Sitting of 17 April 1890

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA FACTORY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stats for India what is the present position of the India Factory Act Amendment Bill; and whether, having regard to the Resolutions adopted by the recent Conference at Berlin, in relation to the employment of women and children in factories, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to sanction the provisions of such a measure as that proposed by the Government of India?
  MR. JAMES MACLEAN: I have also to ask the Under Secretary for India whether he has seen the
  666
  statement in the Times Calcutta telegram of March 30th—
  "That the Factories Act Amendment Bill has been postponed till next winter, the Government being of opinion that there is no pressing necessity for the measure;"
  and, whether any information has been received at the India Office to show that this is the real reason for the postponement of the Bill?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The India Factory Bill has been postponed by the Council in India till the receipt of replies from the Local Governments and Administrations. The Resolutions of the Berlin Conference will be transmitted by the Secretary of State to the Government of India, and will no doubt receive due consideration from them before the Bill is passed into law. No such statement as that referred, to by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean) has been made by the Government of India to the Secretary of State. The reason given by the Government of Bombay for postponing the Factory Bill is that they are awaiting the receipt of replies.

  MURDER OF A BENGALI AT DUM DUM.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table of the House the proceedings in the High Court of Calcutta, including the trial and the hearing on appeal, in the ease of a soldier named O'Hara, charged with the murder of a Bengali at Dum Dum; and whether he will consent to the Return relating to Murders in India, which stands on the Paper this day?
  *SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State is not in possession of any proceedings in the case of O'Hara, which can be laid on the Table; and he is advised that, in criminal cases, proceedings of the kind suggested in the question do not exist. The Secretary of State cannot consent to the Return asked for; it is in some respects impossible, as, when a murder remains undetected, nobody can tell whether it was committed by an European or not. Information as to the number of murders reported to the police, and the number of persons convicted, is to be found in the Statis-

  667
  tical Abstract. The further information for which the hon. Member asks, could only be collected, if at all in India, at a cost which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would be indefensible.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any communication has been made to the Secretary of State in reference to the trial and appeal in the case of the soldier charged with the murder of a Bengali?
  *SIR J. GORST: I must have notice of that question. I can only say that no communication has been made that I am aware of; but if the hon. Member will give notice, I will inquire.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): From the military aspect of the case, would the inquiry be undertaken by the Government of India, or by the Commander-in-Chief?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE CROPS IN SOUTHERN INDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the detailed Reports of the district officials of Madras respecting the condition of the crops in Southern India, which crops were expected to be very short owing to the deficiency of rain, have been received by the Secretary of State; and whether he will lay them upon the Table?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State will be happy to show the hon. Member all the Reports received up to the 22nd of March, which is the latest. They can he made a Parliamentary Paper, if the hon. Member desires. But the rains of the end of December happily removed all cause for apprehending serious scarcity, and there has been no scarcity, though crops are below the average.

  PROSPECTS OF AGRICULTURE IN THE NORTH-WEST PROVINCES AND OUDH.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the tinder Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State can give the House any information respecting the state and prospects of agriculture in the North-West Provinces and Oudh; whether he is aware that the wheat crop has greatly suffered, and that, even reckoning land under canal irrigation, it is anticipated that there will not be a two-anna (or one-eight) yield; whether
  668
  prices of good grains are already rising in the United Provinces; and whether fears are entertains d of great scarcity, if not of actual famine?
  SIR J. GORST: In reply to the first paragraph of the question of the hon. Member I have to say that the latest Report—that for the week ending March 19—shows that the hill district of Humaon was the only one in which a serious failure of crops was reported. My answer to the second paragraph is that the anticipation of March 12 was that the wheat crop would be two-thirds of the average. The answer to paragraphs 3 and 4 is in the negative. Of 18 central markets noticed in the Report of March 19 the price was stationary at six, rising at five, falling at five, and unsteady at two.

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Indian Councils Bill, which stands as the fifth Order of the Day, will be taken?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): It will certainly not be taken either this week or next.

  THE AMENDMENT OF THE INDIAN FACTORY ACTS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the letter in the Times, of 10th April, from Mr. Holt S. Hallett, relative to the Amendment to the Indian Factory Acts, wherein he quotes the Report of Mr. Meade-King relative to the effect of factory work at an early age upon Indian children:—
  "Nothing has impressed me more in the course of my inspection of the Bombay mills than the unhealthy, stunted, and puny appearance of a great number of the children whom I have seen at work;"
  whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence of Mr. Drewett, which was laid before the Factory Commission, regarding the ginning factories in Khandesh, where in he states that—
  "The women sit on the back of the gins, and have simply to lift up the cotton and push it forward. I have often seen them doing this mechanically, three-parts asleep. I think you will find that the women had worked night and day for as long as a week at a stretch. I do not think there is a double set of children any-

  669
  where, and they must also have worked day and night. The women would have worked 23 out of the 24 hours;"
  and whether the Government of India are taking any steps to cheek the abuses reported?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has had his attention directed to the evidence as to the condition of women and children in Indian Factories. The Factory Law Amendment Bill, now before the Indian Legislature, will, to some extent, deal with the existing evils, and will, in particular, bring the ginning factories referred to in paragraph 2 of the question for the first time under legislative restriction. The proceedings of the Berlin Conference will be considered by the Government of India in reference to these matters before the Bill is passed into Law.

  IRELAND—EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY AT EVICTIONS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total extra cost arising from the employment of military at, or in connection with, evictions in Ireland, daring the three years ending 31st March, 1890?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The total cost arising from the causes referred to for the Period stated was £2,675.

  COST OF EMPLOYING POLICE AT EVICTIONS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total extra cost arising from the employment of the constabulary at, or in connection with, evictions, or in the protection of caretakers, during the three years ending. 31st March, 1890?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Constabulary authorities report that the books of the Department do not contain separate entries of the costs connected with the duties referred to in the question; and an investigation for the purpose would involve such considerable labour and serious loss of time as to render it inexpedient in the public interest.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Return was granted in 1888?
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: Yes; and the preparation of that Return involved so much labour that I could not ask the Department to repeat it. The labour in preparing a Return for three years would be enormous.
  DR. TANNER: Before going into Supply upon the Constabulary Vote, will the right hon. Gentleman give all the information necessary to enable the Irish Members to discuss the Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman specify what he wants?
  DR. TANNER: I want the whole of the information.

  MR. HUGH GRAHAM, J.P.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints have reached the Lord Chancellor of the conduct of Mr. Hugh Graham, J.P., of Rahoney, Dromore, County Tyrone, accusing him of drunkenness, and threatening to assault a passenger in a railway carriage, on the 27th of March, 1889; of being under the influence of drink while giving evidence in a Laud Court, on 23rd January, 1889, when Mr. Justice Litton had him removed from Court by a policeman; and of being on another occasion drunk at the Omagh Railway Station, and annoying ladies, when a policeman who was asked to arrest him refused on the grounds that he was on railway premises; and whether the Lord Chancellor has inquired into these allegations, and with what result?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the case of this gentleman is still under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

  POST OFFICE AT CORDUFF.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I bog to ask the Postmaster General whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the necessity for a post office at Corduff, County Monaghan, which has a population of 400 families, with chapel, schools, and dispensary, and is situated in a populous district of country, and several miles from a post office?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The subject to which the hon. Member refers has been carefully inquired into, and I regret to find that the correspondence which would benefit by the establishment of a Post Office at Corduff is so small in amount as to preclude me from, acceding to the request. The nearest Post Office to Corduff is at Corvally, two and a half miles distant, and the Postal Service in the neighbourhood is now conducted at a loss to the Revenue.

  ABBEYFEALE PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at a Petty Session Court, held in Abbeyfeale on the 26th ultimo, before Messrs. Turner, R.N, and W. C. Harnett, J.P., a case of alleged trespass, at suit of James Esmonde, J.P., against Mrs. Harnett, was called, the plaintiff not appearing; that the defendant applied for an adjournment in consequence of the absence of his solicitor, but was refused; and that, after all the other cases had been disposed of, the Magistrates kept the police and officials of the Court waiting the arrival of Mr. Esmonde, and then heard and adjudicated upon the case, although Mrs. Harnett had been refused the adjournment; and if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the case had been already adjourned at the previous Petty Sessions, and as it involved no question of difficulty the Magistrates refused to further adjourn it. They accordingly proceeded with it upon the arrival by train of the plaintiff, who had come a distance of upwards of 80 miles to give evidence in the matter.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. W. ABRAHAM,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was only a delay of about a quarter of an hour.

  RAILWAY IN DONEGAL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Grand Jury of Donegal have agreed to a
  672
  baronial guarantee for the working expenses of a line of railway from Stranorlar to Glenties, through the town of Ballybofey; whether such guarantee includes the area of that town; whether representations have been made to the Treasury that such a line running through the town will rather injure than serve it, unless provision is made for a station there; and whether the Treasury will take steps to secure that this shall be done?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Representations have been made to me on this subject, which will be carefully considered before any final action is taken.

  POSTMASTERSHIP OF LETTERKENNY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the vacancy in the Postmastership at Letter-kenny has yet been filled; what the allowance for office rent is to be; what are the numbers of the assistants, established and unestablished, and their respective salaries; and whether there is any difference in the work done by them?
  *MR. RAIKES: No appointment has yet been made to the Letterkenny Post Office, but I hope to be able to make one shortly. An allowance will be granted for office rent; but the amount of it cannot be fixed at present—depending, as it does, upon the arrangements which the new Postmaster may make. The established force will consist of three members on scale, rising from 12s. to 30s. a week. There will also be two assistants, unestablished, at £30 a year each. Between the work done by the established and unestablished force there is, no doubt, a difference; but what this difference is in the particular case of Letterkenny, the shortness of the notice has not admitted of my ascertaining. If I can obtain any information, I will furnish the hon. Member with it.

  LAND COMMISSION PURCHASES.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many acres of land in Ireland have been purchased by the Irish Land Commission under Clause 5 of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885;" what amount

  673
  has been expended by the Land Commission in purchasing the same; how many acres have been sold by the Land Commission under the above clause, what amount has been realised for them, and what number of acres so purchased does the Commission still hold; what is the number of acres and purchase value of holdings resumed by the Land Commission from tenant purchasers under Clause 3; and how many of these have been re-sold to fresh purchasers, and at what price?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that under the powers referred to in the first paragraph of the question, 19,817 acres have been so purchased, the purchase money being £152,117, which also represents the amount for which the lands were re-sold by them. The Commissioners do not possess any portion of the holdings. As regards the inquiries in the two concluding paragraphs, the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The Land Commissioners do not resume possession of holdings from tenant purchasers. If, however, there be default in the payment of instalments for a holding, it is put up for sale by the Commissioners, subject to the future instalments payable in respect of the original purchase-money. Since the passing of the Act in 1885, loans have been issued in upwards of 12,000 cases, and in 12 cases only has there been default in the payment of the instalments.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under what I apprehend to be the conditions referred to by the hon. Gentleman the number re-sold of the 12 is nine, and three are still unsold.

  LANDED ESTATES COURT.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of Irish Instates in the Landed Estates Court for sale, showing the location of each estate, the name of the landlord, the rateable valuation, the actual present rental, the highest offer made in each case in which there has been any offer of purchase, and
  674
  the period for which each estate has been in the hands of the Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Registrar to the Land Judges reports that it would not be practicable to give the proposed Return.
  In reply to another question by Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I only received the information which I have just given since I entered the House, but I will be glad to make further inquiries.

  COMPLAINT AGAINST PRISON OFFICIALS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has caused any independent inquiry into the allegations of Mr. George Harrison against the officers of Pentonville, Millbank, and Chatham Prisons, made to a representative of the Press, and reported on the 29th of March; and, if so, whether he will communicate the Report to the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I have caused inquiry to be made by the Visiting Director into all the allegations which have been attributed to George Harrison in the Press, and he has reported that they are devoid of foundation. I do not propose to lay this Report on the Table, but I will show it to the hon. Member, if he wishes it.

  WILFUL MURDER.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the 10 years from 1879 to 1888 inclusive, there were in England and Wales 1,766 verdicts of wilful murder found by Coroners' Juries, 672 persons committed for trial, 373 acquitted or found insane, 299 condemned to death, 154 executed, and 145 sentences of death commuted; and whether, looking to the disparity between the numbers of committals and convictions, and between the numbers of capital sentences passed and carried out, as compared with committals, convictions, and sentences for other crimes of violence, the Government will, in this or next Session, introduce a measure either for the abolition of capital

  675
  punishment, or for otherwise amending the law relating to punishment for wilful murder?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; the figures are correctly given. Of the 145 cases where the death sentence was commuted, 30 were crimes of infanticide by Women. It is not the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

  FACTORY ACTS—CARDIFF.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any steps have been taken to enforce the Factory Acts (Clause 16, 41 and 42 Vic.) in Messrs. Vaughan's works at Cardiff; if he is aware, that during the recent dispute, Messrs. Vaughan, and Co. supplied food to the women and girls at work on the premises, and that last Good Friday the women worked at this establishment to 12 o'clock; and if ho would see that in future the Factory Acts are enforced in this establishment?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; the Factory Acts are being enforced at the dye works of Messrs. Vaughan, and I am not aware that they have been infringed. The facts referred to in the second paragraph took place at the laundry works of Messrs. Vaughan, which are not within the Factory Acts. The hands in the dye works had both Good Friday and Easter Monday as holidays. The dye works have been regularly visited by the Inspector for years.

  OLD CROSS BONES BURIAL GROUND.
  MR CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the use made of the unconsecrated "Old Cross Bones" Burial Ground, in Union Street, Borough, closed in 1854, and from which the human remains have not been removed; whether he is aware that the property was sold by auction by the parish in or about the year 1886, and that since that date it has been constantly used for the following purposes, namely, penny circuses, switchback railways, waxworks and ghost shows, steam roundabouts, &c., accompanied by steam and other organs, rattles, drums, bells, and steam shriekers;
  676
  and whether any existing Authority can prevent the landlord from letting the property for these purposes; and, if not, whether he will take steps to legislate in the direction of giving powers to put down this and similar proceedings.?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; my attention has not been called to this matter, otherwise than by the question of the hon Member. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the property was sold to a private individual by the Trustees of the parish, and that it is used for the purposes referred to by the poorer classes, who conduct themselves in an orderly manner. It is a question of law, as to which I can give no opinion, whether the temporary erections referred to are buildings within the meaning of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, and it is left to the Local Authority or to private individuals to proceed by indictment for nuisance. The County Council are the Authorities under the Act of 1884, and I think any representation on the matter should be addressed to that Body.
  MR. CAUSTON: The London County Council have proceeded against the tenants, but when a conviction takes place the tenant retires, and another takes his place; I want to know whether there is any way by which we can get at the freeholder?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot venture to express an opinion upon a question of law like that.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP INSPECTORS.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his, attention has been called to statements in the Press, notably in the Manchester Guardian, to the effect that the Government are about to throw open the appointment of Factory and Workshop Inspectors to open competition, and whether this is intended to prevent the further appointment of workmen inspectors?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I have not seen the statements in question. The existing scheme for the examination of Factory Inspectors is now under revision, but the changes in contemplation will not have the effect of preventing the appointment of working men candi-

  677
  dates in the future. It is not intended to throw open these appointments to open competition.

  OFFICERS' SWORDS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the recent detention at Queen-borough, by the vigilance of Her Majesty's officers of Customs, of a case of swords marked with a British crown and the words "Royal Scots Lothian Regiment," but subsequently released upon "Manufactured in Germany" being pointed out hidden under the hilt; if the swords were imported for the officers of Her Majesty's First Regiment of Foot; if he can state the name of the importer; and whether, having regard to the dangerous failure in the Soudan of foreign weapons in the hands of British soldiers, and the importance to the nation of the lives of the Queen's officers in battle crises, they are free to equip themselves indiscriminately from abroad, or if colonels of regiments are responsible to the Military Authorities for the proper arming of the officers under them?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The facts are as stated by my hon. Friend in the first paragraph. It is presumed that the swords were imported for the officers of the Royal Scots, but the War Office has no information on this point. The importers are Messrs. Hartjen & Co., of No. 4, Falcon Street, E.C., and I understand that the Board of Customs has informed them that the country of manufacture should be more conspicuously marked in future. Officers of the Army and Navy provide their own swords, and they are at liberty to buy them where they please.
  MR. HANBURY: Does the same rule apply to revolvers?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; the officers provide their own revolvers.

  PAYMASTER SERGEANTS.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to his statement, last year, that there was no intention of altering the status of paymaster sergeants and orderly room sergeants appointed to the permanent staff of the Militia before the 1st March, 1888, whether it is the case that orders have recently been
  678
  issued directing that such non-commissioned officers be not permitted to continue in the Service beyond 21 years, no matter what their age may be; and, if so, whether such orders materially alter the status of men whom the Militia Regulations permit to serve until they attain the age of 50 or 55 years, according to the time they joined the permanent staff of the Militia?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There are three descriptions of paymaster sergeants and orderly room clerks now serving in the Militia—(1) those who are completing their Army engagements of 21 years; (2) those who have completed such engagement and are allowed to continue serving; and (3) pensioners and militiamen serving on five-year renewable engagements. The appointment of paymaster sergeants and orderly room clerks in the Militia have been abolished, but there is no intention of interfering with the engagement under which men are now serving. Such engagement, however, will not be renewed except where it is for the good of the Service, and when specially recommended.

  MILITARY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state now when the result of the last Military Competitive Examination for Commissions in the Army for Subalterns of the Militia, held on the 19th and 20th of March last, will be communicated to the candidates?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is hoped that the result of this examination will be notified to each candidate, by post, on Saturday next. There were 318 candidates, and as the competition is a very close one, the papers have to be most carefully checked.

  THE LADIES' GALLERY.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, seeing the keen interest taken by ladies in the proceedings of this House, and the eager but often ineffectual attempts of Members, by the daily ballot, to obtain seats for them in the Ladies' Gallery, it is within the resources of architectural skill to enlarge the space within which the ladies are at present

  679
  encaged, so as to provide more equal accommodation for strangers of both sexes; and whether there is any good reason for caging off the Ladies' Gallery, and so obstructing the view which the ladies would otherwise have of the House and its proceedings?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I am sorry to say that, owing to the structural conditions of that part of the House wherein the Ladies' Gallery is situated, it is not possible to enlarge it as the hon. Member suggests. As to removing the grating, that is a burning question which has often been raised and debated, and has always been decided in the negative, very much, I believe, because it has been ascertained whenever inquiry has been made that, though some of the ladies who visit the Gallery complain of being "encaged" as the hon. Member puts it in his question, the feeling of the majority is decidedly against the removal of the grating.
  DR. TANNER: As this is a burning question, is there any chance of its being melted down?
  MR. PLUNKET: It is called a grill now.

  THE SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH TO THE CONTINENT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the purchase of the submarine telegraphs between England and the continent has resulted in a financial success; and whether he is in a position to give the approximate expenditure and the receipts of this Service from the period of purchase up to date?
  *MR. RAIKES: It is difficult to attach a precise meaning to the words "financial success," as employed by the hon. Member, but I think I am justified in saying that the result of the acquisition of the submarine cables between this country and the continent may, on the whole, be described as satisfactory. In view of the approaching International Telegraph Conference, it would be contrary to the public interest to make any official statement at present respecting the details of this question.

  NON-DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a telegram handed in at Bournemouth, on 22nd February, addresssd to a mercantile firm in Glasgow, was never delivered, and that the Department, on 2nd of April, admitted that the non-delivery was due to carelessness on the part of one of the telegraphists; whether he is aware that a loss of about £90 resulted from the non-delivery of the telegram; and if he can explain why the Department offered 7½d., being the amount prepaid by the sender of the telegram, as the only compensation, and whether any increase can be made on that offer?
  *MR. RAIKES: I regret to find that the failure of the telegram referred to was duo to carelessness, and to learn from the hon. Member that it was attended with such serious loss. The Department has no power to grant compensation for loss incurred through the non-delivery of a telegram. All it can do is to refund the cost of the telegram and endeavour to prevent similar mistakes. Punishment is always inflicted on the person in fault.

  THE SCOTCH MAILS.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the 8 p.m. mail from London to Scotland does not arrive in Wick until 5.30 p.m. next evening, in Thurso until 6 p.m., and in Kirkwall until 12 p.m.; and whether he is prepared to take such steps as will enable the mails to reach Wick at 3.30 p.m. and Kirkwall at 8 p.m., so as to enable merchants and others in those remote towns to peruse their correspondence and reply to it by next morning's south-going mail?
  *MR. RAIKES: The facts are, no doubt, substantially as stated in the hon. Member's question; but, while fully appreciating the importance of the matter, I should not be justified in incurring additional expense in accelerating the Highland Mail Service, the cost of that Service being already very great. I am, however, giving very careful attention to the subject, in the hope that a way may

  681
  be found of acceding to the wishes expressed, without adding to the charge on the public purse.

  PARCEL POST WITH THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if any steps are being taken to bring about the establishment of a Parcel Post between Great Britain and the United States?
  *MR. RAIKES: Yes, Sir. For several years active steps have been taken to bring about a Parcel Post with the United States, but hitherto without success. Negotiations, however, have recently been renewed, and I am not without hope of a satisfactory result.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS—SALE AGENCY IN WALES.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government will appoint a publisher in Wales, say at Cardiff, for the sale of Parliamentary Papers, Bills, Acts of Parliament, and other Government publications; and will cause the name of the publisher for Wales to be set forth on the imprint of all such documents, along with the names of the publishers for England, Scotland, and Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON: Sale agencies for Government publications of all kinds have been granted, after competition, to three firms for 10 years from January 1, 1887, the rights of the one firm extending to England and Wales together, the others respectively to Scotland and Ireland. So long as these contracts run it is impossible for the Government to grant a fourth contract for sale agency in Wales, but I am not aware of any inconvenience to inhabitants of the Principality, resulting from the present system, which would necessitate the establishment of a separate agency for Wales. Monthly lists of the Parliamentary Papers are exhibited in the chief post offices in Wales, including Cardiff, with order forms for the use of the public.

  BROMPTON CEMETERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, considering the great increase of property and population in
  682
  the neighbourhood of Brompton Cemetery, Government will agree to close it, as proposed in 1884, and will hand it over as a disused burial ground to the London County Council, with due regard to the vested rights of interested persons, and to the policy of the Extramural Interments Act.
  MR. JACKSON: The Treasury is advised that it is not necessary, on sanitary grounds, to close Brompton Cemetery, and as there is a, present income of £6,000 per annum derived from the cemetery, I am not prepared to advise that it should be closed on other grounds.

  GOVERNMENT COPYRIGHT IN BLUE BOOKS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is true, as stated in the public prints, that the Government have claimed a copyright in Blue Books, and given notice that in this respect Her Majesty intends to stand upon her rights, and insist that those who wish to republish the contents of Blue Boots should not do so without permission; and, if so, whether the Government will reconsider this matter, and, instead of restraining, will facilitate and encourage the action of all who are willing to circulate in a popular form the useful matter presented to Parliament, without regard to the profit of Queen's Printers or other purveyors of official books?
  MR. JACKSON: The opinions of the Treasury with regard to the enforcement of the copyright in Government publications are given at length in the Minute of August 31st, 1887, which was presented to Parliament on September 13th of the same year. (House of Commons Paper, 335–87.) If the hon. Member will refer to that Paper I think he will see that there is no need to reconsider the matter.
  SIR.G. CAMPBELL: I will take the first opportunity of raising the question in the House.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether lands adjacent to crofter's holdings, propelled or conveyed since the passing of the Crofters' Acts by a proprietor to his eldest son and apparent

  683
  heir, are thereby no longer liable to be taken for the enlargement of the holdings of the adjacent crofters?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): If by any bonâ fide disposition lands have been conveyed by a proprietor to another parson since the passing of the Crofters Act, I to not consider that such lands could be deemed available laud under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is legal, or in accordance with the Local Government (Scotland) Act, for Parochial Boards to choose, as their representatives on District Committees of a County Council, men who, not being electors for such county, are not qualified to be elected Councillors?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This is a question of statutory construction; but my opinion is that Parochial Boards are at liberty, if they see fit, to appoint representatives who are not qualified to be county electors.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACT.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by the Board of Trade in respect of Section 6 of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889?"
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The Board of Trade informed the Railway Companies that they proposed to fix the 1st July next, as the date from which every passenger ticket is to have the fare printed upon it. The Board propose to adhere to that date, as a rule, but where there is any real difficulty, they will grant an extension to the 1st January, 1891, but not beyond that.

  LIGHTHOUSES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is true that at present there are no lighthouses on the west coast of Orkney; and, if so, whether he is prepared to recommend their erection?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The only light on the west coast of Orkney is the light on Gremsa Island in Hoy Sound. The south-west coast is, however, guarded by lights on the north coast of Scotland and in the Pentland Firth. As to the erection of further lights, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 28th March, 1889, to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and to state that since that date no proposals for the lighting of Orkney have been submitted to the Board of Trade; but I ought to add that the present financial condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund will not justify mo in sanctioning such a proposition, if made.

