committee upstairs.
  The position was this: Was nothing to be done to the Port of London for the next five years? He had proposed a scheme which anyhow would fit in with any scheme, whatever scheme was carried out in time to come. He ventured to think that the charges were not great,

  569
  The charge for three years even on the shipowners was not a large charge. The first time dues on tonnage were ever charged in the Thames was in 1799, and that was a temporary charge. They were lowered in 1834, and had remained at that low figure ever since, although the demands on the Thames Conservancy had been infinitely greater. Nothing could be done to improve the Port of London for years unless this Bill was considered by the Committee upstairs. He ventured to think that the House would take a favourable view of this business proposal he had put before them, and which the House would have the power of reconsidering when it came back from Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he had listened to the very interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He was bound to say that he had been surprised at the changes the hon. Member proposed to make in the Bill, and if these were carried out his strong opposition to the Bill as it now stood would disappear. The policy which the hon. Gentleman was pursuing was a very wise one, because if those changes had not been made the most strenuous opposition to it would have been offered by those whose interests would have been affected. He understood that the hon. Gentleman was going to abandon altogether all the clauses except those which dealt with dredging the river from the Nore to Gravesend. No one was more anxious than he was to see the ports of the United Kingdom made thoroughly good. He represented a part of the north-east coast of England which had spent very large sums indeed to improve the rivers. He recognised that it was necessary to have good access to the River Thames, and to the various docks, and no one, he was sure, would grudge a reasonable charge, provided they were likely to get a good share of the benefit which would arise from that expenditure. In his part of the country they had a large
  570
  number of coasters trading from the Tyne and from Scotland to London, the present depth of the river was as much as they required, and they felt that it would be rather hard that they should be called upon to pay a large proportion of expenditure for the deepening of the river mainly because a few large liners might have a better access to the docks. The people who used the docks ought to pay for that. As the liners only used the river perhaps once in two months, and as the coasters from the Tyne and Scotland practically came into the Thames every week, the charge put upon them,, as compared with the large ships, would be a very heavy one indeed. He would not tie himself as to what would happen in Committee upstairs; but after the hon. Gentleman's statement he would be disposed to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. He observed, however, that a large proportion of the gentlemen on the Thames Conservancy were not dues payers. He had had experience of that kind of thing. There was a time when the whole control of the Tyne was in the hands of the Newcastle Corporation. The people who spent the money which they had not to find always spent it in their own interests, and almost every penny that was got from shipping dues was spent in improving the town and not the river. An Act was afterwards passed appointing a Commission for the Tyne on which half the representation was given to the municipalities on the river, and half to the dues payers, while three were appointed by the Board of Trade to hold the balance. He thought that the dues payers were entitled to half the representation on the Thames Conservancy.
  *SIR W. HART DYKEcongratulated his hon. friend no merely for the deep interest which he took in the Thames, but also for the very lucid explanation he had given of the objects he had in view. It seemed to him, however, that his hon. friend was in considerable difficulty, because the changes he proposed would make this practically a new Bill, and unless the sailing-barge interests, which he represented, were satisfied on some points they would object to sending the Bill upstairs. The

