Sitting of 27 April 1891

QUESTIONS.

  ORANGE LODGES IN HER MAJESTY'S ARMY IN INDIA.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary
  1472
  of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the existence of Orange lodges in Her Majesty's Army is forbidden by the Regulations of that Force, he will inquire whether such a lodge exists in the 2nd Battalion of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, now or recently stationed at Quetta?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: There is no information on this subject at present at the War Office, but the Commander-in-Chief in India has been requested to make inquiries.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: If I give the right hon. Gentleman fuller details and particulars in reference to the matter—in confidence, of course—will he cause an inquiry to be made?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly, Sir; 1 shall be very glad to cause inquiries to be made if the hon. Gentleman will give me any details on the subject.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a Roman Catholic Nationalist is likely to know anything about an Orange lodge?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I shall be glad to receive information upon the subject from whatever source it may come.

  THE REV. HANDLEY BIRD, MISSION ARY AT CORINBATORE.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a sentence passed upon the Rev. Handley Bird, a missionary, at Corinbatore, on 12th March, of six months' imprisonment, by the Brahmin District Munsiff, for alleged breach of an injunction, in respect of a convert, to convert one Appu Row, who was in his house, which sentence was confirmed and made binding by Mr. Irvine, the District Judge, who, as stated in the Eastern Star of 28th March, absolutely refused to listen to arguments of the defendant's counsel, but abused him, and called him a born idiot, and emphasised his opinions of the plaintiff, his counsel, and missionaries in general; and whether the facts are as stated in the Eastern Star; and, if so, whether he will take speedy measures for remission of the sentence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): A Report has been received

  1473
  from the Government of Madras. It appears that the guardians of a Brahmin boy obtained an injunction in the Munsiff's Court forbidding Mr. Bird to remove the boy from the jurisdiction of the Court pending the result of a trial as to his custody. The boy disappeared, and the Munsiff committed Mr. Bird to prison for contempt of Court. The District Judge, however, while upholding the committal, released Mr. Bird on his undertaking to produce the boy; and the boy having been produced, the order for committal was quashed. Mr. Bird was actually in gaol for one night only.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of the question which relates to the language alleged to have been used by the District Judge. Was such language used?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir. I am unable to give any information upon that point. The Government of Madras have not telegraphed the exact language used by the District Judge.

  THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies why the War Office and Colonial Office combined have increased the yearly payments of the Straits Settlements from 236,600 dollars to 615,000 dollars; whether the increased garrison, promised to the colony in return, is proportionate to the increased payment demanded; whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Governor Sir Cecil Smith, K.C.M.G., in his Despatch to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 19th February, 1890—
  " I found myself wholly unable to conscientiously support the justice of all the claims which Her Majesty's Government had made, and the same views which I held were shared in by every Member of my Council. My instructions, however, were perfectly clear, and I had to require each Member of the Executive Council to vote against his conviction in support of the claims of Her Majesty's Government ";
  and whether the Government, when apportioning the just contribution the colony should pay towards the Mother Country, will take into consideration the fact that it is an important Imperial
  1474
  coaling station, and of Imperial vitality to Great Britain?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The recent decision to increase the military contribution payable by the Straits Settlements was not that of any particular Department, but of Her Majesty's Government. It is not admitted that 236,600 dollars was the full sum formerly payable. The increase has been from £50,145 to £100,000. The force paid for by the colony under the Agreement of 1871 was one wing of an Infantry regiment and one battery of Artillery, or about 561 of all ranks, while the force on which its present contribution is calculated is about 1,500 of all ranks, exclusive, in each case, of staff and departments. The increase of the force charged for has, therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, been about 167 per cent., while the increase in the contribution is only about 100 per cent. I have, of course, seen the Despatch referred to by my noble Friend. The amount of military contribution to be paid by the Straits Settlements has been already decided by Her Majesty's Government, and he will find the material facts and arguments on the subject set forth in the Papers recently presented to Parliament (C. 6,220.)

  METHYLATED SPIRITS.
  MR. O'NEILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to state what steps are to be taken to prevent the use of methylated spirits as a beverage?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: The Board of Inland Revenue intend to render methylated spirit sold by retail more nauseous in character. They also intend, when there is reason to believe that methylated spirit is being purchased from any retailer for potable purposes, to cause such retailer to keep a stock account, giving the date of sale and quantity sold on each occasion, together with the name and address of the purchaser, and, if any such purchaser be known to be using the methylated spirit as a beverage, the vendor will be warned that proceedings will be taken against him for recovery of the fine of £100 under Section 130 of

  1475
  the Spirits Act, 1880, if he continues to sell methylated spirit to the said purchaser. I can assure the hon. Member that every possible precaution will be taken to put a stop to the practice.

  THE SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  MR. FRASER - MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that certain of the engrossing clerks in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, complain of exclusion from the benefits of the Act of 1879, although holding appointments prior to its date; and whether he will lay upon, the Table Copies of the Correspondence on the subject which took place in the years 1879 and 1880, between the Treasury and the Keeper of the Register of Sasines, and the Report of the Committee appointed in 1888, which reported favourably on the claims of these clerks?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Engrossing clerks in the Sasines Office, Edinburgh, are temporary copyists paid by the folio. They are allowed to compete, with a special addition of 10 years to the maximum limit of age, for vacancies on the permanent establishment. They are not excluded from any benefit which the Act of 1879 was intended to grant them. I cannot consent to lay on the Table the Departmental Correspondence relative to the organisation of the Sasines Office. The Report of the Committee of 1888 is confidential; it is addressed to the Secretary for Scotland, and not to the Treasury.

  LUNACY REPORTS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it will be practicable for the Commissioners in Lunacy to append to future issues of their Reports a table showing the causes of death of all lunatics dying in all lunatic asylums, public and private, in registered lunatic hospitals, and in workhouses in England and Wales?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Lunacy Commissioners that no Returns are made to them as to deaths of lunatics in workhouses, and they have no power to call for them. They
  1476
  have considered, and will again consider, whether they can, and how soon, insert tables showing the causes of death in lunatic asylums, registered hospitals, and licensed houses; but this would involve much additional clerical work, and the existing staff is already hard pressed owing to the great increase of work cast upon it by the operation of the Lunacy Act, 1890.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Dr. Wray, a representative of the United States Bureau of Animal Industry in this country, has disputed the alleged cases of contagious pleuro-pneumonia in American cattle landed at Deptford, and asserts that eminent British authorities agree with him that the animals were only suffering from catarrhal pneumonia, and whether any further information can be given to the House respecting these cases?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I am not aware that Dr. Wray, a representative of the United States Bureau of Animal Industry in this country, has disputed the cases of pleuro-pneumonia landed at Deptford, and asserted that eminent British authorities agree with him. I have no information upon the subject beyond an extract from a New York paper, which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me himself. I do not know that I can add anything to what I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Forfarshire a week ago. I may mention perhaps that, in addition to the experts at the Board of Agriculture, the lungs have been seen by Professor Walley and Professor M'Fadyean, both of them being eminent authorities and members of the Edinburgh Veterinary College, and also by Mr. Holmans, an officer of the Board at Deptford, who has had over 30 years' experience of the examination of foreign cattle, and none of these gentlemen, I am informed, have the slightest doubt on the subject.

  LONG HOURS OF WOMEN'S WORK.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scot

  1477
  land has been called to recent statements made in the public Press of Glasgow regarding the long hours during which women, other than domestic servants, are compelled to work in restaurant kitchens, the sanitary conditions under which they work, and the consequent injury to their health; and whether their case is covered by the Factory Acts, the Workshops Acts, or any other existing legislation of a like character; and, if not, whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to meet their case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The Secretary for Scotland has no knowledge of any such statements as are referred to in the question. Restaurant kitchens are not workshops under the Factory and Workshops Act, but any complaint as to their sanitary condition may at present be dealt with under the Public Health Acts. I do not, therefore, see any necessity for introducing legislation on the subject.

  OCCASIONAL LICENCES.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that lately six licensed victuallers applied to the Paignton. Magistrates for occasional licences to sell intoxicants at the Paignton Hunt Races, and, having failed to obtain licences from the Bench in open Court, subsequently obtained them from Lord Churston acting independently of the Bench; and whether he will consider the expediency of legislating, to prevent Magistrates acting in this isolated manner?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen a newspaper report of this case, from which I gather that the two Justices who composed the Bench could not agree, and the licences accordingly were not granted. The solicitor for the applicants informs me that before leaving the Bench the Chairman said that if the applicants could obtain the signature of another Magistrate, he should raise no objection. The Legislature has recently provided, by 26 & 27 Viet., that the consent of one Justice of the Peace only, instead of two, shall be necessary for these occasional licences, and I do not
  1478
  think it would be for the public convenience to go back to the former provisions of the law.

  JUSTICES' CLERKS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Justices for the Ross Petty Sessional Division of Herefordshire have recently appointed a debt collector, who is not a lawyer, as their clerk; and that the new clerk so appointed served for 14 years as assistant to the former clerk; whether the appointment has been made in consequence of " special circumstances," under the 7th section of " The Justices' Clerks Act, 1877," and, if so, what such special circumstances are; whether he is aware that the Magistrates who are in the habit of attending the Bench are exclusively, or almost exclusively, clergymen or military men, but none of them lawyers, and that such appointment of the new clerk has caused dissatisfaction, and even indignation, among the inhabitants in the district; and whether he will represent to the Chairman of the Bench that it is desirable that the clerk should be a trained lawyer.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have made inquiry into this matter, and I am informed that the recently-appointed clerk was not a debt collector, and that he has been continuously employed for upwards of 20 years in attendance at Petty Sessional Courts, and for 16 years as assistant to the clerk of a Petty Sessional Division. The appointment was made under the 7th section of the Act quoted. The Justices inform me that they have always found him an excellent legal authority, and considered him much to be preferred to any other applicant. There is only one clergyman on the Bench, and he is a County Magistrate of long standing, and I am assured that the appointment has met with general approbation in the district. I am not aware of any circumstances which would justify me in making any representation to the Chairman of the Bench on the subject.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he

  1479
  is aware that Mr. Herbert John Greenhalgh, who was found guilty, in December, 1888, on the prosecution of the Extra Hard Cotton Spinners' Association, of having, with intent to defraud, and contrary to the provisions of " The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," sold goods marked outside with a mark which signified that there were a greater number of yards of yarn contained in the parcels thus marked than were contained, is at present a Justice of the Peace at Mansfield, and sits on the Bench, and administers justice; and whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to take any steps with regard to this Magistrate?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has no knowledge a the circumstances referred to; but if the hon. Member will be good enough to inform me where the trial took place, and where a report of it can be found, I will communicate that information to the Chancellor, who will, no doubt, make inquiry into the matter.

  SAMOA.
  Sin T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true that the United States Government have ordered an additional warship to proceed at once to Samoa; if any British warship is at present stationed there; and if he can state how many German war vessels are at Apia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: According to our latest information, there are no British, United States, or German men-of-war at present at Samoa. The hurricane season is only just over, when it is dangerous to keep ships there.

  DOMINICA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the answer made by Her Majesty's Government to the protest of the Elective Members of the Dominica Assembly against the carriage, by the Governor's casting vote, of the Motion for the further loan of £10,000 for public works, in July, 1890; and what was the
  1480
  explanation offered by the Governor to the Secretary of State for the condition of the public works of the island as summed up in that protest?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No answer was made by Her Majesty's Government to the protest of the Elective Members of the Dominica Assembly, referred to in the question. The Governor, in a message to the Assembly immediately after the protest, gave a full explanation of the condition of the public works of the island. The explanation is too long to be embodied in an answer in the House, but a copy of the message can be seen by the hon. Baronet at the Colonial Office.

  MEDIUM POSTCARDS.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is doing anything towards introducing a medium postage card, such as is used in all other countries, instead of the very thick and very thin cards hitherto used in this country?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: Postcards were sold originally of one thickness only, and the stouter card was introduced to meet the demand for a second and better quality. I am not at present contemplating the introduction of a card of medium thickness, but I may mention that the present stout card —sold in packets of 10 for 6d.—is growing in favour, and is, to some extent, taking the place of the thin card. It therefore seems scarcely necessary to introduce a new variety thinner than the favourite card.

  FUNDED DEBT, &c.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what are the figures for 31st March, 1891 (1) of Funded Debt; (2) of Capital Value of Terminable Annuities; (3) of Unfunded Debt; (4) Exchequer Balances; (5) Aggregate Net Liabilities of State; in accordance with the form of National Debt Return, No. 343?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The figures asked for by the right hon. Gentleman are as follows: — (1) £579,472,082; (2) £68,496,365; (3) £36,140,079; (4)) £6,370,897; (5) £679,922,370,

  PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO COLONIES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and Holland, as a rule, admit the productions of their several colonies on better fiscal terms to the Home market than the goods of foreign nations; and whether their colonies also receive the products of the Mother Country upon equally advantageous terms?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As regards France, Spain, and Portugal, the answer to both questions is in the affirmative. In Holland there is no Import Duty upon sugar and coffee coming from any quarter, and these are its chief colonial staples. We have no information as to the German treatment of colonial produce.

  BERLIN LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Berlin Labour Conference is at present before the German Reichstag, and that draft Bills for the same object have been prepared and published in Spain and Austria, he will cause further inquiries to be made as to measures of the same kind being contemplated in other countries which were represented at the Conference?
  SIR J. F FERGUSSON: Despatches have already been addressed to Her Majesty's Representatives in the sense desired.

  PORTUGAL AND SOUTH-EAST AFRICA.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the present position of the negotiations pending between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Portugal with a view to the averting of collisions such as have recently occurred in South-East Africa between Englishmen and the Portuguese authorities, and to the adjustment of the territorial claims of the two countries?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A draft Convention was recently submitted to the
  1482
  Portuguese Government, counter proposals have been received from them, and are under consideration by Her Majesty's Government. The Portuguese authorities, having been instructed not to offer any opposition to communications between the East Coast and the interior, there does not appear to be any danger of further collisions?
  MR. BRYCE: Am I right in saying that the modus vivendi expires in about a fortnight?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir; I think on the 15th of May.

  THE BLOCK IN THE LAW COURTS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he expects to be able to announce the conclusions of the Government as to the appointment of an additional Judge or Judges, or as to what other means they will take to obviate the grievous delays, and consequent losses and anxieties, in obtaining justice to which suitors are exposed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: It is no doubt a very general opinion, in which the Government are disposed to concur, that an additional Judge is required in the Chancery Division, but I am not prepared to say at what time the state of Public Business will enable the Government to submit a Motion on the subject. Meanwhile, efforts are being made to diminish the pressure of causes by the assistance of Judges of the Queen's Bench Division, where lists are in a satisfactory condition.

  THE IMPRISONMENT OF MR. WALSH.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Walsh, of the Cashel Sentinel, on the expiration of his four months' sentence, was re-arrested outside Tullamore Gaol on a warrant which the police withheld executing for four months; that Mr. Walsh was conveyed to Clonmel Gaol, and, after six days there, re-conveyed to Tullamore to undergo his first sentence of three months; that he was then treated as if he were beginning a new term of imprisonment not consecutive on the previous term, and put on the plank bed; and whether this inter-

  1483
  pretation of Rules 19 and 36 of Prison Rules was sanctioned by the Government?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed that it was the case that the prisoner was re-arrested on the expiration of the first sentence. The second warrant could not be executed before, because the prisoner was at the time undergoing imprisonment for another offence. The General Prisons Board report that the prisoner has been treated in the manner described in the last part of the first paragraph of the question, that treatment being strictly in accordance with prison rules
  MR. SEXTON: If it had been one sentence of seven months' imprisonment instead of two, one of four months', and the other of three, would not Mr. Walsh have been entitled to some relaxation? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the hardship of treating this gentleman as if there were two offences?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There were two separate investigations and two separate sentences.
  DR. TANNER: Was not the second sentence pronounced against Mr. Walsh during the time he was in prison upon the first sentence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question.
  MR. SEXTON: My point is, that after a certain term of imprisonment, a man is entitled to relaxation. This man having suffered one term of imprisonment is entitled to relaxation now upon the second sentence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that he was convicted of two separate offences, each of which was independent of the other.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask why Mr. Walsh was conveyed to Clonmel Goal instead of Tullamore?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  PRESENTING A REVOLVER.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man, named Malcolm Turkington, presented a revolver at a number of people on the public road near Lurgan on the
  1484
  20th instant, and afterwards presented a revolver, on the same day, at a woman, named Mary Hendron, and that, although she complained to the authorities at Lurgan, and requested informations against Turkington, her request was refused; whether Turkington had a licence to carry firearms; and if he would inquire into the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that this man's defence is that he was attacked by a crowd, was twice struck with stones, and was obliged to draw a revolver in self-defence. The Magistrates did not refuse Mary Hendron's request, but granted permission to her to take out a summons, and the case will be investigated on the 5th May. Pending that investigation, it would not be proper for me to enter into any particulars.
  MR. BLANE: Is it a fact that Turkington had no licence to carry firearms?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot enter into details.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN ATHLONE.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an inquiry was held in the Athlone Workhouse on the 9th of last March, in connection with the erection of labourers' cottages; that since then all the necessary forms required by the Act for the building of those dwellings have been completed; what is the cause of the delay in their erection; whether the Local Government Board would put pressure on the Guardians to compel them to give immediately to the labourers the small plot of ground attached to each cottage, so as to enable them at once to till their ground and sow their little crop; and whether he is aware that, up to the present, not a single labourer's cottage has been erected in the Athlone Union?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it is the case that the Guardians of Athlone Union have presented a Petition for the confirmation of an improvement scheme under the Labourers' Acts. The matter is in the hands of the Local Government Inspector for report. Action on the part of the Guardians must await that Report. I believe that up to the present time no cottages have been erected under the Acts in the Union.

  PIER AT HOLYWOOD.
  MR. M`CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the proposed pier at Holywood, County Down, whether, considering the default of the late undertakers, he has fixed any period of time within which the present purchasers of the pier are obliged to put it into repair; and whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the lapse of almost two years since the purchase, no steps have yet been taken in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I am aware that, during the period of nearly a year and a half which has elapsed since the purchase of the pier, nothing has been done by the purchasers, although their attention has been called to the matter by the Board of Trade. I have no authority to compel persons who obtain powers under Provisional Orders, or their successors, to exercise the powers conferred on them, and I therefore could not fix a period as suggested. It may, indeed, be a question whether, having regard to Section 12 of the General Pier and Harbour Act of 1862, the powers to repair the pier, given by the Order of 1882, have not now expired.

  LAND COMMISSION-BELFAST.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many appeals were disposed of by the Land Commission during its last sitting at Belfast; and in how many cases were the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commission confirmed, reduced, and increased respectively?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that there were 110 appeals listed for hearing at their last sitting in Belfast, which were disposed of as follows: — Judicial rents affirmed, 52; ditto raised, 22; ditto reduced, 4; dismisses affirmed, 3; Sub-Commission decisions reversed and originating notices dismissed, 5; Sub-Commission decisions reversed and fair rent fixed, 2; again referred to Sub-Commission to fix fair rent, 4; withdrawn and settled, 15; adjourned, 3—total, 110.

  LAND COMMISSION-WEXFORD.
  MR. J. BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Chief Land Commission has appointed 3rd June next to hear appeals from the decisions of the Sub-Commission for County Wexford; if he is aware that there are upwards of 100 appeals listed from the Poor Law Union of Wexford alone; and whether, considering the enormous expense and inconvenience of bringing the tenants and their witnesses to Dublin, he would suggest to the Land Commission the desirability of hearing these appeals in the Assize town of Wexford?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Com. missioners report that their present arrangement to hear appeals from the County Wexford is as stated in the first paragraph. No cases have yet been listed, the papers being in the hands of the Court Valuer. So soon as the list is formed the Commissioners will carefully consider whether, having regard to their other public engagements and the number and character of the holdings concerned, it would be for the public convenience to have a sitting in Wexford.

  BELFAST GOAL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what decision has been arrived at with reference to the alterations at Belfast Gaol?
  SIR E. HARLAND: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if anything has yet been decided as to the removal back or otherwise of the portion of new wall in front of the prison in Belfast?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matter is still engaging the careful attention of the Government, and. they are not without hope that the question at issue will be settled by the acquisition of more land.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the power of the Irish Executive to bear upon the matter, and have it determined in one way or the other before the Vote comes on.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not so simple a matter as the hon. Gentleman supposes. My attention has been drawn to the subject by the Prisons

  1487
  Board; but there are many difficulties in the way of settling it offhand. I have taken great pains about it.

  LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the number of holdings of different classes in Ireland to which Clause 6 of the Land Purchase Bill will apply, and on which he has formed the estimate that £95,000,000 would suffice for their purchase?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Probably the right hon. Gentleman will have gathered from an answer which I gave on a previous occasion that the data which I have been able to obtain are not of such an authentic and certain character as to make this a proper subject of Parliamentary Return. I did give conjectural information in answer to a question, but I do not think it would be proper to put it into a more definite shape.

  THE PENNY POSTAGE JUBILEE.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the letter carriers of the Dundrum, County Dublin, Post Office, will be allowed the day's leave and the day's pay promised last year to the post boys of the United Kingdom in commemoration of the Penny Postage Jubilee?
  MR. RAIKES: I find that, through a misunderstanding on the part of the Local Authorities, only a part of the letter carriers at Dundrum have been granted the Jubilee Holiday. The misunderstanding has now been corrected, and those who have not had the holiday already will have it granted them without further delay.

  OTTER FISHING IN LOUGH DERG.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that persons have been earningt heir livelihood for the past 25 years upon Lough Derg, County Tipperary, by " otter " fishing, without the authorities taking any steps to prevent them; that no other kind of cross fishing is possible on Lough Derg; and that no notice was given this year prior to the issue of licences of any change of the old custom; and whether,
  1488
  under the circumstances, the authorities will allow the continuance of "otter" fishing, or else refund the money paid by the fishermen for the licences?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries are not aware that any persons have been earning their livelihood by " otter " fishing on Lough Derg; but they state that it is the case that the practice of taking out licences for crosslines and using the " otter " has existed for upwards of 20 years. It is, however, not the case that no other kind of cross fishing is possible.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN IRELAND AND GREAT BRITAIN.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Committee of Inquiry into the financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain will sit?
  MR. GOSCHEN: So far as the Government are concerned, and some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, we are perfectly ready for the appointment of the Committee in question, and have been ready for some time. There is no reason why the Committee should not be appointed as soon as the Members for Ireland give notice through the ordinary channel of the names to be appointed.
  MR. SEXTON: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is sensible of the inconvenience of the delay arising from the non-appointment of the Committee.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We have been ready for some time; but I understood that the matter was mainly in the hands of the lion. Member himself. I will put the Committee on the Paper.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will all the information promised by the Treasury be furnished before the Committee meets?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; that will be done; but it would be irregular to circulate any information on the subject before the first meeting of the Committee. A meeting will have to be held pro forma, to authorise the circulation of the information.

  FEVER IN RANAFAST.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to his statement on Thursday last, that fever does

  1489
  not exist in Ranafast, and that, though an outbreak of scarlatina had occurred in the Dungloe Dispensary District, it was practically over on the 25th March, whether he is aware that the dispensary doctor did attend 11 cases of fever in Ranafast on the 21st instant, eight of them being scarlet fever cases; and that two brothers from a neighbouring townland, who died suddenly of scarlatina, were buried on the 21st instant; whether, seeing that his previous information was incorrect, he will cause further inquiry to be made through fresh channels; and whether he requires to see the doctor's certificates in confirmation of the above statements?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My reply of the 16th inst. referred to in this question was in accordance with a Report dated 13th inst., and correctly represented the facts at that time. The later cases of scarlatina, which were 10 in number, exclusive of the two deaths on the 19th, were visited by the dispensary doctor on the 21st inst. for the first time. In addition to these, he found three cases of fever of a mild type, believed to be influenza. It is also understood there is one case of some months' standing, which has developed into typhoid fever. There appears to be no ground to suggest that these cases of illness were in any way connected with distress.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause further inquiry to be made as to the allegation that the official sent down instead of visiting 11 houses to which his attention had been specially drawn confined his visit to two of them which were convenient to the high road?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information which I have given was derived from the dispensary doctor.
  Dr. TANNER: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, are we to understand that the dispensary doctor has asserted that a case of scarlatina absolutely developed into typhoid fever?.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must only understand what I said.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Does the dispensary doctor say that these cases of typhoid fever are unconnected with the distress which exists in the locality?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not profess to be a medical expert; but I have
  1490
  always understood that scarlatina and typhoid, or any other kind of fever, were altogether independent of distress.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask whether it will be practicable for the Royal Commission on Labour to meet on Wednesday next, or when?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no information on the subject, and the matter has passed entirely out of my hands.

  ADULTERATED MANURES.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when he proposes to bring in a Bill to deal with the question of adulterated manures?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am unable to answer the question at present.
  MR. CHANNING: Will it be before Whitsuntide?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot say.

  ARMY AND NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1890–91.
  Copy ordered
  " Of Return showing the Net Estimated and Actual Expenditure for the year 1890-91 on the Army and Navy, and the provision made for it, in the form of Parliamentary Paper, No. 200, of Session 1890."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1891–92.)
  Copy ordered
  " Of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."— (Mr . Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 200.]