  THE TRAMWAYS ACT.
  MR. THOMAS HENRY BOLTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will consent to the appointment of the proposed Select Committee, with reference to "The tramways Act, 1870," provided the inquiry contemplated is restricted to the tramways in the Metropolis and the neighbouring districts, and that it is understood that any legislation recommended by the Committee shall be of a metropolitan character?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not aware of any sufficient reason why the tramways in the Metropolis and the neighbouring districts should be dealt with separately from tramways in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the fact that next year the valuable rights of the people of London will be insufficiently provided for if there is no legislation in the meantime?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not aware that there is any absolute necessity for immediate legislation.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made? Both the London County Council and the Tramway Companies see the necessity for legislation in the matter.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Tramway Companies look at the matter from quite another point of view. They want advantages for themselves of another kind.

  BERLIN INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government is in possession of the Report of the proceedings of the Industrial Conference at Berlin; and when the same will be laid before Parliament?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): All the Protocols of the Labour Conference at Berlin have not yet been received; but those in our hands are in course of translation, and the whole will be presented as soon as possible.

  PORTUGUESE EXPEDITION UP THE SHIRE.
  MR. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what, information has reached the Foreign Office as to the despatch of a Portuguese Expedition up the Shiré to attack Mponda, and in reference to which the Times correspondent at Zanzibar states that telegrams confirming the report have arrived from Delagoa Bay?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Reports as to the alleged objects of the expedition were telegraphed by Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique, and Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon was at once instructed to communicate with the Portuguese Government on the subject. The Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that the Portuguese Government had no official knowledge of the expedition, but, on hearing that it was rumoured, had instructed the Governor General of Mozambique, if the statement was true, to order the Commander immediately to retire behind the Ruo. We have received a further positive assurance that no fresh action on the part of the Colonial Authorities in the Shiré inconsistent with the understanding between the two Governments would be sanctioned or tolerated.

  THE BODLAK MUSEUM EGYPT.
  MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to an attempt which has recently been made by three Europeans to set fire to the famous Boulak Museum in Egypt,
  686
  which contains objects of priceless value for the history of art and of early man; and whether the Government can see their way to putting some pressure on the Authorities in Egypt to secure that these objects shall be housed in some building less liable to be burnt down than the Palace in which they are now contained, and for their better custody and protection. I also wish to have an answer to a question put some time ago whether the Egyptian Authorities are taking any means for the protection of monuments which have been recently much destroyed by travellers in the Nile Valley? My right hon. Friend said that he would inquire of Sir Evelyn Baring and inform the House.
  *SIB J. FERGUSSON: No information has yet been received as to an attempt made by three Europeans to set fire to this Museum, On February 9, Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General reported that the transfer of the Boulak Museum to the Palace of Ghizeh had been effected with complete success, and that there could be no doubt that the ancient Egyptian monuments had been placed in far greater security and would be seen to far greater advantage than had hitherto been the case.

  THE REV. MR. DOBIE.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the circumstances attending the imprisonment and release of the Rev. Mr. Dobie, at Hodeidah?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not yet able to give a reliable account of the circumstances, as the statements of Mr. Dobie and the Turkish Local Authorities are so much at variance that Her Majesty's Ambassador has found it necessary to call for further particulars from the British Vice Consul at Hodeidah, Ata Muhamad; when they have been received his Excellency will make a further Report to Her Majesty's Government.

  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
  MR CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is the case that males of from 18 to 20 years old are employed as boys in Her Majesty's Dockyards;

  687
  what are their wages; and are these boys put to do skilled work, such as drilling, driving steam cranes, machines, &c.?
  *THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Boys are employed in the Dockyards up to the ages of from 18 to 20 years in connection with most of the principal trades. Their pay at 20 years of age would be 2s. 6d. per day. These boys are entered for the purpose of learning trades, and are employed on skilled work with that object. Great pressure is put upon the authorities at each Dockyard to enter boys and teach them trades, and it is a frequent source of complaint that more are not entered, as the sons of workmen have very few other opportunities of learning trades in the Dockyard towns.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have received any Petitions from the labourers employed in the Dockyards for an increase of pay, these having been presented to the local officials in February, who promised that they should be forwarded; if it is a fact that ordinary labourers are paid 15s. per week, and whether the Admiralty have any intention of raising this minimum to the £1 per week asked for by the labourers; and whether the Admiralty propose to redress the grievances complained of, namely, in the matters of checked pay, low wages, and with a view to boys being employed on boys' work and not on skilled labour?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The Petitions have been considered, and regulations issued, for a more rapid advance to higher rates of pay. These labourers have opportunities of becoming skilled labourers and earning 20s. per week and over—if they show themselves fit for better work. It should be borne in mind that far more men are anxious to be entered at 15s. per week than we could find employment for.

  THE MALABAR TROOPSHIP.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON&c.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that there were 14 funerals on board the Malabar troopship during her last home voyage;
  688
  that she carried 200 invalids at starting, and 300 by the time she reached Malta; and whether the numbers on board were in excess of Admiralty Regulations?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: Fourteen deaths did occur on board the Malabar during her last homeward voyage. Excluding officers and ladies, 644 invalids were embarked, but the term "invalid" includes not only men in the last stages of organic disease, but also those who have ailments which render them unfit for service only, and who are otherwise in health. The numbers embarked were not in excess of those allowed by the Regulations, but the number of invalids embarked is settled by the Military Medical Authorities at Bombay, who alone would be in a position to decide upon the proportion of sick that it would be safe to embark at one time.

  CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  MR. EDWARD KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the men employed upon task work in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Chatham, are complaining of being checked, and for what reason are the men checked 10 and 20 per cent. of their earnings when engaged upon task work? I have also to ask whether it is true that complaints have been made to the Admiral Superintendent of the manner in which the measurers take the men's work, and of the prices paid for the same?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: A few complaints were made about three months ago that men were not being paid, in some cases, the full amounts earned. This was at once looked into, and it was found that deductions had in a few instances been made by the measuring officers; but this was stopped, and orders were sent by the Controller to each yard that no alteration of the rates or prices paid for work should be made without the approval of the Superintendent. The result of establishing task work has been very beneficial to the workmen, as it has enabled the workmen to earn 22 per cent. above their ordinary wages, and every care will be taken in developing the system to see that the men are adequately paid according to the work they perform.

  H.M.S. BARRACOUTA.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the expression of regret by the Coroner's Jury in the recent Barracouta ease at Sheerness—
  "That the Admiralty had not carried out the recommendations of the Jury in the Thistle explosion in 1869, by providing hospital accommodation for injured men at Sheerness, and thus caused the necessity of sending cases to Chatham;"
  whether he is aware that there is already at Sheerness a Military Hospital which is never full, where cases of accident could be treated; and whether he will take immediate steps to put an end to the unnecessary suffering caused by the present arrangements?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: My attention has been drawn to the rider to the verdict of the Coroner's Jury. Since the Thistle inquiry the Admiralty have made such fur their arrangements as seemed desirable. Increased accommodation has been provided at Sheerness Naval Barracks for cases of accident, and a vessel has been specially fitted for the proper transport of injured men, when deemed fit, to Chatham Hospital, an important establishment, where patients receive greater conforts than could be afforded locally. The Army Hospital of 36 beds at Sheerness is considered to be sufficient only for military requirements, but in the event of the Naval Infirmary at Sheerness being already full of serious cases, any naval patient who might not be in a condition fit for removal to Chatham would, no doubt, be accommodated in the Military Hospital if there were a bed to spare. No unnecessary suffering is now caused, as every precaution is taken to prevent it, and only such men as are considered by the medical officers on the spot as fit to be removed and as likely to benefit by the change are sent to Chatham.
  MB. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: In consequence of the answer of the noble Lord I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject.

  BECHUANALAND AND CYPRUS.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are obtainable by Members of Parliament a statement of the expenditure and income of Bechuanaland, and a statement of the expenditure of the Government of Cyprus?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): As regards British Bechuanaland, the right hon. Gentleman will find information relating to previous years in the Blue Books, C5,363, pages 12 and 13, and C5,620, pages 24 to 28. The estimated expenditure and income for the financial year now current are given at page 429 of the Civil Service Estimates, Class V. As regards the expenditure of Cyprus, the right hon. Gentleman will find detailed information in the Blue Books. C5,523and C5,812. The Annual Estimates of Cyprus have frequently been printed for Parliament in full, and those for 1888–9 will be found at pages 69 to 86 of C5,523. As the details and totals are almost the same from year to year they have not since been reprinted.

  THE CENSUS OF 1891.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is intended to introduce the three Bills making provision for the Census of 1891?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman must have failed to have observed that the question he has raised was answered last Tuesday. When the Committee at present sitting has reported the Government will consider the course to be pursued.

  JOHN DALY.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say now how soon the evidence in the case of John Daly will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have heard from the prison visitors that it will be sent this week.

  WOOLWICH AND ENFIELD FACTORIES (EMPLOYÉS AND OVERTIME).
  Address for—
  "Return, showing the total number of men employed in Woolwich Arsenal, and also in the Small Arms Factory at Enfield; the number employed in each Department, and in each branch of Trade; the extent to which Overtime (not including Night Shifts) has been worked during each of the last two years, namely, from the 1st day of March, 1888, to the end of February, 1889, and from the 1st day of March, 1889, to the end of February, 1890, respectively; and the number of men working Overtime in that period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 206, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. Howell.)

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, &c.
  Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade, &c., have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings from day to day.—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

  EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT).
  Address for—
  "Copy of the Indian Financial Statement for 1890–91, and of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Governor General thereon."—(Sir George Balfour.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Sixth Report brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  David Lloyd-George, Esquire, for Carnarvon Borough.

  COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL. (No. 114.)
  Bill reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
  Report of the Committee, with Minutes of Proceedings, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Mr. Courtney, once more I have the great satisfaction of being able, in presenting the National Balance-Sheet, to show that it balances largely on the right side. Once more the absence of costly expeditions or small wars has relieved me from any of those sudden inroads on the national resources which have so often marred the fairest prospects of Chancellors of the Exchequer. Again no events have occurred to put any extraordinary expenditure upon us, while, on the other hand, a steady increase of prosperity has caused those Estimates which prudence dictated to be exceeded in the result. The Estimates of Revenue have been attacked as having been put too low. Those Estimates I am prepared to defend, but as regards Expenditure I think all Parties in the House will acknowledge that the figures are most satisfactory. The Paper which I have had put in the hands of hon. Members will show that the estimated expenditure has not been exceeded by more than the very trifling sum of £116,000. I am relieved on this occasion, I hope, from the somewhat dreary necessity of wearying the Committee with many explanations of details with regard to excess of expenditure or savings, by the fact that the Estimates have been, on the whole, so extremely accurate. The aggregate result is this—I estimated for an expenditure of £85,967,000; the Exechequer Issues for the year were £86,083,000, or £116,000 more than the estimate. As the Committee are aware, there have been some Supplementary Estimates on the one hand, while on the other we have been compensated by savings; but there is not one item on which I need touch. The ground I have to cover is very broad indeed, and I hope the Committee will excuse me if I do not go more into detail than is absolutely necessary, or more than they have a right to demand. I ask the Committee in passing to note the fact that on an

  693
  aggregate Expenditure of £86,000,000 we have been right within £116,000. do not believe there is any private establishment, or any great Railway Company, or any company of any kind, that could have forecast its expenditure in a more business-like manner than has been done by the Administrative Departments of the State. I think that the financial officers of the various Departments deserve great credit for this result. I think the heads of these Departments deserve credit for having so controlled the expenditure, and I think the Committee will recognise that some credit is also due to my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury, who watches over the Estimates with such care and vigilance. I come now to the Estimates of Revenue. The surplus Revenue which I am able to lay before the Committee to-day does not come from any savings, nor from any cause connected with Expenditure, but from the expansion of Revenue. The receipts have exceeded my estimate by more than £3,000,000. I am bound to say that this has been made a matter of some reproach to me. It has been said that this is "easy finance"; that it is an easy process of securing the popularity of a surplus to depreciate the expansion of your probable Revenue, and so be able to put a satisfactory conclusion before the country at the end of the year. It has been said that personal motives must have induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a gloomy, or too gloomy, a view of the Estimates at the beginning of the year. I have even seen it declared that I must have purposely and wilfully deceived the public in this matter. I shall be able to produce conclusive proof that this has not been the case; I shall be able to pro-due the most satisfactory proof to all hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, I think, to my censors, that I was perfectly right in the course I took. If I insist on this for a moment, I do not do so as a personal defence—I am not concerned to defend myself very seriously against having a large surplus—but I think a defence is necessary, not so much for one Chancellor of the Exchequer as for the sake of his successors, and for the sake of the public generally. It is utterly impossible to forecast a Revenue amounting to £86,000,000 or £90,000,000 so accurately
  694
  that you should not be out by a few per cent., and remember that 1 per cent. upon this total of £86,000,000 means £860,000, and that, speaking roughly, an excess of 4 par cent. would be about equivalent to the £3,000,000 which represents the surplus. What we have to do, therefore, is to see that within a very narrow percentage we are able to calculate the proper Revenue of the year. Supposing we wore to be less careful as regards the Estimates, what would be the result? If any change took place during the course of the year—and who can say that a change will not take place? — you might from having taken an optimistic view of your Revenue most likely find that you were on the wrong side. I am not prepared to say that it is right for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat it practically as a toss-up whether he will have a deficit or a surplus. He must make sure, so far as human expectation goes, that he is on the right side at the end of the year, and I am perfectly confident that right hon. Gentlemen opposite will take the same view as I do in that respect. It is discreditable, unless there are unforeseen circumstances, that you should land the credit of this country in a deficit. I think it may be well to show the public shortly how these Estimates are framed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not got the Estimates placed before him simply in the gross, and then say, "Now the times are prosperous, let us put on a couple of millions." That is not the process at all. Every Department is responsible for the estimates which it places before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Customs and the Inland Revenue calculate, not only what each Department may fairly estimate for, but they go through every item, and they are anxious that in every item it shall be proved that they have taken a businesslike view, and that there should not be a deficit in that item at the end of the year. I uppose it has rarely happened that a Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to himself that ho would underestimate an item which had been put before him, by his responsible advisers. The temptation is all the other way. The temptation to a Chancellor of the Exchequer is to avoid the imposition of

  695
  taxation, when it may seem necessary, by screwing up estimates. That is a temptation into which we may sometimes fall, but there is no temptation to under-estimate your Revenue in order to impose taxation. The phrase has been used of "easy finance." Clearly where you have to impose actual taxation in order to make the Revenue square, personal considerations would point to putting your Estimates high and not to putting them low. If I had put my Estimates higher last year I might have escaped the fierce onslaught that was made upon mo by the brewers in consequence of the 3d. addition obliged to be put on the Beer Duty, and in the same way I should not have had to impose the additional £1,000,000 of the Estate Duty. I framed my Estimates according to the best advice I received, and I shall be able to show the House, when I come to consider the details, how those Estimates have been justified. For the last two or three years we have been on the ascending curve of prosperity, and in that case there is nearly always a prospect of some increase of Revenue over your Estimates. But you must take care not to be caught half-way. When a Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he is still on the ascending curve of prosperity, he may before the year is out have a drop and find his Estimates falsified. We have had some warnings in that respect. Several times it has been believed that we had seen the dawn of a greater prosperity, but in the East people sometimes speak of "false dawns," and there have been many occasions when prosperity seemed to be opening to us and we thought we saw the real dawn, but it has proved to be a false hope. Happily this year we seem to have come upon a greater period of prosperity, and the result is that, in some respects, but in some respects only, the Estimates show a very remarkable elasticity. The House will be startled when they come to consider in detail the cause of the very considerable excess of Revenue over Estimates. Nearly £2,500,000, out of a surplus of £3,250,000, were due to absolutely extraordinary circumstances. The £2,500,000 have been due to an extraordinary rush to alcohol and to an operation in silver which was not con-
  696
  templated when I presented my Budget last year. The increase in the comsumption of alcohol last year, as compared with its predecessor, produced an increase of duty exceeding £1,800,000. Let me remind the House that for eleven years the Revenue from spirits had been declining, and that for two years it had remained stationary. Speaking of forecasting the Revenue, if I had come before this House and had stated that I believed the increase on alcoholic beverages for the year would be £1,800,000, I believe I should have been considered either a lunatic or a libeller of the consuming classes of the country. Let me analyse the details of the Revenue of the past year. I think the House will admit that the figures are interesting. The net receipts from all consumable articles except spirits, wines, and beer actually fell short of my Estimate by, in round numbers, £130,000, surely an exceedingly accurate estimate. The net receipts from these articles—namely, tea, driedfruits, tobacco, and coffee—were £14,488,000, as compared with the Estimate of £14,617,000, and as compared with a net produce in the previous year of £14,468,000. As to alcoholic drinks, I am bound to admit that I have a different tale to tell. The net receipts from all alcoholic drinks amounted to £29,265,000, as compared with my Estimate of £27,430,000 and with a net produce of £27,157,000 in the year before. If I deduct the produce of the change made in the Boer Duty it shows an increase of £1,778,000, which I have roughly called £1,800,0000. The Beer Duty exceeded my estimate by £270,000; the duty on foreign spirits by £421,000; on home spirits by no less than £1,010,000; and on wine by £120,000. It is on drink, and on drink alone, as regards consumable articles, that the Revenue was under-estimated in the past year. I may have been wrong in not foreseeing this increase in the consumption of alcoholic drinks, but I think I should have been wrong in disregarding the previous opinion of every person who has studied the course of consumption during the last few years. The Committee will notice that there has been a universal rush. Some have rushed to the beer barrel, others to the spirit bottle, and others to the decanter.

  697
  All classes seemed to have combined in toasting the prosperity of the country in largely increased quantities of alcohol. I call the special attention of the Committee to this extraordinary circumstance—a circumstance which must be deplored by all—and which places upon the House of Commons and the Government an increasing liability to deal with the question of the consumption of alcoholic liquors. A closer examination of the separate items in the list of alcoholic beverages will not diminish the surprise which I think the House and the public will feel. Of all beverages in the world, the one that shows the greatest increase during the last year is rum. I have taken some pains to find out who drinks the rum. I am told the consumption takes place mainly in seaport towns; and London, being a port, has also contributed largely to this extraordinary increase. The consumption of rum has increased by 12 per cent. in the last financial year. British spirits follow with an increased consumption of over 7 per cent. Brandy follows with an increased consumption of nearly 6 per cent., and other sorts of spirits show an increased consumption of nearly 5 per cent. I cannot exaggerate the impression which these figures make on myself. The more you deal with them the more extraordinary they seem to be. I have attempted to ascertain what this consumption of 12 per cent. additional of rum means if reduced to intelligible proportions. I understand that rum is generally asked for in public houses by the half quartern or half gill, both of which mean about one-eighth of a pint. The retailer is allowed to mix water with the spirit as long as it is not reduced to below 25deg. under proof. Taking these facts into consideration, and bearing in mind that the price of a half gill of rum is about 2½d. or 3d., you will see that the rum consumed in the United Kingdom during the year 1888–9, if it was all drunk in this way, was 245,000,000 drams, and that enormous amount has been increased by 30,000,000 drams during the course of the last financial year. I hope the Committee will feel that this is a matter we ought to look fully in the face. We ought to understand not only what 12 per cent. means when you put it in the bulk, but how it works out in detail. It is an extraordinary his-
  698
  torical fact that in the year 1875‖6, which was the greatest drinking year on record, there was precisely the same rush, in precisely the same proportions, to these different classes of spirits. At that time, too, the consumers of wine followed generally in the wake of the consumers of spirits and beer. So if appears that, notwithstanding all our efforts in the cause of temperance, increased prosperity does not mean an increased consumption of other great classes of articles, but unfortunately has meant, and does mean, a great increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquors. Wine, which had been at a standstill for a few years, last year exceeded by nearly 10 per cent. the amount consumed in previous years. The consumption of beer has increased about 4 per cent., which is considerably larger than the increase in population, although there has been increase of duty. I saw a somewhat remarkable statement coming from a country brewer, who asserted that if the impost was maintained, the quality of the beer would be deteriorated. Whether that is so or not I cannot say, but at all events the taste for it has not decreased. Let me now descend from these stupendous, these sensational figures, into the more ordinary figures of the Budget. If I run through, as is customary, the various items of Revenue, comparing the receipts with my Estimate, there is a decrease of £17,500 on chicory, coffee, and cocoa; an increase on dried fruits of £49,000; an increase of £421,000 on foreign spirits; a decrease on tea of £220,000; an increase on to accoof£152,000,andonwineof£120,000, the net increase being about £410,000. Coffee and cocoa are as disappointing as they always have been. I do not think we need pay much attention to the case of dried fruits, as that depends so much upon the crops. The deficiency in the Tea Duty is due to two circumstances. It is due in a great part to the transfer of the purchases from China to Indian tea. That accounts for a very considerable amount. But there is also another circumstance, and that is that the traders have refrained from taking tea out of bond during the last two months, owing to the belief—as to the justification for which, at this moment, I will say nothing

  699
  —that the duty would be reduced. But taking the Customs as a whole—and I draw attention again to those critics who speak of under estimating the Revenue—the result is that with an income of upwards of £20,000,000, the total increase is only £400,000, due practically to foreign spirits. Passing now to Inland Revenue, I come to Excise. The excess of Receipts over Estimates is, in the Beer Duty, £270,000; and in spirits, £1,010,000. The Railway Duty shows a small increase of £12,000. In Licences there is a decrease of £32,000. The total receipts from Excise are £24,133,000, as against the estimate of £22,870,000, the increase being entirely due to spirits and wines. I now come to the Death Duties. The Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duties yielded £6,056,000, against an estimate of £5,940,000. The new Estate Duty yielded £784,000, as against an estimate of £800,000. I think, looking at the uncertainty of life itself, it is a remarkable fact that there is no estimate more certain of being proved correct at the end of the year than the estimate framed upon Death Duties. It appears to me to be a extraordinary fact that we are able so accurately to estimate what is really a double sum, namely, the number of people who are likely to die in the year, and the fortunes which they will leave, and I may almost say the manner in which they will leave them. But, taken altogether, our Estimates of the Death Duties have been wonderfully correct. The last item under the head of Stamps is general stamps. This item is more difficult to gauge than any other, because, this being upon the transactions of the living, who can foretell at the beginning of the financial year whether speculation will continue on the same basis as it assumed at that time? It would have been difficult to foresee that the rush for forming companies would have been as continuous as it had been during the past year. There are various circumstances which modify the result from stamps, and there is no more uncertain item in the whole of our Revenue. As the result, I am glad to be able to announce that the increase on the whole of these general stamps was £357,000. It may interest the Committee to know that, as regards the Com-
  700
  panies' Capital Duty, which I imposed in 1888, and which, I may say, is paid with marvellous cheerfulness by the sanguine promoters of companies, it amounted to £290,000, against an estimate of £180,000, although I had allowed for an increase of £50,000 over the estimate of last year. It has passed through my mind sometimes whether it might not have been better to have put a tax of 2 per cent. instead of 1 per cent. upon this form of industrial activity. I wish the Committee to note that the chief increase took place in the first three quarters of the year. The general stamps have not been so productive during the last quarter. There has been a check in trade, there have been symptoms which do not point to that increase of transactions which has been so useful to the Revenue during the last year. Therefore, though the total for the year is as satisfactory as I have indicated, I think it will be seen that caution will be required as regards general stamps next year. The receipts from the Post Office have exceeded the Estimate by £100,000—a very close calculation. When hon. Members talk of underestimating the Revenue, they should remember that no credit is due to me, but that great credit is due to the Post Office Authorities for having been able to estimate a Revenue of £9,000,000 within £100,000. In Telegraphs there is an excess of £90,000 on the aggregate sum of £2,230,000. I have one more item. I said that there were two abnormal causes in the receipts of last year. One was the Drink Bill. I spoke of £2,500,000, which leaves a margin of £700,000. I will explain to what cause this is due. It is a windfall which cannot be expected to recur. It is duo to the increased profit of the Mint upon the circulation of silver. Practically, the whole is due to that cause. It could not be anticipated at the beginning of the year, because the action which was taken, and which has brought in a profit of £774,000, was not contemplated at that time. The actual profit derived from silver is £774,000, against an Estimate of £200,000. The Committee will remember that there have been continual complaints of an insufficient silver circulation. On the other hand, there was plenty of silver at the Mint, and at