  571
  cement and other trade from the Medway, which was the largest in the county of Kent, represented almost exclusively the sailing and other barges plying to and from the Thames, and it would be a serious thing if the dues on these barges were doubled. Many of these barges also were engaged in carrying raw material up to the docks to be converted into manufactured goods. A Return was obtained by the Thames Conservancy of the number of these barges, and in one week in October last no less than 2,005 passed and repassed Gravesend. The barges were mainly engaged in the cement industry, which gave employment to something like 10,000 men, and it was estimated that the proposed charges upon them would mean an extra burden of from £1,800 to £2,000 a year. That was a serious burden on an industry already in great difficulties as regarded foreign competition, and in which those engaged could now scarcely keep their heads above water.
  *MR. RUNCIMANsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman was to be congratulated on having dropped three-fourths of his Bill. The only serious objection taken so far to the proposal as it now stood was from the right hon. Member for Dartford. He quite understood the class of traffic to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that all barges under forty-five tons register could enter the Thames without paying mooring dues or dock dues; so that it was only vessels over forty-five tons which were likely to be touched by the proposal of the Thames Conservancy as it now stood. He was sure that the great improvements made in the rivers of Scotland or England could not have been carried out successfully if all the vessels frequenting these rivers had not contributed to their upkeep. The Clyde had been dredged to a great depth up to Glasgow at enormous expense. Only seventy years ago the Clyde was a muddy stream which at Glasgow it was possible to wade across. Now, vessels drawing thirty feet could go up to Glasgow, but all the vessels using the Clyde drawing nine or ten feet of water and upwards had contributed their quota to the work
  572
  of deepening the river. The same held good of the Tyne. It was, moreover, obvious that any general extension of the trade of the Port of London would benefit the smaller vessels also. He was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was going to drop the scheme for tinkering with the Thames Conservancy. That body could not be maintained as at present. There should be a new port authority representing all the users of the river. In regard to the financial proposals, he trusted that the principle laid down in the Bill of throwing all the new dues received on shipping exclusively would not be regarded as a permanent precedent for the future. The period of fifty years for the repayment of loans for dredging was absurd. No one could maintain that the work from Gravesend to the Nore would not have to be redredged at least every ten not every fifty years. He thought these financial proposals were unsound, and would not be tolerated in the case of any municipal scheme.
  MR. DAVID MORGANsaid he understood that the Bill which they were asked to give a Second Reading to was to consist of only Clauses 3, 4, 9, and 10. As chairman of a dock company which had just spend £1,000,000 on new entrances they naturally wanted more water. They looked upon this movement as the beginning of the work, and they hoped to see not only a deep-water channel from the Nore to Gravesend, but in the higher reaches of the river also. He thought the hon. Gentleman was very well advised in altering the Bill, because as originally introduced it would have been most strenuously opposed by most of the users of the Port of London. There was an important question regarding the safety of the banks when dredging took place. In the county of Essex there was a large stretch of land which was below the level of the river and which would be flooded if due care was not taken to prevent the weakening of the banks of the river, and he hoped that the Committee upstairs would see that, in carrying out the work of dredging to an extra depth, the banks would be properly protected.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the Thames Conservancy was to be congratulated on its new official representative; and, personally, he congratulated that body on the change of its chairman, who had made a bad Bill a little! better. So far so good; but they must not allow their congratulations to the new chairman to carry them into depths of unsound finance. He could not help being struck by the speech of the new chairman of the Thames Conservancy when he said despairingly, certainly feelingly, "Is nothing to be done I for the Port of London?" Why did he not say that a year ago, when the Government introduced a Port of London Bill? Then the Thames Conservancy had an opportunity of getting what they were asking for now in the remnant of this Bill, the effect of which would have been not only to benefit large ships from the Nore to Gravesend, but which have benefited the small vessels which carried cargo from Gravesend to Teddington Lock. But many members of the Thames Conservancy had done their best to oppose the Government Bill, and it had been dropped. Another body brought in a Bill—he meant the London County Council—the object of which was to carry out what the Government proposed to do, but to do it under circumstances where London, as a whole, would contribute more from the common treasury towards the improvement of the river, and the result of which would have been a smaller charge on goods than was proposed in this attenuated Bill.
  The Thames Conservancy had always pursued a dog-in-the-manger policy on this subject. He, himself, on the Rivers Committee of the; London County Council, had moved a I resolution to make a free gift of £2,500,000 for the improvement of the river, so important did he believe was it that the Port of London should be developed. But that proposal was not received as it might have been. Both the Government and the County Council's Bills had been cast aside, and now the Thames Conservancy came forward tardily with a Bill of their own, nine-tenths of which had to be jettisoned. What had happened was that nine-tenths
  574
  of this bad Bill had been jettisoned, and the chairman had been thrown over with it. The only proposal was that the Thames Conservancy should be allowed to spend £400,000 on dredging the river from the Nore to Gravesend, and to get that money back they proposed to double their dues on shipping. That, of course, was a matter for the shipowners to fight out with the Thames Conservancy, but, in his opinion, the doubling of the dues would affect some interests far more prejudicially than the promoters of the Bill were inclined to admit. If they were going to improve the River Thames to the extent of the demands made upon it, £400,000 was a miserably inadequate sum for that purpose. Why should that part of the river from Gravesend to Teddington Lock be ignored? He conceded that this project would admit a large number of ships from the Nore to Gravesend, but there were a large number of ships of between 1,000 and 3,000 tonnage that did a great deal of trade who would not be benefitted. He alluded to the smaller class of crafts which traded between Gravesend and Battersea, which carried north country coal to the Beckton Gas Works and the South Metropolitan Gas Works, also to the colliers carrying 900 tons up to Nine Elms and Battersea. All these vessels would have to contribute to the double duty on shipping while they would get absolutely no advantage or benefit from this expenditure, which would be laid out for the benefit of the liner. "The liner was a lady," and as usual the lady was going to have the best of the bargain. But the bulk of the regular trade was done not by large vessels but by these small ships. He hoped if the Bill was allowed to go to a Committee that these points would be considered, as he was sure that the wharfingers, the gas works, and the electric lighting companies, who did not depend upon the big steamers for their coal, would between now and next year get up an agitation against the very large vessels having a monopoly of the result of all this expenditure while those vessels which used the river most and paid the most rates did not get an equitable share of the benefits conferred by the Act. This was only one of the many anomalies which he might point out. He had no prejudice against the dredging

  575
  of the river, by whomsoever it Was done, but he did not wish the members of the Thames Conservancy to humbug themselves into the idea that the outlay of £400,000 was going to put the Thames in proper order. London owed a great debt to the chairman of the Thames Conservancy for the great attention he had given to the River Thames, but he would put the point to him that even supposing I they spent £400,000 in dredging it thirty feet deep what was to prevent silting down, which would cause them to spend three or four times the amount now contemplated.
  All the difficulty arose because the authorities had not the courage to do what they ought to have done. The Government introduced a Bill which dealt with the River Thames from above bridge and below bridge as one whole, and asked not for £400,000 but for £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. If that had been done they would have got a good river and adequate dredging from the Nore up to Teddington Lock. London did not ask for anything extravagant—nothing like what Antwerp and Bristol were doing. These two ports were spending ten times as much as London on their rivers and ports, which had not the physical or natural advantage which Father Thames had. The Thames Conservancy, however, would not agree with the Government measure and they also would have nothing to do with the County Council, but they brought in a Bill intrinsically bad and they asked Members of the House to let some portion of it through, because they all knew that this neglect of the dredging of the river£that this dilly-dallying with the River Thames was a commercial menance to the Port of London, and that this little concession which was to be given to the Thames Conservancy or to its new chairman was one which would have to be renewed two years, or at all events five or six years, hence. Their action hitherto had been miserably inadequate to bring the river up to a reasonable standard of depth and efficiency but, being a county councillor, he was a reasonable man. Coming from Spring Gardens, one was necessarily charitable and tolerant, and he was disposed to vote for the proposal of the new chairman upon one condition, viz., that
  576
  he did not alter the personnel or the constitution, that he abandoned everything in the Bill except the £400,000 for dredging, and that he would put in in Committee a provision by which the owners of the smaller vessels should be equally protected with the owners of the larger vessels which used the lower reaches. If he would do that, then he was not disposed to vote against him. He said this, however, to the Government, that whatever the hon. Member who introduced this Bill did, a tremendous responsibility rested upon the Board of Trade. With all its shortcomings and defects, we had the largest port in the world and 15,000,000 tons coming from all corners of the earth and from every sea and region entered it, and he believed that if we had a port worthy of its name and the river we had, that 15,000,000 ought to be 22,000,000 within the next five years. Yet the Government, filled with the craven fear of being great, because Sir F. Dixon-Hartland held a blunderbuss at their heads, ran away and neglected their Imperial duty and their commercial liabilities.
  What were they going to do with this Bill? Were they going to regard this miserable proposal as the last word on the port and river of London? If so, they were evading their duty. Their duty was to take this little Bill as a last concession to a dying body—a body which he would, if he had his way, take out to the Nore to-morrow and drown without the least compunction. Were the Government going to regard this little Bill as entirely a temporary concession to tide over a temporary difficulty until the Board did what they were authorised to do, and that was, look at this question from the Imperial point of view? They had hitherto been looking at it from the point of view of pettifogging vestrymen, who had a ditch to look after instead of the finest river in the world. Were the Government going to treat this as the final word or as a mere temporary expedient? He could assure the Government that if they did not do something for dredging, deepening, and improving the river they would, three or four years hence, be confronted by the hon. Member