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Sir James Bain, knight, for the Borough of Whitehaven.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOT-LAND) BILL COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Dr. Clark, Mr. Flynn, Sir Julian Goldsmid, and Colonel Malcolm be discharged from the Committee.
  Ordered, That Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Hozier, Dr. Farquharson, and Mr. Sinclair be added to the Committee. —(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,

  TEA.
  " That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Tea shall continue to he levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say) on—
  Tea . . . . the pound . Four Pence." —(Mr. Goschen.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In the long and very interesting speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed to us on Thursday night in introducing his financial proposals for the year, the right hon. Gentleman touched upon a large number of subjects which, no doubt, were fully deserving of the attention and inquiry of the House, and upon one or two of those subjects, as well as upon the general scope of the right hon. Gentleman's financial system, I would ask leave now to make a few observations. Before I go into any general matters I wish to draw the attention of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman to one statement that he made, which is so surprising that it appears to be impossible to reconcile it with the figures contained in the official Returns relating to the subject—I mean the statement with reference to what has been done in the way of the reduction and extinction of Debt. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had made large reductions in the Debt during his administration—much larger reductions, he proceeded to prove, than had been effected by his predecessors in office. Well, of course, the right lion. Gentleman ought to have made large, and even very much larger, reductions than his predecessors, for this reason—that, by the operation of the Sinking Fund, the sum payable for interest becomes less year by
  1492
  year, while the margin of Revenue applicable for the redemption of the Debt becomes larger. It must also be remembered that, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's successful operations in connection with the conversion of the Debt, the annual interest on the Debt has been reduced by £1,500,000. And that is not all. In addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman has had enormous sums, amounting in the whole to something like £8,000,000, due to the old Sinking Fund, which arose from the realised surpluses of his estimates. The sums derived from these various sources which were applicable to the reduction of the Debt have, therefore, enabled him to make a very considerable reduction in the amount of the Debt.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: There has been an increase of balances.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not going into the question of balances; but in olden times the balances were entered as an asset to be taken against the Debt. 1 always thought that that was an unsound principle of calculation, and I was fortunate enough to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who decided that they were no longer to be taken as a balance of Debt, but were to be put in a separate column by themselves. The balances may come into the reduction of Debt next year by anticipation; but I only mention the matter by the way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that during the last five years, quite apart from the operation of the Terminable Annuities, he has effected a reduction in the Debt of £37,000,000. Upon that point I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some explanation of the figures upon which lie bases that statement, because it is certainly not supported by any figures contained in the official Returns, and it would be a serious matter to have a conflict as to the National Debt in the Budget and the Debt shown in the Returns. In making his calculations the right hon. Gentleman quite fairly omitted the years 1885–86 and 1886–87, seeing that there was exceptional military expenditure in those years, and that he himself was responsible for the Estimates in the latter year. The right hon.

  1493
  Gentleman took the four years before and the four years after the exceptional period; but he ought not to have taken the year 1880–81 for the reason already stated, that the arrangements of 1881 were those made by Sir Stafford North-cote before the Dissolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have begun with the year 1882, and have taken the four years up to and including 1885. In the earlier four years the right hon. Gentleman says the total was £27,200,000; and the difference was £3,600,000 in favour of the present year. There is in existence a means of testing these statements. Two or three years ago I was anxious to have fuller Returns respecting the National Debt than any the House then possessed, so that it might be seen exactly what has been done from year to year, and particularly how much Debt has been wiped off, and how much created. The Return was prepared in the most careful way by Mr. Edward Hamilton and Sir C. Rivers Wilson; and I will take from it the figures for the two sets of years, and see how they tally with those of the right hon. Gentleman. The figures show that the net reduction of Debt was—for 1888, £5,225,000; for 1889, £6,428,000; and for 1890, £8,200,000. For 1891 the amount does not appear upon the Return, but it can be ascertained from the figures the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just given, and the amount is £6,100,000. The total for the last four years was £25,953,000, or, in round numbers, £26,000,000. This is the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts at £30,800,000. For the earlier four years the figures of the Return are as follows: — 1882, £6,940,000; 1883, £6,776,000; 1884, £8,900,000; 1885, £7,273,000; total, £29,889,000, or, in round numbers, £30,000,000, as against £26,000,000. The comparative result is exactly the reverse of that stated by the right hon. Gentleman, and so far from showing £3,600,000 in his favour it shows £3,600,000 in favour of the former Government. Unless these figures are erroneous, so far from the right hon. Gentleman having, with enormously greater resources and with a diminished interest to pay, done more for the reduction of the Debt than any one else
  1494
  under the system established by Sir Stafford Northcote, he has done less by the amount of £3,600,000. The resources referred to are the under-estimates of Revenue through which the old Sinking Fund in these four years have amounted to £8,000,000, which means that he has raised £8,000,000 more than was wanted. In the former four years the excess was £1,500,000 as compared now with £8,000,000, or a difference of £6,500,000; and if this has been raised it ought to be shown in the Debt operations; but it has disappeared. May I ask how and where it has disappeared? The Budget speech was a long speech—I do not say that it was too long—but it was necessarily long under the new patent system of finance which has overthrown all the old English traditions. It is not one Budget giving an account of Imperial finance for the year, which raised the money for the year and closed the account at the end of the year; but the right hon. Gentleman had to deal with three Budgets—first, what may be called the old English Budget; next, the new-fangled Continental " Extraordinary " Budget; and lastly, the Local Subsidy Budget. These are new things, and even those most familiar with the subject find it impossible to understand the Public Accounts and Public Finance at the present time. The great security for economy and sound financial administration has always in this country been that you provide the money you think you would want for the Services of the year; at the end of the year you closed the account, and if there had been more money raised than was required, you returned it to the Exchequer. In short, you closed the account, and began a fresh account the next year. That was the great security of English finance, and it was one which had been carefully built up by great masters of finance. It has been jealously guarded by the appointment of the Auditor General and other officers, who see that the principle is observed; whenever that principle has been departed from the departure has been severely attacked, and the departure has been condemned in past days by none more severely than by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first effect of the present multifarious system of accounts is confusion, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will excuse me

  1495
  for saying so, considerable difficulty in explaining the accounts. I have endeavoured to follow the right hon. Gentleman's figures in the House and in print, but I confess that the difficulty of understanding them becomes greater the more they are explained. The right lion. Gentleman has delivered paper after paper, not one of which it is possible to reconcile with the other. I have endeavoured with my friends, the right hon. Members for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who are very familiar with these subjects, but we cannot make any one of these accounts square with the other, and it is necessarily so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has created four accounts—the Australian Establishment Account, the Imperial Defence Account, the Naval Defence Fund, and the Barrack Fund. Every one of these Funds has been raised out of different sources, to be paid at different times on money borrowed on different conditions. The extraordinary part is that the expenditure was to take place at certain times, and has not so taken place; the money has not been provided in the manner intended; if anybody endeavours to make head or tail of the Expenditure he will fail, and I doubt whether even the Chancellor of the Exchequer understands it. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's statements certainly cannot be made to correspond with the Papers he has delivered. J do not say that the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to hold anything back, still less that he has endeavoured to misrepresent anything. With the greatest courtesy the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to give all the information in his power. It is the system he has introduced which has created such confusion that he himself is not able to clear it up. I am extremely sorry to have seen this departure from all the principles on which English finance has hitherto been governed—principles of action and of account which were established by Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Lewis, and by my right hen. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have now changed all that.] It is an extremely dangerous thing in an old-established firm to alter its system of book-keeping, and to begin to proceed upon new-fangled
  1496
  principles altogether. We have seen some consequences of that sort of thing lately in the City, and I would be sorry to see the same principles tried upon the old firm of the English Treasury. All these things are very ingenious, but ingenuity is not what is most wanted in dealing with finance. You do not want a number of small devices for escaping the fact that you are' spending more money than you have got; and, instead of wrapping up the fact that you require to spend more than you have, you should come forward and say so, borrowing the money upon the ordinary credit of the English nation. That is the process which has before been followed, and it ought to be adhered to, instead of saying when £2,500,000 is wanted, " We are not borrowing it; nobody will have to pay for it; nobody will feel it we will put it some years hence upon the proceeds of the Suez Canal." This is a process which has hitherto been unknown to English finance, and the Economist, a paper not unfriendly to the right hon. Gentleman, says that he has
  " Descended to arts which are humiliating to English finance, and which belong rather to the finance of bankrupt South American Republics."
  The right hon. Gentleman says that £2,500,000 will not come out of the taxes. I should not have thought that a man with the logical capacity of the right hon. Gentleman would have descended to so transparent a fallacy as that. If, instead of putting it upon the Suez Canal, he had put it upon the increased value of the leases upon the Crown estates when they fall in, can it be said that nobody would have felt the burden? Does not everybody see that five years hence, when £500,000 a year comes in from the Suez Canal, the people of that time will have to pay £500,000 more in taxes than they would had this mortgage not been made upon them? Having added this extraordinary Budget to the old English Budget, the right hon. Gentleman has added a new head of "local subsidies." The first observation I would make upon those subsidies is that they add immensely to the confusion of the public accounts. The right hon. Gentleman has removed the confusion in one respect, but it is impossible to make out what is the real produce of the taxes. But there is a much more serious

  1497
  consequence than that. The right hon. Gentleman has diverted from the Exchequer a stream which would have filled his reservoirs with £4.000,000, which he has given away. I said, he had given it in relief of rates. We have it on the authority of the Minister of Agriculture that the relief of rates in the rural districts all went to the landlords. J admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he had not settled quite in his own mind how much of the relief in urban districts went to the occupier and how much to t he owner, and I do not pretend to settle that point. But what might the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done with this £4,000,000 if he had kept it? He might have taken 1d. off the Income Tax; have removed all, or nearly that remains of the Tea Duty; and he might have taken off what remains of the Inhabited House Duty. All this would have been a relief to the landowner, who would have been more benefited by d. reduction in the Income Tax than by all he gets from the rates. Towards the end of his speech the other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked, " Am I to have a surplus? " From the many principles known to English finance, the answer ought to have been in the negative. A surplus in any given year is an excess of receipts over payments, of Revenue over Expenditure. If your Revenue exceeds your Expenditure you have a surplus, but if your Expenditure exceeds your Revenue you have a deficit. Now, what was the situation of the right hon. Gentleman this year, and what was it last year? Did his Revenue exceed his Expenditure? No; his Expenditure exceeded his Revenue, and he bad had a deficit last year, and the right hon. Gentleman's Expenditure this year is to be, as I will show, in excess of the Revenue he has got, and neither last year nor this year has he, or will he have, a surplus. How did the right hon. Gentleman get this surplus last year? By the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given it is easily made out; he borrowed between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 of money last year. The Unfunded Debt is increased by £4,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman borrowed £3,500,000 last year in order to obtain a surplus of £1,750,000; if lie had not borrowed he
  1498
  would have had a defict of £1,500,000. The old Sinking Fund is operated upon in a way which I will call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's " new way of paying old debts." What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do this year? He is going to borrow something like £3,000,000; he has got an Expenditure beyond what he provided for in the Revenue of the year. The right hon. Gentleman has said that £2,140,000 would be spent on naval defence. I think that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be very much surprised if that is all he is to get to spend on naval defence.
  MR. GOSCHEN: All that is borrowed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that in his speech.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I thought I had stated with absolute clearness that I was speaking of money which was borrowed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Nothing could be further from my desire than to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman; but I think that if we substituted the word " borrowed " for the word " spent " in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's. speech we might make something of it. Having borrowed £2,000,000 the right hon. Gentleman will have a surplus of £3,000,000; if he had not borrowed it lie would have a deficit of £1,000,000. That is the way of getting a surplus in in this new-fangled mode of English finance. It is like getting a banker to put £1,000 to one's account in order to pay Christmas bills, and then treating that £1,000 as a surplus, whereas the money has been borrowed, because without it the account would have been overdrawn. That is what I would call not salvation finance, but the milder term of post obit finance. All these systems are ingenious shifts to make-. people believe that the finances are in a. very flourishing state. In order to pay our way we are obliged to borrow £3,500,000 at a time when the Revenue is in a condition of prosperity such as has not been enjoyed for a long time. I maintain that this system of finance is extremely mischievous, and tends to hide from the people what is the real condition of things. It is mischievous in its present effects, and in my opinion it is much more mischievous in its future consequences; because we may depend upon it that this easy going system of finance, which, in the time of Mr. Hudson, was known

  1499
  as "making things pleasant," is an encouragement to every species of extravagance; it teaches people that they may spend what they like, as tradesmen tell young gentlemen they need not pay now, they can pay at some future time. How has the right hon. Gentleman obtained 'the surpluses of which he is so proud? Of course, he has been greatly aided by the prosperity of the time, and he has been largely aided in concurrence with that prosperity by the magnificent opportunity of which he has taken so able and skilful advantage, in the Conversion of the Debt. But with all this assistance, out of what have the surpluses been made? The first has been made by cutting down the fund for the reduction of the Debt; the second by borrowing £3,500,000; and the third is made by borrowing £3,500,000 again. At this time of piping prosperity that is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman makes his surplus. How is it, with all these advantages of good trade and reduced interest on the Debt, that the right hon. Gentleman has no money to give away in reduction of taxation? Well, the right hon. Gentleman has impeached his colleagues who sat beside him as the robbers of the Queen's Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman himself is one of that long firm; he is the colleague who carries the bag, and without his consent and participation this burglary could not be effected. It often happens that it is the domestic servant who opens the door for the:plunder of the house; and that is the situation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been content to fill in this matter. Of course, the first cause why the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to give away is the enormous increase in the Naval and Military expenditure of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has increased this expenditure not upon the Estimates of the Liberal Government, but upon his own, by £3,000,000 a year since 1889; that is the ordinary increase under the Naval and Military Estimates, besides £17,000,000 extraordinary. That is the real ground and foundation of the financial situation; it is all nonsense talking about a Sinking Fund and paying off debt when we are borrowing. Lord Beaconsfield talked of " bloated armaments." I wish we could get back to
  1500
  the bloated armaments which Lord Beaconsfield used to denounce. Are these swollen Estimates the result of the experience and judgment of the Government itself? I know that hon. Members opposite go up and down the country saying that if there is an increase it is due to those miserable Liberals who have run down those establishments. How has the money been spent? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office in 1887 he had full knowledge of how things stood. In 1887, in his Budget speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that the extra charge was due to that which is commonly known as the naval scare. The right hon. Gentleman did not expect at that time that lie was going to have a naval scare by which £17,000,000 would be added to the ordinary expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech in 1887 that the House had agreed to an extra expenditure of £3,000,000 on ships, and £1,600,000 on the Army. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Estimates had been increased temporarily, and that he hoped that at the end of the financial year they would have effected a large diminution in the heavy charges which had been made on the taxpayers owing to exceptional circumstances. Only three years ago he said—
  " There is good reason to hope and believe that the time is not far distant when the Navy Estimates will not require to be swollen by exceptional items, such as these, which have fallen as heavily on the taxpayer of the last few years."
  Our expenditure then was, in fact, exceptionally heavy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed confidence that in the future it would be lighter. That was only three years ago. Let the right hon. Gentleman now go to the country and say that the present increased expenditure is due to the running down of the establishments by the Liberal Government, and see what answer he will get. He said three years ago that the expenditure of the Governments which preceded him had been exceptionally large, owing to the naval scare, but lie pledged his opinion that the Navy Estimates would in the future be much lower. For a time he reduced the Estimates to the extent of nearly £1,000,000. Yet it is said. that this

  1501
  present great increase is due to the fact that we ran down the establisments, which he himself subsequently depleted to the extent I have mentioned. The statement is absolutely untrue, and I hope it will not be repeated. The Government may think that the extraordinary expenditure they have demanded is necessary, and they may think that the country supports them in it. Then, if so, why do they not prove it by asking the country to pay for it, instead of doing, as Sir Stafford Northcote did—namely, " spreading " it, for which he was denounced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as a cowardly financier. By the system under which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now dealing with these matters, it is quite impossible to check the accounts year by year—to ascertain accurately what is received and spent in any one year. For the first time we have unexpended balances carried over from one year to another, a practice which our whole system of finance was intended to prevent. The result is that various matters are mixed up which ought to be kept separate, and it is impossible to trace the accounts satisfactorily—to tell how much has been paid, or for what, or how much has been borrowed. As to the statement that you are borrowing for permanent works, I deny it, for, in fact, you are borrowing for things of comparatively brief duration. The cost of sites for post offices you have the courage to liquidate every year. You do not borrow for them. The right hon. Gentleman was determined to have a surplus, whether he had the money or not, and it is for this reason that he has introduced the novelty of unexpended balances into English finance. But if these things are done in the piping times of prosperity, what is going to be done in hard times? If such things are to be done in the fat years which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had, what will be done in the lean years? That is a consideration which I think the Committee ought to bear in mind. How has most of this money been obtained? By borrowing, and the Unfunded Debt has been increased by £4,000,000. I do not leave out of consideration the reduction in the Funded Debt. I fully recognise that; but the right lion. Gentleman, I believe, shares
  1502
  the objections I feel to a great increase of the Unfunded Debt of the country. It has always been the resort of lax finance, the Unfunded Debt has always been a resource to weak financiers. Now, in the Budget of 1887, the right hon. Gentleman said the Treasury bills which already existed were, to his mind, on too large a scale, the Floating Debt then being £15,000,000; yet in the past four years the debt has been increased by £20,000,000, and now stands at £36,000,000, according to a Return which I received this morning from the right hon. Gentleman. I am aware that a considerable portion of the sum is in the hands of the Public Departments or the National Debt Commissioners; but with the £3,500,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will borrow the Unfunded Debt will be no less than £40,000,000 at the end of the present year, a sum which it has never reached during the past half century. What was the position of the Unfunded Debt in 1874? When the Government of Lord Beaconsfield came into office in 1874 the Unfunded Debt stood at £4,000,000; when they left office it was £27,000,000. Sir Stafford North-cote at that time thought the sum inconveniently large, though it was £10,000,000 lets than at present. He therefore began to reduce it by means of terminable annuities, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian afterwards funded a portion of it. It was thus reduced to £14,000,000 or £15,000,000, but has now been increased, as I have said, to £36,000,000. I know that in relation to the conversion operations a considerable portion of the money has been raised, but that does not do away with the objection of this great weight of Unfunded Debt. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is not a desirable state of things. It is not because you have to pay more interest; very often you have to pay less, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has had a somewhat different experience during the last 12 months. In my time I have got money for 1½; per cent. I doubt very much if he has been able to get it at less than 2¾. I object, however, that a large Floating Debt of this kind, especially upon short terms like the Treasury bills, makes the Chancellor of the Exchequer a money dealer in the

  1503
  Money Market, thus placing him in a position which he never ought to occupy. The right hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag on one point. Why, instead of using the money of the Sinking Fund to pay off the Floating Debt, did he use it by preference to pay the Consols? Because Consols are so low, he says. He is evidently a little tender on that subject, and I assure him I will consult his feelings. He is the godfather of the new Consols, they go by his name, but, like many other infants, they have not fulfilled all that was promised and vowed in their name. The right hon. Gentleman told the people who took the Consols that they would be worth par, and by a certain amount of adroit manipulation they were kept at par for a time during the period of conversion, but they very soon fell below, and for the simple reason that nothing can for any length of time be kept up above its real market value. That is briefly the reason of the present price of Consols. The right hon. Gentleman may say that they have fallen in the commercial distress, or because there has been such a number of sales of Consols. He has said, moreover, that Trustees will not invest in Consols, and he addressed to them a touching appeal. He talked of those patriotic Consols which their forefathers desired to be a provision for their daughters. But these patriotic Consols are the old Three per cents. Our forefathers never considered the condition of Consols reduced, if I may so describe it, to a vulgar fraction. Sydney Smith talked of the " sweet simplicity of the Three per Cents.," but now that they are reduced to 2¾, ultimately to sink to 2½, it is difficult to calculate what their value may be here or hereafter. All the sacredness and simplicity has departed from Consols, and the unfortunate daughters, who one day will become old maids, will look rather to a solid debenture which will give them a permanent 3 per cent. than cling to Consols reduced to a vulgar fraction. That is really the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is so afraid of being obliged to put Consols on the market which he thinks the market is not likely to absorb. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he is going to undertake the restoration of light coin. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last
  1504
  year that he had impounded the profit which he got on the silver, and that he had made a permanent fund for that purpose. He got £600,000 for it last year, and he has got £400,000 this year; and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee that he means to appropriate both those sums for the purpose. I think it will cost nearly £1,000,000 to accomplish the task. There is one subject I feel more delicacy in addressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon than even Consols, and that is the brewers. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's argument against taking the tax off the brewers, I can assure him that the argument addressed to the Opposition side of the House was not necessary; as far as I can see, to the brewers it was not satisfactory. The brewers are disappointed, and no wonder. Why, what was his argument when the Opposition fought him on the compensation proposals? It was said he was going to compensate out of the taxation of the people. He replied, "No such thing; we are going to compensate out of the money of the brewers;" and he used that argument in his Budget speech. We on the Opposition side thought at the time that that was a perfectly unsound financial argument. We said that money paid by the brewers or anybody else was money that belonged to the Exchequer, and that it could not be ear-marked as belonging to a particular class. Therefore, to talk of the money being paid out of the fund of the brewers was entirely a financial error. I am very glad that we have converted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he has adopted our argument in contradiction of his own. He says—
  "It is argued that this additional tax falls not on the consumer but on a particular and limited trade; but I am unable to admit that plea, because if that were so I think we should never be able either to reduce or increase the tax."
  That is a complete contradiction of his argument when we were battling with him on the compensation clauses. The right hon. Gentleman, in calculating the future progress of the Revenue, used a rather singular phrase, to which I must demur. He said that last year the House entered into a partnership with him as to the taking of low Estimates.