  701
  the Bank, and every desire to put it into circulation. But somehow or other the conduit pipes by which it passes into circulation seemed to be stopped. The public wanted more silver; we were prepared to issue it, but something seemed to be amiss. On looking carefully into the matter I found that there was a charge of ¼ per cent. upon the freight of silver from London to the provinces, or a charge of ¼ per cent. made by the Bank of England in respect of the transmission of silver from London to provincial banks. And bankers, having no special interest in supplying their customers with silver, shrank from paying the ¼ per cent., and consequently the silver did not flow. I can almost prove that that is the case by showing what occurred when the hitch was removed. Seeing that it was desirable, as the country wished for silver, to let the country have the silver, I authorised the payment of the ¼ per cent. by the State. It was an infinitesimal sacrifice, but the removal of the charge set the How of silver free, and has put us in the position of being able to show such a satisfactory result at the end of the year. There was also an increase in wages, which made the moment favourable for an increase in the circulation of silver. I do not think that there have been many complaints that too much silver was put into circulation. On the contrary, I occasionally hear still of the want of shillings and sixpences in various parts of the country. The Committee will remember that it is not the duty of the State to supply people with silver, but that silver must be asked for through the banks, or through the ordinary channels, before it is obtained. There is no State process for the issue of silver except so far as we can pay it out to our own workmen. That is what we have done, to some extent, taking care that there should be no complaint or abuse. We also prevented the increase, to any great extent, of the most expensive coin in the world—namely, the half sovereign. We have been charged with diminishing the amount in circulation of that most useful coin, but we have not diminished the amount. All that we have done is rather to check the fresh issue of a coin on which the annual loss is as great as it is on the sovereign itself.
  702
  We have made a profit on silver, and thus lightened the work which we have to perform with regard to the withdrawal of light gold. The total amount of silver issued in 1889–90 was £2,304,000. Without being carried into detail, the Committee may like to know the comparison of the total Revenues of the past year with those of its predecessor, in order to see what expansion there has been. Apart from those, special causes which I have enumerated, apart from the non-tax Revenue, and making the necessary allowances for the increase in the Beer and Esttes Duties put on last year, the result of the comparison is as follows:—The Customs show an increase of £453,000; the Excise, an increase of £1,326,000; stamps—so far as regards the Death Duties—an increase of £354,000; and the remainder an increase of £516,000, which is due to general stamps. The Land Tax and houses show an increase of £44,000, and the Income Tax an increase of £295,000. The total increase is £2,988,000, or, in round figures, £3,000,000. I want to call the attention of the Committee to these figures. In the composition of that sum of £3,000,000 they will observe that the increase in the Customs and Excise receipts counts for £1,800,000, while the increase in what we call direct Revenue, that is, Stamps, has been £870,000, and in the Income Tax £295,000—figures small in comparison to the great increase which has taken place in the amounts derived from indirect taxation. I have now completed, and, I hope made clear to the Committee, the results of the past year as far as Expenditure and Revenue are concerned. I now put the two amounts together. We allowed for a margin of Revenue over Expenditure of £183,000, and the Revenue exceeded the Estimates by £3,154,000, an excess altogether of £3,337,000. On the other hand, the Expenditure exceeded the Estimate by £116,000, so that the real surplus of last year is £3,221,000. I am also able to make a satisfactory statement with regard to another important part of the finance of the year. I wish to say a few words about the general reduction of the Debt of the State. I suppose the story to be told in that respect will

  703
  be satisfactory, unless, indeed, there be Members of this House, or of the outside public, who think that money may be better spent than in reducing the enormous liabilities which still lie upon us with regard to our National Debt. We have diminished our liabilities during the last three years, I think I may say, "by leaps and bounds." Last year I was able to inform the Committee that the round sum provided out of taxation for the reduction of the Debt in the years 1887–88 and 1888–89 had been £15,000,000, or an average of £7,500,000. I have more than kept up the average during the past year. I am able to show a reduction in the Debt of upwards of £8,000,000. In the year the Funded Debt was diminished by £20,944,000; on the other hand, the Unfunded Debt was increased by £16,159,000; so that the two Debts together were reduced by £4,785,000. To this total we have to add the diminished liability in respect of Terminable Annuities of £3,510,000, thus leaving the total reduction for the year £8,295,000. We have also diminished our liabilities in other respects. The Savings Bank deficiency is reduced by £260,000. On the other hand the Exchequer Balance, to which I shall have to refer hereafter, is reduced by £270,000; so that the total amount by which our liabilities were reduced last year is £8,200,000. I will also state what will be the amount paid out of Revenue in the last financial year in reducing our capital liabilities, or applicable to that purpose. By Annuities and the Sinking Fund we have diminished the Debt in 1889–90 by £5,062,000. We have further to apply in redemption of the Debt the balance of Revenue over Expenditure in 1889–90, which constitutes the old Sinking Fund of that year, amounting to £3,221,000. So that the total cash applied, or applicable, belonging to 1889–90 amounts to £8,283,000. The amount of Debt which we have reduced in three years is £23,323,000—the largest amount that the Debt has ever been reduced in three consecutive years. This statement, however, is incomplete without an explanation of the position of the balances. Our balance at the commencement of the year was
  704
  £5,592,000; on March 31 it stood at £5,220,000, or less than at the beginning by £372,000. Yet we received £3,221,000 by the excess of Revenue over Expenditure. This requires explanation. In order to meet the temporary requirements of the War Office and the Admiralty under the Imperial Defence Act, we have temporarily taken out of the balances £500,000 for the War Office, and £337,000 for the Admiralty. We have also taken for redemption and conversion purposes about £1,678,000. We did not fully replace the Exchequer Bills presented for payment by £192,000. We advanced on account of bullion purchases more than we repaid by £150,000. On the other hand, there was paid into the balances, in respect of the Sardinian Loan, £53,000. The Revenue exceeded the Expenditure by £3,221,000. If we deduct this amount paid into our balances from the amount taken out, the result is that we arrive at the £372,000 already mentioned, which is the sum by which our balance has to be restored. It will be seen that the large excess of Revenue over Expenditure has assisted us in the redemption operations, and has enabled us to defray the Expenditure under the Imperial Defence Act without borrowing. Of course, I need not tell the Committee that we do not intend to deplete our balances permanently by the amounts I have mentioned. We shall have to borrow the sums issued under the Imperial Defence Act, in 1888–9 and 1889–90, for the Army and Navy, amounting together to £1,497,000. We shall also have to make good a portion of the money taken out of balances for redemption and conversion purposes. I am sorry to trouble the Committee with these banking details, but these financial statements are sometimes referred to in the future, and it is customary to explain the balances. But it is a somewhat tedious process, and leaving these details, I come to some larger and much more interesting figures. It may be remembered that at the close of the Conversion operations in 1888 we were left with a balance of Three per Cent. Stocks which had to be dealt with in accordance with the notice given in July of that year. The amount of the old Three per Cent.-Stock out-

  705
  standing on November 5, 1888, was, in Consols and Reduced Threes together, £42,325,000. In the course of the next eight months, by the action of the Sinking Fund, the amount redeemed was £1,356,000. Therefore, the amount which had to be specially dealt with was, in round figures, £41,000,000. This was the sum we were pledged to deal with under the Notice of July 6, 1888. I admit it looked a very formidable operation to oblige one's self to pay off £41,000,000, unless they should be converted into new Stock, and as by that time the new Stock stood 1 or 2 per cent. below par, it was doubtful whether any large portion of that £41,000,000 would be automatically converted. I will not say I did not pass through some moments of anxiety. At one time the Money Market made me rather uncomfortable. I will admit that sometimes the large proportions of that sum did cause me some feelings of anxiety; but the resources of the country were so great and its credit was so enormous as to enable me to borrow any sum which might be necessary. The resources of the National Debt Commissioners especially were exceedingly useful. I am now in a position to state how we dealt with the £41,000,000 which has been finally disposed of and wiped out altogether. We paid off in cash £24,378,000, of which the National Debt Commissioners supplied us with £10,800,000; and I had no difficulty in borrowing the remainder. There were exchanged for new Stock by the National Debt Commissioners on the 5th of July, 1889, £8,164,000—an amount which they had bought from their own resources in the course of the year with a view to their conversion into new Stock, and whereby I was relieved from the necessity of paying cash to that amount. There were automatically converted into new Stock on the 5th of October, 1889, £8,426,000. Thus, out of £41,000,000 about £8,000,000 were concerted, and the balance of the old Stock, £41,000,000, has now finally and completely disappeared. The Committee will like to know how much the Unfunded Debt in the hands of the public has increased in consequence of the Conversion and Redemption operations. On the 30th of March, 1888, about £14,000,000 were so held, and there are now held by
  706
  the public about £23,500,000. In other words, our liability towards the public in respect of short or Floating Securities has been increased by £9,500,000. On the other hand, during these two years the Funded Debt has been decreased by £28,500,000; and as the amount of Stocks held by the National Debt Commissioners is larger by £13,000,000 than it was two years ago, our liability towards the public in respect of Funded Debt has been decreased by over £40,000,000. I do not pass away from this subject without offering a tribute of gratitude, not only to the Governor and Deputy Governor and Directors of the Bank of England, who have seconded our efforts with unwearying care, but also to the staff of that establishment, in which these gigantic operations have been carried out without a single hitch, and, as I believe, without a single error and with the fewest possible complaints. I have completed my review, I hope not entirely uninterestiug, of the finance of the past year. Before I finally close the history of the last year I wish to state how I propose to deal with the question of light gold. The Committee will remember I stated we had had a windfall in a profit on silver, a sum of from £600,000 to £700,000. I think that nothing can be more proper than to allow the silver to pay for the gold. We propose to establish a Coinage Fund and to credit it with the £600,000. I propose in a few days to introduce a Bill to carry this out. I will just state, what bankers will be anxious to learn, what has happened with regard to the pre-Victorian coins. When it was determined to take these coins in hand it was estimated that there were in circulation 4,295,500 sovereigns and 314,000 half sovereigns. It was expected that there would be sent in for exchange 2,169,800 sovereigns and all the half-sovereigns; and the cost of renewing these coins was estimated at £50,000, for which a Vote was taken last summer. The amount of coins received by the Bank of England up to the 2nd of April was 2,071,000 sovereigns (nearly the exact Estimate) and 210,000 half-sovereigns. The greater part of these coins has been sent to and weighed by the Mint, and, according to the present calculations, the loss per sovereign proves to be 4·7d., as against an estimated loss of 4·6d., and per half-sovereign to be

  707
  6d., as compared with an estimated loss of 5·9d.; and, accordingly, the total deficiency to be made good on the coins presented at the Bank for exchange has been £44,000, against an Estimate of £50,000. I am now able to approach what is a more interesting subject—namely, that of the Revenue and the Expenditure of the coining year. The Committee are acquainted with most of the Expenditure, as I have given the figures of the Expenditure of the coming year in the Paper in the hands of hon. Members, so as to facilitate reference. The total Consolidated Services amount to £28,308,000, being £18,000 more than last year; the addition in the Supply Service, gives a total of £58,319,000, being £568,000 more than the Exchequer itself issued last year, so that the whole calculated Expenditure amounts to £86,627,000, as against £86,083,000, being an excess of £544,000. I have nothing new to say with regard to this Expenditure. The House knows that the chief excess is due to the Army Estimates. The Post Office and Telegraph Services account for £150,000 more Expenditure, but this increased Expenditure is more than compensated for by the estimated increase of Revenue. I ought, perhaps, to say that the Expenditure would be £265,000 larger but for the tact that the Scotch grants have been dropped in consequence of the transfer of Scotch licences to the Scotch Local Authorities. When I come to the licences it will be seen that there is a corresponding or larger decrease, owing to the transfer of these licences to the Scotch Authorities. The House will also call to mind that this is not the total expenditure, because you have to add to the items of expenditure £160,000 in respect of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and also £40,000 as representing the gain to which Ireland is entitled in common with England and Scotland, as her share derived from the transfer of licences to the Local Authorities. There is also an Estimate of £30,000, which some hon. Members may have seen, for additional requirements in Bechuanaland. That brings up the total Expenditure to £86,857,000, and that is the Expenditure which we have to meet. Now, I ask the Committee in what spirit am I to approach the Estimates? I have now the duty of fram-
  708
  ing my Estimates for the coming year. Am I to approach them in an optimistic spirit or to proceed with the same caution which I am blamed for having displayed on previous occasions? I have made many inquiries in many quarters as to the prospect of trade and industry and of general commercial activity for the coming year, and I am bound to say that the answers I have received recommend caution rather than sanguineness. [Opposition cheers.] I ask those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheer that sentiment, to be good enough to remember next year, if I again have to present a satisfactory balance-sheet, that they share at the moment when the Estimates are framed, the temper in which I consider the Estimates ought to be drawn up. Seriously, I think that it would be an error to say that we can prudently count upon a continuance of that progressive prosperity which I trust we may continue to enjoy, and of that speculative activity which has characterised a part of the past financial year. We know that the price of iron has largely fallen, and we know that there has been a check in the shipbuilding trade. We know that the Stock Exchange transactions are not so many; we know that speculation for the moment has calmed down, and though we may hope that the relations between capital and labour, which were so strained at one time during the past financial year, may continue in a state of harmony and concord; still trade is disorganised occasionally by the strikes which take place; and, indeed, I am told that blows have been struck in some parts of the country to industrial enterprise by the unfortunate differences which have taken place. I do not dwell upon that particular circumstance, but I do dwell upon the whole circumstances of the position, and I say that, while I trust we may have prosperous times, we must proceed with caution, because it is possible we may not have that progressive prosperity with which we have been blessed during the past financial year. It is clear that we must look upon the great articles of consumption with caution. As regards tea and tobacco, and the other items, we cannot count upon any large increase. I ask again, then, in what spirit are we to frame the Estimates? As regards

  709
  alcoholic beverages, I decline to increase the Estimate over the result of the receipts of the past year. I may be wrong. It may be that there will be still a continuance of the increase produced by rum, brandy, and other intoxicating liquors. I will go further, and say that I believe there will be an increase during the next few months in respect of those articles. That is highly probable, but I do not think that such increase will extend over the whole year. When we come to those months where the greatest increase took place last year, I do not think that there can be a cumulative force in this tendency to spend so much of our increased prosperity in augmenting the general drink bill of the country. As regards wages, it is generally true that there is not a, decline in the rate of wages directly prosperity begins to flag, and it may be said that you can count for some time up in a continuance of those high wages which have enabled the working classes to consume largely during the past year. But the sum of the wages to be expended does not only depend upon the rate of wage, but upon the continuance of employment of the workmen, and although we may all hope that there may be that continuance of employment, still I say it is in a spirit of caution with regard to the future that I think we ought to act. Let me run through the various heads of Revenue. I have not framed these Estimates in any pessimistic spirit. I will only suggest that it is just possible that we shall only have to mark time. As regards the Customs Receipts on coffee and its satellites, I am not permitted to expect any increase. The history of the past shows that it would be injudicious to do so. In fact, my advisers say that we should estimate about £3,000 less for coffee and £3,000 more for cocoa. On dried fruits I estimate an increase of £14,000. Tobacco, looking at its history for the last two or three years, I estimate to give an increase of £213,000, that is about 2 per cent. on the present importation, while the increase of the population is only at the rate of 1 per cent. As regards tea, I assume that there will be a further transfer from China to Indian and Ceylon tea. I assume that 10,000,000lb. of China tea will be displaced by 7,000,000lb. of Indian
  710
  and Ceylon tea—a very satisfactory prospect for India, and also a very satisfactory prospect in this respect—namely, that this Indian tea makes so many more cups of tea per pound, in the proportion of ten to seven, so that, practically, tea has been cheapened to the working classes by the displacement by Indian of China tea, if the middleman would only give sufficient influence to this greater cheapness owing to the discovery and development of this great branch of our Indian trade. That diminished consumption of tea is equivalent to about 3,000,000lb., representing a loss of £75,000 in Revenue. On the other hand, we have the fact that tea was not withdrawn in its usual quantities during the last two months of this year in anticipation that the Tea Duty would be reduced. ["Hear, hear," from the Front Opposition Bench.] I hear a smile passing over the face of the right hon. Grentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] It was an audible smile. [Laughter.] During those two months we estimate that tea was not withdrawn to the amount of £140,000, which, if it had been paid, would have swollen the Receipts of the last year. Now it, will come in in the current year. Looking to these two counterbalancing effects, I add about £220,000 to the Estimates. On wine I will take an increase of about £10,000. But spirits, for the reason that I have mentioned, I decline to put at a higher figure than the enormous amount realised last year. In fact, foreign spirits I put at £80,000 lower than the amount received last year, while, on the other hand, British spirits I expect to increase by £40,000, with the reason for which I will not trouble the Committee. The Total Receipts from Customs I put at £20,836,000, or about £375,000 more than last year. I now approach the Excise. Beer has been expanding, and I believe that we are justified in reckoning upon a slight further expansion. I place the Estimate at £9,650,000, which is £240,000 more than the net Receipts of last year. While I have taken off £80,000 from foreign spirits I put on £40,000 on British spirits, putting my Estimate at £13,900,000. The Rail way Duty I estimate at £330,000. When I come to the licences, I find that the miserable remnant left me by my right

  711
  hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is still further reduced by £318,000, which I had to take off for the Scotch licences, and I am only left with £220,000 under this head as a source of Imperial Revenue. The total Excise Revenue I put at £24,108,000, against the net Receipts of last year of £24,133,000, or less by £24,000. But for the loss of licences there would be an increase of £286,000. Again, I think the Committee will see that I have proceeded with caution, but not with undue caution, in my Estimates, unless they take a different view from me as regards alcohol beverages. I now pass to the Death Duties and the duties from general stamps. The new Estate Duty last year yielded £784,000, but it did not come into operational the beginning of the financial year, and, therefore, it will give more in the coming year. I expect to receive £1,070,000 from this source. The Probate Duties I put at £2,400,000 for half the duty; the other half goes to the Local Authorities. Here, again, I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the good bargain that was made for his Department. The original estimate of the half of the Probate Duty that we parted with was £2,130,000—that half now is £2,400,000; so that the Local Authorities derive a benefit from the progressive nature of the tax in these two years of £270,000. By a strange coincidence that is the precise amount which the Wheel and Van Tax was expected to realise. The Legacy Duty is put at £2,840,000 as compared with £2,770,000—an increase of £70,000. The Succession Duty is naturally creeping up under the changes that have been made. The proceeds last year exceeded those of the previous year by £144,000. I assume an increase of £100,000 next year, and I put the amount at £1,150,000. Now I come to general stamps, and after the remarks that I have made on the general state of trade, on the position of the Stock Exchange, and the best forecast I can make, I find that I should not be justified in calculating upon any increase of Revenue from general stamps. The general stamps last year amounted to £6,157,000. I take the round sum of £6,140,000 as the general stamps for next year. The total Stamp Duties,
  712
  including the Death Duties, I put at £13,642,000, as against the Receipts last year of £13,040,000—an increase of £600,000, of course entirely due to the increase put upon the Death Duties. The Land Tax I put at £1,030,000, or less than last year by £18,000, and the House Duty of £2,000,000—an increase of £22,000. I come now to an interesting item—the Property and Income Tax—and there I think I am justified in being more sanguine than I have been with regard to most of the items through which I have passed, because there we have safer grounds to go upon, as we have the advantage of the three years average. My forecast is not only prospective, for I can take a review of the general situation of the last three years, and I find we have now come upon an average of good years and are beginning to get rid of the bad years. That being so I put my estimate at £13,200,000, which is £430,000 more than last year. When I put this before the House last year I said I framed my estimates with some hesitation. I considered I was doing rather a bold thing in putting the yield of 1d. Income Tax from £2,020,000 to £2,100,000. This estimate has been more than justified by the expanding prosperity of the country, and this year I feel justified, from all that I have seen and heard with regard to this source of Revenue, in putting my estimate at £2,200,000, which gives a total for the 6d. of £13,200,000. The vast increase in the proceeds of the 1d. as compared with the estimate put upon it by the late Sir Robert Peel in 1844 of £800,000 will be apparent to the public at large. It denotes the enormous power of this great fiscal engine—the Income Tax—which enables us, by the increase of 1d. alone, to find a source of Revenue equal to upwards of £2,000,000 sterling. As regards the non-Tax Revenue, I have conferred with the Post Office Authorities, and I feel justified in putting my Estimate at £9,750,000, an increase of £300,000 on the Exchequer Receipts of last year. Of course, it is not all profit, though it goes to swell the Revenue. You must deduct the corresponding item of increased charge on the other side. Telegraphs I propose to estimate at £2,470,000, which is £150,000 more than last year. Crown Lands remain the same as before—

  713
  £430,000; and the interest on advances I put at £240,000. So far, the Committee will see that I have made good progress. When I come to the Miscellaneous Revenue I lose that profit on silver which I had last year. Stripped of that Revenue, I am not able to put it higher than £2,700,000, which is less than last year by £711,000. The decrease under Miscellaneous Items affects the whole of our receipts from non-Tax Revenue, and the non-Tax Revenue altogether I can only estimate at £15,590,000, as against last year £15,890,000, a decrease of £300,000. If I now add all the non-Tax Revenue and the Tax Revenue together, I get a total estimated at £90,406,000, against the Exchequer Receipts of last year of £89,304,000, which shows that I build upon an increase of £1,102,000. A more interesting comparison is obtained by setting my estimated Revenue against estimated Expenditure. The estimated Revenue is £90,406,000, and the estimated Expenditure is £86,857,000, and I find that I am left with a surplus of £3,549,000, of which I have to dispose. Now, I come to what is, perhaps, as embarrassing a part of my task as if I had to impose taxation, namely, the use of this excess of Revenue over estimated expenditure. I propose, in the first instance, to deduct from this amount the sum which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War tells me he can spend on barracks during the coming year. This brings me to explain how we propose to deal with that matter. The Committee will remember that there is a Bill before the House for spending £4,000,000 011 barracks. I have conferred with my right hon. Friend as to how this sum shall be met. We have taken powers in the Bill for borrowing money in future years, but not in the present year. What is wanted this year will come out of the annual Revenue. But as regards the following years and the bulk of the expenditure we shall deal with it on the analogy of the Military Forces Localisation Act of 1872. That Act contemplated barracks, storehouses, and buildings of that kind; and the amount, if I remember rightly, was £3,500,000. The reason then given for proceeding by loan—for under the Act power was given to borrow the whole—was that
  714
  the Government had incurred at that time a very heavy abnormal charge for Army Purchase. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, speaking at Chester the other day, said—
  "He would not grudge a large expenditure upon barracks, but he hoped resort would Dot be had to the somewhat cowardly practice of casting the burden on coming years. That had been done before, but it had been done when an enormous expenditure had been incurred out of the Annual Votes upon the abolition of purchase."
  Bat the largest annual Vote under the abolition of purchase was about £900,000, and the heavy annual extra payment incurred last year for Naval Defences was larger than that sum by £500,000, so that we, too, are precisely in the same position as the Government of 1872–3. That is, that we have undertaken this large work for the improvement of our barracks at a time when we are making special efforts in another direction. But the Revenue was as prosperous then as it is now. At that time, too, there was a surplus, and the circumstances are thoroughly analogous. But we do intend to spend such an amount as can be spent this year, out of current Revenue, and therefore I trust my right hon. Friend will not think that we are cowardly in this respect. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War tells me that what he can spend this year is £300,000. L have not asked him to cut down the sum to a minimum, but I asked him to tell me frankly the maximum; and he states that £300,000 will be as much as will be likely to be spent in the present year. One word as to the general charge that some right hon. Gentlemen made against us, that we are having large recourse to borrowing. Whatever may be our plans, at all events up to the present we have not incurred any censure in that respect. We have estimated the Naval Annuity, which amounts to £1,429,000 in every year, over a moderate number of years. But in this first year it has proved, as we knew it would prove, more than enough to cover the expenditure of the year; and, in fact, under the Naval Defence Act we have levied from the taxpayer in the past year about £1,000,000 sterling more than the Admiralty were able to pay out. Therefore, so far from having incurred any debt up to the present, we have paid