  577
  for Walthamstow, the hon. Member for Tilbury, and others, who would unite to save London from a Government which had been too feeble in promoting the interests of the river, and had not had the moral courage to face its responsibilities. But he saw from the general attitude of the representative of the Board of Trade that they were going to adopt his view, and that they would place this Bill as a temporary expedient in the hands of the Thames Conservancy to get over a difficulty. If the Government took that view, and it was the only statesmanlike view, he would not oppose the Bill. He hoped, however, that the Government would see that the officers of the Thames Conservancy, more disingenuous than the chairman, did not use the measure to fasten the Thames Conservancy on the London river and the London port. If the Government would view the Bill as he did, as merely helping lame dogs over a stile, and enabling the Thames Conservancy to justify its existence for the next two years, he was willing to vote for the Second Reading.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he had supported the Government Bill for this purpose, and also the Bill of the London County Council, and he was glad to say that he could support that the residue of this proposal should go to the Committee. This question was vital to the interests of London as a port. Unless London was made a deep and a cheap port they would soon be lamenting not only the languishing, but departing, trade, and the commercial pre-eminence which London had hitherto enjoyed. There was one advantage in regard to the discussion of the previous Bills. London and the House had at last realised that it was not a question whether the trade of London had been somewhat increasing, but it was a question of what might have been the increase of trade in London, as at other ports both at home and abroad, if proper facilities had been given. The trade of the port of London suffered a slight decrease last year, although previously there had been slight increases, and the shipping ha nearly doubled during the last thirty years. The trade of Antwerp, however, had doubled in the last ten years.
  578
  He remembered the chairman of the Thames Conservancy advising his colleagues to go to Antwerp, and if they did he was sure they would be astonished at what had been accomplished. There was now a deepened and straightened river and excellent access to the port, and there was at this moment a proposal to spend £10,000,000 more money on diverting and straightening the river at the last awkward bend into Antwerp itself. That would make Antwerp the best port in the whole world, and they had to take care that London was similarly armed, and that our port was made accessible and convenient, with one port authority charged with its equipment and the management of its trade.
  One recommendation of this Bill as it now stood was the withdrawal of the proposed dues on goods. The London Chamber of Commerce had fought this question of keeping London a free port in the Courts and in Parliament for many years, and this was the most important consideration. They not only, as he had said, wanted a deep port but a cheap port, such as Hull was compared with London even for delivery on to quay. The Bill now became nearly u pure Conservancy Bill, and though it only dealt with one section of the river the other sections would have to be dealt with, but the Bill was consistent with that. He understood from his hon. friend that the proposal to repeal the present exemption from taxation of small vessels below forty-five tons would not now be dealt with by this Bill. It was a well established-exemption, and he thought it was based upon a correct principle. The very small coasting and trading vessels which dealt with a very large amount of the cement and other of the Medway and coastwise trades of London should not contribute like the larger vessels. At any rate, they should not contribute in the same degree as the larger vessels, to which this dredging of the channel was absolutely essential, a differentiation for which there was a precedent at Liverpool. He understood that his hon. friend would not insist upon the repeal of the exemption, and,

  579
  therefore, and upon that understanding which he had given him personally, and which he was glad to hear he now confirmed, he heartily supported this measure, which he believed would be a great step in the direction of making London a modern port.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars),as representing the Board of Trade, said that they had considered this Bill and had come to the conclusion that it must be opposed, and not only so but they had intimated to the various public bodies who had the right to ask their opinion that it was their intention to prevent the Bill being passed. He did not feel, however, that the pledge given in regard to the Bill bound him at all in regard to these proposals of his hon. friend. Everyone would agree that it was not the same Bill. He should like, if his hon. friend would permit him, to add to the congratulations which had already been bestowed upon him not only on account of his speech but still more for the credit which he deserved for having made a proposal which was really practical, and with the principle of which nearly all were in agreement. He felt, however, this difficulty, that owing to circumstances, for which the hon. Member was not in the least to blame, they did not have notice of the present proposal in time to consider it on its merits, but he dared say that there were many objections which they would have realised more fully if they had had time to thoroughly go into the matter. It was therefore for the House to decide whether or not this scheme deserved to be sent up to a Committee to be considered on its merits—personally, he thought it did. He was not going to reply at any length to the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea. The hon. Member said that he would be glad if in regard to this question they adopted his advice; well, they did so. Another thing which rather pleased him in the hon. Member's speech was that although he said a great many hard things about the Government, he did not go quite the length that he went with regard to the Thames Conservancy, and did not propose to take
  580
  them out and drown them. He gathered that it was a metaphorical expression, even in regard to the Thames Conservancy, though the hon. Member seemed to intimate that he had been doing his, best to do the same in regard to the Government, but they on that side might have the satisfaction of knowing that there would be a good deal more dredging to be done before the hon. Member could succeed in his object.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that certainly the London County Council were not possessed of the craven fear of being great as the hon. Member said of the Government. Although the Government had spoken, he hoped the House would allow a man who had represented Tilbury Docks and the estuary of the Thames for fourteen years to say a few words. He thought it was rather hard that a trade which had not been consulted, and which did not want this deepening of the channel, should be made to pay for it. He alluded to the lighters and barges used in connection with the cement trade, of which there were about a thousand. They plied up and down the river drawing about seven feet of water, and they would get no benefit out of the change which was proposed. It was all very well for coal tramps and ocean liners which went to Tilbury Dock. They got advantage and they should pay for it. In the distressful county in which he had a seat one of the few successful trades was the cement trade on the banks of the Thames, and the members of that trade would receive with considerable disfavour any proposition of this kind, or any attempt to penalise them. Then as to sea walls, he might point out that a great part of the county of Essex was below the level of the German Ocean, and sea walls were necessary for their salvation. In the division he represented frequently in the middle of the night people used to be called up to repair the sea wall lest they should be drowned. On the estuary of the Thames the sea wall played a very important part. No man would knowingly take a farm with a sea wall upon it, and no man would take a farm when the sea wall was liable to the backwash of steamers passing up and down