  1505
  The House enters into no partnership with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon Estimates of Revenue. The House has no means of forming an opinion upon the subject at all. I will go even further, and say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can not himself form an Estimate of the Revenue. Those Estimates are formed by the experienced officers of the Department, who form them just as a surveyor forms an estimate of the value of land, and that is the only foundation of the Estimates of Revenue. But the right hon. Gentleman, who is not content unless he is innovating in everything, has produced a new system for estimating Revenue. He lays down a certain percentage for increase of population, which is to form a sort of rule of thumb standard, applicable to each article of Revenue—a thing unheard of before. Now, it is a remarkable fact that in his Budget of 1887 the right hon. Gentleman founded his claim to cut down the Sinking Fund applicable to the reduction of the Debt on the experience of the last 10 years, which showed that there was no elasticity in the Revenue. He drew a dismal picture of what had been, and what was likely to be, and his special ground was that the growth of Revenue anticipated by Sir Stafford Northcote was absent, and that it did not now rise in proportion to the increase of population. The Estimate of the Revenue ought to be founded upon the expectations of the particular year and nothing else, and to lay down a rule that we are to give any percentage to increase of population is in my opinion, thoroughly unsound. I protested at the time against the right hon. Gentleman's dismal prognostications and against his reduction of the Fund. From the moment he began reducing the Sinking Fund the Revenue rose, and the right hon. Gentleman still keeps on reducing the Fund although the Revenue has risen. The Estimates must be taken on the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone. We cannot enter into a partnership with him, as we have no means of forming a judgment on the matter. As to the destination of the surplus, all I can say is I am extremely pleased, from whatever source it comes, that it should be bestowed on free education. I am one of those who stood
  1506
  by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham in the election of 1885. I stood by the programme of free education. I can say no more upon that subject until I see the Bill, and until I know what is to be done, and how it is to be done. What I desire, apart from the correction of erroneous statements, is to call attention to the extraordinary innovation which the right hon. Gentleman has made in the financial business of this country, to the extreme revolution he has made in all those safeguards which have been considered most essential to secure the solidity of the finance of the country. I desire most earnestly to protest against the financial policy of shifts and devices of the character which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I allude to one other criticism made by the Economist newspaper? They say, and they say truly, that the pretext upon which this extraordinary Budget has been founded has broken down; and so it has. The pretext was that a great expenditure was suddenly required, and the money must be instantly found, and that therefore the payment must be spread over a long period. What is the fact? In June last my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford asked how much money the Navy were going to spend upon contract ships. A Parliamentary Paper was delivered, stating that they were going to spend £5,500,000, whereas as a fact they spent little more than £3,000,000. They could not spend the £5,000,000 that they pretended and doubtless intended to spend. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had misrepresented the transaction. How could we when we had the official document stating that £3,000,000 out of the £5,500,000 had been spent? What does this show? It shows that the pretext of the necessity for suddenly raising money was utterly unfounded. I consequently entirely concur in the criticism that the pretext on which this extraordinary Budget was founded has entirely broken down. This system of finance is unfortunate, and we ought to protest against it in order, if we can, to prevent it in the future. The right hon. Gentleman protested against something of the sort 12 years ago, and I protested with

  1507
  very great force, and, I hope, with some effect. At that time there was far more excuse for what was done than that which the right hon. Gentleman now possesses. The foreign policy had involved the Government of Lord Beaconsfield in great difficulties, and Sir Stafford Northcote proposed to spread a very small sum of money, as the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to spread a very large sum of money. And what did the right hon. Gentleman say as to the action of Sir Stafford North-cote? The right hon. Gentleman said then, what I say now. He said—
  " The fact is that the House has lost power as to the expenditure of the country through the introduction of this distinction between ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. While they hunted with the hounds they ran with the hare; and after singing ' Rule Britannia' at Conservative dinners all over the country, they came down and talked of public economy. He would turn from the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman to his financial policy. Fortunately it would be described in a very few words. It simply postponed the excess of expenditure liability over income to a future date; it renewed bills, it prolonged liabilities. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he had put these liabilities not entirely out of sight because it would be unheroic and mischievous, but so far out of eight that they need not look at them unless they liked. It might be an unpopular thing to say, but it was better for the cause of economy and for the good of the country that we should pay off our burdens by taxation and not stave off payment to a future day. Cheerfulness on the part of the country to make the necessary sacrifice would prove patriotism most valuable to Her Majesty's Government, while to impose taxation would have shown what confidence they had in the resources of the country. But the Government had shrunk from that test., There was an exhibition of an apparently strong policy carried out by a weak man; he did not mean a man intellectually weak, but wanting in the nerve and courage to face unpopularity. They had shown want of confidence in the willingness of the country to hear the burdens which were the result of the policy of the Government."
  Later on the right hon. Gentleman said—
  " I know the state of commercial gloom. I know what pinching there is in many households. but I hope, and still believe, y m are willing to bear your share of the burden, to uphold old English principles, and to say—' Do not let us be financial cowards, but let us pay our way like men.''
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the country was willing to boar its burdens, and he declared against financial cowardice, and in fact the right hon. Gentle-
  1508
  man protested, as I protest, against this . shabby, flabby policy. Ought I to, read the last extract from the speech? It shows, at all events, that we were at the time entirely in accord. The last.; words were—
  " To use the witty expression of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, peace with honour on tick is not a policy for an English statesman to adopt."
  These were the financial proposals and policy against which the right hon. Gentleman protested in 1879, and it is against the same policy that I protest in. 1891.
  MR. GOSCHENI rise with a chastened spirit, having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's authority in these matters. He has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, though not for very many months, and he distinguished himself by proposing to suspend two little Sinking Funds to meet a deficit of £500,000. That is the unique performance of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall be prepared to meet the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but, having occupied the time of the House at great length on Thursday, I do not wish to inflict myself again at too great length, or too often, on the attention of the Committee. But I had notice some time ago that a far superior authority than the right hon. Member for Derby intended to arraign my finance. In the celebrated speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), at Hastings, he said—
  " There is much more to be said with regard to finance than I intend to say on this occasion."
  I hope that if the challenge is to be fought out at all, it will be fought out now, and, as I am the person challenged, I should prefer to follow the right hon. Gentleman rather than to be followed by him.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not know to what words of mine reference is made by the right hon. Gentleman. In my speech at Hastings 1 made certain references to finance, and I said, also, that there was much more that might be said on the finance of the right hon. Gentleman. If the allegations I made , at Hastings are contested I shall defend

  1509
  them. I never gave any indication at Hastings as to any course I intended to pursue on the present occasion. I have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend, and my impression is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer need not go far afield, for there is a pretty tough business before him in meeting the statements of my right hon. Friend.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I hope, then, that I may understand that, as I was the attacked party in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which has been repeated, travestied, land burlesqued on many platforms, I now know the worst from the right hon. Gentleman. If, then, the right hon. Gentleman considers that all has been said that is necessary, I will proceed to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). The attacks which he has made are on small points, on details, and on principles. The right hon. Gentleman appears to gloat over the reduced price of Consols, and he has never ceased to harp upon that. The Member for Mid Lothian has with greater magnanimity never tried to diminish the value of the conversion to the country, or to affect its credit by holding up to Consol-holders that their prices have fallen, but the right hon. Member for Derby has five or six times tried to irritate them, pointing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as if to say, " It is he that is your enemy and has done you this bad turn." I do not consider that to be a device of one really interested in the finance of the country. The right hon. Gentleman must know, as every man of business knew, that the fall was to a great extent temporary. Does he not know that all securities had fallen? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the price as 96, but they stood at 98 for a very long time after the conversion. Is not all this done to weaken the effect of that great operation for which the right lion. Member for Mid Lothian had always been willing to give the fullest credit to Her Majesty's Government? This is a kindred point to another which was made by the right hon. Member for Derby, namely, the question of the Funded and Unfunded Debt. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the " gross extent " to which the Unfunded Debt had been increased; but no embarrassment
  1510
  can be caused to a Government when a very large portion of the Unfunded Debt is held by the National Debt Commissioners. To say that the Unfunded Debt has been increased from £15,000,000 to £36,000,000 is to create a false impression; because from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000 is the whole increase of the Floating Debt held by the public; and, on the other hand, we have paid off £24,000,000 of Consols in cash. Was it not worth while to incur this slight increase in the Floating Debt as a means of paying off £24,000,000 of Consols in cash? The right hon. Gentleman has ' remarked that the circumstance of the increase in the Unfunded Debt is a proof of weak finance.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: My objection to the increase in the Unfunded Debt is to that portion of the increase that has been incurred this year.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has attacked me, in the first place, for borrowing the money, and, secondly, for the method in which the money has been borrowed. The right hen. Gentleman, in dealing with the second point, has asked why the money has been borrowed on Treasury bills instead of in the ordinary way. I have borrowed the money in the way I have done because I am anxious to repay it as soon as possible. If I had borrowed the money for a temporary purpose by means of Stock I should have been open to the very opposite charge, namely, that I had increased the Debt without making any provision whatever for paying off the increase. Certainly it is one of the first duties of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to make provision for paying off any increased Debt. The right hon. Member for Derby spoke throughout, and, in his eloquent peroration—borrowed from myself—to which, however, the right hon. Gentleman lent an additional charm, as if everything had been raised by loans and no efforts put forth or appeal made to the patriotism of the people of this country to meet the increased expenditure upon the Army and Navy out of the taxation of the year. The right lion. Gentleman, however, appears to take no notice of the very strong point that the ordinary Estimates have been largely increased, and that Her Majesty's Government up to the end of

  1511
  the year 1889 asked the taxpayers to pay more in each year than was actually spent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has characterised the surpluses of 1888, 1889, and 1890 in the first place as fraudulent, and subsequently as fictitious; but year after year there have been satisfactory and perfectly genuine surpluses—a fact, perhaps, which was not very agreeable to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I spoke of the surplus of last year only.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But it has been stated all over the country that the right hon. Gentleman charged the Government with having fictitious surpluses in the plural, and I can assure him that I greatly prefer that attacks should be made upon my financial policy in this House, where I can answer them, than elsewhere, where misapprehensions cannot be so readily corrected. I now am to understand, therefore, that the epithet " fictitious " was applied not to the surplus as of 1888,1889, and 1890, but merely to that of 1891. In listening to some of the speeches that have been delivered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite people might suppose that the system of extending the re-payment of money borrowed over a lengthened period had never been countenanced or adopted until the unfortunate individual who now fills the office became Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I may say the Barracks Bill is an exact copy of the Localisation of the Forces Act, which was passed when the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was Prime Minister. The principle of not paying off the whole of the expenditure incurred within the year is the same in both cases, and if the surplus of 1890–1 is fictitious because I have adopted that principle, the surpluses which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian dealt with in former years were equally fictitious. Would anyone who heard the speech of the Member for Derby believe that the taxpayers of the present year are actually paying for an amount of money borrowed in former times by a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was a member? If J had created " converted annuities," what would have been said of the phrase?
  1512
  and yet there are some £600,000 of these converted annuities chargeable to the taxpayers for expenditure incurred for the fortification loans of many years ago. It has been established by precedent that it is lawful, Constitutional, and not unusual that expenditure on certain works of a permanent character should be postponed over a certain number of years; and though I bow humbly to the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman, I think if he had appealed to precedent J should have been relieved from the charge of having introduced a fresh system in this matter. I come now to the question of the Imperial Defence Loan, where the Suez Canal Shares are expected to find money three or four years hence. When I read the Economist of Saturday, I said to myself "I know now the exact speech which will be made by the right hon. Gentleman." I have not been disappointed. The speech was an expanded and eloquent version of the article, but still it is that article. Although I often agree with the Economist, I must say that the language it has used on this subject is absurd, because it speaks as if the Suez Canal Shares interest were hypothecated in the sense of being offered to the holders of the bills separately as a pledge, as if it were necessary for the security of the transaction. If the editor had referred to the Act he would have seen that that is not the case: and, indeed, it is almost absurd to suggest such a thing as probable. It appears to me to be perfectly legitimate to deal with the future interest of this windfall, for it is a windfall, and it has been an extremely valuable one.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I thought it was a great act of policy.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The buying of the shares was an act of policy, and the windfall is that they have become so much more valuable than was anticipated. It was not believed at the time that the shares would be so valuable, and I say it is no more contrary to good policy to say that the interest upon them should be devoted to extinguishing Debt so many years hence, than it is to say the same with regard to the annuities that have been created by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in accordance with the

  1513
  constant method of Imperial finance. If I had personally introduced some of this complicated system of annuities — deferred, postponed, and rolling —I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would have said? What we have done in the case of the Suez Canal shares is a simple operation, and it is perfectly defensible. All that has been done is that an Act has been passed providing that the future interest to be received shall be devoted to the extinction of this Debt. There is very little room for difference of opinion on the matter, and certainly no cause for censure. Coming to the Naval Defence Act, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be perfectly incapable of understanding what we mean by the policy we have adopted. I conceive that the right hon. Gentleman is not a good accountant. He has many excellent qualities, but he gets hopelessly befogged occasionally when be gets amongst figures. What has been the origin of the fog into which some right hon. Gentlemen have got with regard to these Naval Defences? The origin of the difficulty was a Return moved for by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) in as confused a form as could possibly be conceived. There was some difficulty in agreeing to the form in which the right hon. Member desired to have it, because it was one that was certain to lead to every kind of confusion. The right hon. Member for Derby has just said that very frequently Returns do not agree with each other; and the reason is that Members who move for them have got, I will not say fads, but views to which they desire to give effect. They accordingly move for Returns in conflicting forms. The Government weakly gives way rather than be charged with desiring to conceal something; and then it is said that the Returns do not agree with each other. What was this famous Return of the right hon. Member for Bradford? It was a Return of Expenditure divided into various items so as to show the Expenditure out of Revenue and the Expenditure out of borrowed money. In quoting some of the items the other evening, I did not always use the phrase " out of borrowed money," as I ought to have done in order to avoid misapprehension. I thought I had been clear enough; and I hope that if I did mislead the right
  1514
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, it was only for a moment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Expenditure given in the Returns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford is the actual estimated Expenditure. It cannot be meant to be the estimated Expenditure from borrowed money. It is £2,000,000 in excess of the Estimates altogether.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I see that the right hon. Gentleman does not yet understand the Return. On the first page you have the whole Expenditure both from borrowed money and from income. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the form of the Return, because he read an amount of estimated expenditure without observing whether it was to be out of borrowed money or out of other money. And now as to the substance—this is a point upon which I ask careful attention —a point of substance. Here we estimated that a large amount would have to be paid for contract ships. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, "You ought to have spent the whole of that out of revenue." That is the gravamen of his charge—
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Spent out of revenue? Paid out of revenue you mean.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Paid out of revenue. The gravamen of the charge is, we ought to have paid the whole of that Estimate out of Revenue. Well, if that had been proposed what would have happened? The right hon. Gentleman must know that a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot always estimate this expenditure with accuracy. The Admiralty makes the best Estimate they can. They had 70 contracts out and they estimated as well as they could what they would have to pay on them in the year. I believe in all these cases delivery will have to be made by a certain date; therefore, although they have paid less in the course of the last financial year, that does not prove that the ships will not be delivered at the date they have been contracted for. This is an important point. What would have happened if we had not taken the power of spreading the expenditure over a certain number of years? According to the right hon. Gentleman we ought to have pro-

  1515
  vided out of taxation the whole of the expenditure set out in this Return.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, the amount you spend within the year.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But you want to know what you are going to spend within the year. Let us clear up this point. The Return was made in June, my Budget is brought in in April. I had notice from the Admiralty that a certain amount would probably be spent on contract ships during the course of the year, and according to the view of the right hon. Gentleman it was unheroic for us not to ask the people to pay for this from taxation. Whether he says " Yes " or " No," that is the charge made —we ought to pay the expenditure of the year out of the taxes.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Just the same may be said of dockyard work, it is the same thing there.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has been a short time at the Exchequer, but he has not been at the Admiralty, and he does not know the difficulty of making Estimates as to work put out to contract. The Estimate is made before the beginning of the year, and in the case of the Admiralty there must be a very large margin for the uncertainty connected with contracts. The case of work in the dockyards is not in point. Ought we to have asked the House of Commons to pay over the total amount which, according to the best view the Admiralty could take at the time, would be required for contract work during the year? If we had done so we should have had to ask the people for £2,500,000 which would not have been required, and which would have gone into the Sinking Fund at the end of the year. Does that commend itself to the view of the right hon. Gentleman? At all events we know where we are. Is the charge against us that we have been remiss in not asking for money because we did not take from the pockets of the people £2,500,000 more than would have been required? We did not ask for money which it turns out was not wanted and could not be spent in the year. The right hon. Gentleman says, "You must not carry over," and that is another of the grave charges he has preferred. It is quite true that the Government have carried over a balance on the dockyards. If we
  1516
  had not carried over that balance, what would have been the result? In the past, when a certain amount of money has been voted to the Admiralty, an attempt has been made to spend it in the year, and the great difficulty has been to keep the Department to spending as much money upon fresh construction as the House intended to devote to it. According to the old system, if the money voted was not spent on fresh construction, the Admiralty said, " We had better spend it on repairs — the ships are sure to be wanted." This has been the experience of all Boards of Admiralty in the past. But now the Admiralty are so tightly held that if they do not spend the money upon construction they have to pay it over, so that it may go to reduce the cost of construction in the following year. That appears to me to be a very businesslike mode of proceeding, and one which, although it is new, has tended to economy in the work of the dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I say it is unwise to give a certain amount of money for the use of a Department with such elastic duties as the Admiralty, putting them under the temptation, I may say, of spending within the year money which they do not require, and a large amount of which we should have to provide out of taxes. Now I turn to another point. The right hon. Gentleman and others seem to ignore the fact that we did impose additional taxation under very trying circumstances to meet increased demands for the carrying out of our naval programme, and when the right hon. Gentleman says we have been "flabby and shabby," one would think we had not done anything in the way of imposing taxation. When we established our naval programme we imposed taxes by spreading annuities over seven years, and no person will have to pay more taxes in respect of those annuities except those upon whom this new taxation has already been placed. We have practically raised by taxes the whole amount required for our ship building programme. Where, then, is the charge of the right hon. Gentleman that we have done nothing but borrow? We have raised from the people as much as we thought necessary for the purpose, throwing the expenditure over a limited number of years,

  1517
  and arranging that the balance shall be so carried forward that there shall be a certainty of the wishes of Parliament being carried out. The result has justified our expectations. The dockyards have built what was intended to be built, and the money has not been uselessly raised to pay to contractors instalments which have not become due. With regard to the general increase in the Army and Navy Estimates—and that is a battle which we have fought before —I hold that the necessities for the defence of the country and the cost of the Services cannot simply be argued by a given standard, but must depend upon the political situation, and a vast number of other considerations. In 1888 we submitted a programme to the House: it was generally approved by Members, including a. good many Members on the other side; and of all the charges levelled against the Government, the one to which in fairness they are least exposed is the charge of attempting to hide their expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has acquitted me and my colleagues of any intentional design of the kind; but it has been said by another right hon. Gentleman opposite that it is better to spend £5,000,000 than to hide the expenditure of £1,000,000.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never spoke of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government. I spoke of the fact. My opinion is that in the mode of proceeding there was a multiplication of the accounts and a complication of the arrangements which had the effect of withdrawing the fact from the cognizance of the House and of the public.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We now know precisely what is to be understood, but if the right hon. Gentleman will do what I know is very disagreeable, if he will read his own speech over again, he will see that the whole passage in question conveyed to his hearers, though against his intention, that the Government were deliberately attempting to hide away a portion of their expenditure. Such words as " fraudulent " lend themselves to such a suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that? " No," he said, " I would say fraudulently obtained, but that I do not want to be personal."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I applied it to the circumstances.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Now I understand the view of the right hon. Gentleman that we are entirely acquitted of a desire to hide the expenditure. We never had any motive for hiding it. Last year I defended the expenditure of the Government, and it is the last thing we should wish to withdraw from the cognizance of the Committee. If the accounts are too complicated, then I am willing to devote every possible attention to the simplification of the accounts. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the member for Derby that there is nothing more to be desired than the simplification of the accounts, and if there is anything further to be done in that direction, I will undertake it. The right hon. Gentleman said the pretext of the Budget has broken down.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: For the extraordinary Expenditure.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Budget instead of breaking down has been abundantly justified, because when so large a sum has to be spent among so many contractors it is impossible to say how much will be spent each year, and it is equalised over a certain number of years. The right hon. Gentleman has again twitted the Government with regard to their local subsidies in relief of local taxation. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is right that the public should know how much money is given to the Local Authorities. Under the old system it was not known at all. The money was given away in the Estimates and was never discussed. We ran up million after million in these local subsidies, but they were never brought before the eye of the House; and far from having complicated the situation, I have simplified it by introducing a system which makes it necessary that it should be stated how much has been given to, and is received from, Local Authorities. We have given £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, not only to the ratepayers, because there are a certain number of other objects — Technical Education, Free Education in Scotland, Police Superannuation, and a number of other matters, which have been accomplished within those £4,000,000. That the right hon. Gentleman omitted to state, although he must know that the

  1519
  House has over and over again pledged itself —I admit, against the views of the right hon. Gentleman and others—that the ratepayers should be assisted. It was a legacy we inherited, and I am perfectly certain that the great bulk of hon. Gentleman opposite would have joined in any Vote that would have emphasised the neglect of the poorer ratepayers in towns if we had not proceeded in the direction we did. But I think that on the whole it is too late in the day to discuss that question. Now, having disposed of the more formidable charges, I come to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the framing of Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has strongly protested against the House being supposed to associate itself with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his estimate of future Revenue. Now, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have remembered that it was more in a humorous than a serious vein that I spoke of the House having associated itself with me by a responsive cheer, and I think the House understood the attitude I took. Of course, I was not pressing home the partnership to the extent the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. When I spoke of partnership, I did not speak of partnership in a particular Estimate, but of association in the view that Estimates should be framed with caution. We frame our Estimates upon the view that the situation shows a tendency to be stationary, or that the Revenue will advance or will recede, and upon this view of the situation, the House of Commons is capable of forming a judgment. The right hon. Gentleman has never ceased to attack me for putting my Estimates too low in order to get an artificial surplus, although at the same time he knows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is guided, to a very great extent, in framing the Estimates by his responsible permanent colleagues and advisers. Nevertheless, there is, I presume, always a certain amount of cross-examination of the data upon which they proceed, and that comes within the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and upon his view of the prospects of the country, the increase or the decline in its prosperity, are the Estimates considered and revised in one direction or
  1520
  the other. Every man in the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer gets a large amount of information from various quarters, of which he would be foolish if he did not avail himself in submitting his Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a newfangled procedure to take 2 per cent. all round as a standard of increase. I have pointed out that, as a whole, it will come up to 2 per cent., but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the details he will see that it does not always come out at 2 per cent. in the separate items. What I wanted the House to understand was that 2 per cent. increase really meant stationariness with regard to expansion. There is 1 per cent. for population and 1 per cent. for the three days. I, therefore, made use of 2 per cent., which represents the normal increase on the year generally, but, speaking generally, I have allowed for little increase on the year calculated apart from that normal increase. I maintain that I have proceeded on the lines upon which we have always gone, and it was the fault of my explanation if I conveyed an opposite impression. Then I come to the point the right hon. Gentleman touched upon at the commencement of his speech when he spoke of the figures I gave the other night. Now, as regards the £37,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman said I spoke of this sum apart from terminable annuities. That is not how I find it in my notes.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is so in the Times.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am aware that it is so reported in the Times. The reporters are extremely accurate, and I cannot be certain whether I used the words or not; but, looking at my notes from which I was reading at the time, I can say that I could not have suggested that amount as having been paid off without the assistance of annuities; it would have been absurd, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has recognised that it would have been absurd. The right hon. Gentleman has here failed to do me justice, failing to understand the force of my argument the other night. I had been speaking at one time of the total reduction of speaking but at another time I had been dealing with the amount paid out of taxes. What is the charge

  1521
  to which I have, practically, been replying? That I have not paid the money out of taxes, but have got a fictitious surplus by other means. But I want to show, and I did show, that, notwithstanding the withdrawal of a certain amount from the permanent charge devoted to the extinction of Debt, we were, nevertheless, applying as much out of the taxes as had been applied by the previous Governments. I had not been saying that we were doing so much better than our predecessors, but was replying to the charge that we were doing nothing; I said that we had paid £12,600,000 more in our five years out of taxes than had been paid in the previous five years; more by £3,600,000 in four years than in the previous four years. These are actual figures; and if they are doubted, I can lay Papers before Parliament to show this is so.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What I want the right hon. Gentleman to show me is an authoritative statement that within latter years—that is, within the last four years — there was paid off £30,200,000; for that was his statement.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No; that £30,000,000 had been devoted out of taxation to the payment of Debt.
  Sin W. HARCOURT: Without counting money borrowed?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Quite so.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We did not understand that.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I had been speaking of the total reduction of Debt and then of the amount paid off by taxation. When I spoke of the reduction of Debt in the last year I mentioned about £6,000,000, and when I spoke of the amount voted out of taxes for reduction of Debt I spoke of £7,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to fasten on me a statement that is not justified by the language used, and which I did not intend to convey. I am charged with not paying off Debt, but with having filched money which belonged to the payment of Debt, and I said that, notwithstanding all that has been done during the four years which I took of the present Administration, as much money has been devoted out of the taxes to the payment as in the four years of the former Administration.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What we understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that in the last four years the present Government had been paying off £3,000,000 more of Debt than had been done by the last Government. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has been understood in the country to say, and that has been commented upon in every newspaper as a satisfactory demonstration of the right hon. Gentleman's finance. If the right hon. Gentleman says that is not so, that it is an exaggerated statement, I am quite satisfied.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is the exact opposite. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to evade the most substantial;point by putting the controversy on another footing. The amount of Debt the Government have paid off is immense, but this particular point with which I had been dealing was the amount paid out of taxes at one period as compared with the other, and I expressed myself plainly on that point.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt not with the simple question of how much the Debt has been reduced, but has dealt at one moment with how much it has been reduced, and at another moment with the totally different question as to the amount devoted to the reduction of the Debt out of taxes, which has involved the whole subject in inextricable confusion.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But the right hon. Gentleman should not begin by charging me with not having paid sufficient out of taxation for the reduction of Debt, for that was the charge, not that we had not reduced Debt sufficiently. But even without reference to the conversion, where money has been paid out of taxation for the reduction of Debt, though it does not reduce the amount of Debt on paper—even on the figures of the right hon. Gentleman himself this is established, that after all the charges which have been made against us, we have reduced the liabilities by a net reduction of £26,000,000. I have excluded a year for which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible; if I had taken that year into calculation the comparison would have been much better for the Government. I do not know, however, whether it is profit-

  1523
  able to pursue this matter any further. The argument which I hope I have established is that we have paid off more than the Administration—if it is to be a question of Administrations—of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think I have now dealt with all the main points which have been raised, and if I have omitted any I think it probable that I shall be reminded of them. At all events, if right hon. Gentlemen do not agree with much of my reply, I trust they will admit that I have endeavoured to meet the points they have raised.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to explain this matter as fully as he thinks necessary, he must not be surprised to hear that Members on this side of the House have utterly failed to understand him. It may be our fault, but I venture to say that the confusion in regard to the Budget is now worse confounded than when the right hon. Gentleman sat down on Thursday night. The right hon. Gentleman now draws a distinction between what he calls net reduction of the Public Debt and sums appropriated out of taxation to that purpose; but the inference drawn from his speech the other night is that the reduction is wholly effected out of taxation; and although he said he did not intend to give the matter a political character, it has already assumed that character in every election now going on in the country. The statement is being made that while the Government of 1880 to 1885 reduced the Debt out of the taxes by only such an amount, the present Government has done so by a very much larger amount. Now, the true test of sound finance in regard to the reduction of Debt is how much is applied year by year out of the Income of the year to the purpose. There are, as we know, large sums which come automatically and go to the reduction of the Debt—sums which do not depend on either the wisdom or folly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I repeat that the true test is the amount applied to the purpose out of the Income of the year. There are two ways of reducing the Debt—by means of Terminable Annuities, under the operation of the new Sinking Fund, or by means of the old ,Sinking Fund, which is the
  1524
  surplus of the income of the year over the Expenditure of the year. Taking the Chancellor of the Exchequer on both those grounds, I will draw his attention to a Return which has been laid before Parliament, and which was carefully prepared under my direction when I was at the Treasury. I will not in the comparison reject the year 1881, but will take the four years which the right hon. Gentleman gave in his Budget Speech-1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884—as representing this side of the House, and 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890 as representing' the Government side. Now, in the former four years the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day out of the taxes appropriated to the payment of Debt the sum of £27,128,000, of which only £1,586,000 was surplus. In the four years under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the amount so appropriated out of taxes was £27,600,000, of which a little over £7,000,000 was surplus. In presence of these figures, then, what ground is there for the right hon. Gentleman to contrast his own Government in such glowing terms with the preceding Government? The truth really is, with reference to the payment of the National Debt, that the credit is not due to this or to that Chancellor of the Exchequer. The credit was due originally to the principle of the Terminable Annuities established, I believe, to a great extent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) and Lord Sherbrooke, and largely developed in 1885 by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take credit to himself for paying off Debt with those millions was as if an engine-driver driving a passenger train across the Forth Bridge took credit for building the bridge. The means were already at his hand, and he could do no other than reduce the Debt with them. I think the figures remain precisely where my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) left them. With reference to other points on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken, I am bound to confess that I cannot understand his defence of the accounts relating to the Army and Navy. I was much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that it was impossible at the