  715
  our way with regard to the naval defences, and have carried a certain sum, forward to next year. Hon. Members will now deduct the £300,000 required by the War Office, and they will find the surplus reduced to £3,249,000. I now come to a matter which will, perhaps, interest hon. Members more deeply even than the barracks scheme, looking to the interest which has been taken in all parts of the House in the question. It is connected also with the Services. The House recently agreed to a Resolution calling upon the Government to supply to the Volunteers certain articles of equipment, and on fall consideration of this decision we now propose to accept the Resolution, and to set aside a sum of £100,000 out of the surplus to meet that demand. I leave it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to find a further sum of £50,000 out of his resources; and it appears to us that the sum of £150,000 will enable us substantially to give effect to the Resolution which has been passed by the House. Rut until certain inquiries are completed it will not be possible to give full details. The Government are glad in this way to be able to meet the wishes expressed by Parliament for further assistance to this valuable Force; but I think it is right to remind the Committee that every new grant made to the Volunteers must necessarily carry with it some corresponding increase of Government control, and that Parliament, in sanctioning increased expenditure, will require to be satisfied that it obtains a fair return in the improved efficiency and heightened value of the Force. I have therefore deducted another sum of £100,000 from the surplus, and I have asked myself how I should deal with the remainder. If we were to look simply to popularity, I believe there is nothing we could do that would more satisfy, I will not say legitimate, but illegitimate public opinion than if we were to spend a very large portion of the surplus. I call to mind all the demands made upon us from various quarters. I call to mind what the men of science have asked us to do. I call to mind what the artists have asked us to do, and what the educationists have asked us to do. If any collection of pictures is offered for sale we are denounced if we do not immediately purchase it. Every collection
  716
  I am told is one which ought to be at once secured for the nation. If we have valuable sites we are told it is niggardly on our part if we do not erect magnificent public buildings upon them at the earliest possible moment. We are asked more largely to endow Universities. We are asked more largely to endow Technical Institutions. We are asked more largely to endow Intermediate Education; and now we shall be asked what we propose to do with regard to assisted education. To meet half the demands made upon us, I believe £2,000,000 of this surplus would soon be scattered. Possibly the money would be well employed, but it would soon be scattered, and the burdens of the people would not be lightened. We think that we have done a great deal in meeting the fair demands that have been made upon us. The other day we bought land at Kensington for £100,000. We have taken a new departure in giving sums to a number of new and valuable colleges. We have been more generous to the National Gallery and the British Museum. We have done a great deal. Though there may be at this moment rather a How of opinion in the direction of extravagance and an inclination to call everything niggardly which does not correspond to the wishes of those who desire this expenditure — notwithstanding this, I think it would not be right to allow all these claimants to dip their hands ad libitum into the Treasury chest. As long as I retain my office I shall think it my duty, on the whole, to sit tight upon the lid of that chest. But it may be said that we have been extravagant in other directions. There are men who think that while we have been economical in some respects we have been extravagant as regards the Army and Navy. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that that cheer was not a very general cheer. We have not been extravagant as regards the Army and Navy, if we have only done those things which were imperatively necessary in the interests of the country. I Would frankly say that when I leave my office I shall look back with some pleasure on having diminished our national liabilities through the conversion of the National Debt; but I shall also look back with pleasure, and with no apology whatever to the fact that, notwithstanding that I

  717
  have been Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have agreed to large proposals which I believe will have the effect of strengthening the defences of this country. I think a Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the last Ministers who ought to be indifferent to the absolute security of our shores and the security of our commerce. What would be the effect upon our Revenue of even panic preparations? What would be the waste of money and the expense the moment the slightest panic occurred? But if the panic should be of a more real character, then every one knows that in a country like this, dependent as we are on other countries for our food supply, and dependent, too, upon that credit which is the mainspring of our commerce, I think it almost baffles the imagination to think of the consequences of a real, serious panic at the present moment when the whole edifice of our commerce and trade is built up upon credit. I think myself, and I say it in great frankness, that our bankers and merchants trade with too little reserve, and I think that the reserves of the supplies in this country are also reduced to an insecure amount. Looking to all this, I believe the Government have done no more than their duty in availing themselves of a portion of the great resources which the country has placed at our command in doing what we can to strengthen and improve our Army and Navy. We have done much. I will not recapitulate what we have done with regard to the Navy. As regards the Army, we have armed the infantry with a new magazine rifle. We have supplied the artillery with new guns. We shall have fortified our coaling stations by the end of this year. We shall have improved the defences of our Imperial Ports. We shall have done all this, and I say we have no apology to make for the large sums which we have had to impose upon the people for all these purposes, although we would gladly have used them to reduce the burdens which the people cheerfully bear. We must admit them to be heavy burdens, and we will lighten them as soon as it is possible for us to do so. I have slid that, notwithstanding our surplus, we do not intend to listen to any proposals of extravagance. But I believe that in the proposal I am now going to
  718
  make I shall have cordial support from all Members of the Committee. We propose, if we can persuade other interested parties to do so, to deal with the question of the postage to India and our colonies, and to reduce all rates, by whatever route, to 2½d.—not ocean postage only, but postage by the quickest route. The existing rates to Australia, India, China, and the Capo range from 5d. to 6d., and the House is also aware that in the case of some of these letters they would be transmitted cheaper to their destination if they were posted abroad. No doubt it is a great anomaly that if letters are sent to Calais they can be posted to our officers at Quetta or in Burma more cheaply than if they were posted at a British post office. We propose, therefore, to remove these anomalies if we can persuade the other interested parties to join us, because we cannot act in this matter without the cordial co-operation of the colonies themselves. The ocean penny postage has been recommended very much on the ground that it would draw us closer to the colonies; but it would be a very unsatisfactory beginning to such a proceeding if we were to embark upon a cheapening of postage to which the colonies themselves were opposed. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General will place himself in communication at once with the Agents of the colonies, and he will see, with every hope of success, whether they can be induced to reduce the postage in the future to 2½d. by whatever route the letters may be sent. The loss which would be incurred by this process would be £80,000 in the present year. It would be £105,000 in a complete year. But I think £80,000 will cover it in the present year, looking to the negotiations which will take place. Now, I intended to explain to the Committee how this loss would arise. But, looking to the ground which I have still to traverse, they will excuse me if I do not defend the proposal more than by making this statement. I can only say this: that we must assume this loss, because we cannot recoup ourselves on letters which go by the quickest route by any increased correspondence. We have to pay an amount equal to 1d. for the foreign transit, and the cost of the letter in this country and in the colonies or in India is taken to be even more than l½d. Thus, if you add 1d. to the l½d.,

  719
  the cost of the postage will be more than 2½d., or at least fully 2½d., and we cannot expect to recoup ourselves. But I have little doubt that the Committee generally will be prepared to make this sacrifice out of Revenue for the purpose of removing anomalies and securing cheaper communication with India. India will also have to be consulted on the proposal. We are at present in communication with her on the subject. So far I have spoken of increased expenditure, namely, that for barracks, Volunteers, and postage. I now come to the point of remissions of taxation. But, still, I must ask hon. Members to be patient while I deal, only in a word or two, with some very humble claims for relief. The Committee will think that it is the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer quite as much to look to humble claims to relief, if there is any hardship or injustice, as to deal with larger questions. Apprentices have to pay a stamp of 2s. 6d. on their agreements, provided no premium is paid. If a premium is paid they have to pay the heavy duty of 5s. for every £5. If there is a premium of £20 they must pay £1. This appears to me a great hardship, and I propose that on no agreement of apprenticeship shall there be a higher stamp than 2s. 6d. Then, take the case of insurance policies. Life insurance policies are only subject to 1d.; but health insurances, which provide that if a man falls sick he is to receive a certain sum during his illness, have to pay a 6d. Stamp Duty. It has been represented to me by the Societies interested that this is a hardship, and I propose to remove it by putting health policies on the same footing as other policies, I mention these matters, not as being of fiscal importance, but to give them the publicity they deserve. Quite apart from larger questions, I propose a slight change in charging the Income Tax as between different schedules. Complaints have been made that when a man loses under Schedule A he is not allowed to set off that loss under Schedule D. So it happens sometimes that a man who has lost heavily on his farm has to pay full duty on the profits of his business without being allowed to deduct the loss on his farm. That I intend to put right by allowing the loss under one schedule to be set off against the profits of another schedule. There
  720
  will be no appreciable loss under these heads, and I merely mention them for the purpose of giving them publicity. The first serious inroad which I propose to make on my surplus is a change in volving the remission of the duty on gold and silver plate—a change which, I believe, has been expected, and I. will not conceal from myself that it is not pleasant for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to part with a tax which is paid with the greatest possible cheerfulness by those who have to pay it. There is a positive alacrity on the part of the chief members of the trade in paying the Plate Duties, and they are protesting in advance against their abolition, and I must, therefore, make out some case why we propose the abolition of these duties. The first shake was given to them by the Report of the Select Committee of 1878–9, of which I was myself a member. They recommended as follows:—That
  "Whenever the condition of the Revenue will permit the duty upon silver plate should he abolished."
  The Committee were moved to make this recommendation by the consideration of the unequal incidence of the duty and the great proportion it bore (nearly 40 per cent.) to the raw material, and the importance of promoting the use of silver as an article of manufacture. The Indian community soon fastened on the suggestion of the Committee. I think myself that India has attached almost undue importance to the abolition of these duties. But the fact remains that they do attach enormous importance to the abolition of the Plate Duty. They consider it will have an effect upon the price of silver, and will enable them to send more articles of manufactured silver to this country, though I think they are rather sanguine in their expectations. It might be contended, and I have heard it argued, that we ought not to look to the wishes or expectations of India, but to British interests alone. But the argument had been rather cut away from under our feet by the recollection in India of a transaction which they consider to have been unfair to themselves, justly or unjustly I will not say. But they consider that the duty upon the imports of British cotton goods was promoted and carried rather with a view to British interests than to Indian interests, and they have made a

  721
  kind of passionate claim in return that in this matter of Plate Duties we should consider the interests of India. Now, they have had a good deal to go upon with regard to declarations made by various Chancellors of the Exchequer. The abolition of the duty was recommended without hesitation by the recent Royal Commission upon Gold and Silver as a practical measure for diminishing the difficulties of India. It is difficult in the face of a recommendation of that kind, coming from a strong Commission, to resist that pressure. I mention it because, as I say, we must have strong arguments for the repeal of a duty, the repeal of which is opposed by the trade of silversmiths in England itself. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian handled the subject in 1881, and proposed to reduce the duties gradually. He would have preferred an immediate reduction, but he shrank from it on account of the drawback, which then was estimated to amount to £170,000. The right hon. Gentleman subsequently withdrew his proposal, but referred to the matter again the next year. From that time to this the matter has been in suspense. My right hon. Friend, speaking of this duty, said—
  "The state in which it was left perplexes the market, places transactions upon old plate on an embarrassed footing, inflicts much mischief and limitation on the industry, and possibly tends to lower the standard of our manufactured goods, whilst obstructing the taste in design."
  With all these declarations before us, I said last year that I should wish to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission to abolish the Silver Plate Duty, but that I had no means at my command to make up for the loss and also to meet the demand on the drawback. Now that the moment has come, I consider we are practically bound, by all that has occurred in the past, to take the bull by the horns and to deal with the duty on this footing. Viceroys of India and ex-Viceroys of India have all attached the greatest importance to this matter; and it would create a serious disappointment in India if we were not to deal with the matter. But, it may be asked, if we propose the abolition of the duty on silver plate, why should we abolish the duty on gold plate? The duty on gold articles amounts to a very small sum.
  722
  The House will be amused to learn that the greatest portion of the duty on gold plate is paid by wedding rings. Three-fourths and more of the duty, amounting to £23,300, on gold plate come from the duty paid by this most necessary article of civilised society. Otherwise gold plate is so small an item that, practically, no revenue whatever is derived from it. Nor would the question of drawback arise in the case of gold plate, and I propose no drawback. As regards silver plate, the amount of drawback involved I put at £120,000, which I add to the £80,000 we shall lose by the abolition of the Gold and Silver Plate Duties. The drawback used to be estimated at £170,000. But the uncertainty of the trade has prevented the accumulation of stocks, and I feel confident that £120,000 is a fair sum. But we do not propose to pay any amount of drawback which may be claimed. We shall take £120,000 as a maximum, and arrangements will then be made, which shall be stated later in detail, for paying the drawback on the stocks in the hands of dealers, provided they have not passed into use. I am told that it will be possible to get a perfect statement of the whole of the silver plate on which drawback may be claimed. If the claims should exceed £120,000, then a corresponding diminution will be made upon the drawback claimed, so that the sum which the State will have to pay shall in no case exceed £120,000. The Royal Commission said that we should not pay more than three years' drawback, and it will be seen that £1 20,000 is about two years' drawback upon silver plate, because the amount of Silver Plate Duty is about £60,000. I have now arrived at a point when I must attack the bulk of my subject. I trust that hon. Members will not feel that I have unduly trespassed upon their attention in explaining these smaller items of remission. I have, of course, to think not only of the audience listening to me now, but also of those outside who are interested in silver plate or any of the other matters which I have touched upon. They require a rather full statement, and I was therefore bound to make it, although it may be somewhat wearisome. I now come to the larger remissions. After deducting the barrack expenditure my surplus stand

  723
  at £3,249,000. I have further disposed of £100,000 for Volunteers, £60,000 for reduced postage, and £200,000 for silver plate, leaving me in possession of £2,869,000, but after having read so much during a portion of this year about the gigantic sums that would be at my disposal, I confess that the proportions of that surplus appear to me to be very modest, when I have to set against this amount the number of claimants who have already put forward their claims to remission. There are the advocates of the abolition of the Tea Duty, but the abolition of that duty would mean a sacrifice of revenue of £4,900,000. Then someone spoke of a reduction of 2d. on the Income Tax. That would mean a sacrifice of £4,000,000. Then there are others who are not only anxious for a free breakfast table, but for free pudding as well, and who desire the abolition of the duty on all dried fruits. Then there are my friends who are interested in the brewing trade. They consider that they are entitled to there mission of the 3d. per barrel imposed last year. Then there are the County Councils, who ask that we should hand over to them the House Duty, there are other persons asking for this modest trifle of £2,000,000, and others suggesting that the whole of the duty should be remitted. Well, I ask, what is my surplus amongst so many? I will proceed to consider the various claims that may be met; but instead of approaching the task with the feeling that I am going to give satisfaction to any of the claimants, I feel that the amount to be divided is comparatively so small that I shall create much disappointment in apportioning it. I first turn to the question as between direct and indirect taxation. It has been suggested that the present Government have favoured more than they ought the payers of Income Tax. A right hon. Gentleman opposite considered that we had unduly favoured the payers of Income Tax by reducing the tax from 8d. to 6d., but I hold that in having done so we have simply restored the status quo. The extra 2d. was imposed for a special purpose at a special time when there were spacial exigencies, and it should be remembered that at that time a proposal had been made to increase indirect taxation, which proposal was, however, withdrawn. Therefore, I consider that
  724
  we have in no way altered the status quo as regards direct and indirect taxation or favoured direct taxation by the course which we have taken. Again, it must be remembered that we imposed an additional duty, the Estate Duty, upon real and personal property. Looking, then, at all the circumstances I do not think that we have altered the status quo Hon. Members may ask, what is the opinion that ought to be held with regard to the status quo before these reductions of taxation and these increases of taxation take place? That is a speculative question which would lead us very far a field, and on which there might be very great differences of opinion. I approach the question in a simpler fashion, and ask myself how the surplus of this year has mainly been produced. Has it been produced mainly by the increase of direct taxation, or by the increase of sources of indirect taxation? When the subject is considered from that point of view, it will be seen that we owe the greater portion of the surplus to the increased consumption of articles which pay duty and contribute towards indirect taxation. Out of the sum which remains to me, nearly £2,000,000 has been yielded by indirect taxation, and the Government have determined as indirect taxation has mainly produced the surplus, that mainly to the relief of indirect taxation shall the surplus go. Now, the surplus has been mainly produced by the consumers of alcoholic beverages, but no man in the House would be prepared to say that they should be relieved. The sum which they have contributed, which amounts, after deductions, to about £1,500,000, we propose to apply to the reduction of the duty upon tea by 2d. in the £1. The tipplers shall relieve tea. The loss upon the Tea Duty will amount to £1,500,000. I know that it has been said that a reduction of 2d. will not benefit the consumer; but I am not prepared to admit that argument. We have to look to our own responsibility, and we must bear in mind that a duty of 6d. upon tea represents a very large proportion of the primary cost of the article. If tea were sold to the consuming classes at anything like the cost price, it would appear at once what an enormous relief would be given by a reduction of 2d. in the £1. But

  725
  the amount of the relief is concealed by the fact that the middleman walks away with so large a proportion of the price which is paid by the working classes for their tea. In many villages the working classes pay as much as 2s., as 2s. 6d., even as 3s. for tea, while much tea can be bought at a cost price, 11d. or 1s If you take the price at 1s 6d., a price at which good tea can be bought and sold, and realise that from that price you are going to make a reduction of 2d., you will see that you are conferring an appreciable boon upon the consumer. It would be very satisfactory if full advantage could be taken of this reduction by consumers, so that they should receive their full share of the relief. Let them, therefore, consider whether through better organisation, or by other means, it may not be possible for them to buy on better terms this article of primary necessity, this article so important to the whole of the working classes. I will here frankly say that I am opposed to the total abolition of the Tea Duties. There is no doubt that tea is the one article through which those who neither smoke nor drink contribute to the Revenue, and therefore I think it right that a Tea Duty should be maintained; and I should, besides, be sorry to think that we were going to cut off altogether any of the sources of our Revenue. But looking at the way in which the surplus has been created, and bearing in mind the circumstances to which I shall have to call attention hereafter, I think that justice demands the application of this portion of the surplus in the manner which I have indicated. I proceed now to another article, in respect of which I propose to grant remission—I refer to the duty on currants. It is at present 7s. per cwt., and I propose to reduce it to 2s. The loss of Revenue, after allowing for a very substantial increase of consumption, will probably be £210,000. I am not prepared, looking to the further remissions which I have in view, to increase the amount of this remission on dried fruits by making it applicable to all. The Committee will ask why I have selected currants for this special benefit, while the tax on raisins remains as before. Well, currants come chiefly from Greece, and Greece attributes such immense importance to this reduction
  726
  that she is prepared in return to make a substantial offer of reduction on British manufactured goods. To Greece, the exportation of currants under most favourable circumstances is a question of life and death, and besides the pleasure of reducing the duty on an article of general consumption in this country, it is a matter of sincere congratulation to Her Majesty's Government that we are at the same time able to propose a fiscal change which will be eminently advantageous to that little Kingdom, in whose fortunes the British people have always taken so warm an interest. Let me now mention the change in her tariff which Greece on her part is willing to make, which I think will be received with considerable satisfaction by certain of our exporters. On herrings there will be a reduction of 33 per cent., on cotton yarns 16 per cent. on single grey yarns up to No. 21 English; simplification of classification in bleached and dyed, coupled with reduction of duty of about 25 per cent. The extra duty on dyed yarns will be abolished; common grey cotton tissues reduced by 12 per cent., and for other cotton tissues a simplification of classification on the same principle as that for yarns, while for cotton goods specially mentioned in the Greek tariff, such as embroidered goods, cretonnes, and men's clothing, the reductions range from 20 to 50 per cent. On linen, hempen, and jute tissues, the reductions range from 18 to 50 per cent.; on carpets and certain other mixed woollen fabrics, an average reduction of 20 per cent. is made. On indigo, the duty of about 1s. in the £1 is reduced to a nominal charge of about 1d., and the duty on acids is reduced one-half, to a nominal charge of about 1d., while on non-refined acids the duty is entirely abolished. These reductions will relieve the British trader from duties which are calculated at from £50,000 to £60,000 a year. The Committee will see, from what I have stated, why currants have been specially selected for fiscal favour this year. I should be extremely glad if the countries exporting raisins, such as Spain and Turkey, should see their way to meet us in a similar manner on a future occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer might again be able to achieve the double object of cheapening raisins to the home

  727
  consumer and securing lower duties on British exports to those countries. One piece of warning, however, I must give. I have been told that there is every probability that with the greater cheapness of currants, they will be used for the manufacture of wine in this country. I do not mean the innocent currant wine that used to be made in simple English homes, but wine manufactured out of dried currants and worked up into claret, or what is sold as claret. In France, dried currants are, I believe, largely used for the manufacture of wine. There is, of course, no harm in wine being made out of currants, but if that be done the Excise might have something to say on the subject. It would not do to have such wine manufactured at home escaping from Excise Duty, while imported wine had to pay duty. But I may go further, and warn the manufacturers of British wines that they are, in some cases, sailing dangerously near the wind, and that some of these wines are brought very near the standard of alcoholic strength which is taxable. Indeed, I am compelled to add to the Budget Resolutions one for imposing a duty on imported wine rendered sparkling in this country. I now come to another article, which is also one of universal consumption—I mean the duty on beer. I admit that last year, by changing the standard of gravity, I practically increased the duty to the extent of 3d. a barrel. I also admit that I stated, in reply to urgent pressure from the brewers, that the tax had been increased for a special purpose, and that the tax having been increased for a special purpose a fair case would be made out for consideration if a surplus should arise which should permit an all-round reduction of duties. Beer would then have a claim side by side with other consumable articles. Has the case arisen? Who has paid the tax? Some brewers have declared that this additional impost has been a kind of Income Tax upon them. But is this so? Have they paid it, or have they recouped themselves by a slight deterioration of the article they have sold? I will not attempt to decide this point. I cannot admit that when a tax is put on a great article of consumption it must be regarded as a tax on the producer. However, looking to the whole circumstances of the case, I am prepared to part with the additional
  728
  3d. per barrel as an item of Imperial Revenue. As Chancellor of the Exchequer I will forego this additional 3d., though it makes a gap in my surplus of £386,000. At the same time, I must ask my hon. Friends who are interested in the brewing trade not to indulge in any premature congratulations. They must share in the fortunes and responsibilities of the liquor trade generally, and if special appeal should have to be made to that trade and to that interest they must share in the burden. I have now disposed of £1,500,000 as remission on tea, £386,000 as the loss on beer, and £210,000 as the loss on currants. Adding these together they make a hole of £2,096,000 in my surplus, and all that remains to me is £773,000 for remission and for the necessary balance to be carried over at the end of my account. The direction in which I now look to give relief is a class upon which I have always looked as being heavily taxed as compared with the rest of the community—I mean the class just above the working class, the class, if it is not offensive to say so, that begins to wear the black coat, who have a very hard battle to fight, and who have demands made upon them in many respects severer than those falling upon the ordinary working men. I refer to men with incomes ranging from £150 to £400 a year, men of the poorer trading class,; small tradesmen, and clerks, men who generally live in houses of the value of between £20 and £60 a year. Upon these, who have to pay in addition rates and taxes, the House Duty falls with special severity. If they have shops they pay 6d. on their shops and they pay 9d. on their houses. Houses below £20 are exempt. Following, to a certain extent, the principles adopted as regards small incomes, I propose to reduce the duty on houses between £20 and £10 from 6d. and 9d. to 2d. and 3d., and on houses between £40 and £60 to 4d. and 6d. The Committee will perhaps scarcely realise the number of persons whom this will affect. The Committee scarcely realises, I think, the extent to which both the Income Tax and the Inhabited House Duty are paid by men of comparatively humble means. I thought at one time it might be reasonable to allow every Income Tax payer to deduct £400

  729
  from his income before paying Income Tax, but I was staggered to find that this would involve a loss of £4,700,000 out of a total receipt of £13,000,000. To allow every Income Tax paver to deduct £200 would involve a loss of £2,500,000. This shows to what an enormous extent the Revenue is contributed to by people of small incomes. The relief which I propose in regard to Inhabited House Duty will, it is calculated, affect some 800,000 persons of humble means and will cause a loss of upwards of £500,000, or a full quarter of the whole of the tax. But it is a relief which I am glad to propose, and which I believe the House will be glad to sanction. I have two other minor proposals in regard to this tax. I have endeavoured to see whether lodging-house keepers could be relieved from the hardship of which they complain of having to pay on their houses as if they were residences, when they are really places of business. I propose that, in future, lodging houses shall pay on the lower rate as if they were shops or places of business. We propose, also, to meet a wish which has been widely expressed, and with which I have every sympathy. We propose to extend the definition of structural separation, so that if a house of the value of about £20, let in tenements to the working classes, shall be certified by the proper Local Authorities to have been constructed so as to be fit for the separate habitation of the families of the working classes, it shall be treated as houses below the value of £20, which are now exempt on the ground of structural separation. I have endeavoured to relieve the pressure of the House Tax at those points where it seems most to weigh with heaviness upon that portion of the population who have the greatest difficulty in meeting the burden of taxation. Now, it will be seen that if we deduct the £540,000 which those changes and remissions in the House Duty are estimated to cost from the sum at my disposal, £773,000, I am left with a balance of £233,000—as small a margin as I think circumstances will justify me in retaining. I ought now to have come to my peroration, and to have all but concluded the long statement which I have been making to the House. Under ordinary circumstances, indeed, I should now have completed my task,
  730
  but the circumstances are not ordinary, for two years ago we were called upon to deal not only with Imperial, but with local finance, and to local finance I must apply myself for a still further short space of time. In 1888 I endeavoured to settle the question as between the ratepayers and the rest of the community, and I made large transfers from Imperial Funds to Local Exchequers. Somehow or other, the large amount of those transactions has not been sufficiently realised. I have been charged, and the Government have been charged, with not having fulfilled our pledges to the ratepayers, the County Councils, and the Local Authorities. It is said that the Local Authorities have not received that degree of relief which they expected. Well, if they have not gained, the Imperial Exchequer has, at all events, had the loss. I have practically handed over £2,750,000 to the Local Authorities. The question is, how would the Local Authorities have been faring now if no change had been made connected with local finance, and how are they actually faring? I will take the three kingdoms separately. England has received a gain of £2,236,000; Scotland, £282,000; and Ireland, £256,000. Accordingly, we are giving to the Local Authorities of the United Kingdom, this year, £2,774,000 more than they received before Local Government was taken in hand. But let me put in this caveat. If the Probate Duty should not continue to yield the amount expected, the Local Authorities must take their chance with the Imperial Exchequer as to the amount which the duty may yield. We assigned certain sources of Revenue to them, but we did not pledge ourselves to the amount. They will note, however, that this tax on personalty is generally progressive. But it is said that we are indebted to the Local Authorities for £800,000. A claim has been put forward by Local Authorities belonging to all political parties that we should make good this £800,000. I noticed the other day that, in the other House of Parliament, Lord Ripon, Chairman of the Yorkshire County Council, spoke with as much warmth about the gap made in the finances of the County Councils by the loss of the Wheel and the Horse Taxes, as my hon. Friends behind me have often spoken in