  581
  which they had not had before, but which they would have now. He thought the two classes he had mentioned should be specially protected.
  *SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he was heartily glad that there was to be an improvement in the River Thames, and he was very sorry that the Government apparently took so little interest in the matter. He had declared in that House more than once that he was very tired of the squandering of our national funds in different parts of the earth, and if the Government a good many years ago had made up their minds to improve the Thames instead of building a railway in Uganda, the Empire would have been greater to-day. He had to thank the chairman of the Thames Conservancy for bringing in this Bill, though he hoped he would forgive him for saying that the Thames Conservancy, as at present constituted, was not a body which should do the work. The House did not realise that the duties of the Thames Conservancy extended from keeping ditches in Gloucestershire in a sanitary condition down to the superintendence of the shrimping at Gravesend. We should never get this work done in a business-like way until we divided the Thames into two jurisdictions, with Teddington Lock as the dividing point. The Thames above and below that point was entirely different in its character. The Thames where it was a pleasure resort ought to be governed by a separate body and not by one which was interested in the London Docks and in trade. An hon. Member who had spoken a few minutes before spoke of the work which had been done at Antwerp, but the same story could be told about every nation in Europe, about our Colonies, and about the United States. Everywhere in the world except here the whole nation worked together. It was "all for all," and he hoped he might live to see the day when the House would rise to the height of their great responsibility, and that they would one and all join together in working for the benefit of the trade at home.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he would not occupy them more than a minute in moving the instruction of which he had given notice. The clause from which the instruction was taken was embodied in the Port of London Bill which passed the Hybrid Committee. He therefore hoped the House would accept his Motion. He begged to move.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause to provide that the Conservators of the River Thames shall make compensation to all persons whose property or works are damaged by or in consequence of any operations of the Conservators in connection with dredging or otherwise deepening and improving the channels within the limits defined by the Bill, and to provide that any dispute or difference arising therefrom shall be settled by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889."—(Captain Jessel.)
  MR JOHN BURNSappealed to the House not to support the instruction. The residue of the Bill ought to go to the Committee unconditionally. The practice of moving instructions to Committees had gone too far, and in this case it was both unreasonable and unfair.
  Question put, and negatived.

  FINANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  *MR. CHANNING,resuming his speech, said the main issue he desired to bring before the House was the relative incidence of taxation upon different classes

  583
  of taxpayers. The additional expenditure of £50,000,0000 a year had been estimated to involve extra taxation to the extent of a penny per working day upon every man, woman, and child in the country. To the women employed in "closing" Army boots whose case had recently been brought to the notice of the House, whose wages were 6s. a week, this meant that one-twelfth of their wages was taken as a contribution towards the expenses of the State, or the equivalent of an income-tax of 18d. in the £. This, it should be remembered, was simply for the additional expenditure of the last few years apart from other taxes. Allowing for the repayment of capital charges for military and naval works, the total expenditure on war and armaments during the last ten years amounted to something like £400,000,000. Through the policy of war, expansion, and reckless Imperialism, the whole of that money had been thrown into the sea. Placed at 5 per cent. the mere interest on that sum would have provided universal old-age pensions for ever without any further appeal to the taxpayer. Invested in small holdings at rents representing 2 or 3 per cent. on the outlay, it would have added immensely to the happiness of the people and provided a revenue more than sufficient to clear away the sugar tax. Or if the interest had been applied to the relief of rates, one of the most pressing grievances of the people might have been removed for ever so far as the majority of the large towns were concerned. These were tremendous facts. The whole of this fund had been thrown into the abyss of extravagance, and not one penny would ever be recovered. And what had been the effect of the extravagance of the Government upon the value of securities? On Consols and the chief railway and colonial stocks there had been a decrease of some 26 per cent., which meant that in capital values an income of £10,000 in 1898 was now represented by only £7,400. For that the wealthy had to thank the Government. If that were the effect on the rich, how much more serious was the effect on the poor.
  Even if the increased expenditure could be justified on the ground that the total wealth of the community had increased, it was absolutely unjust
  584
  to raise so vast a sum without a scientific investigation and thorough readjustment of the incidence of taxation upon those who felt the burden most severely. It was no answer to say that the nation was rich enough. Even if that were true, how could it be just for the Government to go on increasing the burden without any regard for the people upon whom the burden pressed with unexampled and cruel severity. The small income-tax payers, and such people as those who made trousers at 2¼d. per pair, had a tremendous claim for consideration. There had been not only reckless extravagance, but a cruel negligence of the fact that they were asking the poor man to pay for extravagance which could enrich only the wealthy speculators and capitalists whose fortunes were advanced by adventures abroad. Income-tax payers, at any rate, knew what they were paying. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had declared that the income-tax ought not to be raised or maintained at so high a figure without some further extension of exemptions to persons of small incomes, and, as in former years, he should press strongly for some consideration of the claims of the small income-tax payers for further relief. The so-called equitable division between direct and indirect taxation was an absolute and transparent fallacy. What did it matter whether indirect taxation was 53 or 49 per cent. of the whole? What had to be considered was the proportion of income paid by the individual to the expenses of the State.
  The recent Board of Trade inquiries into the wages and expenditure of the working classes afforded an admirable means of testing the actual incidence of indirect taxation. The Blue-book contained a very large number of family budgets, from which it appeared that upon wages of 21s. a week, the duties payable on tea, coffee, and sugar alone amounted to nearly 7d., or an income-tax of 6·3d. in the £. On wages of 52s. the same duties amounted to 11d., representing an income-tax of 4¼d. But the corresponding duties in the case of wealthy people represented an income-tax of only a penny in the pound on an income of £1,500, of ½d. in the £ on incomes between £3,000 and £4,000, and