  1525
  commencement of the year for the Government to estimate what the expenditure for the year on public works or contracts would be, for such a statement strikes at the very roots of our finance. The one great point which has long distinguished English from foreign finance—and especially French and German finance—is that in England the year's Expenditure is met by the year's Income, and that the accounts are kept strictly within the year. But the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced quite another system. He told the Committee the other night, for instance, that his Estimate for the Navy and Army for this year was £31,750,000. Now, an ordinary every-day man of business would certainly understand that that amount was to be the expenditure this year on the Army and Navy together. Not at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself said that he is about to put another Return on the Table, in which he states that he estimates the Army and Navy Expenditure for this year, not at £31,750,000, as announced in his Budget Speech, but at £36,907,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The figures of that Return were also in my Budget Statement.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Well, Sir, we did not understand that. I am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with keeping back in that sense of the word, but I say he is introducing a new system of finance altogether. He does not put before the country the Expenditure of the year in the shape the country understands it. He does not go to the country and ask that the sums he needs should be raised by taxation, but he proposes to borrow money to meet them. If I wanted to answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very point, I should go to the speech, with which I have no doubt he is now very familiar, which my right hon. Friend has already quoted. The First Lord of the Treasury of these days was the First Lord of the Admiralty of that day, and the First Lord of the Admiralty of that day had very much the same views as to Navy Expenditure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not accept the statement of his right hon. Colleague, and let me read
  1526
  what he said in reply to him. He said—
  " The First Lord of the Admiralty had presented a comparison based on ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. Let him ask the House to understand how this matter really stood. There were two kinds of extraordinary expenditure—that was using the language of the Government and not that of our old finance, namely, that which was used for a distinct purpose, and that extra expenditure, which was merely spent in our own dockyards, increasing our ordinary quantities of supply stores and ships. So much of the extra expenditure as was expended at home on dockyards in increasing the number of ships remained, and the House would see that it ought to fall, and it must fall, on the ordinary Estimates of the year."
  There is one other point the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised on which he seems to think no one impugns his action. I would do so, and I would say that all the financial sins with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be charged in future the greatest, I think, will be his anticipation of a possible contingent profit on the Suez Canal shares six years hence. That is a profit which does not exist, and which is a matter for the discretion of a future Parliament. It will be for the taxpayers and the Parliament of 1894 to say how they will appropriate that money. And I think the sum has been considerably exaggerated. If I understand the thing aright, there will only be a profit of £370,000 on the shares. We are now receiving £200,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates that in 1894 he will receive £570,000, and he is now mortgaging the contingent profit between the £200,000 and £570,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I would point out that that £200,000 profit now received is applied to the diminution of Debt.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes; to the payment of the Terminable Annuities created for the purchase of the shares. Passing to the general finance of the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think himself justified in his Expenditure. Whether he justifies it or not the House of Commons ought not to pass the enormous increase in our Expenditure which the Budget proposes without some criticism. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech said he had beaten the record with regard to the payment of Debt. That, I think, we have disputed and disproved, but

  1527
  nobody, I think, can dispute or disprove that the right hon. Gentleman has beaten the record so far as Expenditure is concerned. The Budget of last Thursday night was the highest Budget ever submitted to the House of Commons in time of peace. We have reached a £100,000,000 Budget. I admit that a considerable proportion of that is to be appropriated in the shape of local subventions—for that is the real character of the local taxation, not grants in aid—with all the vices of the old system, with no advantage in the shape of control or economy; but practically we have to raise a Revenue next year of something like £100,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has anticipated where he will be exposed to criticism, and he has made reference to his Military and Naval Expenditure. I should like to quote one or two figures to show how this expenditure is increasing, and increasing in time of peace, and for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman said were of a political nature, of which we have no cognisance. The year 1879-80 was not a particularly peaceful year. The ordinary Expenditure of that year, which was the last year of the Beaconsfield Government, was £25,250,000; it is now estimated at £32,750,000. For this side of the House I can repudiate all partnership with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that Expenditure.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Then vote against it.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We have voted against it until we have become tired of voting against it. We have no wish to impede Public Business; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires us to have protracted disputes in Committee of Supply, we may, perhaps, be inclined to gratify him. The gross figures as to the Army and Navy and Civil Service Expenditure are misleading, because they include gross amounts from which there are considerable receipts. In the Return I have referred to, we have the net Expenditure, which shows that it is not £100,000,000 or £90,000,00, but some £77,000,000, and of this Expenditure I want the House to contrast three or four items and see where the difference is, both as to where we are spending less and where we are spending more. Ten years ago we appropriated for Debt and
  1528
  interest £28,000,000. The House will remember the glowing picture the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew of the enormous increase in our national wealth and prosperity and prospects; but in spite of that increase, last year we only spent £21,750,000 on the Debt. Ten years ago we spent on our Army and Navy £25,750,000; last year we spent £32,750,000. Ten years ago the Civil Service cost £15,000,000; last year, including the discontinued grants, it is only £17,000,000; and on the collection of Revenue there is a reduction of from £2,750,000 to £2,500,000. Therefore, you see where the shoe pinches. You are increasing steadily and enormously the Military and Naval Expenditure, and you are decreasing the provision for the payment of Debt. If the House of Commons with its eyes open allows that to be done no one has a right to complain; but I entered my protest against the system as unsound and objectionable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has levied a tax in order to provide for the extra expenditure on the Navy—the Estate Duty. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us what were the receipts of that tax and the sources from which the money would be derived. I assume that if taxation is to be put on the country for military or naval purposes, all classes should share in it and be equally benefited. When lie put on the Estate Duty, we told him on this side of the House that the duty was being unfairly assessed. I do not know—the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows—what was the result last year. But I do know from the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue what was the result of the first year of the Estate Duty, and I think the House of Commons will be interested to know what are the proportions in which the duty is paid by real and personal property. In the first three quarters of that year the total produced from personal property was £780,000, and the total produced from real estate was £9,776.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman should remember that one is paid in cash down, and the other only in instalments.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes; in four instalments, payable in eight years.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Nine years.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Even so, and taking it at £72,000, I say that is an unfair proportion of a tax that is producing £800,000 from personalty. The right hon. Gentleman appropriates £7,000,000 to local taxation; but when he introduced the scheme only three years ago, it was not a scheme of £7,000,000, but of £5,500,000. He is now going to give Local Authorities £1,500,000 more than he proposed to give them (including the Horse and Wheel and Van Tax).
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing the items.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have gone through these matters very carefully, and am satisfied that what I have stated is correct. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  " We consider that these proposals meet, and adequately meet, the demands of those who have been called the reformers of local taxation. We have got no further plan behind us. We have shown you our hand."
  But he now goes further, and puts on an additional £1,500,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That is not so. Will the right hon. Gentleman show me how he arrives at his figures? I imposed the Beer and Spirit Tax, which takes the place of the Wheel and Van and Horse Tax. That would have amounted to £700,000. If there is anything more, it is the £700,000 that represents the Police Superannuation and the grant for technical education.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman may sub-divide it as he likes. I say that last year he gave for local taxation over £7,000,000. The abolished grants were £2,600,000, or £2,900,000 if you like. That leaves upwards of £4,000,000, and I say the original scheme did not come to within £1,500,000 of that amount.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, no.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Well, what I want to do is to protest not only against the principle of the subventions with regard to local taxation, but against the unfair manner in which they are divided, which is becoming worse and worse every year. The figures with regard to the grants to London, to county boroughs, and counties show how unfairly the money is divided. The rateable value of the Metropolis is £31,500,000, that of the county
  1530
  boroughs £30,000,000, and that of the administrative counties £90,000,000. The local taxation of the country in round figures is, deducting the poor rate proper, £19,000,000, or £5,000,000 in London, £4,500,000 in the county boroughs, and £9,500,000 in the counties. Now, if the Committee will bear these figures in mind, they will see what is the injustice of the plan of the Government. London last year received from the local taxation account £815,000, the county boroughs £1,056,000, and the counties £2,933,000. That shows how unfairly the money is divided, and the relief should be given in proportion to the amount raised. That is an appropriation of public money which ought not to pass without some serious discussion. The appropriation of the surplus meets with my entire approval. But the true hero of the Budget is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. When we remember what occurred in 1885 as to free education, and when we see that the Member for West Birmingham is able to compel a Tory Government, through the mouth of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to announce the adoption of free education, I think it will be admitted to be one of the most marvellous political triumphs of the time.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: Sir, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that he has given us the assurance that the appropriation of the surplus meets with his entire approval. It is gratifying that there is one topic on which he is in absolute agreement with the Government. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the earliest opportunity of showing how cordially he will support the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of sound principles in English finance. I agree with him that the Expenditure of the year should be met by the taxation of the year. But there is one other principle which has been lost sight of in the past—and that is, when an Expenditure is deliberately recognised as necessary, provision should be made for it in the future as well as at the moment it is passed by the House. What is the objection that is made? It is that the Government, recognising the defenceless condition of !the country, so far as the

  1531
  Army and Navy were concerned—armaments, coaling stations, and ships—felt themselves bound to make arrangements for the completion of the work they undertook, so that the Expenditure of one year should not be wasted through the omission to vote the money in the year after. There has been a singular deficiency of soundness in years gone by in that respect. Ships have been kept on the stocks for five or six years without being completed. There was a waste there, and waste of interest on the money already expended. If a man enters into a contract for the building of a house he generally sees his way to the completion of the contract into which he enters; he makes financial arrangements so that the work shall be carried through to a successful issue. The whole objection to the policy of the Government is that we recognise this responsibility to the country; we have made financial arrangements for the completion of the work we have undertaken, and have not left it to the uncertainty of the future. Objection is taken that the total of £6,800,000 for what is called extraordinary expenditure is put down and only £4,708,000 actually expended. I think we ought to take credit for that. Is it not, however, too late to object to those proposals two or three years after they have been sanctioned by Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman, however, has been discussing them as if the Bills embodying them were now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has objected to the appropriation of the income derived from the Suez Canal shares held by this country to meet any particular branch of expenditure on the ground that that income forms part of the general Revenue of the country. On this point I have to say that when Her Majesty's Government came into Office they found that there was a great cumulative deficiency of provision for the safety and the protection of the country, and we thought that it would be hard upon the taxpayers of the day to ask them to pay off in four, five, or six years the whole charge which has to be incurred in consequence of those accumulations of deficiencies which are the result of many years' failure to provide for the safety of the country. It is to meet this Debt, which is due to the action of past Chancellors of the Exchequer, past Houses
  1532
  of Commons, and past taxpayers, that the income derived from the Suez Canal shares has been appropriated for a limited number of years. No one could have anticipated, when Lord Beaconsfield purchased the shares in 1875, that the investment would realise so large a profit for the country, and it is only right that the proceeds of this successful investment of the national funds should be. appropriated for a term to providing for the safety and the security of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has objected that the contributions from the Imperial Exchequer in aid of local expenditure are not under Imperial control, and suggests that in such circumstances there is no security that the contributions will be expended in an economical manner. But if the Local Authorities, who are the representatives of and are responsible to the ratepayers, are to be trusted to expend the local rates economically, why should they not be equally trusted to spend the Imperial contributions economically when it is clear that those contributions merely represented an equivalent amount of rates? It cannot be contested that the economical expenditure of these contributions must result in a diminution of the rates. I do not suppose for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman would seriously propose that the Imperial contributions in aid of local burdens should be put an end to, with the result that the rates would have to be raised to a corresponding extent. Then with regard to the rate of the repayment of the Debt. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go to the country on the question whether the Debt should be repaid at the rate of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year, instead of at the rate of £6,000,000 a year, with the result in the former case that the taxation would have to be increased by £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a year. I should not like to go to the country with a proposal of that kind, and to ask it to pay taxes to the amount of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year instead of the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 for which provision is now made. I believe the present system is one by which the Debt is paid off with sufficient rapidity to give security and stability to the finances of this country; and to call upon the taxpayers to find so large a sum as £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 yearly by

  1533
  organised taxation, apart from occasional services, would be a monstrous demand, and one largely in excess of what any Government ought to propose.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehended what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who objected that under the system introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Imperial and local finances were now so mixed up that it was very difficult to distinguish one from the other, and that too large an amount was now given to local finance in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer originally said would be a fair sum. In regard to the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether the country would desire to vote an additional £3,000,000 a year towards the reduction of the Debt, that is a question which cannot possibly arise, thanks to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The real point is not whether we are prepared to vote this additional £3,000,000, but whether the right hon. Gentleman was justified three or four years ago in reducing the Sinking Fund by £2,000,000, and invading its principle by taking out a further £1,000,000. It so happens that the Revenue has increased since then. We are very glad of it, for the right hon. Gentleman has been able to reduce a larger amount of Debt in consequence of the unexpected surpluses he has received; but our complaint is that still more would have been paid off if he had not invaded the Sinking Fund. In regard to the question of spreading the Expenditure, the First Lord seems to think- our chief complaint is of the large outlay which is unfortunately being made on the Army and Navy. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton in his remarks on that, but the point we are discussing is not the actual amount of annual Expenditure under the Act, but the mode in which it is carried out. The Government proposed to spread the Expenditure over seven years, and our complaint, which has since been proved to be well founded, was that it was not possible so long ahead to frame accurate estimates of such Expenditure. The First
  1534
  Lord seemed to think it to be to the credit of the Government that they had spent a much less sum than was originally estimated for, but it appears to me that this miscalculation is the best possible condemnation of the policy they pursued. Another of our complaints was not that they had borrowed a certain amount of money, but that they made no effort to meet the outlay out of current income. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby made some trenchant remarks on the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in "spreading " the Expenditure, and pointed out how the right hon. Gentleman strongly condemned the practice when adopted by one of his predecessors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, while he defended his policy, might have pointed out that in the previous years of his Chancellorship he had given £4,000,000 of annual Revenue to the Income Tax payers, that he had reduced the Debt by £2,000,000, and that in the same year he increased the Estate duty and practically reduced the Sinking Fund by £1,000,000. In the last year, too, he was able to reduce the taxation by another £3,000,000. I cannot consider it heroic finance while reducing the taxation £7,000,000 to add £1,000,000 a year to cover expenditure which ought to have been met in the year in which it was incurred. The right hon. Gentleman said we on this side of the House do not understand the matter, and that the Return he has given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford is totally mislead. ing. Now, no one in this House was able to trace in any published account how the money was being expended and how it was being provided, and hence the Return was asked for. It was only obtained under great, pressure from the Front Opposition Bench, and it does seem strange that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should now say it is misleading, and that we do not understand it. But I need not enter on that point further. In conclusion, I should like to say that many of us on this side of the House hail with satisfaction the proposals contained in this Budget, because we desire to support the application of the surplus to the abolition of school fees. When the Bill is introduced, if it is not in a satisfactory shape, we shall

  1535
  endeavour to improve it; but I hope we shall not fall into the course evidently desired by the Government—to judge from the utterances of their supporters —and so oppose the Bill as to induce them to withdraw it. I hope we shall accept it, whether satisfactory or not, keeping ourselves free at some future time to deal with the whole educational question in a more satisfactory way. It seems very likely that we shall have to support the Government rather than oppose it, to judge from the way in which the proposal was received the other night by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their reception of it was certainly ominous of trouble and of the fate of the Bill. It seemed as if]ion. Gentlemen were not quite so ready to throw over all their past professions and past pledges in regard to the question of free schools as the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench; that they are not quite willing even just before a General Election to offer free education as a sort of bribe, seeing that they have opposed it in the past. Hence they are not quite prepared to follow the Government in this matter. But we believe in the principle of free schools, we believe in the abolition of fees, and therefore we shall do our best to save the Government from their own friends.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I hope the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton as to the inequitable distribution of the grants in aid will receive more attention from the Government, for it is exciting a good deal of notice in the country, and marked dissatisfaction is becoming apparent. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the large amount which county areas were receiving from the grants in aid as compared with the county boroughs, and the Metropolis. I think the matter ought to be pressed further, for the argument might be extended with great force, because the smaller Corporations in the county area are receiving very much less than they ought to in proportion to their area, population, and rateable value. May I give one illustration? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech stated that £3,100,000 had been appropriated to grants in aid of local taxation in England alone. If so, surely every Corporation in the country
  1536
  and every area of population should have received some decided and considerable benefit from this large sum; but, as a in matter of fact, there are unfortunately some Corporations which have practically received no benefit at all. The borough I represent has received only £47 in addition to the grants it received previously. No doubt it will be urged that negotiations are pending with regard to the main roads, and that when completed further sums will come to the boroughs; but admitting that, I doubt if we shall get anything in the way of arrears, or if we shall even get a fair share in the future. To show how important this is, I will illustrate the case of Scarborough. If I take the basis of population, they are entitled to £3,600 out of the £3,100,000 of the grant in aid; but if I take their rateable basis, they will be entitled to £4,400 annually. If I take a third alternative—the basis of the previous payment or amount raised within the town as far as we can estimate towards that taxation—our share would be £4,130. Yet we have only received £47 in addition, and assuming we do receive that which apparently we are entitled to receive in the future from the County Councils, we shall only have £1,250, or about one-third of the proportion due to us. I believe this case can be paralleled by the cases of other towns; and I respectfully submit that the smaller boroughs—giving, as many do, much attention to the sanitary requirements of the town, and anxious in every way to promote the well-being of their people—are as much entitled to their proportion from these grants in aid as larger boroughs within county areas. I ask the Government to give some attention to this matter, and enable these boroughs if they are in error to see exactly where that error is, because it appears that they are under considerable difficulty in bringing forward figures so fully as they would wish to do. I particularly appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow Returns to be prepared giving by way of illustration a certain number of towns showing the effect of the new system on smaller Corporations, on the non-county boroughs, as well as on larger ones. In December last the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Secretary wrote showing exactly the position of

  1537
  the county borough of Halifax under the new system; and I should be glad if the Government would prepare a Return showing what they claim to be the beneficial effect of the system on some of the smaller towns. We may be mistaken; but at present we believe we are being unfairly dealt with and prejudiced by the new system. At present, the figures show that taxation is being raised from the small boroughs to be expended in the adjoining counties, and we are not receiving any relative advantage from it. We feel this to be a great grievance. I wish to say, in conclusion, that as far as possible moneys granted in aid of local rates in the future should not be ticketed and allocated to some particular fund, and that the Local Authorities should be trusted more in the actual distribution of these funds. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has spoken of trusting the representatives of the Local Bodies. We ask that they should be trusted in the actual distribution of these sums. The finance of towns is being made much more intricate and difficult to understand; because different sums come into the financial accounts which are earmarked for certain purposes, and which therefore do not go through the balance-sheet as a whole, but form a variety of separate accounts. Such a state of things lessens the responsibility of the representatives of the different Local Bodies, and makes the local balance sheet much more intricate and difficult to understand. I trust that, in view of the great interest which is felt in the application of the grants, we shall have some assurance that the money will be granted equitably and justly to all the different Corporations and all the Local Bodies concerned.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: The hon. Member has more than once urged upon me that Scarborough, the borough he represents, does not get that share of relief which he considers it ought to get, either in proportion to its rateable value or population. The hon. Gentleman has told us to-night that the whole sum which has been received by Scarborough up to the present was something like £47—
  MR. ROWNTREE: In addition—
  MR. RITCHIE: In addition to the discontinued grants. I presume the hon. Gentleman has not included the amount which has been paid to the Union in which Scarborough is, in aid of the poor rate.
  MR. ROWNTREE: That comes to about £700; hut, on the other hand, we have had to pay to the county rate a like amount. I balanced the one against the other.
  MR. RITCHIE: Then, of course, Scarborough has something to receive in respect of main roads. I am quite prepared to admit that Quarter Sessions boroughs, which previously made no contribution to the county at all, are in a somewhat different position to ordinary non-county boroughs. Parliament decided that it was necessary that Quarter Sessions boroughs--all boroughs below a certain population—should, in future, become part of the county; and in order to meet what was considered a just demand on the part of the Quarter Sessions boroughs, which had no main roads, but which contribute to the county main roads, it was determined that there should be a re-consideration of the streets of the boroughs, and that such of them as were main roads should be declared main roads, and be repairable by the county. I do not dispute that there may be cases in which, perhaps, the adjustment may not be so satisfactory to the borough as all desire. In connection with the declaration of main roads in Scarborough, I have considerably extended what was considered necessary and recommended by the Local Government Inspector who went down, but I have not been able to meet the wishes of the lion. Gentleman or of the borough of Scarborough. I feel there is some ground for the complaint on the part of Scarborough that it has not benefited so much by the relief under the Local Taxation Account as some other' boroughs, which do not possess the exceptional position that Scarborough has, and if I can give a Return such as the hon. Gentleman desires I shall be glad to do so. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has left the House, because I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to make some remarks with regard to the figures he quoted in comparing the position of the counties, the

  1539
  county boroughs, and the Metropolis, so far as the relief of local taxation is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman said that under the complete scheme London would receive £280,000, the county boroughs £700,000, and the counties about £2,000,000. Those figures are not, however, accurate. My own calculation at the moment is that London will receive something approaching £500,000, the county boroughs £600,000, and the administrative counties £2,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman stated the figures in order to draw a comparison unfavourable to the towns. He said the benefit derived by the counties was very much larger than that conferred on the Metropolis or the county boroughs. Now, my point is that the relief to the Metropolis is 3·5d., as against 4·9d. for the counties and 5·4d. for the county boroughs. Thus, though the Metropolis gets a very large sum, the actual amount of relief is not so great as in the cases of the counties and county boroughs. This is explained by the fact that the amount collected for licences in London is considerably less than in other parts of the Kingdom, and consequently London does not receive so much in relief. I do not think that the inhabitants of London have any very strong ground of complaint. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton drew a comparison between the relief to the country and that to the towns, and contended that the relief in the latter case was less than it ought to be. But what are the facts? While the relief -given in the county boroughs in England and Wales is 5·4d., the counties have only benefited to the extent of 4·9d.
  MR. STOREY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the comparison of the existing rates in boroughs and in counties? A reduction of 5d. in a 4s. rate would be very different to a reduction of 4d. in a 6d. rate.
  MR. RITCHIE: I maintain that that would not be a fair basis of comparison. If it be true that the towns have heavier rates, they have got value for their money. There can be no question about that. They have spent large sums on water supply and drainage, and other matters, which contribute greatly to the comfort of the inhabitants, and it would be an entirely erroneous method of calculation if this money were to be distributed and relief
  1540
  given on the basis of money spent. If the rates in towns are high the inhabitants reap the benefit in the shape of the increased value of their property. I contend that, on the basis of rateable value, the towns have not fared so much less well than the country, for, from a statement before me, I find that whilst the county boroughs will be relieved by 5.4d. in the £1, subject to the equitable adjustment, the complete effect of which we do not yet know, the administrative counties have received relief by about 4-9d. The amount of difference is not great, but whatever it is I say that it is in favour of the towns. The right hon. Gentleman complained that Wolverhampton had not fared well in the distribution. I think it has benefited considerably above the average of county boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, for it has received the equivalent of 6d. in the £1, whereas the average of county boroughs is 5d. I, therefore, do not think it has any reason to complain on that score.
  MR. STOREY: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures for the present, although Parliament has not been furnished with the means of testing them. I understand him to say that London has received, through the operation of these subventions in aid, a reduction of 3d. and a fraction in its rates—[Mr. RITCHIE: Nearly 4d.]—3·7d. He tells us that county boroughs have received a reduction of 5d. and that counties received practically about 5d. We understood that this was to be a relief of those who needed relief most, but the basis upon which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have gone has been such that those have got most relief who were least heavily burdened, and who therefore needed least. I Take the case of a county where the rate is 1s. in the £1. If the county had got a saving of more than 4d.—nearly 5d.—in the s., it is very evident that the reduction in the rates would amount to 33 per cent. Take the case of a borough which may happen to be within the county though not of it. That borough has secured a reduction of rates of 5d. The fates are probably 4s. in the £1, and in some cases more. It is evident that a reduction of 5d. upon a 4s. rate is a very different thing to a reduction of 4d.