  731
  this House, as if I were supposed to be pledged to make up the sum in question; but I have always denied, and I do deny, that pledge. The Government was not pledged to any specific amount, if the House did not accept the means by which we proposed to raise it. Suppose I were to say to the Agricultural Committee of this House, or to the Central Chamber of Agriculture, "I will renew my offer; I will pay my debt in the same coin in which I contracted it—I will re-introduce the Wheel and Horse Tax, and ask you to pass it." Would that be a satisfactory solution? And yet no one can deny that I should have redeemed the pledge which I am supposed to have given. Hon. Members would not be grateful to me if I renewed those proposals. But, though I deny the pledge, I should much like to find the means for removing all complaint at the hands of the County Councils. I should wish to see them start on their difficult task thoroughly satisfied as to their financial position. More than that, connected with the question of rates and local finance is a matter of supreme importance — the question of the superannuation of the police, both in town and country. Hon. Members are aware of the most unsatisfactory footing on which this matter stands. In London the Police Superannuation Fund already stands at a figure which absorbs £150,000 out of the total raised for police purposes, and the police are not content, but are urging that their superannuation should be put upon a more satisfactory footing, on principles which have been embodied in Bills submitted to Parliament on several occasions. In the country the question stands in an equally, if not still more, unsatisfactory position. Some Superannuation Funds are insolvent, others are constructed on such arbitrary principles that no satisfaction whatever is given to the police. Bill after Bill has been introduced, but has been withdrawn, because the ratepayers shrank from facing the necessary cost, and there was no other source of Revenue to be found than the overburdened rates. It would be a great satisfaction if we could find means for dealing with this superannuation of the police. I wish I could find a further sum to relieve the County Councils from the drawbacks to which they declare the failure of the
  732
  Horse Tax and Wheel Tax has exposed them. But more than this, I wish I could find a sum to enable the Local Authorities to buy up some of that enormous multitude of licences which has so largely contributed to the drink bill of the nation. I wish I had a million and a quarter to dispose of for this purpose, aye, a million for England and a quarter of a million for Scotland and Ireland. Yet in what direction may I turn? I have stated that, as between personalty and the ratepayers, the transfer of the Probate Duty closed the account, as far as my own action would go. The Horse and the Wheel Taxes would be difficult to carry, nor would their aggregate amount cover the needs which I should like to meet. I am sure that the Committee are with me in my objects. Will they support the Government in its effort to find the means? The objects are great; they are overwhelmingly important; but to accomplish them I must raise £1,250,000. To find that sum I turn to alcohol. I propose a surtax on all spirits, British and foreign, of 6d. a gallon, to be specially paid over to local taxation account, to be used generally for the purposes I have indicated, and to be distributed as I shall presently describe. A tax of 6d. a gallon on spirits will yield £918,000 on the number of gallons which I have calculated in my Imperial Budget. But, Sir, we must be fair. It would not, I think—and I believe the House will concur with me—be fair to put 6d. on spirits without taking toll of beer. I told my hon. Friends connected with the brewing interest that we might have to meet again before I closed my speech. If alcohol is to be taxed for local purposes, in some of which the brewers are as much interested as the distillers, beer can scarcely escape; and so I fear I must ask them to contribute the 3d. per barrel of which they have been relieved in the Imperial Budget, as their share towards that Local Taxation Fund which I have been so peremptorily and universally called upon to reinforce. I will not press the argument that there is nothing inappropriate in the consumer of spirits contributing in some slight measure to the maintenance of the police and of those local funds out of which the cost of pauperism has to be met. If the gigantic proportions of the drink bill of the nation

  733
  are but half as responsible for police work and pauperism as is sometimes alleged, it is certainly not out of place that the consumer of spirits should contribute, in some slight measure, to the cost of those local purposes. But if the brewers contend that it is out of their pocket, and not out of that of the consumers, that this 3d. a barrel is paid, I respectfully point out to them that in our proposals we include the assignment of a sum equal indeed to their contribution for the purpose of diminishing the number of existing licences, a process in which, I believe, they will find much compensation and consolation. I do trust that the Committee, if they agree to the objects, will support us in the means which we require to carry them into effect. I admit the struggle may be severe. We may have to deal with great interests, but if they are not shortsighted they will co-operate with us in the task we have undertaken. If we can settle this great licensing question—we cannot do so in one year, but if we can make progress towards solving that question—we shall have done something with which, I believe, all parties in the House will be satisfied. Let me place before the Committee the special distribution of the sum to which I have referred. The Beer Duty, on its present basis, is expected to yield £9,650,000. The 3d. per barrel assignable to local purposes will produce £386,000. After making an allowance for some watering, foreign spirits, if subjected to a duty of 10s. 10d. instead of 10s. 4d. per gallon, are expected to yield£4,822,160, and 6d. out of the 10s. 10d. will produce £223,000. I have made an allowance in my Imperial Budget for the reduction likely to follow on the increase of 6d. per gallon. The Customs and the Excise expect some decrease in consumption, not perhaps in the total amount drunk, as measured by measure, but because further watering may take place in consequence of the increased duty. If that should occur, possibly a large number of persons will not be so very much disappointed or dissatisfied. Home spirits, if subjected to a duty of 10s. 6d. instead of 10s. per gallon, are expected to yield £14,595,000, and 6d. out of the duty of 10s. 6d. will produce £695,000; and if the Committee add together the
  734
  additional duty on foreign and home spirits the total amount will be found to be £1,304,000. Therefore, the total further amount assigned to local taxation will be £1,304,000, and will be divisible according to the proportion fixed for Probate Duty, and distributed among the Three Kingdoms as follows:—England, 80 per cent., £1,043,200; Scotland, 11 per cent., £143,440; Ireland, 9 per cent., £117,360. I propose to allocate the English portion as follows:—To the Metropolitan Police Superannuation Fund, £150,000; to the County Police Fund, £150,000; to Local Authorities, for the purchase of licences, £350,000; and the remainder—£393,000, or whatever it may be—for reinforcing the funds of the County Councils; making a total of £1,043,000. If I now add together what I have already given to Local Authorities—namely, £2,774,000 and the further amount I propose to give—namely, £1,304,000, less the amount to be appropriated for licensing purposes, £438,000—the amount will be £866,000, or a total altogether of £3,640,000 as the relief to local taxation. I may here state that it would certainly be useless to give money for the purchase of licences if at the same time we did not stop the issue of new licences. We propose, therefore, and we shall hope to carry, if the House takes a real interest in this question, as I believe it does, notwithstanding the tasks which are placed upon us and the duties we have to perform, at least this suspensory measure that, until the whole question can be dealt with, there shall be no further issue of licences at all, unless in exceptional circumstances, such as the development of new populations or new wants which may appear here and there. Again, I say if the licensed victuallers take a broad view of their position they will see that this is a matter in which the temperance party and they have one and the same interest. Licensed vituallers do not object to a diminution in the number of new licensed houses, and, certainly, the temperance party desire it ardently. Eighteen years ago, on the introduction of Lord Aberdare's Bill, the licensed victuallers themselves suggested that they should be taxed to contribute to a compensation fund. We hope that we shall combine both parties and be able to reduce, or at all

  735
  events to restrict, the issue of licences. As I have had the opportunity, through the courtesy of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), of learning what he has been doing in a very assiduous study of the licensing question, I shall be guilty of no breach of confidence when I say that he would also propose in his Bill that there shall be a cessation of the issue of new licences. I am glad that we may find common ground in that respect on which we may work. The House will see that we have taken a comprehensive view of the question of Local Finance, dealing with it broadly and in all its aspects. We may be embarking on great difficulties. But the House will, I hope, relieve me from the necessity of explaining those proposals in further detail. [The First Lord of the Treasury here made a, communication to the right hon. Gentleman.] The transfer of old licences to new licences would continue. That is a further step which we consider to be necessary. As to the superannuation of the police, I omitted in my statement to say that, of course, while we find the new system of superannuation, and while a special portion of the tax is raised for dealing with this Superannuation Fund, we shall make it conditional on the Local Authorities receiving those funds that they on their part shall deal satisfactorily with them. We are not going to hand over this money unconditionally to the Local Authorities; advantage must be taken of this occasion to put the superannuation of the police on a sound and satisfactory basis. With regard to distribution in Scotland and Ireland those funds cannot be distributed precisely on the same footing, the circumstances being so different, and a future occasion will be taken to explain how the money falling respectively to those portions of the country will be assigned. Now, at last, I have achieved my double task. I have dealt with the Imperial Budget, and I have had to deal with a supplementary Budget, and possibly in the opinion of some hon. Members they may find the supplementary Budget almost as interesting as the Imperial. We have opened up and are touching a large number of questions, and we have endeavoured to solve some of them without seeking any
  736
  violent measures. We believe it will be seen that if we are imposing a new burden on the consumers of drink we at the same time believe that great consequences may flow from the steps we have taken. I feel that I may have created in the breasts of many some disappointment. The fabric of our finance is so vast and so gigantic that even a surplus of these respectable dimensions seem scarcely enough with which to work wonders, though I hope much good may flow from its judicious and equitable employment. I venture to hope that if the County Councils, reinforced by the funds which are placed at their disposal, are able to enter with fresh energy upon their task; if the police is improved, if licences are diminished; if, on the other hand, looking to the reductions of taxation, consumers of tea find some reduction in the price of the article they buy; if humble householders find that the tax paper which they receive at Christmas, and which so often mars their festivities, shows even by a small sum a diminution in the House Tax; if other classes feel the benefit of the remissions, which, though not heroic, we have made, I hope there may be some satisfaction, and that some portions of the community may look back with gratitude on the Budget of this year. Above all, I breathe an earnest hope for the continuance of that prosperity which we enjoy, a hope that a further freedom from foreign complications may continue, that a strengthened harmony between employers and employed may, during the year upon which we are now entering, be developed and fostered, and that all may tend to increase those sources of revenue of which I am for the time the humble steward, and to which we must look for the means of satisfying both the demands of national defence and the constantly increasing demands of progressive civilisation, as well as for that continuous lightening, if it may be, of the burden which rest on the shoulders of the people.

  EXCISE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in addition to the Duty of Excise payable under the Act of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter one hundred and twenty-nine, for and upon every Glallon computed at proof of Spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall be charged and paid the Duly of Six Pence, and so in proportion for any less quantity."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I regret very much, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will regret, the inevitable absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, whose duty and pleasure it would have been to have congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not on the ability which he has shown—because that is a superfluous task in a matter of which he is a past-master—but on the favourable circumstances in which he finds himself, and upon the relief of various kinds which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to afford to the community. I am glad to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the beginning of his speech, did not put forward a surplus as being a matter to boast of on the part of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I ventured last year to say—and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman in an observation he made was alluding to it—that a surplus is not always a feather in the cap of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bound to say that the explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given to-night shows that that criticism is not applicable on the present occasion. In some preceding years there has been an excess in the estimate of Revenue or an excess in the estimate of Expenditure. I do not agree with the view of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, I read this morning, anticipated the Budget, and declared that the increased Revenue is due to a Conservative Administration. The mode in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accounted for the increased Revenue does not seem to have any direct connection with a Conservative Administration, except that the great rush for drink which has taken place this year took place previously in the year 1875, under a Conservative Administration. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the growth of the Revenue has been principally in respect of the article rum, and I suppose the First Lord of the Admiralty may, by his exertions, have contributed to that increase, and that that is the reason he takes credit to the Conservative Administration for the large surplus. I am not going — it would be extremely unwise in me — to enter to-night into the very important matters laid before the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has
  738
  shown one very satisfactory thing—that the Revenue of this country is recovering the elasticity it once possessed. The figures he has given with regard to the Customs and Excise almost exactly reproduce the figures of 1875, which we were in the habit of looking to as the high-watermark of the Revenue of the country. We find that the Customs and Excise in 1876 yielded £47,646,000, and that this year they have yielded £47,580,000, nearly the same figure. Ever since 1875 we have been deploring the falling off both of Customs and Excise. We find now that the Stamp Revenue, which, in 1876, was £10,200,000, has risen to £15,275,000—an increase of £5,000,000. In the House Duty there has been an increase from £1,400,000 to £2,000,000; and in the Post Office Revenue there has been an increase of £1,000,000. The figures show that the general financial condition of the country is not only sound, but elastic. I refer to this only to show that we should not listen to any of the quack remedies which have been suggested in times of financial depression and commercial distress. We hear a great deal about Fair Trade, and are told the country is being ruined, and that the cause of the financial depression is the commercial system of the country. We have now proposed to us another remedy, and that is a dealing with the currency. These are ideas which enter into men's minds when they find there is a temporary depression of trade or of commerce, but in spite of Free Trade and of monometallism, we see that all that distress has disappeared, that trade is reviving, and that finance is returning to its former figure. Therefore, we should wisely come to the conclusion that it is not Free Trade that is the cause of the depression, and that it is not bimetallism that is required in order to restore the finances of the country. Then we were told that the foreigner would drive us from the markets of the world. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, the hon. Member for Sheffield holds that faith, I know. An interesting Report has been issued as to the trade of Germany for the first half of 1889, which is published in the Frankfurter Zeitung. That Report states that the imports into Germany have much declined in consequence of the protective tariff. It goes on to say that it is to Free Trade and her faithful ad-

  739
  herence to it that Great Britain owes her quick recovery of prosperity, for it enables her to obtain her raw material without additional cost. The result is that, while the amount of German exports has fallen, the amount of English exports is increasing. I believe that the Germans are now beginning to recognise that that condition of things is due to the protective policy of Germany and the Free Trade policy of this country. In his former Budget speeches the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken rather a desponding view of the recovery of the commercial prosperity of the country. Last year, and in preceding years, he pointed out that the Revenue from articles of consumption had fallen off. I am glad that the circumstances of the time have given the right hon. Gentleman confidence, and have cheered him up a little, and that the recovered condition of the country has induced him to propose the reduction of the duties upon tea and currants. One matter to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded was the increased yield of the Income Tax, and a, very satisfactory increase that is. The increase in the receipts from the Death Duties is also satisfactory. One shows the great growth of the income of the country, and the other is evidence of the great increase in the accumulated wealth of the country, and I think we may safely draw the conclusion that both the commercial system of the country and its monetary system are sound when such results are produced. Talking of the increase of the Income Tax and its relation to the question of the National Debt, I took out some figures which I think are interesting. The figures show that in 1815 it would have required an Income Tax of 4s. 4d. in the £1 to meet the interest on the National Debt; while in 1842 it would have taken an Income Tax of 3s. in the £1 to do it. Now the interest on the National Debt would be met by an Income Tax of 9d. in the £1; and in the beginning of the next century it would probably be met by a tax of 6d. in the £1. That shows the enormous growth in the resources of the country, and we may rely upon its continuance if we do not tamper with the commercial principles upon which the wealth and prosperity of the country are founded. The proposals
  740
  now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will require careful examination. Personally, I have always taken the greatest interest in the reduction of the duty on inhabited houses, and I believe that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in that matter will be a great boon to a large class of the community. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not carried his proposal even somewhat further. If the right hon. Gentleman had remitted the duty upon all houses under £100 a year it would have amounted to a remission of £1,200,000. Out of a total of £2,000,000, the sum of £1,200,000 is paid by persons who live in houses under £100 a year. We shall, no doubt, go into the matter at greater length in the Bill to be brought in; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the figures, with the view of going further than he has done with reference to the limit for Inhabited House Duty. There is another thing to be considered, and that is the great inequality of the House Duty with reference to houses at higher rentals, and the very unfair assessments made on them. Everyone will rejoice that the duty on tea is to be reduced, but no one supposes, I imagine, that the reduction of the duty on tea will stop at 2d. in the pound. This can only be looked upon as a commencement of dealing with the Tea Duty. And the same may be said of the duty upon dried fruit. With reference to the duty on beer and spirits, which it is proposed to increase, I have no sympathy with the beer and spirit interest which would induce me to oppose the increased duty, but I remember that, in the year 1885, a Government was attacked and turned out when they proposed a duty upon beer and spirits not accompanied by a duty upon wine. But I did not hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any additional duty on wine is to accompany the additional duty on beer and spirits. There are some other matters less agreeable than those which are present by their reduction—namely, those which are conspicuous by their absence. The Opposition have always maintained that one of the first duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to remedy the inequality between the taxation on real and personal property. That redress the Chan-

  741
  cellor of the Exchequer might, and I think should, have found out of the resources of his Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, I think, last year, that this is a matter which requires time and consideration. So it does, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had time and consideration, and from a Minister of his great and known ability and experience the country had a right to expect there would be a serious attempt to redress the present injustice in our financial system. There is another question which appears to me of capital importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a surplus of about £3,000,000, but he is not sanguine of any great increase in the Revenue, and, therefore, cannot calculate in future years upon surpluses of the same character. What is he going to do with the question of assisted education, to which the Government have pledged themselves? The Prime Minister said the question of assisted education would depend upon the surplus the Chancellor of the Exchequer had this year. Not a word has been heard on that subject to-night. The fund out of which education can be assisted has been given away. We had a right to expect that such a sum would have been reserved out of the surplus as would have enabled the Government to redeem the pledges they have given with respect to education. I hope that before we part with the surplus we shall hear something from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject. I hope it was by an oversight the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no statement on the subject. I will not detain the Committee any longer than to ask one or two questions. First of all, with reference to the coinage. The plan of paying for the deterioration of the gold out of the profit on the silver is one which, by anticipation, I have approved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken on this subject on former occasions, and has always said that he regards it as connected with the question of the £1 note. I think it important that the Committee should have that subject fully discussed. I think the two questions are very closely connected, and we ought to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. I know the great influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer possesses with the moneyed
  742
  classes in the City, and I believe that a proposal on the subject of £1 notes coming from him would be very useful. With reference to the Floating Debt, the right hon. Gentleman has said truly that there has been a large reduction of the Funded Debt, which has been accompanied by a very sensible increase in the Floating Debt of somewhere about £18,000,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The increase in the Floating Debt in the hands of the public has been £9,000,000.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I only desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he means to make any special proposal or provision with reference to the Floating Debt. In the variations of the Money Market the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be caught with the Floating Debt, and, indeed, I believe that for a few months in this year he was caught, and was paying more than 4 per cent. on the Floating Debt. There is only one other observation I desire to make, and that is with reference to the form of the Revenue Returns. They are greatly amended, but in some of the Returns of the Revenue which are published, especially the Quarterly Returns, the gross produce of the taxes is not given, but only the net produce which goes to the Government. That may be very well as a matter of account. It treats the taxes which go to the Local Authorities as if they had not been received at all. But the result is that in the case of the Excise it shows an apparent decrease, whereas, in point of fact, there has been a large increase. That misleads the public very much. I think the form which shows the gross produce and the amount transferred is the best. And now I have only to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country on the revival of prosperity which is shown in the condition of the Revenue, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be quite sure that there will be every disposition to deal in a spirit of candid criticism with the proposals he has made for dealing with the Revenue. After a period of depression we seem again to be rising on the crest of the wave. It is very difficult to explain what are the causes which have led, throughout all the countries of Europe, to a depression of trade. I do not think the causes have yet been ascer

  743
  tained. In trade, as in harvests, there seems to be cycles—seven fat years and seven lean years—and none of those variations ought to disturb the determination of the people of this country to adhere to the general financial and economic policy of the country which has brought such benefits to it, and has placed its finance upon so sound and satisfactory a basis.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I will not now follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) in his references to the question of Fair Trade, some better opportunity will soon occur. Before making one or two observations upon the Budget laid before the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should like respectfully to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Government upon the two great concessions which they have made. The first is the effect, the generous effect, they have given to the recent Resolution proposed to the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Sir E. Hamley), and which I had the honour of seconding. The effect given to that Resolution will, I am sure, be heartily welcomed, not only by the public at large, but by every officer and man in the Volunteer Force. I can only express the hope that the greater control which the Government propose to take over the Volunteer Force by reason of this increased liberality will not take the form of harrassing and trivial regulations. I also thank the Government for what they propose to do as regards the superannuation of the Police Force. The Police Force have waited long and patiently for a great many years, and I am sure it is gratifying to those who admire their services that those services are at length appreciated by the House of Commons. I am sorry to learn from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in spite of the earnest protests of all the leading firms in the silver trade, he has decided to take off the duty which was at once a source of Revenue and a great preventative, I am assured on all hands, of fraud upon the purchaser. I very much doubt if anyone will thank him except one well-known dealer, who has agitated this question for a great many years, and, possibly some Indian exporters of silver.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I made one great omission in my speech, which I regret. I ought to have spoken upon the subject of hall marking, which is mixed up with the Silver Duty. When I come to reply I will deal with the matter, but I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend and the Committee that we do not propose to abolish the compulsory system of hall-marking.
  *MR. HOWARDVINCENT: If the right hon. Gentleman assures the Committee that the matter of compulsory hall-marking, to which the trade attaches enormous importance, and upon the maintenance of which it is unanimous, will not be dealt with, I will not proceed further into that question. But, as regards the duty, I should like to say a few words. I do not hesitate to once more call the attention of the House to the fact that every prominent manufacturer in the country is, so far as I have been able to learn, against the abolition of the duty. The silver trade is a flourishing industry. The statistics regarding it prove this, and a recent Parliamentary Return shows that there is a vast increase in the quantity of silver upon which duty was paid in 1886–8, as compared with the year 1879–80. In London the increase was from 442,000 ounces to 535,000 ounces. In Birmingham the increase was from 75,000 ounces to 122,000 ounces. In, Sheffield the increase was from 73,598 ounces to 162,852 ounces, or more than double. There has also been an increase in the quantity of silver exported, and upon which drawback has been allowed in London, from 73,000 ounces in 1879–80, to 101,000 ounces in 1886–87. In value, the increase has been over 75 per cent. The only thing which has held the trade back in recent years has been the perpetual agitation in favour of an upheaval of the system which has worked well, an agitation which has disorganised trade to a very large extent. Let me mention what the duties are. First of all, there is the duty upon gold plate, which is not compulsory, of 17s. 6d. per ounce, and that, I understand from my right hon. Friend, is not to be touched. Secondly, there is a duty of 1s. 6d. an ounce upon silver plate, which is compulsory. Thirdly, there is a countervailing duty upon gold and silver plate imported into the United Kingdom,

  745
  equal to the Excise Duty, and lastly, there are the licences to sell gold and silver plate. My right hon. Friend has not stated whether he proposes to do away with these licences. I trust he intends to do so; the trade confidently expect he will do so if the duty upon silver plate is abolished. These sources of Revenue have produced to the Ex chequer, on an average, as I gather, upwards of £130,000 a year, or, in round figures, £72,000 Excise Duty, £10,000 Import Duty, and £48,000 from licences. Will anybody thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking away this considerable source of national income? Mr. Edward Watherston may do so, but there are, indeed, few others. In 1883 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought he would abolish these duties, but so strong was the opposition of the trade that, on the 17th of April, 1883, my right hon. Friend and Colleague, the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), wrote to us—
  "The Government definitely abandon the proposal to repeal the duties upon silver plate."
  Upon this subject 19 of the largest firms in the country addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 18th of December, 1888, a Memorial, in which they said:
  "The agitation for the remission of these duties does not proceed from the public or the trade at large, but from a very unimportant minority, who have next to no interest at stake, and we, the representatives of firms who pay more than four-fifths of the whole duty, desire to protest against the representations constantly made by these agitators as being far from true."
  Similarly, the Sheffield traders last year memorialised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that—
  "The majority decline to believe that the repeal of the duties on silver will stimulate the purchase of silver plate; that the tax falls almost entirely upon a class well able to bear it, and from which no urgent demand for its repeal has arisen."
  There is also the question of drawback. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that only two years' drawback should be paid to the trade, estimated at about, I think he said, £120,000 or £130,000. I feel convinced
  746
  of this, that two years' drawback will by no means satisfy the trade. There are considerable stocks on hand upon which it is only fair that, if the duty is abolished, drawback should be paid in full. To give only two years' drawback would be impolitic and unfair to the trade. I need not press further upon the arguments. I have already detailed them, and they have appeared in the Press, and been endorsed by 54 of the leading manufacturers of silver plate in Sheffield and London, and by the principal firm in Birmingham. These firms pay seven eighths of the duty which is now to be remitted, and they beg the House to leave the Silver Duty and the compulsory hall-marking unaltered. I am glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not propose to touch the compulsory hall-marking, to which the silver trade throughout the country attach the very utmost importance; but I fear that now the duty is abolished, the apprehensions of some, that it will be exceedingly difficult to retain compulsory hall-marking, will be realised. In conclusion, I will only say that, despite the brilliant and popular Budget laid before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot help saying that I hope the time will come when he, or succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer, will lay before the British House of Commons Budgets which will deal, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own phrase, with British interests alone, and seek alone to encourage British manufacturer and production.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am pleased the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal, in a comprehensive manner, with the question of light gold, but I must join the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to give the public the boon of £1 notes. In past times we exported a great many old Dragon sovereigns to Ceylon, where they were used for ornaments, and in Europe and America large quantities of our gold have been melted down. At the time of the Paris Exhibition English heavy gold was melted down, and only the light gold coins returned. The cause of all the trouble is, as I have