  585
  of ⅛d. in the £ on incomes of £20,000. Those figures illustrated the enormous pressure of indirect taxation upon the poor. Having regard to the enormously greater pressure of indirect taxation upon the poor, and especially upon the lowest grades of the wage-earning classes, it was an intolerable injustice that taxation should be raised to so high a point without some scientific inquiry into its incidence or the establishment of some machinery by which the pressure upon the poor might be mitigated. The enormous burdens imposed by the present rate of expenditure were not only ruinous to the country as a whole, but they pressed with such intolerable injustice upon certain sections of the community that he wondered the people did not rebel against them.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONdesired to associate himself with those who had protested against the growing expenditure of the country. The fact that the ordinary expenditure of the country, not only on the Army and Navy, but on all the branches of the service had risen by over £50,000,000 in ten years was viewed with profound dissatisfaction throughout the country and had done more than almost anything else to alienate the people from the Unionist cause. With regard to the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Ealing that an inner Committee of the Cabinet should be constituted to check expenditure, the record of the Cabinet in the matter of expenditure connected with the South African War was such that the country would have no confidence in their ability to form an effective check. A committee of business men, who had conducted great enterprises successfully, and whose whole training had been a matter of saving and reducing expenditure, would be a far better body for the purpose. Such men were available if only their services were sought; they desired no place or reward, but simply to place their experience and services at the disposal of the country. There was a feeling of deep dissatisfaction among the people that the Transvaal war contribution of £30,000,000 did not appear in the Finance Bill of the present year, and that the Government had
  586
  not made that payment part and parcel of the new Constitution. It had been obtained from Parliament on the express condition that it would be repaid, and the late Colonial Secretary had expressly stated that it would be. The money ought to have been paid long ago, and on this point he dissociated himself entirely from those of his hon. friends who deprecated any demand being made upon the Transvaal for payment. In opposition to their views he preferred to take the opinion of the highest experts as to the riches of the Transvaal. From the highest sources calculations had been made that £2,781,000,000 sterling of gold had been proved to exist by borings in the Transvaal, which was sufficient, at the present output, to last for 150 years. He had no hesitation in saying that the Transvaal was able to pay not only £30,000,000, but £100,000,000. By the substitution of British for Boer rule a saving was being effected in the Transvaal of £4,800,000 a year. The Transvaal gold mineowners had got that, but where was the indemnity? This indemnity ought to have been paid by this time.
  He regretted that no proposal had been made to abolish the coal export duty, and this in spite of the condemnation of this tax by the Royal Commission appointed to consider the whole question. He heard on a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, advance his reasons for imposing the duty on coal, and he stated that they were getting perilously near exhausting their coal supply. What did they find? The Royal Commission had concluded that there was at the present time a coal supply which would last this country at the present rate of output of 230,000,000 tons yearly for not less than 450 years, and with other forms of fuel now being used the probable duration of the supply might be considerably extended. The Royal Commission had also reported against the export duty on coal. The facts he had stated showed that there was absolutely no need to restrict the exportation of coal. The price of coal had fallen

  587
  since the duty was imposed by 4s. and 5s. a ton, and they were losing a large proportion of the export coal trade of this country. To France alone last year 432,000 tons of coal less were sent from this country whilst Germany had sent 500,000 tons more to France during the same period. That fact alone showed the great injury which was being caused to the coal trade. The tax was a very heavy direct tax upon labour, for it should be remembered that 800,000 persons were employed in the coal trade, and they were paid £40,000,000 sterling in wages annual. That was a fact which ought to have made hon. Members think twice before imposing an export duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol stated that although freights had gone up yet the prices of coal had also kept up, and therefore argued that they could quite easily bear another shilling of export duty. He would give the House the converse of that, because now the rate of freight had fallen 50 per cent., and yet the price of coal had fallen as well. He thought they had a right to ask why the Government had not considered the abolition of this duty, which was an interference with the principles of free trade, in fact, it was a direct preferential tariff in favour of foreign as compared with British coal. For these reasons he entered his protest against the Bill.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that national expenditure was not in any sense a Party question, and the object on both sides of the House ought to be to secure for the overburdened British taxpayer the best value for his money. Judging by the number of empty benches on both sides of the House, when they were considering a Finance Bill, which provided for an expenditure of £161,000,000 sterling, it was certainly true that this House had become defunct, and the sooner it was reinvigorated by a general election the better it would be for economy and retrenchment in national expenditure. This question of increase in expenditure was one which it was their duty to examine even in the presence of empty benches. An increase in ten years of £58,000,000 in a time of peace was certainly a matter that ought to cause great
  588
  alarm. This year the normal expenditure was £10,500,000 greater than it was in 1902–3. A great many powerful arguments had been advanced in favour of more rapidly reducing the National Debt in order to restore their national credit. He was still more anxious that they should reduce national expenditure, which was, after all, the foundation of national debt. Reference had been made to the increase of £6,000,000 upon the Education Vote. It might be true that they were not getting value for their money in regard to this increased expenditure upon education, but having regard to the enormous increase in the expenditure upon the Army and Navy from £35,500,000 to £71,250,000 in time of peace, he submitted that this increase in the Education Vote was insignificant, and in his opinion the money spent upon education was the best spent money in the whole of the Budget. That reminded him of an incident at a Scotch election, where the candidate was heckled by being asked—
  "Am I to understand, Sorr, that whilst you are prepared to spend £31,000,000 over the Army and Navy, you are only willin' to spend £8,000,000 on education—that is, £31,000,000 for blawin' brains oot and only £8,000,000 for pittin' brains in."
  It was upon maintaining a high standard of education that the prosperity of a country mainly depended, both commercially and otherwise. They had heard a great deal lately of fiscal proposals to promote the commercial prosperity of this country, but what they were more in need of was to have set up a higher and more efficient system of education. He hoped that the expenditure upon education would not be stinted, and that expenditure upon the Army and Navy would go down. They had had from the Prime Minister the other day an interesting statement in regard to the Committee of Defence. He should have thought that that Committee would not only have had to put before the House hypothetically cases of possible attempts at invasion, and the view taken by the Government of India as to the defence of the North - West Frontier, but that they would also have put before them some statement as to how to provide for the defence of the Empire at the least possible cost