  1541
  upon a 1s. rate. We, in Sunderland, have secured such an amount of money through these subventions as has enabled our Poor Law Guardians to levy a lower rate this year than we have had for several years past. But whilst we are large enough to secure a reduction of our rates by something like 2d. in the £1, which is about one twenty-fifth of our total rate, in the county immediately adjoining they have been able to secure a larger reduction—indeed the reduction has been of such an amount that practically their rates have been reduced to next door to nothing at all. When the Local Government Act was passing through the House the contention was that there were certain areas and certain descriptions of property that were so heavily rated that it would be convenient and advantageous to apply general taxes to alleviate the burdens upon those properties, and we allege that the operation of the right hon. Gentleman's method has been that the relief has mainly gone to the owners of land who least needed it. The relief which we in boroughs were led to expect would be very important and very considerable, has been, as a matter of practice, found worth very little at all. I have no disposition to pursue the other points raised to-night, because I do not think it is really worth while debating them at all. But this particular point the right hon. Gentleman well knows has not come up now for the last time. It will come up, I hope, again and again, until we are able to secure some much more equitable division of the relief as between boroughs and counties.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I have Papers here referring to many other towns where the grievance to which I have called attention is as strongly felt as in Scarborough. I am sure there would be a feeling of great satisfaction if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to present a Return which would enable the towns to judge of the actual result of the new system.
  MR. WATTwas inaudible in the Gallery.
  MR. STOREY: I desire to ask a question with respect to the House Duty. Last year a reduction was made in the Inhabited House Duty, and we contended it should apply to tenement
  1542
  houses. We understood that that condition had been acceded to, and that tenement houses which were occupied by two or more tenants, though there was a common door, would be exempt. A case occurred in Sunderland, in which a woman applied to the Inland Revenue authorities to be relieved from the Inhabited House Duty on the ground that the house was a tenement house, occupied by two tenants, neither of whom paid £20 a year. The Local Commissioners took a common-sense view, and exempted the woman from the duty; but the authorities in London have appealed against the act of the Local Commissioners, and are putting the poor woman to considerable expense in legal proceedings. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain to us how the matter stands. (8.33.)
  MR. MORTON: I do not wish to detain the Committee beyond a very few minutes, and have merely risen to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a matter upon which I spoke last year. But I may say, on the general question, that I am very glad to think that the Government propose to redeem their promise and give the people free education. So far as I am concerned, I am glad to acccept as much free education as they will give us, not troubling whether denominational schools benefit by it or not. I know there are some persons, both inside and outside the House, who believe that the Whisky and Beer Duty should be reduced; but I am bound to say that, having the choice, I should have no hesitation in preferring free education to free whisky. I hear something said about free education being accompanied by popular control of denominational schools, and that may be necessary by-and-bye., Meantime I, for one, do not care to destroy the denominational schools at once, and am satisfied that it would be no benefit to the ratepayers; but if it is found by-and-bye that it is impossible to work a system of free education with denominational schools, then an element of popular control may be provided in the management—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
  MR. MORTON: I do not wish to go beyond what you, Sir, consider the limits of the present discussion, and will say no more on this matter. But I do trust

  1543
  that we shall have free education introduced as soon as possible, and I am sure it will be a benefit to the people of this country. The particular matter upon which I rose to say a word or two has relation to the assessment of House Duty and Income Tax. Last year I called attention to the matter, and I am aware that it has often been referred to in previous Sessions of this and other Parliaments. But we shall not be satisfied with simply calling attention to it; the system should be altered to a uniform system of assessment for rates and taxes. At the present moment the rates are collected on what is called the rateable value. This is in accordance with the Act of Parliament, which says that the rateable value shall be the value, after deductions from the gross rent, of certain charges. Income Tax and House Duty, however, are collected on the gross value. Now, what is wanted is that both should be collected on the same basis. They cannot both be right, and one or the other should be adopted. I do not, of course, mean that it is legally wrong, but it is morally wrong, to collect the Income Tax and the House Duty upon the gross value. Of course, the matter has occupied the attention of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and has been considered by Parliament, and Parliament has said that local rating shall be on the net value. The question of fair value has also been before the Law Lords of the other House, and in 1883 they decided' that the gross value was not the fair value, but unfortunately they did not decide what was the fair value. In the case of assessment for the water rate they declared that the gross value was not the fair value. In 1885 Parliament decided on the same question by passing an Act, declaring, in regard to these Water Companies, that the fair value was the rateable value, so I think we have good authority for saying, in regard to this matter, that whether it be legally right or not, so far as we can get any declaration, it is that the true value is the rateable value. Of course, I am perfectly aware I can hardly expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything during the present year, for the alteration means a reduction in the Revenue, and we can only expect this when a Chancellor of the Exchequer has
  1544
  surplus to dispose of. On ways of dealing with the subject I will not now dwell; all I want to know is, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering the matter, and if he proposes to do anything in regard to it? In the course of a short discussion I initiated last Session, the right hon. Gentleman said " It was a matter of great importance, and it would ,continue to occupy his attention, not without some hope that it would be possible to deal with the matter some day." Now, " some day " is a vague expression, and I bad hoped it might have come this Session, and, at any rate, I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman yet sees his way to do anything in the matter, which will not be settled until a uniform system of assessment is adopted for rates and taxes. There is another matter, to which I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention earlier in the year, and that is this. In the collection of local rates a deduction is allowed to landlords on property of a certain rateable value if they pay on their houses whether empty or let and during the whole of the year. I am told that the overseers find that it saves them a good deal of trouble, and that they do not find there is any loss by making these allowances, it being convenient to both landlord and tenant. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not do the same thing as regards House Duty and Property Tax, allowing a certain discount on property up to a certain rateable value where the landlord and not the tenant pays the taxes? I am sure if that could be arranged it would save a great deal of trouble to collectors, tenants, and landlords, and I do not think there would be any loss to the Revenue. I will not detain the Committee longer, but I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give me an answer a little more favourable than that he gave me last year in regard to the assessments; and I trust the time is not far distant when we shall have the alteration made, because it must be wrong to collect the taxes upon what the House of Commons has declared an unfair value. You might as well collect the Income Tax on a man's income, deducting nothing for expenses, as to collect the tax on house property, allowing nothing for outgoings.
  MR. CHANNING: The present Budget proposals are the most remarkable we have had for many years, and remarkable in two ways: in the first place, in offering to the people of this country, perhaps the greatest, the most important, and most urgently desired remission of taxation for I consider free education to be a remission of taxation that has been offered for many years past. But I think the Budget is equally remarkable in that it has given rise to a discussion which has been an explosion and an exposure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's method of finance. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's long speech he gave us the other day might be summed up in one sentence that he felt very severely the strictures passed upon his financial methods by one of the most eminent authorities on finance (Sir Thomas Farrar), and the whole of his speech was an elaborate apology for his financial administration, based on the charges made against that administration by Sir Thomas Farrar. Now, I do not propose to deal with the question which has been so thoroughly threshed out to-day; but, at least, this may be said: that the support which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets to his proposals by saying that the burden will not come upon the taxpayers because of the Suez Canal shares, is founded on a fallacy absolutely transparent. With regard to the Naval Defence Act, he has bound the hands of Parliament and future Chancellors of the Exchequer so that they cannot interfere with Expenditure without the consent of the House of Lords, which we know will not be given. But with regard to the Suez Canal shares, while there is no consent of the House of Lords necessary, then there would be no difficulty, supposing a Radical Parliament elected at the next General Election, and a Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed it, in appropriating the whole of that windfall to some other purpose for the public advantage, instead of that for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer destines it, still, in that case, too, there is practically an anticipation of income, depriving the taxpayers of a fund which they might apply to other uses. But
  1546
  the whole financial administration of the right hon. Gentleman has been tumbled down like a house of cards by the criticisms of my two right hon. Friends, and I will not therefore occupy the time of the Committee in dealing with the subject, but I have something to say (as to what may be called the Local Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The £4,000,000 of money issued from the Consolidated Fund as grants in aid to County Councils are not only a violation of those principles of finance laid down by Chancellors of the Exchequer and all who have thought out local finance administration, but contrary to his own contention which, with all eminent authorities, has been that you should give aid to local finance in the form of taxes, which can be raised by these Local Authorities, and for which Local Authorities should be primarily and directly responsible, and in the economical raising and spending of which Local Authorities have a peculiar and direct interest. In issuing these subsidies from the Con solidated Fund, the violation of principle involved is made all the worse by what has been admitted by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to agricultural districts, that reduction of rates is ultimately for the benefit of landlords, so that, practically, the whole of these £4,000,000 do not go to relieve industry, but will fall into the lap of the landed interest. I refer to this because I wish to say a word upon the financial side of free education. £1,000,000 is to be devoted to that purpose this year, and £2,000,000 in future years, and all who are interested in education and in the welfare of the poorer working classes who send their children to elementary schools must be perfectly satisfied with this appropriation of national funds. But what I wish to point out is this: in the first place, that we are pledging the resources of the future; of that I do not so much complain; but then these £2,000,000 annually will be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, while there is no attempt made to revise the incidence of Imperial taxation on land and realised capital. You are adding £2,000,000 a year to the outgoings, while

  1547
  you have not introduced a graduated Income Tax, or revised the Death Duties, or placed direct taxation upon ground rents and ground values. These matters are left to the remote future, and the Government are giving this grant out of the pockets of commerce and enterprise and industry and labour, and out of the pockets of those men and women whose precarious incomes depend on their own faculties, and for whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no remedy or relief in the immediate future. I wish to emphasise the point that we are having a great gift made to the people of the country without placing a fair share of the burden upon realised property. I know it would be out of order to enter into the details of the proposal of free education. J would only say with regard to this that every Liberal and Radical on this side of the House, and every Liberal and Radical in the country, will in one sense thank Her Majesty's Government from their hearts for having made this great concession to the people of the country. But we consider it a victory of Radicalism and Liberalism over Tory prejudice and Tory protest. At the beginning of this Session, when this question was mentioned, the only Conservative Members who spoke on it condemned the whole proposal. How has it come about? We Radicals gave the franchise to the county electors, and nobody opposed its extension to them more persistently than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is the fact that the county electors have a vote and will shortly be able to exercise it, and not sympathy with the principle of free education that has induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make this boon to the people of the country. I hope the measure will be promptly brought by Her Majesty's Government before the House. As far as those who have sometimes worked with me on educational questions in the House are concerned, I am sure we shall give the warmest and heartiest support to this proposal, while we shall not shrink from asserting in some practical form those conditions which we consider to be essential to the true and genuine carrying out of the measure of free education. But, subject to that, we shall give the right hon. Gentleman's proposal our
  1548
  hearty support. If there is a section of the followers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are anxious to avail themselves of the exigencies of Parliamentary time to enable the Government to escape from the carrying out of their pledge, we Radicals shall not let them off, but shall insist on the prolonging of the Session sufficiently to carry this proposal into effect, and shall not leave the poor men we represent in the counties subject to this tax one instant longer than we can. We shall insist upon the carrying out of the pledge which makes the Budget of this year so memorable.
  SIR R. FOWLER: The hon. Member has made a great attack on the landed interest. I do not happen to be largely connected with that interest, but I sit and live amongst those who are, and I know they are taxed to an extreme point, and that an increase of the taxation upon them would be equivalent to the imposition of the last straw that breaks the camel's back. I have already expressed my great satisfaction with the general principles of my right hon. Friend's proposals. I think he is entitled to the gratitude of the country for them. There is one particular point, however, to which I desire to draw attention. My right hon. Friend has proposed, and I think unjustly proposed, to throw a very heavy burden indeed on the Straits Settlements, namely, no less an amount in future than £100,000. per annum. Now, the Crown Colonies are not in the position of self-governing colonies like Australia and Canada; they have no Representative Institutions, and therefore depend for their ruling and for justice, to a large extent, on legislators appointed by the Home Government. I think they have a right to look to this House in a sense in which the self-governing colonies do not look to it. As regards the Crown Colonies, the effort which has been made to put increased taxation on them is very hard upon them. The reason for what has been done, particularly in Singapore, is that it is a most important naval station—a coaling station. It has been thought advisable by the Government to expend a large sum in fortifying the position; and I contend that, as the work is for Imperial purposes, the cost should

  1549
  be borne by Imperial, and not by local, finance. In Hong Kong the expenditure of the Government is £200,000 a year; at present the colony provides £20,000 a year, but in future it is to be called upon to contribute £40,000. In the Straits Settlements the expenditure of the Government is only £136,000 annually, and yet this colony is asked to vote upwards of £100,000 of that amount. The burdens are not only all unfair in themselves; but in the case of the Straits Settlements, the proportion demanded is particularly unjust, and it is a burden forced upon it in violation of the votes of the Local Council entirely, because the Crown nominees are in a majority. I maintain that this is a great grievance, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carefully re-consider the matter on grounds both of justice and of policy. I appeal to him to do this as a statesman who has sat in a good many Cabinets. He is not only acquainted with the Exchequer, but he has been First Lord of the Admiralty, and has filled other positions in Governments. He ,can, therefore, take an all-round view of the question. I believe that this has been suggested to the Treasury.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, no.
  SIR R. FOWLER: Well, I believe they have looked into it. No doubt the duty of the Treasury is to raise money by all the means in their power; but I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to regard the matter from the point of view of statesmanship, and not from the narrow point of view of the Treasury.
  SIR T. SUTHERLAND: This is an important question to the Crown Colonies concerned, and I can speak with some authority on it, because I happened to be a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong at the time the first Imperial contribution was imposed on that colony. I listened with some surprise at the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the patriotism of the Crown Colonies with respect to the new and much larger impositions in the future. To my mind, his attitude was something like that of an amiable fishmonger, who, having skinned an eel, suggests that it should be as
  1550
  obliging and patriotic as possible. The course of procedure in such cases is that a Minister, or an official representing the Government of the day, having discovered that a Crown Colony has a Revenue and no representative Institution, decides to appropriate a portion of that Revenue for Imperial purposes. In the case I am familiar with, a message was sent out to the Governor to bring in a Bill, and the official members of the Council were required to vote for it, and in all cases the official Members are in a majority in Crown Colonies. In the particular instance to which I refer I had the audacity to oppose the contribution on what I believed to be just and equitable grounds, and one or two of the official members ventured to take a similar view; but, subsequently, a Despatch was received from the Secretary of State, in which it was practically stated to the official members of the Council that it would be as much as their places were worth if they voted against a measure advised by the Home Government, and brought forward by the Governor for the purpose of filling the Exchequer of the Home Government. That is not at all an exaggerated statement of the facts as they occurred a few years ago, and I venture to say that it will be found, on investigation, that a similar course has been pursued in regard to the recent enormous levies on the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, and Ceylon. I need scarcely say that if these colonies possessed representative Institutions, the Government would never have tampered with their independence in the way they have done; for, as has been stated, the great bulk of the expenditure referred to is for Imperial, and not for local, purposes, and ought to be borne by the Home Government. I do not know how the Crown Colonies intend to deal with this question, but I trust they will not allow it to remain in its present unsatisfactory position. I am not, perhaps, sufficiently experienced in matters of this kind to advise them as to what would be the proper course to pursue. Whether they should follow the example of Newfoundland and ask to be heard at the Bar of the House may, perhaps, be an open question. I would, however, venture to suggest to the Chancellor of

  1551
  the Exchequer an intermediate course —one which he might judiciously adopt in the interests of the Home Government and in the interests of a good understanding with the colonies—and it is that he should allow a grave matter of this kind to be submitted to a Committee of the House, before whom representatives of the colonies might be allowed to attend and show cause against the course pursued by the Government. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give an elaborate, add even a plausible, answer to the observations of my hon. Friend and myself on this question, but I venture to say that the matter will not rest on the present Budget discussion. Passing by the question with which I have been dealing, I cannot but congratulate my right hon. Friend on being one of the most cautious and fortunate Chancellors of the Exchequer who has handled the finance of this country for a very long time. J uphold entirely the financial method which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted on the important questions with which he has had to deal. No wiser or more sensible thing was ever done by a Government than, having entered on a most important and necessary programme in connection with the naval and military defences of the country, that they should have determined to allow the Departments concerned more or less a free hand in carrying out the great work, instead of confining them to the narrow limits of the Estimates of each succeeding year. It is utterly impossible for any Admiralty or any Naval Department to devise a scheme by which they can lay down exactly how much of the £21,000,000 which the House sanctions for naval construction can be expended in one particular year. At the same time, I think the accounts which the Chancellor of the Exchequer placed before the House at the time he introduced the Budget might be of a clearer and more comprehensive character. There is a great deal of mystery, especially with regard to these outside running accounts, which might be cleared away if a different system were adopted. I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have a printed Financial Statement issued from the
  1552
  Treasury in the same way as is done by the Admiralty and the War Department. Such a statement would greatly facilitate Members in addressing themselves to the question of the national defences, and also lessen the labours of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech. I should like to allude to the amount of the Floating Debt vis-à-vis to the amount of our Consolidated Fund; and, so far as I am concerned, I entirely approve of the idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in desiring to maintain Consols at the lowest possible amount, even at the cost of speculating somewhat in regard to the Floating Debt. I do not know whether in the voluminous Returns given to the House from time to time the information is afforded as to the cost to the Treasury of financing the Floating Debt; but I should be extremely surprised to hear that the cost of that financing during the last 12 months has been equal to the rate of the limited interest paid on the Consolidated Fund. Even if the expense were greater, I should still be an advocate for, as far as possible, avoiding the necessity of increasing the actual amount of our Consols. As to the price of that Stock, all the Members of the House are responsible. When the reduction in the interest was effected, investors rushed out of Consols into Railway Preference and Debenture Stock, and the consequence was that the latter have advanced something like 20 per cent., while Consols fell into a state of suspended animation to some extent. The re can be no hostile criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to their existing value, for no one voted against the reduction of the interest. I must bear my testimony as a shipowner to the advantage the country has derived from the possession of its interest in the Suez Canal. The shipping interest of this country is under a deep debt of gratitude to those who had the happy inspiration of obtaining for this country a voice, and an important voice, in that control of that great undertaking which is so vital to our interests and welfare, and the interest on the shares could not be easily devoted to a better purpose than that to which it is applied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the lion. Member behind me has complimented the Chancellor of the Exchequer for giving way to the great military Departments, but for my part I must protest against such doctrines, and if they were carried out to the full extent they would open floodgates of Expenditure in all directions. I protest against the doctrine that there is any financial pedantry in criticising the plans by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the demands of the Naval and Military Departments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to act as a check on any imprudent Expenditure by those Departments, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself able to reduce taxation by postponing payments for ships and works or by borrowing money for the purpose, practically all check upon Military and Naval Expenditure will be removed. It is no answer to say that precedents can be found—one in the fortification scheme of Lord Palmerston and the other in the scheme for the localisation of the forces. We all know that a great amount of money was wasted upon the fortifications, and the localisation of the forces was not a wise precedent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Government have not contented themselves with a single case or two, but they have adopted the principle of borrowing in five distinct operations—for the fortification of our home ports, for the fortification of the coaling stations, for the Australian ships, for ships built under the Naval Defence Act, and for barracks. One of the chief evils of this system of finance is the concealment it enables of the Military Expenditure of the country. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Enables.] It has the effect of concealing the Expenditure of the country. Last year the Budget had to be discussed without any information whatever about the extraordinary Expenditure then incurred on behalf of the Army and Navy; the only information then given was that contained in the ordinary Army and Navy Estimates, and there was no other source from which information could be gathered as to what the real Expenditure was. I ventured to call attention to the fact and to hazard a guess as to what
  1554
  the real Expenditure was, but my figures were disputed by the Heads of Departments. Some weeks afterwards I obtained the Return to which allusion has been made. If it be of a confusing character, that is not my fault, because I was ready to adopt any form which would give the figures in a reasonably clear way. The form was approved of by the Treasury, and therefore it is not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to complain. The Return showed that over and above the Army and Navy Estimates for the year there was a contemplated expenditure at that time of something like £7,000,000. It now turns out that that Estimate was excessive by £2,000,000. It is not the intention of the Opposition to find fault with the spending of the money, but if it had been necessary to take a Vote for the extraordinary Expenditure within the year a much more careful Estimate would have been submitted. Omitting these £2,000,000, the actual Expenditure last year over and above that voted in the Estimates was £5,058,000. Of this, £1,428,000 was charged on the Consolidated Fund; £1,155,000 was the unexpended balance of the previous year, which otherwise would have gone in reduction of debt; £405,000 was supplied by the Budget surplus; £350,000 was provided by Supplementary Estimates this year; and £1,719,000 was borrowed under various Acts of Parliament, by which the repayment is spread over different periods, namely, £696,000 was borrowed under the Naval Defence Act, £780,000 under the Imperial Defence Act, and £243,000 was borrowed under the Imperial Defence Act for expenditure on Australian ships. These were the statistics for last year, and I now come to the current year, for which the Treasury has produced a Return which is not yet in the hands of Members. In the course of his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Committee what would be borrowed; he used the terms " spent " and "borrowed," sometimes one and sometimes the other: but lie did not tell the Committee what was the actual sum to be expended on the Army and the Navy within the current year. The Return now on the Table will point this out, but it is even more confused than that of last year.

  1555
  It shows that beyond the ordinary Estimates of £31,750,000, £5,227,000 will be expended within the current year. That amount the right hon. Gentleman provides for in this way—charged on Consolidated Fund, £1,428,000; Budget surplus, £500,000; unexpended balances on previous years, £447,000; to be voted in next year's Estimates, £181,000; to be borrowed under Naval Defence Act, to be repaid by 1896, £2,119,000; to be borrowed under Imperial Defence Act and repaid out of surplus, £550,000; making a total of £5,225,000. Of this sum £1,928,000 is provided for in the year, £3,116,000 borrowed as money which will go in reduction of Debt, and £181,000 out of next year's Votes. My objection to these schemes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that they entirely destroy the effective control of the House of Commons over the Expenditure of the Army and Navy, and that they conceal the real amount of that Expenditure from the country. They also enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to claim a surplus when in reality there is a considerable deficit, while they throw the Estimates for the Army and Navy into complete confusion, and render them useless for comparison. The statement of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the extent and the effect of the delay in the building of ships was greatly exaggerated, and in my opinion such delay as has occurred in the past has frequently resulted in our obtaining ships of a better type. The action of the Government in increasing the normal Expenditure upon the Army and Navy by £3,000,000 a year, in addition to the extraordinary Expenditure of £17,500,000, has resulted in the whole saving effected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's conversion scheme being swallowed up.
  MR. GOSCHEN: How do you show that?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I understand the saving effected by the right hon. Gentleman's conversion scheme amounts from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 per annum, whilst the increase in the normal Expenditure upon the Army and Navy amounts to £3,000,000 per annum. It is a very doubtful question whether that increase will ever be reduced; it is not easy to reduce Estimates again when once they have been increased, so I do
  1556
  not think I exaggerate when I say the normal increase of the Estimates for the two great Services swallows up the saving on the conversion of Consols. In addition, there is the authorised extraordinary Expenditure under loan to the extent of £17,500,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Some of that is paid off already.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: That is, undoubtedly, the case; but, nevertheless, it was extraordinary Expenditure, and did not come under the £3,000,000 to which I have alluded. Such is not, I think, an untrue statement of the result as regards the Army and Navy. Then I have to allude to the expenditure in another Department, where the complaint is not that too much, but too little is spent, I mean the Post Office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the Post Office in the course of his Budget speech, and appeared to take credit to himself during the last year for having spent some increased amount upon it. Now, last year I called the attention of the House to the expenditure upon the Post Office, and I complained that diving the four years the Government have been in office they had starved and stinted the Post Office, and had discouraged improvements in that Department. My figures were on that 'occasion denied; they were stated to be unreliable. But during the interval between last Session and:the present time, a Return of the Expenditure and Receipts of the Post Office has been laid upon the Table, showing the net surplus of revenue each year during 20 years. That Return fully bears out the statement I made last year. It shows that during the five years that the late Mr. Fawcett presided over the Post Office, there was a net surplus revenue derived from the Post Office and received by the Treasury, of about £2,800,000 annually. The amount remained about the same each year during the five years Mr. Fawcett presided over the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff stated the other night, what I believe is perfectly correct, that Mr. Fawcett on taking office under my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian in 1881 came to an understanding with my right hon. Friend that he should be allowed a free hand in