  747
  already explained in the House, that we coin our gold absolutely free of charge, whereas other countries make a moderate charge for minting. If we charged a small amount, even ¼ per cent. it would preserve our sovereigns, and we should not again be called upon to spend the £600,000 as proposed. I do not advise that we should alter the value of the coin, but I should like to have increased weight, using gold 9–10ths fine, which would make the coin more durable. I would also suggest that the Bank of England should be authorised to receive fairly worn gold coins, and melt them down at the cost of the State. I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to abolish the duty on silver plate. A portion of the present duty is absolutely protective, because 1s. 6d. per oz. is charged on all foreign imported silver plate, while only 1s. 3d. per. oz. is charged on plate of British manufacture. I am glad, too, to find that the compulsory hall-marking is to be retained, because the charge is exceedingly small, and it prevents unscrupulous dealers from deceiving the public, and so injuring the whole trade. That is a kind of dealing which was practised when hall-marking of gold chains was not made compulsory, and it was said, I remember, that a copper coal scuttle and half a sovereign would make a goldsmith's stock of gold chains. But the tendency of modern legislation is in favour of protecting the public from adulteration, either in food or in the material of the goods they buy. On the other hand, I do not see why there should not be some modification in the hallmarking of silver plate. It is done in the marking of gold. You can hall-mark gold at 22, 18, 15, 12, and even 9 carats; why should not manufacturers be allowed to hall-mark different qualities of silver? Why not have in addition to our present standard of hall-marking at 925 the Indian standard of 916, the French standard of 900, the German of 800, for it is found that the lower qualities are more durable in wear? An arrangement of this kind would remove a great hardship. It sometimes happens that a work of art in silver of high artistic merit is sent to be hall-marked, and if it does not happen to come up to the standard of 925 this beautiful piece of workmanship is liable to be broken up;
  748
  whereas if a modification were allowed, it could be marked at a lower standard. Passing from the silver plate question, I should like to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to another subject. He has made a great reduction—a grand reduction—in the Debt of the country by his conversion scheme; but he might make another considerable saving by converting, or better still by re-paying, the Turkish Four per Cent. Guaranteed Loan. There is now a favourable opportunity, for the Turkish Government have agreed to convert their outstanding Debt, and it might be a favourable opportunity to get France to assent to the conversion or re-payment of these Bonds. It would be a saving of over £20,000 a year in respect to£2,000,000 of these Bonds that have been drawn fur payment, yet by some extraordinary circumstances have not been paid off. If no other means are adopted this country can borrow for the purpose at 2¾ per cent., and France at 3½ and there is no reason why we should keep this outstanding Debt at 4 per cent. At any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could arrange that the Treasury should hold these Bonds. A short time since the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to state the amount received from transfer stamps on Stocks and Shares to bearer, not wishing to anticipate his Budget Statement. He has not now indicated the amount, but in his long speech it is excusable if he omitted some minor details. But perhaps he will tell us now what the amount is, and will consider whether the time has now arrived to change this very obnoxious tax. Irksome and obnoxious it undoubtedly is to everybody concerned. I know for a fact that people come to a broker's office on settling day with a mass of small bonds, and it is practically impossible for them to affix the adhesive stamp in time for settlement. Indeed, I have been told the Chancellor of the Exchequer's life would scarcely be safe if he ventured within the precincts of the Stock Exchange, so great is the irritation caused by this transfer stamp. There is no objection to the payment of the money if only some other means could be found for exacting it; but the manner in which the tax is paid by affixing adhesive stamps, which will in time cover the bonds, is the cause of general complaint.
  MAJOR RASCH: An agricultural Representative is not expected to be a financial expert, and I am the last man to lay claim to such a character; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has devoted a considerable portion of his speech to the subject of local taxation, and has granted an amount of £400,000 to reinforce the resources of County Councils, for which we are by no means ungrateful; and I hope I shall not be considered presumptuous if I suggest a method by which, without increasing taxation, he might increase his sources of revenue and give still further aid to the agricultural interest. As the right, hon. Gentleman and every Member of the Committee knows, the law is continually evaded in connection with the transfer of shares. The amount of the share is constantly put at 10s., whereas the money absolutely passing amounts, perhaps, to £1. If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a Bill to provide that the nominal amount of the money paid for the transfer of Stocks and Shares shall be printed on the stamp, and that if this is not done the transfer shall be null and void, the right hon. Gentleman might get a considerable increase of revenue. Then, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not particularly tender-hearted when he attacks a big interest. He has very properly taxed champagne, and put a ¼ per cent. on gin distilling, but I should like to ask him on what possible consideration is it that a beverage which has 15 per cent. more alcoholic strength in it than good port, sherry, or hock, should absolutely escape all duty whatever—I allude to British wines. If the right hon. Gentleman will take these two matters into consideration I think he might raise sufficient revenue to give us an extra £500,000 a year. I hope he will not think me presumptuous in calling attention to these matters. I only do so as a Representative of a section of that hard-working, uncomplaining class—the agriculturalists.
  MR. RATHBONE: I just wish to ask one important question arising out of the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I am sure that he, with his commercial experience, will realise the fact that when he proposes to buy up a number of these licences and at the same
  750
  time to restrict the issue of further licences, that will have the effect of adding enormously to the value of existing licences, and I would ask him if he has taken any precaution that this enormously enhanced value shall not be brought in as a charge for compensation when this great question of licensing comes up for settlement.
  MR. BROADHDRST: I have only one question to put, and in doing this I must express my regret that out of his large surplus the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to deal with the appeal made by Trades Union to two or three Chancellors of the Exchequer that the Income Tax charged on the incomes of Trades Unions derived from investments in real property should be remitted as I believe it is in the case of Friendly Societies. It is a very small item in the National Revenue, but it would give very great satisfaction to those Unions who have so invested their savings, and it would very much encourage further investment in the same direction, a policy which I think everyone will commend. I do not know whether it is too late for the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question, and if it is not I hope he will do so. The amount of revenue derived from this source is but a few thousands a year, and not at all considerable as compared with the great pleasure it will give to those concerned. Then I have only one other word to address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred, in that portion of his speech in which he spoke of the prosperity of the country during the last few years, to the great caution with which we must regard the prospects of the trade and industries of the country in the next few years; and then, in that portion of his speech he seemed to declaim somewhat strongly against the institution of strikes, speaking with strong emphasis as to their discouragement. Well, of course, we all discourage strikes where we find it possible to do so; but I would beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember that in periods of great prosperity it is the only means labour possesses of enforcing its claim to a share in the general prosperity of the community. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman intended his remarks to be so interpreted as a severe censure of

  751
  strikes, but I do say that will be the interpretation placed upon his words by those who speak and write a great deal against labour combination. I am giving my own impression, but I think it is an impression that will be created outside that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unduly severe on the extreme action taken by many Labour Associations to enforce their claims to a greater share in commercial prosperity. One of the most notable strikes daring the past financial year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember had the support of all classes of society, rich and poor, at home and in our colonies. In every direction it seemed to meet approval from Bishops, philosophers, and political economists. It would almost seem, from his language, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to revive obsolete theories of political economy which events of recent years have done so much to destroy. I hope he will avail himself of the opportunity at a later stage of qualifying, if not his language, at least the impression his language may convey. This with the reference to the claim of Trade Unions for exception from tax on their real property is the only observation I have to offer now, though I do not say there are not other portions of the Budget open to criticism and adverse comment.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I think the Committee must have listened with great pleasure to the very clear Statement we have had, and there are many subjects in it that will have the greatest interest for the country. It is to be regretted that it was not made earlier in the year. Much in it will be keenly criticised both in the great centres of this country and in foreign capitals. I am glad my right hon. Friend proposes to deal with the coinage, and I thank him for his action; and, so far as I understand his scheme, it is a satisfactory method of dealing with the subject. And now I am going to give utterance to what I am afraid will be an unpopular sentiment. I certainly listened with great regret to one part of the Budget, and that was in relation to the duty on tea. I cannot but feel it is a very serious thing to take away a permanent source of revenue. The Tea Duty is not a heavy burden; it is a revenue that comes in very easily. Of course,
  752
  the expenses of collecting the duty will remain the same, whether the tax is 4d. or 6d., and I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman anticipates any increase in consumption. I must say that I think that to reduce a source of revenue that brought in a large amount with little trouble is an important step, and a step which I—though I know not many will agree with me—regard with regret. I should have liked that with this considerable surplus—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it is not large, but he admitted it is considerable—I should have been very glad if he had seen his way to remitting a penny from the Income Tax. The Income Tax presses very heavily on the middle classes. Of course, if a man has an income of £20,000 a year, he can without inconvenience pay a 6d., or even a 1s., Income Tax; but the present rate of the tax does press heavily upon a large and important class. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to what I have always thought would be a very great advantage to the country. He said he had considered the question of remitting the tax on incomes less than £400, but he found that the loss resulting to the Revenue would be too great. I recollect saying in 1873, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian went to the country with a promise of the abolition of the Income Tax, that I was not prepared for that, but that I did think that incomes up to £400 might be excepted. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not find his panacea accepted by the country, and he did not return to power; and when, after six years, he again came into office he had changed his view of the tax. I do not know what view he may hold now; but I think it is a principle of hon. Gentlemen opposite to put all that is possible on the Income Tax, and to cut down other sources of revenue. Of course, we all recognise how valuable this tax is in a time of national exigency, but in a time of prosperity like this the classes who pay the Income Tax are justified in expecting some relief, and I should have been glad had the Chancellor of the Exchequer seen his way to afford that relief. However, he has taken a different course, and I must say many of the remissions he proposes will be very welcome to the country. I am particu-

  753
  larly glad he has made the remission in the House Duty; it will be most acceptable to a large and deserving class. I congratulate him also on his proposal for reducing the postage to India and the Colonies. I was glad also to hoar his remarks in reference to the trade in alcoholic liquors, and his attitude in this respect must commend itself to a large class in the country. I do not think the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson), who may be taken as the apostle of the view that publicans are entitled to no compensation, was present during the speech; but in anticipation of the objections that may be raised by this section of Members I may say that I hold the view that publicans carrying on legitimate business under the sanction of the State deserve that their interests shall be considered in any changes that are made. It would be a gross injustice to deprive a man of his means of livelihood without offering any compensation. Although I think the Budget has those defects to which I have alluded in reference to the Tea Duty and the Income Tax, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the approval with which his able Statement will, I think, be generally received.
  MR.OCTAVIUS V.MORGAN: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will be surprised to hear a Member from this side sharing in his regret that there is to be no alteration in the Income Tax. I have no wish to see any reduction made in respect to larger incomes, but I am exceedingly sorry to find myself disappointed in the hope that the amount of deduction allowed would have been increased from £120 to £150, and the tax imposed on incomes of £500 instead of £400. I am sure a proposal of that kind would give great satisfaction. I speak with knowledge, for I have been an Income Tax Commissioner for 17 years. In Committee of Supply, the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House Tax on tenements, and I, following him, drew attention to the large number of houses now built with separate entrances for two or three families. I desire on my own behalf, and on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend, to tender grateful thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his concession made in this matter. No part of the
  754
  Budget will give more satisfaction to a large number of struggling families in London than this concession. In regard to the reduction of the duty on currants the right hon. Gentleman has told us of arrangements with the Greek Government, by which they undertake to make reductions on imports from this country. I am most anxious to see closer commercial relations with Greece, and have no doubt these arrangements will conduce to that result. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell us if the Greek Government will make any change or reduction in the Export Duty on currants.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the matter. We have an engagement from the Greek Government that they will not increase the Export Duty on currants, or in any way take advantage of our concession.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I was in hopes they would abolish the Export Duty on currants. However, they give us advantage in another way by making large reductions in their Import Duties on English manufactures. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on a very successful arrangement. I am exceedingly glad also that the question of police superannuation is to be settled. There has been for some years a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction among the Metropolitan Police on this ground, and this deserving body of men are fully entitled to what is proposed on their behalf.
  MR. PROVAND: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully entitled to congratulation upon the main features of his Budget. It has been urged against his previous Budgets that the consumers' interest had not been protected as it ought to be, but I think that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has saved himself from any charge of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he did take duty off tobacco for the general consumer; and it might be called a taking off of duty, but it might just as accurately be called the correction of a mistake made by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course on this side, and I hope by many on the other side, the reduction of 2d. on tea will be accepted as at least something on account.

  755
  But I know on this side it will not be considered sufficient. I think the right hon. Gentleman may make up his mind that he will hear more of it, and I think a Division will be taken. I am pleased to hear of the reduction in the duty on currants; but the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken reminds me that when I was in Athens some two months ago this matter came up in conversation with a man who, above all others in Athens, was able to give an assurance, and he assured me that if we took the duty off currants they would at once take off the Export Duty. It is but a small duty, a sixth or a seventh, of our Import Duty, but, however, my informant said nothing in respect to reductions of duties on English imports; and it may prove to be the case that the concessions obtained on these will be of more advantage to us than the abolition of the Export Duty on currants. With regard to the change in the House Duty, I may call attention to the fact that it will add to the number of existing anomalies in respect to this duty. The principle on which the duty is charged, that is on the rental value, is a fair one; but, unfortunately, that principle is only carried out in reference to small houses, it is not carried out in respect to largo country houses, mansions, and castles, which are rated far below their actual letting value. On one point Scotch Members are naturally much interested, the £144,000 to be granted to Scotland. Our share of the Probate Duty was applied to freeing, so far as we could, the first five of the educational standards. The amount was hardly sufficient; and I hope, in the allocation he makes, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that we still require something to free all the standards in every school in Scotland. On account of the sum formerly given being insufficient, we have what are very much disliked—graded schools, schools where fees are charged, but which also receive a share of the Probate Duty. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consult. Scotch Members as to the application of the £144,000, and I am sure he will find the general desire will be to free all the standards in every school, and also to apply part of the money to evening or continuation schools. The feeling upon this point among the Scotch Members will be practically unanimous.
  756
  When it was proposed last year to apply our share of the Probate Duty entirely to freeing education, there was not a single dissentient voice against the proposal, and we all feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do better than apply part of his surplus to freeing the standards in those schools which still charge fees, and in assisting evening and continuation schools. (8.31.)
  MR. HUGH WATT: I congratulate myself on having been present this evening to listen to one of the most able, exhaustive, and practical addresses ever made by any Chancellor of the Exchequer during the present century, and I may add that in my opinion, when the political history of this country comes to be written, the right hon. Gentleman will be entitled to a place, as one of the most successful as well as the most able financiers the country has ever known. I should like, without unnecessarily occupying the time of the House, to call attention to a subject of great interest, magnitude, and importance, in connection with the operations of a body of men who are practically an irresponsible body, who are called upon to deal with transactions representing many thousands of millions per annum. I allude to the Stock Exchange. On this subject I might remind the House of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission of 1878, a Commission which was composed, for the most part, of exceedingly able and practical men. Since the Commission conducted its investigations the Brokers' Relief Act of 1884 was passed—an Act which destroyed all public control over the operations of the Stock Exchange. The hon. and gallant Member for Essex and the hon. Member for Whitechapel have referred to stamps in transfers and Foreign Bonds. I am convinced that the only effective way to prevent the Revenue being defrauded is by carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and granting a Charter to the Stock Exchange.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that he is travelling somewhat beyond the question which is at present before the Committee.
  *MR. WATT: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intimation he has given, my excuse for seizing the present oppor-

  757
  tunity being that as the Government have appropriated private Members' nights another will not be afforded during the present Session. I will not pursue the subject further. There is, however, one matter with regard to which I should like to offer an observation. I refer to sparkling wines, in regard to which I maintain that no advantage is at present derived by the consumer. The tax on those wines is one which is a very slight advantage to the country at large, while it certainly has an injurious operation upon the trade, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the matter into his careful consideration. I am authorised to state that the trade would much prefer a 3s.or even 4s. rate to a differential tax as at present. With regard to another subject, I must confess that I should have liked to have seen a penny taken off the Income Tax; but as that seems to be an impossibility at the present moment, and in the present stage of the financial condition of the country, I trust that by-and-bye he will be able to see his way to the wiping out of that imposition in its entirety. I would only remind him and the House that that tax was originally imposed as a War Tax, and was never intended to be a permanent burden on the people of this country, nor do I think it should be allowed to become a permanent tax, because in the event of war or any other great and pressing emergency, it would be very difficult, should that burden be continued in its present form, to find the ways and means of meeting the demands thus created. In conclusion, I have only to repeat my congratulations on the able and satisfactory Financial Statement which has been presented by the right hon. Gentleman, and to express my opinion that it will meet with the general approval of the country.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: I desire, Sir, as one who has some claim to speak on behalf of our fellow-subjects in India to express to the right hon Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer my deep satisfaction at the announcement ho has made of the intended abolition of the duties on silver plate, an announcement which I am sure will be received with much gratification
  758
  throughout the length and breadth of that country. I am quite certain that the action of the Government with regard to this matter will be hailed by the people of India as a distinct mark of the sympathy felt in this country for its greatest Dependency. Like the quality of mercy, this remission will be twice blessed—it will be blessed to the country that gives it, and also to the country that receives it. On the one hand it will undoubtedly quicken the silver export trade of India, while it will encourage the art manufacture of silver in that country; but, on the other hand, beyond this it will multiply for us in this country those beautiful objects of art which are manufactured in India, and which, in the present state of metallic art in this country, cannot be produced here, and which, in fact, can only be manufactured by the Indian artificer. Furthermore, it will tend pro tanto to re-habilitate silver, at least to a certain extent, and thus will tend to afford relief to the agricultural and other interests of this country which are naturally affected by the appreciation of gold. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded to the opposition which has been offered in anticipation of this remission of taxation by the traders of Sheffield, and some other centres of the silversmiths' art in England. These manufacturers fear to meet the competition of the Indian artificers in their own trade, but I venture to submit that their fear is based on an entire misapprehension. The silver manufacture of India is entirely unique, being mainly composed of filagree work, grotesque and otherwise, requiring very laborious hand labour, of a kind certainly not likely to be carried on to any large extent by the silversmiths of this country. Having said this I should like to pass to another part of the right hon. Gentleman's Statement, which deals with a subject of vital importance to the people of India, and that is the proposed remission of the duty on tea. I feel bound to say, as being myself a proprietor of tea gardens in Ceylon, that the Indian and Ceylon tea industry will not gain, but will rather lose, by the proposed remission of duty, because it is probably not understood in England that the remission of duty will act, to a certain extent, as a bounty or premium on the low-priced China teas,

  759
  and to that extent we should be discouraging the growth of the superior and higher priced Indian and Ceylon teas. But my right hon. Friend foreshadows that the Empire will gain by the proposed remission of taxation. He puts it that the consumers may possibly gain 2d. per pound by the remission. I hope they may; but I doubt whether they will gain anything like that amount. I am afraid that a good deal of it will stick to the middleman on the way. Nevertheless, that the consumer may possibly gain something I am free to confess, and I would sooner see my working-class friends giving up their gin and other alcoholic drinks, and taking to tea, oven if they took to the low-priced and inferior brands of China. I consider the Budget of my right hon. Friend is distinctly a temperance Budget, and as such I had it most heartily. The provision which is made by the right hon. Gentleman under which the County Councils will be able to control the supply of temptations to drink is, in my opinion, a most statesmanlike provision. The local veto has hitherto, as we all know, generally been hampered by this dilemma, that it involved a heavy local expenditure, in order, in the exercise of that veto, to stop the supply of temptations to intemperance; or, on the other hand, it meant the distinct robbing of the licensed victuallers, by depriving them of their licences without any compensation whatever. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals clearly postulate the principle of compensation to those whose licences are to be taken away from them. That, in my opinion, is the only principle which is compatible with national honesty. It is the principle which was laid down in the most emphatic manner by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, in the published letter which he addressed some years ago to a licensed victualler in my own constituency of North Kennington, and it is a principle that I trust this House will maintain. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman will at once, and perceptibly, reduce the number of licensed houses. It may be said, in fact, that this Budget of my right hon. Friend greases the wheels of temperance, whilst it acts honourably and justly by the licensed victuallers, and to every other class of the com-
  760
  munity, and as such, Sir, I hail it with the utmost enthusiasm.
  MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Courtney, the surplus at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is £3,500,000, and that surplus is brought about by the increased consumption of spirits and beer. The question is in what way is that surplus to be disposed of. I venture to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a very great mistake in not availing himself of this opportunity of giving Free Education to England, equally with Scotland. A contest will arise at the next election with regard to this question of Free Education, and then the country will be told that there is no surplus for the purpose.
  MR. GOSCHEN: What election?
  MR. CALDWELL: The General Election. For Free Education in the three countries £2,250,000 would be required. That would absorb so much of the surplus. Then, as to the Inhabited House Duty. That would take £540,000, which still leaves £750,000 to be disposed of in any way the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think fit. As to the reduction of the Tea Duty, it is a question how far the consumer will reap the benefit of it. We know that in the case of the London Coal Dues, the consumers have not reaped the benefit yet. Therefore, we should take care that the surplus really confers benefit when benefit is intended. The reduction of the Tea Duty will benefit the family man, not the workman who has to attend a coffee shop to get his meals. But if you abolished the School Fees the family would thus directly get the benefit of the money. And there is great reason why the surplus should be applied in this way. The consumption of spirits may be taken to have remained stationary among those above the rank of the working classes, and the increased revenue from the consumption of spirits has been derived from the working classes. If the House is really to look to the proper application of the money, I would contend that the families which have been impoverished by this increased contribution to the Revenue, for alcohol, should be benefited by the application of part of the surplus to Free Education. It is evident that the system of the

  761
  Conservative Government is to give grants in aid to local taxation, of which the landlords get one-half of the benefit. I contend that this money having come from the working men should go back to them, to benefit their families, and not to the pockets of the landlords. We have got the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a difficulty. In dealing with the distribution of the Probate Duty between England, Scotland, and Ireland he proceeded on the basis of population. It has, curiously enough, been left to a Conservative Government to deal with the three Kingdoms separately. The result has been that the richer country got the larger grant, and Ireland, the poorer, got the least. You are going now to deal with a surplus raised from Excise. Is it not a notorious fact that Scotland pays more for exciseable liquors than England? Yet what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to do? To give Scotland less than her share. In this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the money is to be divided between the three countries, according to the precedent of the Probate Duty distribution.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The amount of the Probate Duty paid by England is far larger in proportion than that paid by Ireland and Scotland, but the Probate Duty was distributed according to the total contribution of Revenue from each country. Though England paid by far the larger share, we arranged that it should be changed in the direction of easing Ireland and Scotland by distributing the duty in a manner more satisfactory.
  MR. CALDWELL: The population of England is seven times that of Scotland, and the amount granted to England exceeds that granted to Scotland in proportion to the population. It may not exceed the actual amount of Probate Duty paid, but that it, in point of fact, exceeds the amount paid in proportion to population is undeniable. With regard to this new surplus, Scotland will pay an inordinate share, yet she will not get a
  762
  proportion equal even to her population. I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to do the slightest injustice to Scotland, but, by giving Local Government to Scotland a year in advance, he did us out of £80,000. I do not suppose he will take anything from us this year. I think the Budget, so far as regards two points, at any rate, will not meet the expectations of the country. I had hoped that when the Local Government Bill for England was before the country, and the Government were compelled to withdraw the compensation clauses, we had, once for all, heard the last of compensation to publicans. I do not know why the Government should have entered on a case of this kind at this moment. I do not suppose that the cause of temperance is weaker now than at other periods, and I think that this, like the Van and Wheel Tax, will militate very much against the Government. As to police superannuation there may be a considerable difference of opinion in the country on the matter, and I think it is a pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have mixed up his Imperial Budget with an attempt to manage and control Local Bodies who are to receive grants in aid. He would have saved himself a great deal of trouble, if, having money to hand over, he had given it to the Local Authorities, without instructions as to how they were to dispose of it.
  MR. BARTLEY: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget from the point, of view I indicated last year, namely, that it. is a step towards making the incidence of taxation fairer between the richer and poorer classes, of the community. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Northampton laughs, but there is no doubt it does do that. I have always held that, under the present incidence of taxation, the richer classes pay a smaller proportion than the poorer classes, and I think, when the figures are gone into, it is impossible to deny that. I do not say the Budget equalises the incidence, but