  589
  to the taxpayers of this country, and also have indicated how they could reduce the enormous expenditure upon the Army and Navy, which had now reached £71,250,000. It was a remarkable fact that while the expenditure on the British Army had gone up during the last fifteen years no less than £16,000,000 sterling, on the other hand the expenditure of the armies of France and Germany combined had diminished £5,500,000 during the same period. Not only had they to consider the interests of the taxpayers of this country, but they had also to pay some regard to the taxpayers of India. He would suggest to the Prime Minister that the attention of the Imperial Defence Committee might very well have been directed not only to the question of Russia passing through Afghanistan—that great mountainous region—in her advance upon India, but also to the question as to whether it was not advisable to further safeguard British interests in Persia, because it was through Persia that Russia would advance if she advanced at all.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that subject now.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he thought the debate at the morning sitting was allowed to extend to the speech of the Prime Minister, and it would be remembered that the question of the defence of India and Canada was considerably debated.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, it is true that those questions were debated, but it was in regard to the expenditure upon the Army.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he was only pointing out that the best way to meet the danger of an invasion of India by Russia was to safeguard and maintain British interests in Persia.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! I hope the hon. Member will not continue arguing with the Chair.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that what they needed was a much more
  590
  stringent examination of national expenditure in every department. They had been promised a day for the discussion of expenditure on the Public Accounts Committee, and he would like the Prime Minister to inform them when he was prepared to grant that day. The Committee on National Expenditure in 1902 made a strong recommendation that in order to reduce excessive expenditure each of the four great classes of Estimates should be considered, one class being taken each year, and they recommended that those Estimates should be subjected to the closest examination. That recommendation had not been acted upon. There was no question whatever now that the expenditure upon the Army and Navy had risen to a point at which they were not getting value for their money. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the amount of money spent upon the Army might safely be reduced if the War Office only laid out the money to the best advantage, and in this way the strength of the Army could be increased.
  With regard to the financial statement he found that the revenue last year, but for the fact that the expenditure was £924,000 less than the estimate, and the fact that £800,000 of arrears of income-tax were got in amounting together to £1,750,000, instead of a surplus of £1,400,000, they would have had to face a deficit of £300,000. The Estimates for this year showed a reduction of £3,500,000 in regard to the Navy, and yet there had been no reduction in national expenditure. They needed a more definite and fuller statement as to how it came about when the country was groaning beneath the burden of taxation that some greater effort had not been made to reduce the expenditure upon the Army and in other directions in order to lessen the great burden which the trade and commerce of this country was suffering under. This expenditure was largely unproductive, and it limited the productive power of the people in a way that was most injurious to the prosperity of the home trade. They were told that the remedy was to criticise the Estimates more than they did, but the House would recollect that when they attempted to do that they were

  591
  closured and millions of money were passed through every year in this way without being criticised in this House. They would never secure retrenchment until some more earnest effort was made by the House when considering the Estimates and when considering the Finance Bill to insist upon reductions. Although the first £10,000,000 of the Transvaal loan had not been paid, he thought the Government might very well direct their attention to making the Transvaal and the Orange Free State bear the cost of the British garrison now quartered there. Did they wish to treat India worse than South Africa? India paid the entire cost of the British garrison. Why should South Africa not pay the £2,500,000 which was spent upon the British garrison which was maintained in South Africa for the benefit of the people there?
  The coal tax had been referred to, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed the opinion that a more suitable occasion to deal with that question would be in Committee. Perhaps he might be allowed to state that he intended putting down a new clause on the Committee stage of this Bill dealing with that question, and therefore he would not deal further with that subject tonight. The coal tax was a tax upon export coal only and no corresponding tax was put upon any other great industry. The coal tax was obviously and flagrantly unjust, and other means might be found for raising revenue, while this and indirect taxation which pressed heavily on the working classes might be abolished. Adjustment was needed between direct and indirect taxation, and though the Finance Bill remitted taxation fairly between the two sources the gross injustice of 1902–3 had yet to be remedied. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had the good fortune to be in office next year and had a balance in hand, would not leave out of consideration the injustices to which he had alluded.
  MR. SCARESsaid that as was declared in the terms of an Amendment of which he had given notice though he could not move it, the finances of the country could not be safely
  592
  or satisfactorily administered by a Chancellor of the Exchequer who publicly repudiated the fiscal system under which he was compelled to administer such finances. He might say at once that he did not intend to refer in any way to the fiscal question; neither had he the slightest intention of making any personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had been perfectly straightforward, but his position was an improper one from a practical point of view and constitutionally unsound. A Chancellor in a free-trade Administration, he brought in a Finance Bill in accordance with the views of his colleagues and yet he had publicly repudiated free-trade principles. To the taxes he was imposing he preferred others which would have the magical character that they would be paid by nobody and benefit everybody. He imposed the income-tax, tea, sugar, and tobacco taxes until foolish constituencies would consent to taxes on food. This was bad from a practical point of view. This was only the right hon. Gentleman's second best kind of Budget, and it was not the best which the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed he could produce if he had a free hand. He did not like second-rate articles, whether they were produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else, but if the right hon. Gentleman had only second-rate articles to give them then they wanted to be sure that it was the best he had got in his possession. Although they thought that everything which was protectionist was bad, it did not follow that everything which was free trade was necessarily good. If a doctor used drugs in which he did not believe he should be sorry for the patient. That was analogous to the position of the right hon. Gentleman, because he was using principles on which he based the Finance Bill in which he did not believe at the present time. Therefore the finance of the country could not be safely administered under such circumstances.
  In the cynical manner in which the Government managed these matters one did not know what would happen. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland believed in devolution but managed Ireland on Unionist lines; a protectionist Chancellor of the