  1557
  respect to Expenditure at the Post Office, or, at all events, that any sums beyond the normal amount paid into the Treasury as net revenue for the Post Office, should be under his control. And what I would call attention to is that the five years during which Mr. Fawcett held the position of Postmaster General was the period during which the greatest improvements were effected in the Post Office, and when the demands of the public were satisfied to a remarkable degree. In spite of this, during that period the net revenue for the Post Office remained stationary, amounting year by year to £2,800,000. I speak of the Post Office, and ,do not include the Telegraphs. As the result of this policy when Mr. Fawcett left the Department it was one of the most popular of the Services under Government, and there was general contentment among the employés. I think I am fully justified in saying that no Department of the State gave greater satisfaction to the public. What is the state of things since that time? I pass over the two or three years when the office of Postmaster General was held by myself and two or three others for short periods, during which there was practically no change; but I take the four or five years during which the present Government has been in Office. During this period the net revenue from the Post Office has risen from £2,800,000 to £3,450,000 in the year 1888–89, au increase of revenue of £650,000.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: Does that include the Packet Service?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I include the Packet Service. And during these five years of increasing revenue from the Post Office there have been increasing complaints on the part of the public. I know the net revenue has been somewhat reduced last year, 1890-91, by a sum of £130,000, owing to the increases in salaries; but in the Estimate of the coming year I find in the Budget speech that the net revenue is expected to be the same as in the present year. As the revenues of the Post Office have been habitually underestimated, I think we may assume that it would be at least £3,400,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman upon that point. The possible increase in the revenue will certainly be largely diminished by the possible increase of Expenditure. One site for instance for a new Post Office is likely to cost £125,000.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: That is not included in the Estimate for the year, and of course I cannot speak of things which are in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but which have not reached the stage when they can be mentioned in Estimate or in Budget speech.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of a possible increase upon the Estimates, and I only wished to point out to him that unforseen Expenditure is likely to be as large or larger than unforeseen increase of revenue. I do not mention this by way of controversy, but for the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Naturally I only dealt with the figures as I find them, and it is not fair to have this new figure started when it has not been mentioned in the Estimate or in the Budget speech. But even if we make allowance for that, I am perfectly certain that the net revenue in the coming year will at least be equal to the past year, and I shall be surprised if it is not £100,000 in excess. Taking the net average revenue of the Post Office during the five, years when Mr. Fawcett presided there, I think I am justified in my contention that the Government have raised a constantly increasing net revenue from the Post Office, and that during the whole of the time improvements have been discouraged or refused on the part of the Treasury for the sake of getting this increased revenue for the Department. I do not say that the Postmaster General is to blame. The fact is, as everybody knows, the Postmaster General is the humble servant of the Treasury. If the Treasury desires to increase its revenue, the Postmaster General must give way, for the Treasury is master of the position—that is to say: the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The increase of revenue can only be effected at the expense of the Postal Service. And now we find that what six years ago was one of the most popular Services under

  1559
  Government, has become one of the most unpopular Services. I might go further and make reference to pay, but inasmuch as improvement has been effected in the present year I will not dilate on this matter. My own belief is, that if the Postmaster General were allowed a free hand to deal with questions as they arise—if he had not to consult the Treasury upon every possible occasion—then many of the complaints might have been dealt with at a much earlier period and probably the ultimate charge upon the Government would not have been so great as now it proves to be. I will undertake to say that the result of drawing this increasing revenue from the Post Office has caused the Department to be unpopular in the sense that people have felt that improvements were neglected and discouraged by the Government while the Government has continued to derive increasing revenue from the Post Office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not, I think, deny the relations he has described between himself and the Postmaster General. Speaking to the London Chamber of Commerce last year the right hon. Gentleman said—
  " I can assure you that when the Post Office falls short of its duty it is on the Treasury that the responsibility should be laid rather than on the Postmaster General. The Post Office is an ambitious and a capable Department; its ,capacity is equal to its ambition, and its ambition is, I am bound to say, equal to its capacity. Let it never be thought that the Post Office is content to remain behind the measures or the systems of any Foreign or Colonial Governments."
  The conclusion I have arrived at is that, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has listened to the demands of the great Military Departments and given them what they wanted, he has starved and stinted the Post Office with the view of deriving from it a gradually growing income. I look upon any policy of starving that Department as unwise. My belief is that it would be a wise policy to give the Postmaster General a free hand in regard to the Service, though I would not carry that beyond the point of securing to the Government a considerable revenue, which I would put at £3,000,000, any excess beyond which should be devoted to the im-
  1560
  provement of the Service. In conclusion, I again protest against the continual increase on the one hand of the Army and Navy Estimates, while a Department like the Post Office is being starved for the purpose of giving the Government an increased net revenue.
  MR. JACKSON: I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with amazement and very great pain. The right hon. Gentleman has charged the Treasury with having starved and stinted the Post Office, and with having prevented from time to time great improvements in that Department. He has charged the Treasury with paying no heed to the public interest, but only desiring to extract as much out of the Department as they possibly could. I venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is not the smallest foundation for that charge. Nor has the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a single instance in support of that most monstrous charge. I should have thought that if my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, by good administration, shows an unexpected balance, that is rather matter for congratulation than condemnation. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about starving and stinting the Post Office. If he were cognizant of the facts ho would know that within the last 12 months the Treasury has sanctioned an increase of staff and an increase of pay to the staff which will not amount to less than £400,000 a year. I know what the amount is, the right hon. Gentleman does not—
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I alluded to increase of salaries in the past year, and the Postmaster General a few nights ago, I think, put the figure at £220,000.
  MR. JACKSON: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with extreme disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman has filled the position of Postmaster General himself, and no one therefore can be in a better position to know what mischief exaggerated statements made in this House by men in his position are calculated to effect in the Service. I am sorry to have spoken with some warmth, but I know that these charges levelled against the Treasury are entirely without foundation, and I must say when

  1561
  they are made they ought to be supported by some evidence. It has ever been the duty of the Treasury since I have been there, and I think I may say the same of my predecessors, to sanction every improvement which was calculated to add to the public convenience proposed from time to time by the Postmaster General. I am quite sure if my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General were here he would repudiate the statement the right hon. Gentleman opposite has made.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I spoke mainly of improvements in the Service in the public interest. I did not speak of salaries.
  MR. JACKSON: But the right hon. Gentleman said starving and stinting.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: This is not the first time I have dealt with the subject. I dealt with it last year. I never alluded in any way to the question of the staff. In alluding to the starving and stinting of the Service I meant solely to refer to improvement in the public interest.
  MR. STOREY: I do not wish to enter into this dispute. I wish to recall the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a matter of infinitely more importance to the taxpayers. I spoke early in the evening, when the House was empty, and I wish to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the remedy he proposed last year with regard to Inhabited House Duty has been futile in the extreme. Last year he admitted the grievance, and when I tell the House that that grievance involves the interests of many scores of thousands of citizens—
  MR. JOHNSTON: Js it in order, Mr. Courtney, for an hon. Member to make the same speech over again?
  MR. STOREY: As the hon. Member did not hear the last—
  MR. JOHNSTON: Unfortunately, I did.
  MR. STOREY: And as he has not heard the present speech, I think his attempt to convince the House that it will be the same speech is, at any rate, premature. I am not going to make the same speech, but I will make a better
  1562
  one. The subject is of importance to my constituents, and, I think, to many Members of this House. What the right hon. Gentleman did last year was to admit the grievance as to the levying of House Duty on tenement houses which were never intended to be included within the scope of the impost. After defeating the remedy we proposed from this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman proposed a remedy himself, and it is contained in the 26th clause of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of last year. I wish to assure him, on behalf of the householders throughout the country, that his proposed relief of the grievance has turned out to be futile in the extreme. He proposed to relieve these tenement houses and, as a matter of fact, he has not done so. The right hon. Gentleman has himself stated that, whilst he expected his modified Inhabited House Duty to yield £1,460,000, it has, as a matter of fact, during the past year yielded £1,570,000, and I want to state that in my judgment the excess of £110,000 is altogether or mainly due to the fact that the poor owners of tenement houses have, owing to the peculiar drafting of the measure and to the difficulties thrown in their way by the public officials, failed to secure the relief we anticipated they would secure. I will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the concrete instance on which I found this allegation. In Sunderland applications were made on behalf of the tenants and householders for relief from House Duty, and a test case was presented to the local Commissioners. That case related to a house of two storeys, with one front door, but with two tenants, one on the lower and the other on the upper floor. It was admitted before the local Commissioners that the house had been originally built many years previously for the purpose of accommodating two tenants, and that it had continued to be used as the habitation of two tenants up to the date of the application. The owner produced the certificate of the Medical Officer of Health that the House was in a proper sanitary condition. The local Income Tax Commissioners agreed that the house came within the Statute, and that the owner should not be liable to Inhabited House Duty. There we hoped

  1563
  the matter would have ended, and that the local Officers would have given effect to the decision in the test case and relieved all the different applicants in the town. The local Officer, however, wrote up to London and, under guidance of the Somerset House authorities, appealed to a Court of Law against the decision of their own Commissioners.
  MR. GOSCHENThey are not their own Commissioners.
  MR. STOREY: I know they are not their own in the sense of being paid Commissioners, but I know also that they are local persons who are appointed to deal with these matters because they are independent and reasonable persons. I want to know on what grounds the authorities in London put this poor owner to the cost of going to law on a matter of this kind I have been looking at the Act, and I cannot conceive on what ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer will defend the action of the Board of Inland Revenue. This House is in precisely the same position as two cottages, except that, instead of the two tenements being side by side, they are one above the other. The only answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give is that there is one front door. This very question of a separate entrance was raised last year. An hon. Member asked whether it was to be understood that there was to be a separate entrance, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  " The hon. Gentleman will see that there are no such words in the clause."
  The hon. Member then asked—
  " Win there have to be a separate entrance? "
  And the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  " Why should the hon. Member wish to have the words? I believe, as I propose to amend it, the clause will meet the views of the Committee. It will be for the Sanitary Officers to decide whether the houses are properly adapted."
  Therefore, I say that if the Sanitary Officer has decided that this was a sanitary dwelling, the mere fact that it has a common stair is not sufficient to exempt it from the operation of the Act. This, as a single instance, may seem extremely trivial, as it only involves a question of a few shillings, a year. But these few
  1564
  shillings are to be multiplied by hundreds of similar sums in my own town, by thousands in the North of England, and by hundreds of thousands throughout the country. There are scores of thousands of instances in the large towns of tenements perfectly sanitary, inhabited by the working classes, and possessing a common door. There may be three or four instead of two tenants, but each set of rooms is to all intents and purposes a separate tenement. The purpose aimed at by the Committee last year, and conceded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that all these people should be relieved from Inhabited House Duty. An examination of the Debates that took place when that duty was first established shows that it was never intended that tenement houses, where the tenements were let for less than £20 a year, should come under the operation of the law at all. The object of the duty was to obtain an additional tax from people who were rich enough to own and to occupy a house with a value of more than £20 a year. It was never intended that the Inhabited House Duty should be exacted in the case of a house that was inhabited not by a single well - to - do family, but by several small families. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some assurance that he and his associates in London will not press the law in opposition to the Statute, as I think they are doing now, for the purpose of trying to justify an unjust impost. By frankly giving way in this matter and accepting the view the Government agreed to last year, he will give sensible relief to many thousands of persons throughout the country, and carry into effect that which was the intention of Parliament last year.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had the courage to make any direct attack on the Budget. Very few of them have attempted to criticise it in any of its details, but most of them have made haste to express their agreement with the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to dispose of his surplus. But through all the speeches of hon. Members there ran a tone of general disparagement of the great and splendid financial reforms

  1565
  which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has achieved during the four years in which he has been in office. The right hon. Gentleman has accomplished three great reforms. The first is the great conversion of the National Debt, by which he has relieved the taxpayers of the country from the payment of £2,000,000 a year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not dare to say that that is not a great and successful work, but they have done their utmost to minimise its value by referring to the present prices of Consols, and trying to make out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not devoted so much money as their Ministry did to reducing the corpus of the debt. I was struck by one remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The right hon. Gentleman said that no Chancellor of the Exchequer can take any particular credit for the reduction of the debt, as the matter is, for the most part, automatic. If that is so, what becomes of the elaborate attack made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who challenged the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tried to make out that the reduction of debt has not been so great as that made by the Liberal Administration? Another reform achieved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the putting upon a permanent footing the relations between Imperial and local taxation, an object long desired by Members on both sides, but which no one hitherto have had the courage or skill to accomplish. I gather from the speech of the Member for Derby that he complains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year out of Imperial taxation for the relief of local taxation, and I drew the inference from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that when he came into power—may the day be long distant—he would make it his first duty to take away the grants from the local bodies and apply them to the reduction of the Income Tax and the abolition of the duty on tea. I commend that programme of the Front Opposition Bench to the attention of the County Councils and other Local Bodies who now enjoy such great aid from the Imperial Exchequer. The third great work accomplished by the Chancellor of the
  1566
  Exchequer is the provision for the nava defence of the country. There have been many dissertations on the offence the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to have committed in hypothecating some of the resources of future years in order to provide for a loan by which to raise the necessary money to place the Navy of the country in a state of efficiency. If we accept the doctrine that it is necessary to raise the Navy of the country to a certain standard, I cannot conceive any object for which it is more fitting for the Ministry of the day to draw largely on the future resources of the country. Are not our own resources mortgaged to an enormous extent by the National Debt? What was the object of that drawing upon the resources of posterity? It was to secure the independence of this country and the liberty of Europe, and the money was well invested, for the expenditure has given us 80 years' peace and commercial supremacy. When the Navy has once been raised to a proper standard it is easy to maintain it at a moderate expense from year to year. desire to say a few words about the finance of the present year. When I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night I was struck with one thing, which has not been much noticed in the present Debate, and it is that the expenditure of the country is increasing at an alarming rate. I cannot sufficiently express the admiration I feel for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he denounced with noble wrath the policy of buying in the cheapest market, and said the Government would purchase both their material and labour at a fair price. That is a great change to undertake in the policy of the country. I admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is yielding to a very strong and irresistible feeling on the part of the people that the Government ought to be a model employer, and ought not to buy its material and labour as cheaply as possible, but should take care to get the best article and pay labour. at a fair price. The people are the masters; they pay the taxation, and they have a right to say how their money shall be employed; but the new policy has led to a considerable increase in the Estimate of the year. Increase in wages is being demanded in every branch of the Civil

  1567
  Service, and if the demand is granted there must be a very considerable increase of expenditure. If that is the case, I have some misgiving as to whether the splendid surpluses of the last few years will be continued in years to come. The revenue is not likely to increase in anything like the same proportion—in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the other night that we are now probably at the top of our prosperity. The surplus this year is very largely accidental, and I do not think it should be allowed to go forth to the country that the surpluses of the future will be sufficient to provide for the very excellent purposes which all have in view. If we are to carry out our policy it will be necessary for the country to prepare itself for some very great act of self-sacrifice in regard to the payment of fresh taxation in future years.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am obliged to my hon. Friend who has just sat down for the manner in which he has spoken of my general finance. I am not sorry that the hon. Member has laid some stress on the tendency to increase expenditure; but I think he somewhat exaggerated that portion of my speech which dealt with the fact that the country had given us the cue not to buy in the cheapest market but the best. I trust that my hon. Friend will continue to pay some attention to the increase of expenses in all Departments of the State. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) censured the Government for meeting the wants of the Military and Naval Departments while they are so economical with regard to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman would prefer that we should starve the army and Navy in order to be extremely generous to the Post Office. He appears to attach more importance to a parcel being sent cheaply than to a war ship being built to defend our coasts. But, if the accounts are not so simple as before, a great and successful effort has been made to strengthen the Navy. I will not, however, say anything with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman calls complicated shifts and devices for meeting the Naval Expenditure. Before we lay down the seals of office we shall have paid off a considerable portion of the loans, and if we have produced some
  1568
  complexity in the accounts, which are certainly not so simple as formerly, our successors, whoever they may be, and whenever they may come into office, will find a stronger and a better Fleet than this country ever possessed before. I turn now to answer one or two of the minor points raised. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Sunderland has returned to his place, and I must say I think it is a compliment to the Budget that amongst the many topics which might have been opened by the hon. Gentleman one of his chief attacks has been upon the decision of some of the local officials of the Inland Revenue Office at Sunderland. Still, I think the hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had not introduced such a very local topic into a discussion on the Budget.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that I spoke to him on the point some weeks ago, and he failed to give me a satisfactory assurance.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can only now say that further investigation will be made into this matter, and if there are any cases of hardship I shall be glad to look into them, as the Government desire to do justice in this matter. We have proved our desire to do that by sending down an Inspector. The hon. Member for the City of London has spoken of the colonial contributions. Now, I put it to the Committee that if our colonies are progressing in wealth, population, and every other attribute of prosperity, it is but fair that they should in some fixed proportion bear the increased cost of defence. I believe that that is a self-evident proposition. Fortunes are made in our colonies by firms which pay no Income Tax upon their profits, and seeing the advantages they derive from the protection of this country, it is only fair to the British taxpayer that the colonists should bear their fair share of the increased and increasing costs of defence. I do not wish to say one word which would bear hardly upon the colonies, but I think I have made out my case on that point. Jt has been suggested that a Statement of Accounts should be prepared and printed with the Budget, just as the Statements of the Army and Navy are printed. That is a matter worthy of

  1569
  consideration, but I may point out that all these Parliamentary Papers and Returns are not always read by the great public at large, and therefore it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his annual statement, to introduce a very full explanation irrespective of the Returns, so that the public, which has not the same facilities of access to the printed Returns, may understand the position of affairs. Since I addressed the House last I have had an opportunity of looking into the figures suggested by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Derby and Wolverhampton. There is not a single figure in the Budget Statement by which J am not prepared to stand. I have refreshed my memory as to the exact method by which the £37,000,000 I have given with respect to the payment of Debt is made up. It is constituted of the amount paid inside of the permanent charge during five years, with the addition of the surpluses secured during that period. There is no doubt whatever on the subject. The amount within the permanent charge is £26,600,000 and the amount of the surpluses £10,900,000. These together make the £37,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has not broken down a single figure given in the Budget statement. The figure with which the £37,000,000 was contrasted by me—the £24,000,000 —was constituted of £27,550,000 paid off within the permanent charge by the Governments of the period, less a deficit of £3,000,000. These figures are absolutely correct, but it is true that if one very unfortunate year, in which large expenditure was incurred, had been left out, the contrast would not have been so great. Then with regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, namely, that the present Government have only paid off £27,000,000 while I have claimed £30,000,000 —I have claimed the larger sum as having been devoted from the taxes to the payment of Debt, because I added to the £26,800,000 actually paid an item of £2,000,000 paid in connection with the conversion expenses. This was money spent in the reduction of Debt as much as the rest of the £30,000,000. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman
  1570
  the Member for Derby has not had sufficient time to study the figures, but he ought not to have rejected so readily the figures given in the Budget statement.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not propose to resume the controversy at this.- moment, but I will ask for a continuation of the Return asked for by my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. I may at once admit, as far as my own figures are concerned, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not credited in the amount paid for the reduction of Debt with the £2,000,000 spent on the expenses of Conversion. But I still adhere to my statement that in the years 1881–85 the amount paid out of the taxes in the reduction of Debt was £34,000,000. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us the Return asked for, the House will be able to judge for itself.
  MR. MORTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question as to the Income Tax Assessment.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I admit there is considerable force in the argument that the Income Tax should be paid on the net instead of the gross value. But this reform must be taken in hand with many other changes in the Income Tax, and though I am not so pessimistic as the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who thinks the re-construction of the Income Tax would take a century, still I agree that the reform would take a considerable time, and more time than the First Lord of the Treasury be disposed to allow me this year.
  Sin E. J. REED: J must say J am unable fully to sympathise with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend near me with regard to the naval policy of the Government, for I believe that every day we derive great benefit in our relations with other States from the fact that we are a strong Naval Power. If I thought that the Naval Expenditure made no return to the country I should be one of the first to' offer opposition to it. But believing, as I' do, that there is no portion of our expense from which the country derives' anything like so great a national benefit, I think it is a pity that this Expenditure, on our naval power should be depreciated on so many occasions. I have thought

  1571
  it right to say that, although in saying it it must not be taken that I assent to the particular methods adopted by the Government to meet the Expenditure. I was rather surprised on this point at the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham. That hon. Member made a powerful speech on the Naval Defence Act when it was before the House.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: It is quite true I did express some doubt as to the absolute necessity of the proposed addition, but the policy having once been accepted by the House, it resolved itself into a financial operation. The raising of the money by loan was perfectly legitimate. That constitutes quite another question.
  SIR E. J. REED: I noticed with some apprehension the ambitious criticism on the finances of the State from this side of the House to-night, but I do not think I need follow them up. I am sorry the Secretary to the Treasury is not in his place. I heard with surprise the attack of the Secretary to the Treasury on my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford, who stated that the Postmaster General was unable, as a rule, to carry out improvements in the Postal Service because of the interference of the Treasury with the proposals. I listened with astonishment because I have always believed that if there is anything connected with public finance which is not only admitted but proclaimed, it is the doctrine that the Postmaster General is practically a subordinate of the Treasury and is controlled by that Department He quoted words of the Postmaster General himself to the effect that the Post Office was never in a position to give effect to its promises without consulting the Treasury.
  MR. JACKSON: My objection was that the charge was made without the smallest evidence in support of it.
  SIR E. J. REED: My right hon. Friend quoted from a Parliamentary Return the details on which he rested his case. I think the Secretary to the Treasury mistook altogether the meaning of my right hon. Friend. On a recent occasion, when a Motion with reference to the Post Office was under discussion in this House, my right hon. Friend was good enough to tell me he could take no part in the Debate if it took the form, as it seemed likely to do, of instigating a
  1572
  claim for an increase of salary on the part of officers of the Department. Therefore, I do not think the Secretary to the Treasury was justified in the attitude he adopted towards my right hon. Friend. As to, the general subject of discussion to-night, I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a right to complain of any undue anxiety on this side of the House to have the national finance closely watched and carefully criticised. It seems to me of the utmost importance that the House should carefully watch such questions as contributions from Imperial Funds to local purposes in dealing with which endless confusion might arise, and especially the question of providing for the Public Service by means of loans falling on the future. It has been said that the extraordinary Naval Expenditure need not entail increased Naval Expenditure in the future. I am afraid, however, that the increased Naval Expenditure is being applied to purposes (I do not complain of them) which will necessarily entail increased Naval Expenditure in the future. In the first place, it is being applied to the production of ships of enormous size, and, judging from the experience of the past, those ships will entail the maintenance of an enormous crew and staff of officers. The increase of expenditure is being applied also to small vessels, which require separate officers and crews, and I believe it will be found that we must have a considerable increase in the number of officers with a view to the future constitution of the Fleet. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have both presided over the Admiralty, are aware how important it is to keep down the Naval Lieutenant's List, which otherwise will go to swell very much the cost of pensions. I can only say, in conclusion, that I sincerely hope in the interest of national finance and the well being of the country—that the Government, while indulging in this large increase of Expenditure, will do everything it possibly can to secure a concurrent reduction of cost in the less important branches.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I venture now to appeal to the Committee to give the Government the Resolutions. If further opportunity is required for

  1573
  discussing the finance of the year and the interesting topics raised by hon. Members opposite, it will be afforded on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is obvious that the taxes imposed by the Resolution ought not to be held in suspense.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Member for Cardiff has very properly warned the Committee and the country that these spasmodic efforts to increase the strength of the Navy will involve an increased annual charge for its maintenance. I do not wish to condemn the proposals of the Government all round. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has turned round on himself, and acceded to the universal feeling on this side of the House in favour of free education, and I wish to discriminate, therefore, between the proposals of the Government. I confess that I have no confidence whatever in the idea that increased security has been given to this country by the increase of the Navy. What has been the result of this increase of our Navy? The result has been that every country in Europe is hurrying to follow in our track.
  SIR E. J. REED: I deny that Italy and Austria have followed our example.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: If they are not developing to the extent that our spasmodic increase would require, it is only because they have not the finances. But the disposition is there; and there is not a Minister of Marine in any Cabinet in Europe who does not urge the necessity of further development on his Parliament because of what has been done in this country. I protest against its being supposed that we are doing anything for the increased safety of the country by this increased Expenditure. Are we sure that the increase of the Navy is not coupled with an engagement on the part of the Government to defend Italy in certain contingencies? I think Her Majesty's Government would have been more usefully employed in setting on foot some system of arbitration; and I hope on another occasion to join with others in pressing on the Government to give ear to the appeals which come to us from America in this direction.
  MR. SEXTON: I think it would be convenient that the Irish Members, before they agree to the
  1574
  proposal to hypothecate Irish resources, should know what proportion of the sum to be given to free education is to be applicable to Ireland, and also whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the suggestion to improve the salaries of the Irish National School teachers out of the sum so allocated. It would be convenient to the Irish Members to have some intimation of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman before we part with the clauses of the Land Purchase Bill, as the final form those clauses may take may to some extent depend on the Budget proposals. I would also ask the right hon. Gentle. man that before he finally makes up his mind on these matters he should take care to inform himself as to the views of the Irish Members.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member should remember that while it is my duty to find the money, it is not for me to consider its precise application. The question of the hon. Member should be addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. On a former occasion I assured the hon. Member that considerable weight would be attached to his suggestion, and further than that assurance I could not go.
  MR. SEXTON: What will be the probable amount allocated to Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If £1,000,000 is in question, probably £100,000 will be the amount; if £2,000,000, the probable amount will be £200,000. I cannot speak positively to a few thousands more or less. I think the figures would not be quite so large as I have stated.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I trust the right hon. Gentleman is not going to withdraw from the intimation he gave on the Budget night to the effect that a portion of the money will be disposed of in Ireland, in a similar way to that in England—that is to say, in relief of school fees. That would have a beneficial effect on the salaries of the teachers, though not so much in regard to class salaries.
  MR. GOSCHENwas understood to say that he would consider the point.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TEA.
  1. Resolved, " That, towards raising , Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of

  1575
  Customs now chargeable on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say) on—
  Tea . . the pound . . Four Pence."

  INCOME TAX.
  2. Resolved, " 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-one, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as 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) the said Act—

  In England, the Duty of Three Pence;

  In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of Two Pence Farthing;

  Subject to the provisions contained in section one hundred and sixty-three of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, for the exemption of persons whose income is less than One Hundred and Fifty 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."