  763
  it goes a long way towards it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have relieved in all directions those persons who pay a larger amount in the £1, on their incomes than they are entitled to pay according to the general incidence of taxation. The relief on the Inhabited House Duty, and the reduction of the Tea Duty, will sensibly affect the poor. As to Free Education, it is very easy when a Budget is produced to say, "If something had been done in this direction it would have been better." Of course we should all like to have everything relieved. I suppose every sort of taxpayer would like, out of the surplus, to get the whole of his taxation remitted, but, as we know, that is impossible, and it seems to me that the right principle to adopt is to do our best to so adjust taxation that all classes shall pay according to their means. I have worked it out, and I find that if the whole Revenue were raised by Income Tax, the rate would be about 1s. 2d. in the £1, but capital only pays 6d. in the £1, and whatever tends to diminish this inequality, is hailed with satisfaction. Something has been said about the licensing question. Well, I must say I commend the courage of the Government in tackling that question. I always regretted that the President of the Local Government Board did not stick to the provisions on the subject contained in his great Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had done so, he would have deserved a greater monument from the advocates of temperance than even the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Lawson.) I believe the only way to successfully deal with this subject is to go into it boldly. It is quite impossible to deal with public-houses without the principle of compensation, and it is absolutely necessary to grapple with the excessive temptations to drunkenness. The licensing question is one which, though troublesome, must be faced by some Government, and I doubt if our Friends opposite, when they come in to Office, will care to touch it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by introducing the system of raising the money out of the drinking habits of the people to pay out a number of the licensed houses, is doing a wise and proper thing. I believe the scheme will
  764
  lead to the promotion of temperance; and, though I am aware that in my constituency, as elsewhere, our opponents will placard the walks with the declaration that we are going to buy out the publicans, at any rate these provisions will tend to make the people more sober. The superannuation of the police and the reduction of postage are, no doubt, matters of great importance; but the great feature of the Budget, as I have said, is the reduction of the taxation of the poor.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I must take exception to a statement made by the last speaker that this Budget goes a long way to redress the inequalities of taxation which press upon the poor. There never was a more unwarranted statement. Whence comes the fund from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to make these reductions? It is almost exclusively from the working classes; but the remissions of taxation which this surplus enables the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make will benefit rather the classes above them. I am not complaining of the reductions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. It is true that the working classes will be benefited by the reduction of the duty on tea, but is that not a remission that affects the rich in greater proportion? I believe the reduction in postage will affect our merchants and trading classes very much more than the working classes. Every mercantile house in the City of London will send a hundred letters for every one sent by a member of the working classes. The idea is excellent in itself, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making provision for a deficit which may arise from the reduction, there can be no doubt that, in a very short time, that reduction, instead of diminishing the amount of Revenue, will tend to increase it. I do not at all despair of seeing a penny ocean postage, although I know that every Treasury is opposed to Postal reductions. The contributions from that Service are getting almost beyond reasonable bounds,

  765
  and more should be done to develop cheap postage. I rose mainly to say a few words as to the abolition of the Silver Duty. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having the courage to abolish that duty and deal with that subject, and I hope and trust that his effort will not be abortive. I trust that this time we shall get rid of the Silver Duty. My hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) is anxious to maintain the duty in the interest of the British manufacturer, as he believes. The idea is, that to impose a duty of 40 per cant. on the manufactured article is to encourage home manufacture. Nothing can be more absurd. It is the old idea the paper-makers and others entertained, but the very reverse of that which they feared has always been found to be the case. We have always found that when the Protective Duties have been swept away the home manufactures have extended year by year. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the course he has taken, but I do not know what he is going to do as to compulsory hallmarking. He advanced as one of the reasons for the abolition of the duty, that he was only doing justice to the fair claims of India. In that I quite agree, but you cannot have one uniform standard of compulsory hall-marking. You must allow some kind of elasticity, so that the standard adopted by India or any other country that may import silver will allow for the admission of manufactured silver into this country. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises that something must be done in that direction, so as to admit the articles he contemplates admitting by the abolition of the Silver Duties. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the Tea Duty, although he has been criticised on his own side for doing so. One of his supporters deprecated the "abandonment" of so important a source of Revenue. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is abandoning a source of Revenue at all; on the contrary, I think he is taking means to increase it. I have always felt that the reduction of duty has, within a certain time, compensated for itself by an increase in the consumption. I think we all agree that
  766
  the price at which tea is sold to the poorer classes is most excessive. When the duties on sugar were reduced, it was found that the taking of a penny off meant a great deal more than the penny itself in the reduction of the price at which the article was sold. The public get better acquainted with the net value of the article, which is dealt in with much more freedom as soon as reduction takes place. I believe, therefore, that this is the first step towards a very considerable reduction in the cost of it to the people. I do not believe it is the last step by any means. Having reduced the duty by 2d., I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not remain there, but that he will have to go further, and the duty will probably be entirely swept away. We all regret that the surplus should have been derived almost exclusively from an increased consumption of intoxicating liquors. That increased consumption, however, has not been confined to one class. I notice that the increased duty on wine amounts to more than £120,000, which represents a selling value of between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000. It is also only fair to suppose that the middle and poorer classes have consumed their increased share of beer and spirits. It would be much to be regretted if there was any indication of an increased consumption of drink in the country, because we all believe, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the greatest curse of the country after all is drink. I wish to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to touch upon another question. I refer to the question of Free Education. When an hon. Gentleman suggested that this must stand over until the next election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed anxious to repudiate the assertion. I am glad ho should have done so. There never was a year in which the prospects of the Budget were so falsified as in the present instance. A short time ago nothing could be more explicit than the statement of the Prime Minister that we should have a free system of education if there was a surplus. The right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Goschen) also said that the moment Free Education was established in Scotland a great grievance and hardship was established in England and Ireland. Certainly, therefore, we had

  767
  ample justification for thinking the right hon. Gentleman would have given us Free Education in this Budget. I certainly trust the time is not far distant when we shall have Free Education, for no greater boon could be conferred upon the working classes of the country. All that the right hon. Gentleman has done to-night, however we may appreciate it, falls far short of the great service he would have rendered to the country if he had given Free Education to the children of the people. Nothing can do so much to stop the tide of intemperance, and nothing has done so much hitherto to arrest that tide, as education. With regard to the question of licences, I would point out that the suspension of licences means making existing licences very much more valuable. That is a question that will have to be very carefully dealt with before we go much farther. I am sure we shall all be glad to pass the necessary Resolution to increase the price of spirits, and I am glad of what the right hon. Gentleman has done with regard to the Silver Duty and some other matters.
  MR. SALT: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down complained that we have not got Free Education. I am afraid that if we had Free Education the right hon. Gentleman would have complained that we had not got the Tea Duty reduced. We cannot have both things at once. We are told that we are to have a considerable sum of money given to the County Councils, in order to deal with the difficult question of Police Superannuation. I presume that the object of that grant is to make up a fund for Police Superannuation in various cases where the existing funds have proved to be insufficient. I wish to know how my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) is going to deal with those counties in which the funds are sound and sufficient. It would not be very fair to make grants in cases where the funds are insufficient and to do nothing for the few counties in which the funds are sound. A question with regard to sparkling wines has been brought to my attention. I am
  768
  told that a great grievance exists respecting-the surtax on sparkling wines being charged as an ad valorem duty, and it is said to give rise to fraud. I have no personal interest in the question, but I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to give it his attention. The proposal respecting the purchase of licences has my sympathy and support. I only wish that the suggestion made in this respect years ago by Lord Aberdare had been carried out. Had it been, very many difficulties in connection with the liquor trade would now have been cleared away. Very great difficulty will probably be experienced in applying the funds to the purchase of licences. The value of public house licences has, in the last few years, enormously increased—in many respects to quite an artificial value. The whole of the beer trade has drifted into quite a different class of business altogether during the last 10 or 15 years. Instead of being in the hands of a great number of small people, the trade is now in the hands of largo brewers and capitalists, who are buying up retail houses at very much more than market value. The transfer of licences from one place to another is a matter which, no doubt, will also have consideration. The reason I mention this is, that if it has to be dealt with by the Local Bodies in the counties, they will, I think, require some rather distinct directions from Parliament as to the lines on which they ought to proceed, I must venture to warn hon. Members not to expect very great results from diminishing the number of public houses, as regards the amount of beer and spirits consumed in the country. I expect some good, however, from my right hon. Friend's proposal, and I think some of the worst public houses will be cleared away, to the great benefit of the community. Observation has naturally been made on the very large amount received from the Alcoholic Duties in the past year, but I think we are rather apt to get on the high horse and talk about how the poor people drink. What has happened is simply this: During the last few months working men, who, a little while ago were earning some 16s., or 18s., or £1 a week, have had their wages increased in some cases to 6s., 7s., or 10s. a day. These men, when they were receiving very low

  769
  wages, lived upon tea. Now they are earning good wages they live upon beer.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: On brandy.
  MR. SALT: Well, brandy. At all events, there is no reason why this increase in the consumption should be attributed to excessive drinking. I deplore excessive drinking just as much as hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, but I cannot say that I deplore the fact that working men are receiving such good wages that they are able to live well and comfortably, and as English working men ought to live.
  DR. CAMERON: I wish to draw the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to a blot en an otherwise excellent Budget. I have always been a very strong advocate of temperance Ever since I entered Parliament I have supported extreme temperance legislation, and I have myself secured the passing of Bills which have much diminished drinking hours in public houses. I have no friend among the publicans. I have been constantly and persistently opposed by the publicans, and so long as I remain in Parliament am likely to be opposed by them. But, Sir, I am a friend of fair play. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he proposed to put a small tax on beer and a large tax on whisky. I opposed that as grossly unfair, and I regard the present proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the whisky duty as grossly unfair in the same way. I am in favour of taxing alcohol to the utmost extent of taxation it will bear without encouraging illicit distillation, but as regards whisky the Commissioners of Inland Revenue said it would be dangerous to add any taxation for fear of increasing illicit distillation. It is notorious that alcohol is chiefly consumed in England in the form of beer, while in Scotland it is consumed in the form of whisky. In the form of beer alcohol pays about 1s. 5d. a gallon of proof spirit, at present, whereas in the form of whisky a tax is imposed to the extent of about 10s. per gallon of proof spirit. You propose now to add 3d. per cask upon beer and to add 6d. per gallon on whisky. Is not this making people in Scotland through their favourite tipple
  770
  pay enormously more than people in England through their favourite tipple? What makes the grievance more serious in the ease of Scotland is, that we recognise no vested right in licences, and do not want you to assist us to purchase licences. In every step we have taken in the way of curtailing the trade of licensed houses, we have given no compensation. The law with us stands on quite a different basis from that which it occupies in England. The Magistrates who represent the people in Scotland have absolute control in the matter of new licences. If I thought you could diminish the consumption of whisky by any extra taxation, I should overlook a great deal in the way of unfairness in any proposal to achieve such an object; but I do not believe this proposal will have that result. We have a great deal of illicit distillation, as it is, and if you increase the tax you run a great danger of increasing this illicit distillation. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) brought forward his proposal it created so great an outcry that he was obliged to abandon it, and I shall be very much surprised if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer does not find himself in a similar position. It will not improve the feeling with which the people of Scotland will receive these repeated attacks upon their favourite beverage—a beverage which has been described as almost synonymous with freedom—when they remember that of the two Chancellors of the Exchequer who have made them, one was a Member, and the other an ex-Member, for the City of Edinburgh. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do with the £144,000 he intends to allocate to Scotland. The Probate Duty grant given last year aided the remission of school fees to a certain extent, but it has been insufficient, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to follow precedent in this matter, and complete the work then commenced. There can be no difficulty in the matter. The work has been half done, and Local Authorities have been led into extravagancies which will compel them either to impose heavy local taxation, or to retract the benefits which have already been conferred, and this

  771
  £144,000 would be a most acceptable sum for the crowning of the edifice that has been raised.
  MR. CHANNING: It is perhaps well, before this debate closes, that one or two remarks should be offered by a County Member on this side of the House, in as much as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt very generously—some people may think almost too generously—with County Finance. I understand that the Probate Duty has amounted to more than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, and yet he is proposing to hand us over the proceeds of the Beer Duty. I would add one word of protest to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and other Members, on the question of Free Education. After the very distinct announcements of the Prime Minister in the autumn, the words in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to Assisted Education struck me as singular. He put the question of Free Education on a par with buying pictures for the National Gallery. He went on to say that if he yielded to such demands—if he did not sit tight on the lid of the chest—he would have the whole of his mighty surplus scattered, and still the burdens of the people would not be lightened. I am sure the country will take note of the position to which Free Education has been relegated by the right hon. Gentleman. On one subject I am sure the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman will meet with universal acceptance. I refer to the Inhabited House Duty. Those acquainted with Town Holdings might possibly object that this remission is only too likely to go in London, not into the pockets of the poor occupiers of small houses, but rather into the hands of house-jobbers and owners of small property. The class the right hon. Gentleman wishes to relieve is substantially the class whose incomes vary from £150 to £400, and a little over. We all wish to relieve them, but I venture to say it is time to consider this question of the taxation of small and precarious in conies on a somewhat wider principle than is contained in the Budget. I do think that when we have a surplus of
  772
  £3,250,000 in one year, to be followed by a surplus of £3,500,000 in the next, a great opportunity has been afforded to a financier who has brilliantly distinguished his tenure of his present office of dealing with this question of small and precarious incomes. I hope that next year the question may come more to the fore, and that some relief from direct taxation will be afforded to small incomes. With regard to the temperance question, we must all feel some pleasure at seeing the right hon. Gentleman so conspicuously and so obviously running off with the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) under his arm. The right hon. Gentleman has, as far as I can judge, adopted all its principles and provisions. As to the compensation question, I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) did not protest more vigorously against the gross injustice of the Scotch having to pay for buying out English public houses According to the proposals of the Government in the Local Government Bill two years ago, the compensation was to come first from the county ratepayers, and secondly from a fund raised by an increase, limited to 20 per cent. increase on the present licence duty. In the discussion on the Local Government Bill, if my memory serves me right, the right hon. Gentleman, or some defender of his proposals, went so far as to say that the increase of the duty would by itself form a sufficient fund for dealing with the question of compensation. The Government then sought to place the burden on the trade, but now they propose to place it upon the unfortunate consumer, and to tax the tempted instead of the tempter. I cannot help expressing my satisfaction at the lowering of tariffs obtained by the arrangement which has been made with Greece. I noticed that Gentlemen opposite cheered his announcement on that point, as if it was a grand victory of the principles of reciprocity. I venture to say it is just the other way. It is a victory of Free Trade, and an application of Mr. Cobden's principle of obtaining reductions of tariff in other countries by reducing the tariffs here. I welcome many of the proposals in the Budget. Everyone must con-

  773
  sider it an advanced Budget; at the same time, I think we have great reason to protest against the total failure of the Government to redeem its promises in respect of Free Education.
  MR. GOSCHEN: There are a great many points on which I am asked to reply, and I will try to do so as briefly as possible. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down referred to the very important matter of assisted education, to which the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) alluded in his remarks on the Budget. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he has discussed it. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that I put free education on the same footing as the buying of pictures. That is drawing an inference which is scarcely warranted from remarks which were intended to be somewhat jocular. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), in the early part of the Session, said he reserved the question for next Session. It is not merely a question of giving money for assisted education, for enormous importance must attach to the conditions upon which the money was given. An hon. Member has spoken of the matter as being reserved for the next General Election. I do not know when the hon. Member thinks the next General Election will take place, unless he imagines it will be between now and next Session. I do not think that will be the case. Of course we are liable to the changes and chances of this mortal state, and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who does not seem to share my opinion, may be in possession of secrets with which I am not acquainted, but I do not think we need speak of postponing free education until after the next General Election. As far as I can calculate the chances of politics, it will fall to our lot to deal with the question, and we look forward to dealing with it next year. The right hon. Member for Derby thought we should have exhausted all our resources. I believe I see £500,000 which will be available next year, and which is not available this year. This year we spend £300,000 on barracks. Again, we have this year a drawback of £120,000 for silver plate, and that will not fall to be paid next year, and there is £100,000 for the
  774
  Volunteers, not a recurring item. I can assure the Committee I have carefully considered our liability with regard to assisted education in framing my Budget this year. Supposing we do not realise greater advantage from articles of consumption than I have estimated, there is generally now a progressive increase from the Death Duties, which is almost automatic. I am bound to say that we consider ourselves committed to the question of assisted education, and I am afraid that the liability of finding the necessary funds will fall upon me. I trust I shall be able to meet that liability, which, in fact, I must meet. I hope now the Committee will consider I have made a categorical declaration with respect to assisted education. The hon. Member for West Nottingham spoke in terms of reproach and condemnation as to what I said about employers and employed, and went out of his way to draw an inference from the remarks I made. I repudiate the inference which the hon. Member draws from my words. I said, in language which I believe will be accepted and appreciated by almost every Member of the House, that I trusted the relations between employers and employed would be harmonious during the present year, and I pointed out that the internecine struggles between the employers and the employed are a drag on the prosperity of the country, and might till us sometimes with alarm. No word fell from my lips in criticism or condemnation of either party in the struggle. I spoke with absolute neutrality, but surely I am entitled to say, as having an interest in the prosperity of the country, that we desire to continue and increase the harmony between capital and labour, between employers and employed. The hon. Member spoke with perfect courtesy, but I cannot accept the interpretation he put upon my declaration, and I would not have what I did say misinterpreted in any degree. The hon. Member also spoke about the exemption and nonpayment of Income Tax on property which is held by Trade Unions. It is not a question as to the amount of money which the Exchequer would lose which would in any way induce me to oppose such a wish; but the question must be considered with the general principles

  775
  which attach to Income Tax on land. I am not able to enter into the subject minutely this evening, but I promise again to look into it. I strongly hold that every person not getting an income of £150 should not be called upon to pay, but, on the other hand, I do not think as Trade Unionists they should receive exceptional treatment to other citizens as to the funds they possess; they must, with all other classes, be justly treated. The right hon. Member said something with regard to the currency, and hoped that the Government might undertake some measures with regard to £1 notes and the currency generally in connection with the Coinage Bill to be introduced. I have been studying the question of reforms in the currency, and I should be very glad if before we leave office it should be in our power to deal with the question. I do not despair of it. I do not say of the question of £1 notes more than that I must reserve myself, but there are questions connected with the currency I should be glad to deal with while I have the power to do so. I omitted to refer earlier in the evening to my statement last year that the cost of restoring light gold coinage should not be put on the taxpayer at large, but that the remedy should be looked for in banking directions. We have now been saved from the necessity of further legislation at the present moment on that subject by the large profit which we have realised on one form of banking transaction—namely, on the issue of silver. The right hon. Gentleman also complained that the Revenue Returns did not show the aggregate amount which is realised by different forms of taxation. I admit the inconvenience, but I think it is a temporary one. Comparisons have been complicated and difficult during the past few years, but as soon as the new system has been inaugurated I think that the complexity and difficulty will cease to exist. I attach great importance, however, to this point. Sums which are raised for local purposes should not be considered as raised for Imperial purposes, and they should not figure twice in the national accounts. I promise to see whether we can keep the local finance separate from the Imperial finance, in order to meet the legitimate wish of the right hon. Gentleman, and to present Returns in a form which will admit of a
  776
  convenient comparison. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Floating Debt. I do not know that any special measures will be necessary for dealing with the Floating Debt, because I believe by the funds in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners we shall, within a reasonable time, be able to bring the Floating Debt back almost to the point at which it stood before. A large Floating Debt exposes us to fluctuations of interest which might be extremely inconvenient. The right hon. Gentleman said, but not with perfect accuracy, that there was a time when this country had to pay more than 4 per cent. on the Floating Debt. That was not the case, because it was only on £1,500,000 of the Floating Debt that we were obliged to pay four per cent. But the general rate at which we have raised funds under the Floating Debt has been, I think, £2 14s. The fact is that our Floating Debt securities are extremely popular in the whole banking world. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, however, in not desiring to have a too large Floating Debt, because three or four years out of five we may be able to make considerable money upon it, but we might be caught in one year, and the loss might wipe off the profits of preceding years. There is something that grates on the national feeling in having to pay, even temporarily and on a small amount, a rate above the rate paid in the funds. Therefore, although we have done extremely well as regards the Unfunded Debt, having been continually able to borrow at 2 per cent., and sometimes at 1½, under this form of securities. Still it undoubtedly is not our wish to multiply them, or even to maintain them at their present amount. I trust I have explained myself sufficiently to the right hon. Gentleman. I feel very strongly the necessity of keeping the Floating Debt within moderate limits, Then I turn for a moment to the Tea Duty, upon which much has been said. One hon. Member objects to the reduction of the Tea Duty, and would rather, ho says, have had assisted education. But if the reduction of the Tea Duty should be followed by assisted education, I think he would have no cause to complain, for then he would have the advantage of a reduction of the Tea Duty one year and the advantage of assisted education would be realised in the next

  777
  year. But my hon. friend behind me (Sir R. Fowler) complains of the manner in which the Tea Duty has been dealt with, on the ground that we are parting with a permanent source of Revenue. But we have not parted with it, and we do not intend to do so. By putting the duty at 4d. there will be a chance, if we should ever have to make a special effort, of calling upon the consumers to contribute something to that special effort. If we treat it, on the one hand, as a permanent source of Revenue, but at the same time put it, if I may say so, on a peace footing by reducing it considerably, we retain it as a source of Imperial Revenue, as I, for one, desire to retain it. Here is a short letter which I have received on the subject, which amused and interested me very much, and which I think is genuine:—
  "Sir,—Being a non-drinker and a non-drinker, not eligible for Income or Property Tax, not able to stand coffee drinking, but withal a patriot though a Radical,? would like to know how I am going to stand my 'corner' in regard to the expenses of my country if I do not pay something through my teacup, if you take off the Tea Duty."
  I call that a sensible letter. I have not but not inconsequence of that letter—taken off the whole of the Tea Duty. I place it at 4d. I keep it as a source of Revenue, a national reserve, and though some hon. Members may wish to abolish it altogether, I protest earnestly against diminishing too much the number of our sources of Revenue. My theory is that having reached a certain point, though we may remit when we can in order to lighten the general burden, we should keep what I may call the skeletons of our regiments intact, so that, to quote the writer of the letter, every man should be able to stand his "corner." The right hon. Member for Derby regretted that we had not seen our way to deal with the Death Duties. I may remind the Committee that last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian declared that a real adjustment of the whole of the Death Duties would require almost a Session to itself. But this question does not stand alone. The re-construction of the Income Tax in certain respects would have to go in any case hand in hand with a re-construction of the Death Duties, and that is a task which we think the dimensions of the present Session forbid us to
  778
  undertake, especially looking to the warning we have received. With regard to one of the most important proposals of the Budget—namely, the increase in the duty upon Spirits—I am not surprised that a protest has come from Scotland based on the assertion that whiskey is the favourite tipple of that country, and that the Scotch people drank more whiskey in proportion than the English people do, and that, therefore, they will have to pay more in proportion in consequence of the increase of the Spirit Duties than the English people will have to pay. A large portion of the money so raised, however, will be applied to various local purposes, and I am glad to find that the hon. Member for Glasgow is already looking forward with great pleasure and content to the manner in which a part of the extra duty is to be applied in Scotland. It must also be remembered that the extra duty is in some degree compensated for by the large proportionate share which Scotland obtained two years ago in the distribution of the Probate Duties, the greater portion of which are paid by England, while Scotland and Ireland largely participate in them.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Not according to population.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I repeat that while England pays the larger share of those duties, Scotland and Ireland are allowed to have the advantage of their distribution. In these circumstances I do not think that either Scotland or Ireland have any reasonable cause of complaint. Ireland especially, as being the poorer country, has always received the utmost consideration, and she has always received the benefit of the doubt when there was a question as to which way the scale inclined.
  COLONEL NOLAN: On what figures does the right hon. Gentleman found that statement?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not accept my assurance, but I can assure him that my statement is founded on thoroughly impartial calculations.
  COLONEL NOLAN: By whom?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: By those who collect the Revenue, and the impartiality of whose statistics are above suspicion, and who have been consulted on these