  593
  Exchequer brought in a Budget on free-trade lines; and the Secretary of State for War brought in Estimates which conflicted with the statement made the other day by the Prime Minister. In fact, it seemed to him that the principles which a Minister was most strongly opposed to were the principles which he was called upon to defend in the House. The right hon. Gentleman was not speaking from a brief in this House, and he would ask whether he was not now defending a Bill which was founded on principles which he had denounced as principles which ought to be abolished. From the practical point of view, therefore, he thought the present position was invidious. No man ought to be called upon to defend a Bill which was founded on principles which he did not absolutely believe in. What, for instance, would be thought of the present Government if they were to appoint Dr. Clifford as Minister of Education, and Dr. Clifford were to bring in a Bill to coerce Wales? There was one supposition which he had not dealt with, namely, that it was possible that before bringing in this Finance Bill the right hon. Gentleman had changed his views with regard to the fiscal question. They were told that there had been a great deal of change on the other side of the House lately. When gentlemen went to the Treasury they were sometimes imbued with protectionist views, but they very often changed their views with regard to these matters. That might be the case with the right hon. Gentleman. If it was so all he could do was to congratulate him and withdraw everything he had said. Looking at the situation from the constitutional point of view he should like to know how far the right hon. Gentleman was justified in bringing in a Bill based on principles of which he disapproved. That was a question of some difficulty, and he did not wish to speak in any dogmatic manner upon it, but so far as he knew there was no parallel in history for the present position. It was true that when Sir Robert Peel abolished the Corn Laws he was elected as a protectionist, but when he did abolish them he had been converted and spoke as a free-trader. This constitutional point of view must have occurred to the Chancellor of the
  594
  Exchequer, and he should be very glad indeed to hear what he had to say about it. Until he heard the defence he must say that the present position was not only dangerous but constitutionally incorrect.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the object of the speech to which the House had just listened was apparently to convince the House that he was not a fit and proper person to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. On that question it would be unbecoming in him to express any opinion. It was one to be decided by the Prime Minister in the first place, and by the House of Commons in the second place. If they were content to give him their confidence he was proud to be permitted to discharge the functions of that office.
  The most remarkable thing about the debate was the area it had covered and the wide scope of the speeches made. It would be improper that he should follow in detail the arguments of hon. Gentlemen on one side or the other in regard to our strategical position in every portion of the globe, or deal with the character of the attack to which the British Empire in its different portions was liable, or with the nature of the preparation we should make for it. The only possible justification for introducing these topics was the allegation that after the speech made by his right hon. friend the Prime Minister in the discussion of the Defence Committee the other day it was no longer necessary to provide the ways and means which were the basis of the present Budget, and that our naval and military Estimates ought to be, but had not been, revised in the light of the principles laid down by his right hon. friend on that occasion. He noted in passing an observation made by his noble friend the Member for Ealing, from which he appeared to think that, by the establishment of the Committee of Defence, his right hon. friend had taken away the Cabinet's old authority for naval and military finance. It would have been impossible for his noble friend to have advanced that argument if he had read or considered the speech of the Prime Minister. Nothing was more clear from that speech than that the authority of

  595
  the Cabinet was maintained unimpaired, and that the Defence Committee in no way derogated from the authority of the Cabinet, but was rather a means of gathering and digesting information for the consideration of the Cabinet in order that the Cabinet might more easily arrive at a correct conclusion.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridge University said that after the speech of the Prime Minister he did not see why as a humble taxpayer he should be required to pay more for the Army this year than last year. The most casual study of the speech should disclose at once the cause of the increase in the military expenditure this year. It was wholly due to the determination of the Government to rearm the artillery rapidly and pay for that rearmament as fast as the guns were received from the contractors. As long as hon. Gentlemen thought it was the intention either not to rearm the artillery or to postpone the payment, they were ready to denounce the Government for not doing what it now appeared the Government had done. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University drew an altogether erroneous and illegitimate inference after stating imperfectly and inaccurately the purpose of the Prime Minister's argument. The statement of the Prime Minister as to the impossibility or great difficulty of invasion was based expressly upon our having the force to resist invasion. His right hon. friend guarded himself and endeavoured to guard the House against the possibility of falling into misconception as to allowing any great reduction in the military forces which we had to maintain. The right hon. Member for Cambridge appeared to think that the defence of India was easier now than twenty years ago; but he ignored the whole change of circumstances which had taken place since that time, and which had not tended to make the task of defending our frontier a lighter one. That being the case, it was obvious we must maintain a large force. You could not improvise an Army in these days, officers and men, guns, and the many stores that were required. All these things must be the result of careful and deliberate preparation in time of peace; and to lay themselves down to rest with the comfortable
  596
  security which the right hon. Gentleman would have them feel that there would always be time after war had broken out to make the necessary preparations was not only to court obvious military disaster, but, what was more germane to the present purpose, to prepare for ourselves or our successors the most terrible financial disaster. Preparations made in haste were always doubly or trebly costly, and could not be as efficient as if undertaken at the present time. The great reductions of which some hon. Members loosely spoke would be found to be impossible of execution if ever they should be charged with the responsibility of considering what was necessary for the defence of the Empire.
  The second subject raised was the financial control exercised over the various Departments of Government. Such control as the House exercised over the Estimates, though it might be effective in regard to policy, was not in these days likely to contribute to reduction of expenditure. The hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs suggested that a series of Committees of the House should be constantly examining the Estimates with a view to securing reductions in them. But the Committees which were appointed on the initiative of Lord Randolph Churchill for this purpose resulted, not in a reduction, but in an increase of the expenditure of the Departments inquired into. The noble Lord the Member for Ealing suggested that a Finance Committee of the Cabinet should be appointed on the same lines as the Defence Committee. Apart from the abolition of the Treasury and the making of such provision as would be due to the distinguished officials of the State whose work would be taken off their hands, a Committee of that kind would not give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any greater control over finance than he now possessed, or place at his disposal any greater means for checking the demands of Departments. Besides, if given effect to, it would still further overwork Cabinet Ministers, and would tend to render Cabinet Government unworkable in the present pressure of business. It was only because the responsibility was mainly concentrated on individuals, and that a great

  597
  portion of the work was done for individuals, that Ministers were able to get through the enormous amount of work which the Cabinet had to consider in these days. If there were any defects in the control exercised, the machinery at their disposal was sufficient in wise hands to provide effective control. The kind of inquiry which the noble Lord suggested into the demands of other Departments was constantly undertaken either by himself personally or in collaboration with his colleagues and other persons, not members of the Cabinet, believed to be desirable owing to their special knowledge, or by the officers of the Treasury acting under his directions. There was a periodical review, and the continuity of information desired was secured by the knowledge possessed by the Treasury officials, as well as by the information freely placed at their disposal.
  As to the statement that taxation was unfairly proportioned between the direct and indirect taxpayers, the proportion paid by the latter was very much lower than it had been at any time when the Party opposite were in power. In 1894–5 the indirect taxation was 54·6 per cent. of the whole; and according to the Estimates of the present year it would be only 49·8 per cent.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that his contention was that, as direct and indirect taxation had been equally imposed during the war, they ought to have been equally remitted after the war.
  MR. MCKENNAasked whether in the figures just given the coal tax was included.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the coal tax was obviously excluded. [Cries of "Why?"] As to the point of the hon. Member for Barnsley when taxation was remitted, it must be remitted in the light of the facts and conditions of the moment. It was impossible and absurd to go back to the earliest times of financial history to see how taxation stood then.
  The criticism of the Budget was summed up in the allegation that the provision made for the reduction of the Debt was
  598
  not enough, or that our borrowings were too large. Yet the proportion which the Sinking Fund now bore to the aggregate debt was higher than it had been in any but two of the last fifteen years. Not only the capacity of the taxpayer to bear the burden, but the amount of the burden to be borne, must be taken into account; and between these two considerations he had held the scales fairly, and, while increasing the amount set apart for the payment of debt, he had given some relief to the taxpayer. It was said that the pressure of this taxation was specially hard on the very poor, and on the small income - tax payer; but both classes would be the greatest beneficiaries in the relief given by the present Budget. He hoped the House would now come to a decision on a Bill which in its main principles and provisions had met with general acceptance.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that those who had experience of the House must have heard with surprise the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he endeavoured to set aside certain criticisms which had been offered in the course of the debate as not germane to this Bill. It had been the universal practice of the House to regard every subject as germane on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had asked to be excused from replying to a number of comments on account of the lateness of the hour, but on the Opposition side of the House they were not to blame for the want of time at his disposal. They ought to be allowed sufficient time for discussion, because this was in all probability the last Budget which would be proposed by the Party opposite in this Parliament.
  Reference had frequently been made to the increase in capital expenditure by the present Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech that he could only give a provisional estimate of the amount required for additional capital expenditure in the current year, and he put it at £9,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that he would be able at a later date to give full details of that expenditure. Surely this was the occasion on which the House should have had from the