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  3. Resolved, "'That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Resolutions to be reported tomorrow at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 163.)
  As amended, considered.
  Amendment proposed, " to leave out Clause 2."—(Sir J. Fergusson.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  DR. TANNER: This Bill was brought in by three important Members of Her Majesty's Government, two being the Attorney General and the Solicitor General—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment.
  DR. TANNER: I was endeavouring to lead up to the Amendment, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !The hon. Member is trifling with the House.
  DR. TANNER: The Amendment in question is, as far as I can read, in pages 1 and 2, to leave out Clause 2. I wanted to ask how it came to pass that on an important measure of this sort, when the House will recollect that the other evening we objected—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member will resume his seat.
  DR. TANNER: I bow to your ruling, Sir.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment made.
  It being midnight, Further Proceeding stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 244.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  TRUSTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND)BILL.—(No. 209.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Haldane, Bill to enable County Councils to value and purchase land, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Haldane, Mr. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Arthur Acland, and Mr. Munro Ferguson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 294.]

  VAGRANCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Haldane, Bill to amend the Law of Vagrancy in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Haldane and Mr. Duff.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 295.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock

METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve of the interment of bodies in burial grounds and cemeteries situated in populous centres, and, if not, whether they will take steps, by Orders in Council, to close for purposes of interment the Tower Hamlets City of London Cemetery in the East, and the Brompton Cemetery in the West, of the Metropolis, said: My Lords, I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to a danger, which I think is increasing, to the health of this Metropolis. Within the last half century, or, indeed, less than the last half century, over 1,250,000 bodies have been buried within what are now the limits of the Metropolis, and I think it is generally acknowledged at the present day by scientists and by all who take an interest in and who have studied the question, that the accumulation among great masses of population of vast quantities of decomposing human remains is dangerous, and increasingly dangerous, to the public health. It is now some years since Her Majesty's Government were given powers to refuse sanction to such burials in the Metropolis, and yet, curiously enough, there are two very large cemeteries situated within the Metropolitan area surrounded by large masses of population, in which burial is still permitted. I allude to the West Brompton Cemetery and the Tower Hamlets Cemetery at Bow. In the West Brompton Cemetery, which I understand was purchased by the Government in 1856, and which belongs, consequently, to the Government, and is under the control of the First Commissioner of Works, there are over 150,000 bodies buried, and it consists of only 38 acres. Consequently, that is at the rate of some 5,000 interred there a year. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have received from the dues paid from time time a profit out of this ground of some £7,000 a year. I know that is a great
  1402
  temptation for Her Majesty's Government to say that this burial ground is still fit for interments; but the strength of individuals, and I suppose the strength of Governments is shown by their power of resisting temptation, and I hope Her Majesty's Government may resist any temptation that this £7,000 a year may hold out to them. Then, with regard to the West Brompton Cemetery, that is a still more serious case as a source of danger, for there we have not to deal with 38 acres, but only 17 acres, and 250,000 interments in place of 150,000, and also we have the fact that in some of what are called " common graves " as many as 70 bodies have been interred at one time. Resolutions have been passed by Local Bodies asking Her Majesty's Government to close this cemetery, and the answer that has been given is that there is still room for common graves. Now, my Lords, my contention is that this is not a question whether there is room for common graves or for graves which are uncommon, whatever they may be, but that within the metropolis no burials whatever ought to take place. We have here an enormous population of 4,500,000 crowded within a space of some 17 miles by 12 in size, and, I assert, and I think most of your Lordships will agree with me that we ought not to do anything which can unnecessarily pollute the air. Now, what does a great sanitary authority, Sir John Simon, say upon this subject in regard to common graves. He said in 1853 that they were most dangerous and that " no consideration of cheapness can justify the placing of many bodies in one pit;" and he goes on to say that overcrowding of graves causes the soil to become saturated and polluted with animal matter. Now, it is perfectly certain that in a large town like this, there is the greatest necessity for pure air. Scientific authorities tell us that it is impossible to obtain perfectly pure air considering the enormous number of human beings who are breathing out noxious gases, and who are consuming the oxygen which is the life of the human body. When we think also of the enormous number of animals there are in mews and elsewhere, when we consider the quantity of dust that most be swept up in the streets and the accumulation of dust and offal of all kinds,

  1403
  and when we consider the amount of organic matter that is floating in the air, I think it is extraordinary that we should permit any burials at all to take place within this Metropolis, when we are told by such an eminent sanitarian as Sir John Simon that those burials certainly conduce to the increase of organic matter in the air. I therefore beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, before answering the noble Lord's question, I desire to correct a misapprehension under which he labours with regard to the amount of payments from the Brompton Cemetery to the Government. He has stated that they are £7,000, but in reality I am informed that they are £6,000. I only mention that so that the noble Lord may not think for an instant that it has anything to do with the question of payments to the Government whether this cemetery is kept open or not. The Government do not approve of, and it is their policy to prevent, the interment of bodies in populous centres where it can be shown that the interments are or may be prejudicial to the public health. The Secretary of State has power to close by Order in Council burial grounds which may become overcrowded, or where it is obvious that too many might be interred, and be therefore prejudicial to the public health. No new burial grounds can be created in the Metropolis or in any district where an Order in Council has been applied for without the express sanction of the Secretary of State. In the selection and approval of new sites precautions are always taken as to the suitability of the soil, and drainage, and all other conditions necessary to the public health, and under no circumstances can a burial in a new ground take place within 100 yards of a dwelling-house without the consent of the owner, lessee, or occupier of such house. The powers given to the Secretary of State are most scrupulously exercised throughout the country. With regard to these two cemeteries which have been referred to, the West Brompton and the Tower Hamlets Cemeteries, when the noble Lord's question appeared on the Paper, the Secretary of State asked the Inspector to report as to the present condition of those two cemeteries, and he reported
  1404
  with regard to the West Brompton Cemetery that he has from time to time paid surprise visits to that cemetery, and that, in his opinion, it is not a source of danger to the public health. With regard to the Tower Hamlets Cemetery, the attention of the Secretary of State has from time to time been called to it, and careful regulations have been made with the view of preventing possible danger to the public health. The Inspector was specially instructed last year, in consequence of a representation that was made by the Mile End Vestry, to satisfy himself by occasional visits that the regulations were fully carried out. The Inspector has reported, with reference to the noble Lord's question, that since he received those instructions he has paid surprise visits to the cemetery, and has satisfied himself that the regulations are duly observed. He paid a visit as recently as the 3rd inst., and he saw nothing that led him to believe that the cemetery was a source of danger to the public health. The noble Earl is very well aware of the difficulties that the Secretary of State is under in relation to this subject—the difficulty of providing burial grounds for the poorer population. He is most careful in giving assent of any sort to any burial site; and it is only under exceptional circumstances that any site is allowed to be used in crowded districts as a burial ground.

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— (No. 95.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL. [H.L.]—(NO. 76.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, when I introduced this Bill on the 19th of March I gave such a full explanation of the reasons which necessitated the introduction of the Bill and of the general policy of Her Majesty's Government that I should not feel justified in going over that ground again at any length. But, as some of your Lordships who are present to-night were not

  1405
  Present on the former occasion, perhaps I may be allowed to refer as briefly as possible to some of the leading points I then brought under the notice of your Lordships. There is this additional reason for my taking this course. Since the First Reading of this Bill we have had the advantage of hearing a very able and temperate speech at the Bar of this House by Sir William Whiteway, the Premier of Newfoundland; and some of the points to which I shall refer appear to me to afford a sufficient answer to some of the objections which Sir William Whiteway raised. May I observe in passing that although Her Majesty's Government could not give their assent to many of the statements made in the Petition of the colonists—and, although they regretted the tone of some parts of that Petition—yet from the first they have never hesitated to give their ready assent to the prayer of that Petition that the Representatives of the colony should be heard at the Bar of the House? In the first place, then my Lords, I endeavoured to show on the former occasion that this Bill does not interfere with many local questions; that it does not interfere with any matter of internal regulation or administration in the colony, nor with the independence of the Colonial Legislature. The Bill is of an Imperial character, involving international obligations, and it has for its sole object to enable this country to secure the observance of those international obligations and arrangements which are binding upon us. Those obligations affect the fishery rights of the French along certain parts of the coast of Newfoundland, and are as binding upon the colony, as part of the Empire, as upon this country. We hold that the colonists received the grant of a Representative Legislature subject to such Treaties and obligations. Therefore, it became their duty, in the first instance, to pass such measures as might be necessary to secure the performance of those obligations; and I may say that in 1832, when the Legislature was given to the colony, Lord Goderich, Secretary of State for the Colonies, pointed out in a Despatch, dated July 27 of that year, that the Fisheries Act, which was an Act of the Imperial Parliament, would be continued two years—that is, till 1834 — but that then the Colonial
  1406
  Legislature should be called upon to act. I do not gather that this is disputed by Sir William Whiteway, though he made use of the expression that "the Legislature of the colony did not assume the duty." If he means by that that the colony does not acknowledge the duty, he has afforded the strongest possible argument, not only for the introduction of the Bill, but for its passing, because it amounts to a refusal to legislate. But I did not understand him to mean that. I understood him to point out to your Lordships that ever since 1834 the Colonial Legislature had not at any time been called upon to legislate, and that, in fact, no legislation had been passed either here or in the colony since that date. That is true. There has been no question of legislation, from 1834 until now, but the reason is very obvious. Since that time the naval officers have year after year secured the observance of the Treaties along that part of the coast, and their powers were never doubted. It was not until last year that the question was raised as to the powers of the naval officers since the expiration of the Act of George IV. Proceedings were taken against Sir B. Walker, in the Supreme Court, and a decision was given on the points of law against the officers. Therefore, while it is not unnatural that no doubts having been raised no legislation should have been resorted to or required, during those many years, it is clear that doubts having now been raised, they must be removed by legislation. I showed on the former occasion that the Colonial Government had up to this time, that is until this Bill was introduced, declined to legislate, and that the responsibilities of this country remain in full force, and I showed also that the independence of the Colonial Legislature was guarded by the provisions of the 2nd section of the Act. I proceeded also on the former occasion to establish three other points. The first, and a very important one in our judgment, is this: I showed that Her Majesty's Government had from the very first endeavoured to the best of their power not only to ascertain, but to meet the wishes of the Colonial Government consistently with our observance of international obligations. After arbitration on the lobster question had been refused by the Colonial Government, ful

  1407
  discussions took place in this country between ourselves and the Premier and his colleagues, whom we had previously invited over to consult generally on matters connected with the fisheries, and especially with the object of determining whether it would be possible to submit to arbitration the French claims connected with the lobster fisheries, and to consult generally with them as to the terms of reference. Their views as to arbitration, which, I may say, required as a condition the undertaking on the part of the French to withdraw altogether from the coast, were reduced to writing after discussion, and submitted to the French Government, who declined to accept them. After those views had been so proposed to the French Government and refused, we received what I still must call the ultimatum of the Newfoundland Government of December 5, 1890. In this the Colonial Ministers declared that they would not assent to any arbitration which did not include withdrawal of the French from the coast; and, further, that they declined altogether to legislate with reference to the modus vivendi for the season of 1891. It was not until after that ultimatum had been received that we were reluctantly compelled to arrive at the conclusion that we must give up all hopes of assistance and co-operation on the part of the Newfoundland Government in arriving at a settlement, and that we must take the conduct of affairs into our own hands. It has been argued that that ultimatum was displaced by a subsequent statement of the views of the Colonial Government on March 9. If yours Lordships will turn to page 33 of the last Paper that has been presented to Parliament [C. 6334], you will see the Despatch which is supposed to have displaced the ultimatum. I may say that the Colonial Government were informed on January 23 that Her Majesty's Government felt compelled to maintain the position they had taken up, and to commence negotiations with France for arbitration; and on March 7 they were informed that arbitration on the lobster fishery questions would shortly tak place; then, on March 9, came the protest from the Colonial Government, in a telegram from the Governor to myself—
  1408
  "My Government desire me, in reply to your Lordship's telegram of the 7th instant,"
  —that is the one in which I asked him to inform his Government that arbitration on the lobster fishery question would take place—
  "to reiterate the views already so often expressed by them to Her Majesty's Government that they can assent to no Reference of any one particular point arising under the Fisheries Clauses of the Treaties of Utrecht, Paris, and Versailles, while other questions involved in these clauses and the declarations appended to the Treaty of Versailles are withheld from the Reference. My Government contend that the only arbitration, if such a course be necessary, should be on the whole of the Fisheries Clauses and declarations, and this view has been repeatedly expressed by the delegates to Her Majesty's Government, and my Government cannot agree to have any legal representative before any such partial arbitration, and they protest against any such restricted reference. They beg to remind Her Majesty's Government that the colony cannot be bound by the decision of any arbitration to which it has not given its adhesion, and, moreover, they cannot comprehend why Her Majesty's Government should desire such an arbitration after the conclusive opinion expressed by the Marquees of Salisbury, and after Comte d'Aubigny's admission that the French had no right to lobster factories on the Treaty shore."
  I admit that the delegates repeatedly expressed their view that if any arbitration was necessary it should not be con fined to one point, though at the same time it was strongly urged upon me more than once that no arbitration was necessary. But on no occasion in my recollection, and that of others present at the interviews, did the delegates last year agree to even a general arbitration without coupling some proposal with it—that is to say, withdrawal of the French from the coasts or some reduction or limitation of the bounty system. I may, in confirmation of that view, refer to a Letter sent from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office (it is to be found at page 20 of the last Paper presented) immediately after one of those interviews, of which I will venture to read an extract
  " At this interview Sir William Whiteway and Mr. Harvey explained that their wish was that the negotiations should proceed on the following basis—that the French should relinquish their rights on the Newfoundland coasts, and should confine their bounties to fish consumed in French territories or possessions, in exchange for the free purchase of bait front all parts of the coasts of Newfoundland, and for a territorial or money compensation in addi-

  1409
  tion. Sir William Whiteway and Mr. Harvey further assured his Lordship that they would be prepared to agree on behalf of the colony to any arbitration upon the basis of the withdrawal of the French from the coasts of Newfoundland."
  I merely cite that as a confirmation of my recollection of what passed during those interviews. Certainly the telegram which I have just read of the 9th March makes no offer to agree to any unconditional arbitration. That was the first point I endeavoured to establish. The second point was this—that in the circumstances of the case, and in the interests of peace and order, it had become necessary for Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to arrive at some settlement with the French; to get the extent of the French rights defined; and for that purpose to propose arbitration. As the lobster catching question, involving rights to erect lobster factories, was the most burning question of the day, most likely to lead to collision unless settled, and therefore most urgent, it was agreed by both Governments that the arbitration should in the first instance be confined to this lobster question. I ventured to point out to your Lordships, though it was hardly necessary to do so, the double advantage to be derived from this proceeding. First, there would be no danger of collision, the danger lying in the present uncertainty as to the extent of rights under the Treaties and the divergence of views held by the two Governments of those rights. I ventured also to point out as a second advantage, that the probability of arriving at, if not a permanent settlement, at all events some working arrangement satisfactory to all parties, would be largely increased when once the rights were defined. The third point I endeavoured to establish on the First Reading of the Bill was that, after Sir Baldwin Walker had reported to us in November, 1889, that it would be almost—
  " Impossible to prevent collisions occurring in 1890 without some special provision was made; that there was an increasing feeling of resentment against the French, and increasing risk of this feeling showing itself in acts of an aggressive nature,"
  that after receiving such an intimation as that from Sir Baldwin Walker, Her Majesty's Government were bound to anticipate this serious danger by en-
  1410
  deavouring to arrive at some modus vivendi for the season of 1890, while dealing with the larger question of arbitration. I further pointed out that the same reasons held good for the continuance of the modus vivendi for the season of 1891, and, indeed, that a most inflammatory notice which was published and circulated at many of the leading fishing stations had tended very materially to aggravate the position even as reported by Sir B. Walker. I showed also the reason why, with reference to this modus vivendi, legislation had become necessary, because of the doubts which had been raised in 1890 as to the powers of the naval officers and the decision of the Supreme Court against the existence of those powers, and because the Colonial Government had by that time, in what I have called their ultimatum, absolutely and distinctly refused to give effect to the modus vivendi for 1891. My Lords, I will now, having thus briefly pointed out some of the leading points which I endeavoured to bring under your Lordships' notice on the 19th March, proceed to address myself to what has happened since the First Reading of the Bill. The reports in the colonial papers which have come over here show that very considerable irritation sprang up in Newfoundland upon hearing that a Bill had been introduced into the Imperial Parliament; but I do not think we must assume that there is the same feeling throughout the colony. I have received telegrams, which I think are to be found in the papers, from Mr. Howley, a Roman Catholic priest, who has as great an acquaintance with the views of the fishermen and the population on the West Coast as any one, and he states that he, and those with whom he had communicated, were not opposed, as are the politicians in St. John's, Newfoundland, to the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government. I may also point out, as showing that there is a divergence of opinion in different parts of the colony, that the fishermen on the West Coast have taken it into their own hands to resist the working of the Bait Act, and have determined to carry and sell bait to the French. I am not to be assumed. as in any way upholding the action of the fishermen. I do not defend their committing a breach of the law of the land, but

  1411
  I merely refer in passing to their proceedings as showing that opinion is not all one way in the colony; and we have a right in dealing with this subject to consider not only the feeling at St. John's, but also the feeling, such as we can ascertain it, in other parts of the colony. The attack upon the Government has, I may say, proceeded on two lines. There has been, in the first place, an attack upon the Bill and against the terms of it, and also upon Her Majesty's Government for introducing it; and, in the second place, there has been an attack upon the general policy of Her Majesty's Government in agreeing to arbitration on the lobster question, and possibly upon subsidiary questions, and in renewing the modus vivendi for 1891. Now, as regards the Bill, I have little to add to what I have already said. It has been called coercive and arbitrary, and regarded as interfering with the independence of the Colonial Legislature. I think I have shown that those vituperative epithets are misplaced as regards this Bill; that the policy of the Government is not of a colonial, but an Imperial character, though of course affecting rights along the coast of Newfoundland, and that the independence of the Colonial Legislature is not only secured, but almost prayed for by the 2nd section of the Bill. Sir W. White-way, in the speech which he delivered at the Bar, said—
  "It is, indeed, provided that the Legislature of the colony may enact legislation to take the place of the present Bill; but this Bill is not to be suspended until the Local Legislature confers upon Her Majesty in Council the precise powers she would have under this Bill, and this provision is, therefore, but an illusory concession, meaning only that the burden of an Act of this Parliament can only be removed by enacting a similar Act in the Colonial Legislature."
  That the Colonial Legislature should pass a similar Act in all respects is not required. There may be other means of attaining the end in view. If your Lordships turn to the 2nd section of this Bill you will find the words are, " until sufficient provision is made." Therefore, legislative provision may be made which is different to the Imperial Act, providing of course that it is sufficient to secure the desired object. For instance, some special Courts might be established by the Colonial Legisla-
  1412
  ture, and if it is found possible to vest in such Courts or in the existing Courts powers which were supposed to be vested in the naval officers, that might be a provision which would be accepted. It is not required by the Bill that the terms of the Colonial Act should be identical with those of the Act of the Imperial Parliament; but, as I shall have occasion to point out, the question of the Courts would require some consideration. Then it is alleged that the colonists have been taken by surprise. Certainly the Colonial Government cannot be said to have been taken by surprise, because more than once in the discussions here last year I pointed out to Sir W. Whiteway and his colleague, Mr. Harvey, that if the colony would not legislate, Imperial legislation would be absolutely necessary. I am quite satisfied they will agree with me that that was brought under their notice more than once. Nor could our action, I think, be taken as a surprise to any colonist who had really studied the question, and who recognised the force of international obligations, and that we are bound to perform them on our part. After the doubts as to the powers of the naval officers, had been raised, and after the Colonial Government had refused to legislate for the modus vivendi, it must have been realised by any one who had considered the question that Imperial legislation, sooner or later, would be resorted to. I must also remark in passing that expressions of surprise on the part of the colony had never been tempered with any statement of willingness to legislate until,this Bill had been actually introduced. Her Majesty's Government knew that the Colonial Government would not legislate as to the modus vivendi—that they had absolutely refused to do. Neither had we had any hope held out to us that the Colonial Government would legislate in respect of the Treaties; and practically there was a refusal to legislate in respect of the arbitration, and to give effect to the decision of the arbitrators, as the colonists declined to be bound by it. That was shown distinctly by the telegram dated March 9, page 34 of the Clue Book, which. I have already read to your Lordships, in which we are told that the colony cannot be bound by the decision of any arbitration to which it has not given its adhesion.

  1413
  And there was a later reference in another telegram of March 24, page 39, in which the Governor informs me—
  " My Government deeply regret that they are compelled by the action of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the only course which seems open to them, viz., that of declining to take part in or to be bound by an agreement to which they are not parties."
  I think, therefore, we were justified in assuming that the Colonial Government would not legislate in respect of this arbitration. I think that affords an answer to Sir W. Whiteway's point that Imperial legislation should not have been resorted to until the Colonial Legislature had declined to act. There can be no doubt of their having declined to act up to the time of the introduction of the Bill. As I have said, the Colonial Ministers were aware of the intention of Her Majesty's Government if it was necessary to resort to Imperial legislation, and yet they have persistently declined to introduce the measures which were necessary. And here I would refer in passing to the complaint which has been made, that information as to the Bill and the terms of the Bill was kept back from the colony. That was not the case, at all events as regards the terms of the Bill. It is true that by the 19th of January we had decided to introduce some measure, but the form of the Bill was not settled then, nor indeed were the terms decided upon until the First Reading on March 19, and the Governor of Newfoundland was simply informed of our intention of introducing some measure. That Despatch it is true was not communicated to the Colonial Government. Rightly or wrongly it was not thought desirable that the Despatch and enclosures containing a résumé of the position and views of Her Majesty's Government upon the whole question should be published in the colony while negotiations with the French Government were proceeding, but, as I have already pointed out, the colonists were not deprived by that delay of due notice of the terms of the Bill—for the best of all possible reasons, that those terms had not been decided upon, nor indeed were they finally settled until the Bill was introduced. Therefore, as to the terms of the proposed Bill not having been mentioned, the objection raised by Sir
  1414
  W. Whiteway loses its force. I will frankly add that I am not disposed to agree with Sir W. Whiteway when he said that—
  " If this Bill had before its introduction been submitted to the Government and Legislature of the colony, with an intimation of the British Government's intention to procure its enactment, such arrangements might have been made as would have prevented the present unpleasant conditions of affairs."
  The introduction of the Bill at an early date was necessary because of the approach of the fishing season, and I do not think, upon full consideration, it would have been proper, even if the terms of the Bill had been settled some time before its introduction, that they should have been sent out and published in the colony, and perhaps, even discussed in the Colonial Assembly, before the Bill had been introduced in your Lordships' House and laid before the Imperial Parliament. So far, my Lords, for the attack upon the Bill. I shall, however, have occasion to refer to some of the objections which have been made by the delegates to it and answer them. Then, as to the attack on the general policy of Her Majesty's Government, I must observe that even if we were as wrong as I believe we were right in referring the lobster question to arbitration and in continuing the modus vivendi for the season of 1891; still, it would have been necessary for us to introduce the Bill because of the doubts that had been raised with reference to the action of the naval officers, and upon the broad ground that in the absence of colonial legislation we are bound to take power to this country to secure the observance of the Treaties. The decision of the Supreme Court negatives the power of the naval officers not only with reference to the modus vivendi, but with reference to their powers along the coast altogether, including their powers to secure the observance of the Treaties. This Bill is, then, in any case, necessary, whether our policy has been wise or unwise, unless we are prepared to ignore or deny our international obligations, or unless the colony will legislate. It is argued that the Colonial Government always opposed arbitration limited to the lobster question, but were ready to assent to a general arbitration upon all questions arising under the Treaties. To this I reply, in the first place, that it