  779
  subjects by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Have they put these calculations above my Returns?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid I cannot accept the figures of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is undoubtedly a partial man and evidently holds strong views upon the subject. I, however, believe in the impartiality of the calculations before me, and in the position in which I am placed I have felt bound to look very carefully into the figures. With regard to the disposal of the fund in Scotland, that is a matter that is not yet finally concluded, and it will receive the most careful consideration in connection with the whole circumstances in the case of both Ireland and Scotland. It is not proposed to deal with Ireland and Scotland in precisely the same way as England, and separate arrangements will have to be made with regard to each country, which I hope to be able to place before the House at a very early time. With regard to the application of this new tax, observations were made by the hon. Member for Stafford, who referred to the question of police superannuation. The hon. Member's observations were very pertinent, and we had clearly before us the point to which he has called attention—namely, what would be the just way of securing the distribution of the money among counties some of which have already taxed themselves, while others have not. It is a difficult problem which the Government will endeavour to solve with equity. In reply to the hon. Member for Essex, I may say that the County Councils will get £393,000, besides £300,000 for the police; together £693,000. Then there is £160,000 for pleuro-pneumonia, which will lieve the ratepayers in the Three Kingdoms to a very considerable extent. If those figures are added together it will be found that, irrespective of the advantage to be derived from the sum set apart for licences, there is a sum of about £850,000 applied to the Local Taxation purposes. The hon. Member will admit that that is an ample redemption of the pledge given by the Government. Mention has been made of the arrangements with Greece, and here let me take the opportunity of
  780
  stating that much credit is due in the management of these affairs to my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who has given great attention to questions of tariff, and also to the talented representative of the Greek Government in this country. The matter stands thus: the Octroi Duty on currants is still levied by the Greek Government, but that Government have very fairly met us by reductions on imports of English manufactured goods, so I do not think we have a right to press them any further. There is one point I have to mention in connection with the change in the duty on silver plate. I omitted to state that while we shall leave the law as to hall-marking practically in the state in which it now stands, we shall make special arrangements in regard to India. India exports to this country her manufactured silver, and, generally, I think, that silver is of the same standard as her rupee, and somewhat below the standard adopted in this country. We propose that the Indian goods shall be specially hall-marked and shall be allowed to be imported at the Indian standard. We propose also that the Indian Government shall be allowed to establish assay offices for this purpose, and certified by Indian authority that they are up to standard, Indian silver goods will be allowed to be imported here. In this way I hope we shall satisfy India. In other respects we do not propose to interfere with arrangements under the existing law, or change the practice as to hall-marking. One important matter I must not omit to mention, and I am glad to be reminded of it. The Committee will bear in mind the proposal that a certain sum should be placed at the disposal of the Local Authorities for the purchase of licences; and it has been pointed out, though it was a matter which had not escaped us, that it would be no legitimate consequence of that arrangement, but, on the contrary, a consequence we should deplore if the value of public houses should be raised by the very measure we are introducing to give the power of purchasing these licences. We acknowledge it would be perfectly right to introduce some limitation by which any increased value which is given to public houses owing to the enactment

  781
  of the measure which we shall have the honour to introduce, shall not be taken into account in any future compensation that may be given. With regard to the ad valorem duty on wines, I have been asked as to the result of the change made last year, which was exactly equivalent to the imposition of an ad valorem duty in some repects. We were anxious that the change should not operate against the importation of the cheaper sparkling wines from Germany and from the Saumur country, and I am glad to say that, although there have been some objections raised, our plan has, on the whole, worked with great smoothness. I know that all wine merchants will not be ready to admit that; but it is the fact that the anticipated importation of wine paying the 2s. 6d. duty has not diminished with a corresponding increase of the wines under the 1s. duty. It was thought that higher class wines would he introduced under the 1s. duty; but the watchfulness of the Customs and the bona fides of the trade have prevented that result, and the proportion remains practically as heretofore. With regard to the Tea Duty, it was proposed that the reduction should come into operation on an alter May 1. Sometimes a longer period has been given; but I am led to believe that stocks have been rather exhausted, and the date I mention I think will be convenient to all concerned. I appeal to the Committee to allow the Resolution to be passed. ["No, no" from Colonel NOLAN.] It would be according to precedent on previous and similar occasions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, when he proposed an increase of the Spirit Duty, though it was subsequently rejected by the House, was allowed to take it on the first day. Great inconvenience would result from the uncertainty to the trade if the Resolutions are not passed to-day.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not know any precedent for the Budget Resolutions being taken exactly at 11 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken as if he occupies a freehold of his seat on the Treasury Bench, and the cheers of his friends show that they think so, although he may be too modest to say so. He has
  782
  been explaining what he is going to do next Session; but while he was doing so I ventured to interject a remark as to the possibility of a General Election before then. The right hon. Gentleman said that I might possess some secrets unknown to the Government. Sir, I possess no secrets; but I do know that the constituencies are anxious to pronounce a verdict on the conduct of the Government. Now, Sir, I am bound to say that I think this is a peddling Budget: it tries to satisfy everybody, and it satisfies nobody. I could understand it if it proposed to abolish the Tea Duty altogether; but, instead of doing that, it only takes away one-third; it takes off 2d. per lb., and nobody will profit by it. This is a middleman's and a capitalist's Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said he would have abolished the Tea Duty entirely, but that he had not a sufficient surplus to do it. But, Sir, he would have had a sufficient surplus to make the abolition of the Tea Duty an easy thing, had it not been for the enormous expenditure of the Government in preparations for war and war armaments. This year, and for several subsequent years, the country will have to pay £1,430,000 for the increase of the Navy, and to spend further money in erecting new barracks for our soldiers. A considerable sum is to be given to the County Councils for the superannuation of the police and other general purposes. Nothing could be more objectionable, in my opinion, than giving large sums from the Imperial Treasury to the County Councils, because the money is collected principally from the inhabitants of the towns, and it will be expended chiefly in making roads and generally improving the property of the landowners. Then a large sum of money was to be given in order to compensate the publicans. I object to this insidious way of dealing with that question. Let the right hon. Gentleman bring in a specific Bill saying that the publicans have a, freehold, and that they are to be compensated out of Imperial taxation, and then the country will know what it means. I am astonished that more notice has not been taken of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's little bargain with Greece in relation to cur-

  783
  rants, because the statements of the right hon. Gentleman in that connection amount to the enunciation of a new fiscal policy. I very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made alterations in the Income Tax, a tax which operates very unjustly upon professional men and those engaged in trade; and I urge the Chancellor to consider whether he cannot, as they do in America, make some distinctions between income derived from investments and casual income derived from professions and trades. I think that this is a Tory Budget. I have done my best to protest against the excessive expenditure of the Government in civil matters and in preparations for war. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that ho has reduced the National Debt to a considerable extent; but I am one of those who consider that it may be reduced too much. I do not possess so very great an interest in my grandchildren as to save them from paying all these debts. The right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out that he is going to increase the National Debt by a sum of £30,000,000, should the Government be able to carry a certain Bill now before the House.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer show not only that the right hon. Gentleman has a knowledge of finance, but that he is also an accomplished electioneer. I admit that it is not a bad electioneering Budget. I hail with pleasure the redaction on tea, but I do not understand why the duty on raisins should not be reduced as well as that on currants; they are both made from grapes, and I do not see how a distinction is to be made; the result will be endless confusion. Then the right hon. Gentleman has taken off these duties at the expense of Scotch and Irish whisky. I consider that the tax is put most unequally upon spirits as compared with beer. I object also to the system of creating fictitious surpluses followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  784
  Why should only 1s. duty be paid on claret and 9s. 6d. be paid on spirits, seeing that it is the poor who drink spirits? You have got a majority in England and a minority in Ireland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his Budget, is simply going with the majority. Why should poor people have to pay 10s. instead of 9s. 6d. per gallon, while the claret drinker is not taxed so heavily? Then as to the distribution. Could you have any more iniquitous distribution? I will leave out the case of Scotland, which is similar to that of Ireland, only that the case of Ireland is much stronger than that of Scotland. The origin of this distribution is to be found in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did two years ago in the division of the Probate Duty between the three countries in relief of local taxation. I contended that it would be fair in allotting the duty to divide it according to the amount paid on Probate Duty by each country, for Ireland in proportion paid far more than the other two countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, said that the division would be made, not in proportion to the amount paid in Probate Duty but according to population. But in this instance nearly double the amount is given to England in proportion to population, compared with what is given to Ireland. England gets something over £1,000,000, and Ireland gets only £118,000. Though England has by far the larger population, yet the difference does not warrant such a discrepancy as lies between giving over £1,000,000 to one country and only £118,000 to the other. Though Ireland is not a great country like England, yet, when you come to deal with spirits, Ireland consumes a very much larger quantity of spirits in proportion to population than does England. But you are going to give her the least share. Ireland will

  785
  pay much more than England in consumption of spirits, and will get very much less. Ireland not only consumes, but she exports whisky, and her chief customer is England. You are not only taxing whisky in Ireland, but you are checking the consumption of Irish whisky in England. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects the people of Ireland to be grateful to him for this contribution to local needs by putting a tax of 6d. per gallon on whisky. I think they will be the reverse. Nineteen-twentieths of the taxation go to England; and every Irishman, when he drinks his glass of whisky, will think of the extreme unfairness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in taxing Irish resources for the English majority. The Irish Members have had no opportunity of consulting about this matter, and I speak simply for myself personally. I do not oppose the Tea Tax; I take what is good in the Budget; but I oppose all the bad parts, such as that relating to silver. People have got up in this House and talked as if drink was a frightful iniquity. It is perfect hypocrisy. Why, in Sweden, where you have the best educated people, and in North Russia, where you have not the best educated people, they drink more than we do. I believe the consumption of alcohol is simply a question of latitude. It was proved by an eminent statistician lately that wherever alcohol is drunk you have very much less crime. You will never make very much difference in the consumption of alcohol. I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one matter. Ten years ago I obtained a Return, signed by Mr. Courtney, and I have no doubt it was correct, which showed that Ireland contributed a larger share to the Imperial Revenue than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated. Subsequently, a Return was made by the Treasury. It was compiled at the time of the Home Rule Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) a time of heat and conflict, and when the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to make a
  786
  good bargain with Ireland. Every Irishman who understood the subject knew that the right hon. Gentleman in his Home Rule Bill was driving a terribly hard bargain with Ireland. What I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do is to compare the two Returns and see where they vary from each other, and ascertain what is conveyed by the one and the other as to the proportion which Ireland contributes to the Imperial Revenue compared with England.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Sir, I wish to make an appeal to the House. Unless these Resolutions are carried forthwith great inconvenience will result. Hon. Gentlemen will have a full opportunity of discussing every question on the Bill which will be based on the Resolutions, and I trust, therefore, the House will allow the Resolutions themselves to pass.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Sir, I will not detain the House more than a couple of minutes. I am not going in any way to criticise the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it right to say, inasmuch as he alluded to my criticism on the disposal of a previous surplus that it favoured the direct rather than the indirect taxpayer, that the right hon. Gentleman has tonight done very fair justice to indirect taxation. Sir, you are going to put a Motion from the Chair for adding 6d. per gallon to spirits, and 3d. per barrel to beer, and I want the House and the Committee to understand that we are this evening imposing an additional Imperial alcoholic taxation. We reserve to ourselves the absolute right to discuss the appropriation of that taxation. Look at it in any way you like, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is simply a subsidy from Imperial funds for certain local purposes, among others, compensation to publicans for the purchase of their licences. In voting to-night for the addition to

  787
  this duty, I want it to be distinctly understood that we are voting for an Imperial duty, and if alcohol will hear it, I shall be only too happy to put it on alcohol. It will be for the House, hereafter, to decide whether this increased taxation, amounting to a million and a-quarter, which, added to the surplus of 3¼ millions, gives a surplus of 4½ millions, is to be applied as a subsidy to local purposes. The other remark I wish to make is in consequence-of the ironical cheers with which the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) were received with respect to the Naval and Military expenditure. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to justify, in powerful and eloquent language, his disposition with reference to those items. When Lord Beaconsfield was in the height of his power the ordinary expenditure on our Army and Navy was £25,000,000. When Lord Beacons-field left Office in 1880 it was only £25,250,000; but this year the House is going to vote £33,000,000, making, together with the £20,000,000 for the Indian Army, a normal annual expenditure of £53,300,000 in a time of peace. There may be reasons why we should endure that expenditure, and no doubt hon. Members opposite think there are; but when you have a normal military expenditure of £53,000,000 in a time of peace I defy any hon. Member to furnish a parallel to it from the Expenditure of any country in the world. I think that this is a fact that ought not to escape the attention of the House and the country.
  MR. PICTON: I shall wish, at the proper time, to take a Division on the question of the Tea Duty.
  MR. SEXTON: I think that in some respects the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman manifest injustice to Ireland, and though I do not propose to divide the Committee against the Resolution before it, I desire it to be understood that the Irish Members reserve to themselves the right of taking such steps as they may hereafter deem desirable in defence of the interests of their country.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I presume that the Government do not propose to take the Report of Supply to-night?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: We propose to take Report of Supply, but not to go into matters of a controversial character.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CUSTOMS.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in addition to the Duties of Customs payable on Spirits under "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881,"there shall be charged and paid the Duties following (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every Gallon computed at proof of Spirits of any description as in the said Act mentioned (except Perfumed Spirits)

  0

  0

  6

  For every Gallon of Perfumed Spirits

  0

  0

  9

  For every Gallon of Liqueurs, Cordials, and other preparations entered so as to be chargeable under the said Act with the Duty of Fourteen Shillings

  0

  0

  8

  and so in proportion for any less quantity.
  And the Duties of Customs on the articles hereinafter mentioned, being articles of which Spirits are a part or ingredient, shall be proportionately increased, and shall be as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Chloroform.

  the pound

  0

  3

  1

  Collodion

  the gallon

  1

  5

  0

  Ether Acetic

  the pound

  0

  1

  10

  Ether Butyric

  the gallon

  0

  15

  8

  Ether Sulphuric

  the gallon

  1

  6

  2

  Ethyl, Iodide of

  the gallon

  0

  13

  7

  and so in proportion for any less quantity."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to point out in reference to this Vote that the Government are proposing to tax a most useful and beneficent anæsthetic. The man who invented chloroform probably conferred greater benefit on the human race than any other inventor who ever lived. Why, I ask, is chloroform to be made the subject of taxation? Perhaps the Government will furnish some explanation of the reason why such articles are to be taxed.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The Excise Authorities find it impossible to make any

  789
  difference in regard to the taxation of spirits. No change is made in regard to the law, and the increase on the existing duty is not large. I am quite sure that hon. Members will not expect me to enter into a scientific discussion on such a subject at the present moment, even if I were competent to do so.
  DR. TANNER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman takes into consideration when he proposes to increase the tax on anæsthetics how important these things are in surgical operations. He has apparently forgotten that already the price of these articles is exceedingly high, and it seems to me to be unwise to still further enhance the cost of materials which are only used for the purpose of relieving pain, notably in the case of poor persons who are subject to surgical treatment. Hon. Members may not object to proposals making the consumption of intoxicating liquors as expensive as possible; but at the same time I think it will be generally granted that articles like chloroform, which are merely aids to humanity, ought to be made as cheap as possible. In increasing the cost of these things there is some risk of doing harm by adding to the inducements to adulteration.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  METHYLATED SPIRITS.
  3. Resolved, That no drawback shall be allowed to a Rectifier of Spirits in respect of Duty-paid Spirits Methylated, after the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety.
  EXCISE LICENCE.
  4. Resolved, That every Excise Licence to carry on any trade or business (except the trade or business of an Appraiser, Auctioneer, or Hawker), which shall hereafter be granted, shall only authorise the person to whom the Licence is granted to carry on the trade or business mentioned therein, in one set of premises to be specified in the Licence.

  PLATE DUTIES.
  5. Resolved, That, from and after the thirtieth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, the Stamp Duties and the Duties of Customs now payable on Plate of Gold and Plate of Silver shall cease to be pay able, and the Drawback now payable upon the exportation of Plate shall cease to be allowed; and in respect of Plate of Silver manufactured in the United Kingdom, which has not left the
  790
  stock of any manufacturer or other licensed dealer in Plate, an allowance, by way of Draw-back, shall be made out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, subject to (amongst other provisions) the provisions following (that is to say): —

  (a) Every licensed dealer in Plate who is entitled to make any claim for allowance shall, on or before the seventh day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, give notice of his intention to make such claim upon a form to be immediately provided and delivered to him by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

  (b) If the aggregate number of ounces of Plate of Silver, in respect of which claims are sent in and proved to be valid and correct, is not such that the amount required to repay the Duties paid thereon would exceed the sum of one hundred and twenty thousand pounds, the whole of such Duties shall be repaid, but, if otherwise, that sum shall he distributed rateably amongst the claimants according to the number of ounces in respect whereof each of them has established his claim.

  INCOME TAX.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the year which commenced on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say) —
  For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A), (C), (D), or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Sixpence;
  And for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act,—
  In England, the Duty of Threepence;
  In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of Twopence Farthing; Subject to the provisions contained in section one hundred and sixty-three of the Act of the fifth and sixths years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, for the exemption of persons whose income is less than One Hundred and Fifty-five Pounds, and in section eight of 'The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1876,' for the relief of persons whose income is less than Four Hundred Pounds."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I was under the impression that the Government did not propose to take this Vote to-night, and I trust it will not be insisted on.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Under the circumstances, I do not propose to press the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  TEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in lieu of the Duty of Customs now chargeable upon Tea, there shall be charged and paid, on and after the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, the Duty following, and such Duty shall continue to be charged and paid upon Tea imported into Great Britain and Ireland until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one (that is to say):
  Tea.…the pound. Four Pence."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. PICTON: This is a proposal to alter a duty which has been in existence for a very long time, and I think the Committee ought to have a full opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That opportunity will be afforded on the Report. The date fixed for the remission is the 1st of May, which is not very far ahead, and it is important that the trade should know what it has to expect.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think, under the circumstances, this Motion ought not to be pressed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolutions [1st April] reported (see page 416) and read the first and second time.
Resolution 1.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I have an Amendment on the Paper "to reduce the Vote by £500 (part of Vote for Restoration of Westminster Hall)." It is not my intention to repeat the observations I have made before on the Vote, except as to one point. I, on a former occasion, called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to the fact that there was no accommodation for the carriages of Members of this House in Palace Yard, except
792
a sort of cave at the North entrance, which is extremely inconvenient of access. The right hon. Gentleman then told the Committee that that cavern or receptacle was intended for horses and not for carriages at all. It will be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that he promised to consider the matter to see if some arrangement could not be made for the convenience of hon. Members. I find that an Order has been issued from the Board of Works, forbidding carriages to enter the cave, and, therefore, though 8 or 10 carriages were some time ago able to seek refuge there? there is now no protection whatever for them. I should like to know why that Order has been issued? There is no danger in the matter of driving into the cavern. I tested the matter by driving a carriage into it myself, and I came to the conclusion that any well-conducted schoolboy could drive a carriage down without the least chance of accident. Therefore, I do not see why Members should not be allowed to use that receptacle if they think fit. I would point out that the interior is by no means so dangerous as the descent from the Strand, say down Buckingham Street, and I therefore do not see why we should be prevented from using this cave. I would also point out that this cave is lighted up at night. At this moment there are 14 gas lights burning in it for the sole delectation, it seems to me, of messengers belonging to the Standard newspaper. I have great respect for that newspaper, but I do not see why we should burn gas lights for its advantage alone, and I find that the only occupants of this place are four bicycles or velocipedes with their riders belonging to that journal. I think we might have some part of the space at the end of Westminster Hall converted into a refuge for carriages. Another point I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to is the staircases in Westminster Hall. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I have already used; but as the right hon. Gentleman has followed my advice with regard to the southern end of that Hall, I would urge him also to adopt my suggestion

793
with regard to these staircases. The area of the Hall need not be interfered with, nor its structure, for the alteration I propose could be brought about by removing the return staircases. For the purpose of raising a discussion, I move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500.
Amendment proposed to the first Resolution, to leave out"£165,767,"and insert"£165,267,"—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck,)—instead thereof.
Question put, "That '£165,767' stand part of the Resolution."
SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): In my opinion the buildings to which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred are more suited to a carriage-shed than anything else, and I hope he will be able to come to terms with the First Commissioner of Works with regard to them. I do not like this Vote to pass without raising a word of protest with regard to the restorations of Westminster Hall. I do not think anything in the way of real restoration has been done; but we have have had a building put up more like a second-rate dissenting church than anything else—a structure which is a disgrace to this House, which has no perspective, and which is as defective in architectural beauty as any average dissenting church. As to the interior of Westminster Hall, I would ask whether it would not be possible to reduce that meretricious piece of architecture which has been called "Spurgeon's pulpit" there?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I will undertake respectfully to consider any plan the right hon. Gentleman may suggest for the improvement of the interior of Westminster Hall or any other building. If the hon. Member (Sir G. Campbell) has any design to propose to improve the beauty of that part of the Hall lately restored, it shall receive every attention if he will lay it before me. As to the accommodation for horses, I should be very glad if some-
794
thing could be done, and I will take care that the matter is not lost sight of. I should be sorry, however, to set up any temporary shed which would have the effect of disfiguring the place. Also I am afraid it would be impossible to provide any large amount of accommodation for carriages—especially carriages with pairs of horses. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) says in regard to the "cave" to which he has referred that he himself has driven down it, and that there is no danger in so doing; but I certainly think it would be dangerous if a large number of spirited animals were congregated there. If the right hon. Gentleman can suggest an alternative scheme to that we have carried out, I shall be very glad to consider it.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I do not think there is any good in crying over spilt milk. We must make the best of what we have got. I think the right hon. Gentleman might make a way for carriages to go into this place by taking down the low wa l in front of it, lowering the level of the yard, and making an exit at the end opposite the present entrance. It is really useless in these days to provide accommodation for the horses of Members. It is, however, highly desirable that some shelter should be provided for carriages. A suggestion has been made that a temporary shed should be put up opposite the entrance to the House of Commons for the accommodation of carriages. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that suggestion, and endeavour to provide accommodation.
(12.17.) The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Akers-Douglas and Sir William Walrond were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
Resolution agreed to.
Second, Third, and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.
Fifth Resolution postponed.
Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
Postponed Resolution to be considered upon Monday next.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 153.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."—(Mr. Macartney.)
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. SEXTON: This is a Bill to adjust, I believe in an equitable sense, the cost of the registration of voters in the Borough of Belfast, in consequence of an addition to the borough, and I think my hon. Friend might agree to the Second Reading.
  *MR. MACARTNEY: I am quite willing to name a day which will give time for considering Amendments. I intend to submit them to the hon. Member for West Belfast in case the Second Reading be taken to-night.
  DR. TANNER: Of course, if my hon. Friend is willing, and if the hon. Gentleman will acquaint my hon. Friend with all the steps that are taken, I will trust him so far.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and Committed for Monday, 5th May.

POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACTS. (AUSTRALIAN MAILS.)
Resolved, That the Contracts with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, dated the 19th January, 1888, and the Orient Steam Navigation Company, dated the 23rd January, 1888, for the conveyance of the Australian Mails, be approved.—(Mr. Jackson.)

LAND PURCHASE AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL, 1890.
Return ordered—
"Showing approximately the Amounts and Distribution of the Imperial Annual Grants to Ireland for local purposes, proposed to be dealt with under the Cash and Contingent portions, respectively, of the Guarantee Fund."
"And, Table illustrative of the operation of the proposed provision for creating a Tenants' Insurance Fund."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 134.]

MOTIONS.

  TOWN HOLDINGS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Law son, Bill to give compensation to occupying tenants of Town Holdings for beneficial improvements, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawson, Earl Compton, and Mr. James Rowlands.
  Bill presented, and read first time.[Bill 227.]

  ROCHESTER BISHOPRIC BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Gorst, Bill to amend "The Bishopric of St. Alban's Act, 1875," as regards the Bishopric of Rochester, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Edward Knatch-bull-Hugessen, and Mr. Causton.
  Bill presented, and read first time.[Bill 228.]

  IRELAND—FUNERAL OF MR. M. HARRIS—CONDUCT OF POLICE.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House:—
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has any information as to the circumstances of the funeral of a late Member of this House, Mr. Matthew Harris, whose death is, I am sure, regretted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am informed that a body of policemen, armed with batons, and accompanied by a note-taker, broke into the churchyard and remained there during the interment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have no information to that effect. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down for tomorrow.
  DR. TANNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information concerning the action of some drunken policemen who followed and insulted the hon. Member for Spalding (Mr. Halley Stewart) while driving to Cashel?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no information.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Kinnaird and the Lord De Ramsey to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, for the consideration of the Open Spaces Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  A Bill to regulate the adoption of children—Was presented by the Lord Chaworth (E, Meath); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday the 25th instant. (No. 56.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 57.)
House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.