  599
  Chancellor of the Exchequer the further particulars which he promised. How was it possible for the House to consider the expenditure of the year unless they were supplied with this information? The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well that the two important purposes for which this capital expenditure was to be incurred were military and naval works, and he knew also that such expenditure was nothing more nor less than expenditure ancillary to that provided for in the ordinary Estimates of the year for the Army and Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be able to say within a couple of millions what the expenditure on the Army and Navy for the year would be. It was not treating the House fairly not to give that information. This process of delaying the details of expenditure had been going from bad to worse during the past ten years. This year they were to have a Military Works Bill and a Naval Works Bill, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer when making his general proposals did not tell the House what amount of money would be required for these purposes, nor did he state when the Bills would be introduced. In regard to these most important matters they would have to deal with a supplementary Budget later, but at present they knew nothing of the details of the proposals.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman any further figures at present. The details of the Military Works Bill and the Naval Works Bill were being considered. He had given what he hoped would be the outside figure.
  MR. BUCHANANasked how much of the £9,000,000 was for military works and how much for naval works.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had given his best estimate of what were likely to be the total requirements. He could not give separate estimates for the different services at the present time.
  MR. BUCHANANthought the House ought to have had the particulars before now. Until two years ago they had
  600
  always had them earlier. They had always in the past had an estimate of the amount required for military and naval works, but this year they had not had it, and it showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not exercise his control over the Departments in the proper manner. Surely what his predecessor was able to do the present Chancellor of the Exchequer should do. If anything the estimate of the amount this year would be easier than it would have been in previous years. He agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the only person who should control the expenditure of the country and control the excessive demands on the part of the spending Departments. His desire was to increase the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order that he might resist the demands of his colleagues.
  There had been as yet no answer to the question as to how far these Estimates were consistent with the speech of the Prime Minister last Thursday. What, they wanted to know, were to be the financial consequences of the speech of the Prime Minister? The Secretary of State for War had told them that during the last two years the Estimates for the Army were provisional, and then the Prime Minister came down and gave them a scheme of Imperial defence. Yet no proposal was made to adapt the Army Estimates to this scheme of national and Imperial defence. The moral was that we had wasted month in and month out millions of money. Who was responsible for it? The Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, during two successive years, proposed an expenditure upon the Army which the Government were not themselves prepared to support. One of the faults which they had to find with the general finance of the Government during the years that had passed was that there was no stability in regard to their finances, and they took no step for laying their policy before the country. Last year they put 2d. on tea, and this year they took it off. A year ago they took 4d. off the income-tax and then they put 1d. on, and year after year they were altering their policy. Then in regard to the South African War debt,

  601
  for which the Government were responsible, the Government did not come and lay before the House or the country a settled scheme for dealing with the grave financial condition in which the country found itself at the conclusion of the struggle. There was a vast and increasing debt, and those who were responsible for the finances of the country should have come before them and told them of the greatness of the burden, and of the necessity of getting rid of it. If they had asked the country to submit for a longer period to the war tax he believed the country would have assented to it. But no such scheme was submitted, and they had to go on bearing the war tax without any decrease whatever. For these reasons he thought that the general scheme of the Government for the management of the finances of the country had been by no means worthy of the confidence of the nation.
  MR. HARWOODsaid the recent speech of the Prime Minister was really a declaration of policy upon which could be founded a good case for a reduction of expenditure, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now watered it down until it meant nothing at all. The Prime Minister had said that we were practically safe from invasion so long
  as we kept our Navy up to its present strength, and everybody at once declared that it afforded grounds for reducing the Army so far as it was required for the defence of these shores. The only purpose for which the Prime Minister suggested it might be wanted was in connection with India. But who was going to attack us in India? The military problem had been considerably modified by the fate which had come upon Russia in the present war, and the idea of being frightened now with regard to that Power was preposterous. On these grounds the country had a right to expect considerable reductions in Army expenditure. But in the Estimates of the present year there was a decrease of £3,500,000 for the Navy, and an increase for the Army. Did the Prime Minister really mean business, or were the people building their hopes on the sand? If the Prime Minister's speech meant what the country had taken it to mean, the Army Estimates ought to be framed in accordance with the policy then enunciated, and the result would be a considerable reduction.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 160.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Arrol, Sir William

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Doughty, Sir George

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Bingham, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Bond, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kerr, John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Keswick, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (M'nmouth

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Spear, John Ward

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Loyd, Archie, Kirkman

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tuff, Charles

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Turnour, Viscount

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Purvis, Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Randles, John S.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Maxwell, W. J H (Dumfriesshire

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wortley, Rt Hon C. B. Stuart

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Moore, William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, Robert John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rea, Russell

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Johnson, John

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Slack, John Bamford

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Toulmin, George

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kean, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Delany, William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Dowd, John

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Patric O'Brien.

  Harwood, George

  O'Malley, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  Adjourned at eighteen minutes before One o'clock.