  1415
  is true that they objected to the limited arbitration upon the lobster question, but, as I pointed out to your Lordships on a former occasion, their objections -were based on untenable grounds. They contended that our right to catch lobsters and to erect factories was so clear, and that the French claims were so clearly wrong, that there was nothing to refer to arbitration, and that our rights must be enforced. I confess I was astonished to find that this view was upheld by a gentleman who so long and so ably represented the Foreign Office in the House of Commons; for what must be the result if effect be given to that view? If the French maintained their claims collision and war must result from our enforcing our rights and resisting their claims by arms; and it is certain that the country would not support any Government in going to war upon such a question unless that Government had first exhausted all possible means of obtaining a peaceful settlement. As to the readiness of the Colonial Government to assent to a general arbitration, I think I have already shown beyond doubt that no unconditional offer has ever been made—that every offer to agree to a general arbitration has always been coupled with some proposal which the French would not accept. I may add that we have no reason to suppose at the present moment that the French Government would assent to a larger arbitration than that agreed to. Then, my Lords, the objection has been urged in the speech at the Bar that the policy of Her Majesty's Government violates the principle laid down by Mr. Labouchere in his Despatch of March 26, 1857. Now, assuming for the sake of argument that all successive Governments arc bound for ever by the assurances given by Mr. Labouchere, however much the condition of affairs may vary from that which existed when those assurances were given, or however great an emergency may arise, yet I confidently submit that Her Majesty's Government did not offend against the principle so laid down, either in agreeing to a modus vivendi or in agreeing to arbitration. As to the modus vivendi, I cannot do better than read the answer given in my Despatch to the Governor of June 24, 1890—it is on page 7 of the Parliamentary Paper [C. 6256]—
  1416
  "This act on the part of Her Majesty's Government does not appear to them to have involved any departure from the principles laid down in the Despatch from the Secretary of State of the 26th of March, 1857, referred to by the Petitioners, of which the following is the actual wording—namely, that the rights enjoyed by the community in Newfoundland are not to be ceded or exchanged without their consent, and that the constitutional mode of submitting measures for that consent is by laying them before the Colonial Legislature; and that the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as the essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial and maritime rights.' The modus vivendi does not cede or exchange any right enjoyed by the inhabitants of Newfoundland. N either does it involve any modification of their territorial or maritime rights. Any right which British subjects have to erect lobster factories... although its exercise may be temporarily suspended, is not surrendered or prejudiced by the modes vivendi."
  That appears to me, with deference, to be a complete answer to any charge that the modus vivendi was an infringement of the assurances given by Mr. Labouchere. As to the arbitration on the lobster question, it must be admitted, I think, that when a question of rights is in dispute it is not in any way a cession of those rights to endeavour to have the extent of the rights clearly defined. If without going to arbitration we had yielded all or any of the indefinite claims set up by the French, or if after the rights were defined we conceded any of those defined rights without the consent of the Colonial Government, I admit that we should be open to the charge of not having adhered to the principle laid down, or the assurances given, by Mr. Labouchere; but to endeavour to put an end to grave and complicated questions by obtaining an authoritative decision as to the extent of these rights surely cannot be held in any way to be an infringement of those assurances. And while I am upon this point, I should desire, with your Lordships' indulgence, to deal--and it will be convenient that I should do so now—with one of the further objections raised by Sir W. Whiteway against the Bill, namely, that this Bill is in direct opposition to Mr. Labouchere's assurances, because it empowers the Imperial Government to make permanent arrangements involving a cession of rights. There has been, I think, some misapprehension on this point. There is no departure whatever in this Bill in-that respect. The Bill gives no addi

  1417
  tional powers to the Government which they do not now possess, to make permanent arrangements. if the Government for the time being were to decide to act without regard to the assurances given by Mr. Labouchere, that is to say if they decided to act without the consent of the colony or against its wishes, they could do so now, subject, of course, to their action being impugned, and to the possibility of their being defeated in Parliament. It is not very probable that a Government, except under some very grave pressure, would desire so to act in the face of those assurances which have remained in force so long. Cut at the present moment all I wish to point out is, that the Imperial Government could now, under their treaty-making powers, make such a permanent arrangement, and that there is no further or special power given to them by this Bill. Nor, I would venture to point out, does the Bill take away any power of protest or appeal against such arrangements. That is one of the objections raised by Sir W. Whiteway. There is not at the present moment any absolute power of rejection secured to the colony, indeed, such an absolute power of rejection would amount to something very like entire independence. But the effective means of protest, which the history- of the colony shows have been very effectively exercised on several occasions, are not touched by this Bill. The colonists can still appeal in Parliament against any permanent arrangement, or any Order in Council, and take exactly the same steps that they could take before this Bill was brought into your Lordships' House. I think that before dealing with the proposals of the delegates, which were submitted by Sir William Whiteway at the Bar of the House, I have only one other observation to make with reference to that part of his speech which is contained under the second and third, but mainly under the fourth head of objections. I desire to protest most strongly against the attack made against the naval officers in those objections. For years past Her Majesty's officers have been charged with the duty of seeing that the Treaty rights are not infringed by either the French or the British fishermen, and that the rights of both countries are impartially secured. The statement made here
  1418
  at the Bar practically charges the naval officers with ignoring British rights, and only enforcing the rights which the French claim. Nothing can be more unjust than these attacks upon officers who have for years past been performing very difficult duties—duties which have become more difficult every year—with great tact, forbearance, and judgment. It may well be that in some cases officers, during those years, may have exceeded their instructions, but I can safely assert that in many of the cases where complaints have been made and have been examined into, the charges have been proved to be either ill-founded or grossly exaggerated. If these charges are to be continued against Her Majesty's officers, it is only just and fair to them that the charges should be brought to the notice of the Government and the Admiralty without delay, after the acts of which complaint is made have been done, and that dates and full particulars should be given so that the facts may be, as they certainly would be, fully tested. With reference to the concluding paragraph of Sir W. Whiteway's speech under the fourth head of objection, I would observe that this Bill again does not interfere in the slightest degree with the jurisdiction, or any part of the work, of the Colonial Courts. That paragraph states—
  " We therefore most earnestly urge that Her Majesty's ordinary Courts of Justice in Newfoundland are the tribunals which should adjudicate upon questions arising between British and French fishermen. From any judgments in such Courts a final appeal would lie to Her Majesty and the Privy Council. In no case should naval officers be permitted to try causes arising as aforesaid, since Courts of Justice already exist in the colony for the purpose; and if it be deemed impossible for the ordinary Courts to enforce the law in such a manner as to adequately assure justice to the French, then we ask that special Courts should as they could, of course, be established."
  The jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts is' not in the least interfered with by the Bill; and I apprehend, speaking subject to the correction of noble and learned Lords present, that the view stated by Sir W. White way in the first part of the passage that I have read,
  "That Her Majesty's ordinary Courts of justice in Newfoundland are the tribunals which should adjudicate upon questions arising between British and French fishermen "
  is correct. I apprehend that the Courts can do so now, and that if the question as

  1419
  to the construction of a Treaty were to arise before the Court in the course of such proceeding it would be decided in the ordinary way by the Court subject to appeal to the Privy Council. That decision no doubt would bind persons residing in the colony and within the colonial jurisdiction, and if a foreign Power, affected by that decision, were to dissent from it I presume that the mode of proceeding would be by diplomatic representations, and that the foreign Power would communicate with the Government of this country and protest against the construction put upon the Treaty by the Court. I therefore am not prepared in any way to dissent from what is stated by Sir W. Whiteway in that paragraph. As to the possibility or practicability of erecting special Courts, by which I suppose is meant Courts with French, Colonial, and English Judges, whose decisions are by agreement to be binding upon all the Governments, I am not prepared at present to offer an opinion, but as far as the statement in the speech goes, I see no reason to dissent from it. I am afraid I have taken up a great deal of time this evening, but I think it only fair to Her Majesty's Government to state the case fully and to state the reasons why we introduced this Bill, and why we have assented to arbitration. Now, I will turn to the proposals which were brought forward by Sir W. Whiteway on behalf of the colony. Though those proposals, it is true, have not yet been accepted, Her Majesty's Government have considered them with an earnest desire to find a friendly solution. It is not quite clear whether the first and second proposals are to be taken as a whole, or whether they may be dealt with independently; nor, again, is it quite clear whether the sub-heads of each proposal are to be taken as a whole, or again dealt with independently of each other. The first sub-head of the first proposal is—
  " First—(a) the Newfoundland Legislature to pass immediately an Act authorising the execution for this year of the modes vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council."
  The second sub-head is this—
  " (b) The further progress of the Bill now before Parliament to be deferred until the
  1420
  passing of the above Act, and the Bill then to be withdrawn."
  Assuming, as I do, that the proposals may be taken independently, I may state on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that, looking to the very close approach of the fishing season, and to the terms of the engagements which we have made with France, we think it necessary that the Bill should pass through this House, with such amendments and alterations as may be made in Committee; but we are willing to agree that the Second Reading shall not be taken in the House of Commons until after the Whitsuntide Holidays are over. That would bring us, I believe, to about the 21st May. If by that time the Colonial Legislature has passed an Act which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, sufficiently secures the observance and execution—first, of the modus vivendi for 1891; secondly, of the decision of the arbitrators upon the lobster questions; and, thirdly, of the Treaties and declarations, Her Majesty's Government will not go forward with this Bill. If such an Act, however, has not by that time been passed by the Colonial Legislature, it will become necessary to press this Bill rapidly forward for the reason I have already stated--namely, the close approach of the fishing season. I think, my Lords, it will be seen that this practically amounts to an acceptance of the substance of the first sub-heads of the first proposal made by the delegates, and I hope that our proposals will:be accepted as satisfactory. We are also willing to consider the third sub-head of the first proposal, which runs as follows:—
  " (c) The terms of an Act to empower Courts and provide for regulations to enforce the Treaties and declarations to be discussed and arranged with the delegates now in this city as rapidly as possible, and to he enacted by the Legislature of the colony as soon as agreed upon."
  We are quite ready to consider with the delegates the terms of a Bill such as is referred to in that sub-head (c), but it must be manifest to your Lordships that there are difficulties of an international character which would require full discussion and careful handling; and it should be understood, therefore, that the passing of the Colonial Act should not be delayed until the terms of the proposed Bill are settled. The second proposal of the

  1421
  delegates is as follows. This is the first sub-head—
  " Secondly—(a) the present arbitration agreement not to be allowed to operate further than the lobster question without the prior consent of the colony, and in this case the colony to be represented upon the Commission."
  And the second sub-head is—
  " (b) The colony desires an agreement for an unconditional arbitration on all points that either party can raise under the Treaties and declarations; and, if this be arranged between Great Britain and France, Newfoundland will ask to be represented upon such arbitration, and will pass an Act to carry out the award,"
  With regard to this second proposal, Her Majesty's Government require further time for consideration. We do not feel any difficulty as to the colony being represented on the Commission, and, as will be seen by the Papers which have been presented to Parliament, we have requested the Colonial Government to name a delegate to act upon the present arbitration as to the lobster questions, a request which, I regret, has not been accepted. We are not, however, prepared to assent to the first sub-head, that is to say that—
  " The present arbitration agreement is not to be allowed to operate further than the lobster question without the prior consent of the colony,"
  although the colonists may rest assured further that we should not agree to refer subsidiary points to the arbitrators until after full consultation with the colony, and after clearly ascertaining the views of the Colonial Government and Legislature. It is clear also, as regards the second subhead, namely, that " the colony desires an agreement for an unconditional arbitration," that we cannot compel the French Government to agree to an unconditional arbitration of the kind referred to, nor as I said before, so far as I am aware, is there at present any probability of their assenting to any such unconditional and general arbitration. Every consideration will be paid to the wishes of the colony, but if this general arbitration is to be made a sine qua non to the acceptance of the first proposal, Her Majesty's Government, as at present advised, have no alternative but to carry through this Bill. In conclusion, I would say that Her Majesty's Government earnestly trust that this may not be necessary, and they confidently
  1422
  believe that, after what has been said this evening, credit will be given to them for endeavouring as far as they can, consistently with our international obligations, to meet the wishes of the Colonial Government and Legislature. I thank your Lordships for having so patiently listened to me, and I now beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved,;" That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Knutsford.)
  THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it seems to me that three questions are raised for consideration, and it will be convenient to take them separately. The first is whether any legislation at all is necessary; the second is whether this Bill is proper legislation on the question; and the third is, the consideration of the proposals of the colonial delegates to which the noble Lord has referred. Now, as to the necessity for legislation, I adhere entirely to what I said on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill by the noble Lord, that it seems to me he made out a distinct case for legislation of some kind, and if that legislation is re fused by the colony, then I think that the legislation must be passed by the Imperial Parliament. There are two obvious reasons why it is impossible to avoid such legislation; first and principally, as the noble Lord has pointed out, because it has been discovered that, in fact, there exists at the present time no lawful mode of enforcing our Treaty obligations in Newfoundland, and it is quite obvious that the accident that an Act which gave the necessary power was allowed to lapse so that we find ourselves unable to enforce those Treaty obligations at the present time by any legal means, cannot in any way relieve us from our duty to the other party to the Treaty, and that we are absolutely called upon by good faith and in the interests of this country, and of the Empire generally, to see that there is lodged in the hands of Government — I mean either the Colonial Government or the Government of this country—power to enforce our Treaty engagements, be they what they may, Then there is a further question which has also rendered some legislation necessary, namely, the enforcement of what is termed the modus vivendi. The modus vivendi, as has been explained to

  1423
  the House, is a means of dealing temporarily with the question of the lobster fishery, and it is quite obvious that during the negotiations with France it is plainly necessary that there should be what I may call a truce between the parties until the respective rights are ascertained. That is the object of the modus vivendi, and that does not in any way infringe upon the assurances given by Mr. Labouchere to the colony, because this modus vivendi is not for the purpose, as I understand it, of making a new Treaty engagement, but is for the purpose of ascertaining what is the specific meaning of the Treaty engagements now subsisting. Therefore, as regards the modus vivendi it is quite clear there must be legislation of some kind, and as regards our general engagements and Treaty obligations there must be some legislation. I need say no more upon that point, because the noble Lord has elaborated it rather fully. I now come to the more important question, namely, as to this Bill itself, and the mode in which it has been introduced. I am quite certain that Her Majesty's Government and every one in this House will agree that when it is necessary to introduce legislation of this kind all possible means should be exhausted in order to do so in a manner which will be least likely to offend the susceptibilities of the colonists with whom we have to deal, and I am very glad that to a considerable extent, I must agree, that course has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government. They saw the delegates last year, and communicated and negotiated with them at great length; they also negotiated repeatedly with the Colonial Government, and asked them whether they would be prepared to enforce the modus vivendi; but the Colonial Government, I think it was on December the 9th, undoubtedly refused to legislate for the purpose. So far, my Lords, I have no fault to find with Her Majesty's Government, but upon one point their proceedings were somewhat unfortunate, and I do not think the noble Lord upon that point quite successfully defended himself—I mean as to their not communicating to the Newfoundland Government, and through the Newfoundland Government to the Newfoundland Legislature, the intention of Her Ma-
  1424
  jesty's Government—if there were not any legislation passed by the Colonial Legislature to legislate by the Imperial Parliament. Such a step as that, being of the most grave nature, and being one which directly dealt with the privileges and the status of the colony as regards this matter should, whatever might be the expectation as to the answer the colony would give, have been at the earliest possible period communicated to the Newfoundland Government, and through them to the Newfoundland Legislature. I am rather surprised that Her Majesty's Government had not made up their minds somewhat sooner, seeing how long this matter had been under consideration; but when they did make up their minds not a moment should have been lost in communicating with the Newfoundland Government; and if your Lordships will refer to the latest Papers which have been presented to Parliament you will see it is very singular that several communications were made to the Newfoundland Government with reference to this particular arbitration, and yet not a word was said in them until a late period as to any legislation. On the 23rd January, 1891, a telegram was sent by the noble Lord to the Government of Newfoundland, in which he informed them—
  " Her Majesty's Government feel compelled to maintain the position they have taken up, both as regards commencing negotiations with France for arbitration, and as to deferring the ratification of the draft convention with the United States."
  Possibly at the time Her Majesty's Government had not made up their mind as to the legislation here. But let us look on a little later. The Government of Newfoundland on the 9th March repeated—
  " That they can assent to no reference of any one particular point arising under the Fisheries Clauses of the Treaties of Utrecht, Paris, and Versailles."
  And then they also said they—
  " Cannot agree to have any legal representative before any such partial arbitration, and they protest against any such restricted reference."
  That was on the 9th of March. In answer to that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies telegraphed on the 12th of March to Newfoundland—

  1425
  " Agreement for arbitration signed yesterday. Further full information will be sent as soon as possible."
  I cannot understand why at the same time the Newfoundland Government was not informed that in order to carry into effect that arbitration it was necessary to introduce a Bill into Parliament; because your Lordships will observe that it is actually contemplated by the Agreement or arbitration itself. In the Notes which were exchanged between the noble Marquess opposite and the French Ambassador it is stated that the French Government on the one hand reserve the consent of their Legislature, and that the Government of this country reserve the assent of Parliament. Therefore, it is quite clear that at that time, when the Arbitration Agreement was signed Her Majesty's Government contemplated that they would have to apply to Parliament for powers. I cannot understand therefore, why they did not immediately inform the Legislature of Newfoundland of the fact. I find further on, which is even more remarkable, that on the 16th of March, when an elaborate telegram is sent to the Newfoundland Government giving the full text of the Agreement for arbitration, signed on the 11th of March, not a word is said as to the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for carrying into effect and enforcing the Treaties. I think it was unfortunate, the colony being extremely sensitive (and it is not to be wondered at that they should be extremely sensitive on a point of this kind), that this should have been overlooked, and that the colony was not informed at the earliest possible moment, and in the fullest possible manner that the circumstances admitted, that the Bill would be introduced. The noble Lord opposite has said that Her Majesty's Government had not agreed upon the actual terms of the Bill, but they might have informed the Newfoundland Government that a Bill would be introduced, and that its terms would be communicated to them as soon as possible. I cannot say that I attach much importance to the objections of the noble Lord that it would have been wrong that the provisions of that Bill should have been submitted to the Newfoundland Government, and discussed in the colony before it had come before Parliament; on the
  1426
  contrary, that is the very thing which they ought to have been told, because it might very well have happened that in discussing the matter a way out of the difficulty would have been suggested, but by the course which has been followed the Government here have laid themselves open to this assertion of the delegates that if this Bill had, before its introduction in Parliament, been submitted to the Government and Legislature of the Colony, with an intimation of their intention to secure its enactment by Parliament, such results might have been. arrived at as would have prevented the present unpleasant condition of affairs_ No one can tell now, of course, whether that would have been the case or not, but, no one can say that it might not have been so, and, considering the proposals which the delegates have now made, I think that it is by no means impossible that that result might have been arrived at; and, if that result had been arrived at, then all this friction with the colony, and this very disagreeable necessity of applying to Parliament might have been avoided. So much for the mode in which the Bill has been introduced. I come now to the Bill itself, and here I must say there are, I think, various parts of the clauses of this Bill to which very serious objection may be taken. As regards the first part of it, I take no exception. I take no exception to the first, clause, which says that—
  " The enactments set out in the Schedule to, this Act shall be revised and have full effect, and the Treaty or Treaties therein named shall include not only the Newfoundland fishery engagements, but also any temporary arrangement made in France either before or after the passing of this Act."
  An objection may perhaps be taken to it as retroactive with regard to its application before the passing of the Act. I think there is some question upon that, but as regards the modus vivendi which would be rendered operative by this 1st clause, and as regards the Treaties generally, I have no objection to make. That does not apply to the particular enactments which are revived, but to the principle of legislating to enforce the modus vivendi and the Treaties. Cut when I came to the 2nd sub-section of the 1st clause of the Bill I was extremely astonished when I read it. I must ask your Lordships to allow me to read the words of that sub-section,

  1427
  because it is very important to see exactly what it is the words carry with them—
  "If any permanent arrangement is made between the United Kingdom and France with respect to the differences which have arisen upon the Newfoundland fishery engagements, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council to direct that the enactments hereby revived shall apply, and the same shall apply accordingly, as if such permanent arrangement were a Treaty mentioned in the said enactments."
  Now, it appears to me this gives by anticipation power to the Crown to enforce any Treaty which the Crown may make for modifying the Treaties now subsisting between us and France with regard to the Newfoundland Fisheries without any further application to Parliament—a power to enforce any new Treaty that may be made. With regard to that there seem to me to be two vital objections—the first, a very special objection, that it goes directly in the teeth of the engagement made by Mr. Labouchere with the Colonial Government, because the engagement which was made by Mr. Labouchere with the colony was that the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as the essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial or maritime right. Now, the original proposal laid before this House by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as I understood it, was no violation of the assurance given by Mr. Labouchere, for the simple reason that the arbitration was not for the purpose of making a new Treaty, but only to ascertain what the meaning of the existing Treaty is. I find that the noble Marquess, in reply to the observations I made to the House, laid this down with great distinctness. He said—
  " All we desire to do is not to modify or alter the status of the colony in any degree, but really to ascertain what that status is before a tribunal of International Law."
  Nothing can be clearer than that statement. But this clause enables the Government to make any new permanent arrangements they please, and that, as I have said, would be in the teeth of the assurances given to the Newfoundland Government by Mr. Labouchere. But I go further and say that it seems to set aside Parliament in a manner most unusual, and which seems
  1428
  to me entirely unprecedented, because, as I understand the course that has always been taken in this country with regard to the Treaties with foreign States—the universal practice has been this: The Crown has complete power to conclude Treaties with any foreign States, and if the provisions of those Treaties can be enforced in this country without further legislation nothing further need be done. The consent of Parliament is not necessary to the Treaties, but if there be anything in the Treaties which cannot be enforced in this country under the existing law of the country, then it is necessary to go to Parliament and to obtain the consent of Parliament to the passing of that legislation, and unless Parliament consents, the Treaty falls to the ground. There are numerous instances in which this has occurred, but if this Bill were to pass, Her Majesty's Government would have the power to conclude a new Treaty with France as to the fisheries of Newfoundland, entirely altering the maritime and territorial rights of the colony, and. inasmuch as such a permanent arrangement would apply as if it were a Treaty mentioned in the enactments set out in the Schedule to the Bill, full power would exist to enforce any such new Treaty without any further application to Parliament. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a clause which ought never to have been included in this Bill, and to which I sincerely trust Parliament will not be induced to agree. It is really not necessary for the Bill, because, if it should come to pass that Her Majesty's Government were able to conclude a satisfactory Treaty with France on this matter, the whole course would be simple enough, the consent of Parliament would readily be obtained and the Treaty would then come into force. Again, I have a further criticism to make upon Subsection 3. Possibly that might establish a precedent of the advisability of which I am not at all sure. There is a provision in Sub-section 3 of Clause 1—
  "Provided that before such Order is made the draft thereof shall have been communicated to the Government of Newfoundland, and lain on the Table of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament for not less than one month."
  That also is open to considerable objection, and for this reason, that if I am

  1429
  right in my contention that a new permanent arrangement can be made under Sub-section 2, then it would seem that instead of the assent of Parliament being asked for in the regular way, and the whole matter being submitted to Parliament, an Order in Council for this purpose is to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a month, and that Parliament does not address the Queen against the Order, then I conclude the intention is that it shall take effect. It is not stated here that the Order shall fall to the ground if Parliament does address the Crown in either House within that time; but, practically, I suppose, that would put an end to the Order. Otherwise the assent of Parliament is obtained. Surely that is not the way in which we have dealt or ought to deal with important Treaties of this kind. It has not been the custom that instead of the Crown having to come to Parliament for the necessary power to carry Treaties into effect, draft Orders for that purpose should be merely on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, just as some Order in regard to education. I do not think that is the proper way in which so solemn an instrument as a Treaty should be dealt with. Then with regard to the Newfoundland Legislature, I do not see that there is any provision at all, unless it is to be supposed that if the Newfoundland Legislature should address the Crown that would stop the Order. I do not think that is intended, and it seems to me, therefore, to be without any safeguard as regards the Newfound land Legislature. Those are the criticisms which I wish to make on the principal clauses of the Bill, but I desire to say something further, and I come now to one of the objections which have been made by the colonial delegates, and to which the noble Lord referred. I mean with regard to the jurisdiction exercised by the naval officers. I think the noble Lord was a little too severe on the delegates in saying that they had spoken disparagingly—I do not remember his exact phrase, but in a manner in regard to the naval officers which those naval officers did not deserve. I am quite sure that no body of men can have deserved better of this country or the colony than our naval officers. The discretion they have exercised in ad
  1430
  ministering these difficult questions under the Treaties has been great, and they have done their duty in a manner deserving all praise; but I do not understand the meaning of the objections of the delegates to be what the noble Lord appears to have understood them to mean! They do not object, as I understand-, on the ground that the naval officers have exercised their powers in any way that is blameable, but they protest against the nature of the jurisdiction of the naval officers. What they say is that naval officers act arbitrarily, which no doubt they do; that naval officers are not learned in the law, which no doubt they are not; and that the interests of the colony ought to be dealt with in regular Courts, and not by naval officers. And the noble Lord quite admitted that view. He said, and I was glad to hear him say so, it would be better that such matters as could be referred to the Courts should be referred to them. If I might throw out an opinion of my own on the matter, I should think that probably we might find that the proper solution would be that the naval officers should continue to enforce the Treaties as far as the territorial waters are concerned. I say this, not wishing at all to intrude into that very difficult department of law as to the precise jurisdiction exercised over territorial waters; but I do not think the Newfoundland Government could exercise that necessary control which must be exercised in the waters of the colony. The great length of its shore, the necessity for prompt action in these territorial waters, and the fact that the Newfoundland Government could not afford to keep the number of cruisers which would be necessary for enforcing the Act, and the possible fact that there might be a less friendly feeling between the commanders and crews of such cruisers and the French, than between the French and the commanders and crews of Her Majesty's vessels, are all reasons why the jurisdiction as regards the waters of the colony ought, I think, to be exercised under instructions from Her Majesty's Government by our naval officers. But I draw a great distinction as regards the jurisdiction on land. I cannot conceive that any one would say it is a proper mode of exercising juris-

  1431
  diction on land that it should be exercised by naval officers under instructions from the Government. The state of things in former times was, as the delegates put it, very different from their present state. Here is a coast 700 miles in length, used only for fishing purposes, and practically uninhabited, except during the fishing season. Under those circumstances, I quite understand that it was not found practicable to refer these matters to the Courts, and the only way in which it could be done was to refer them to the naval officers. But the state of things has altogether changed. This shore is now settled. There are markets there apart from the fisheries; there are minerals discovered, trade growing up, and altogether the circumstances are entirely changed from the condition of things when the Act of George IV. was passed. I should regard it as a great misfortune if we had now to enforce these Treaties in such a manner as are indicated by the Act of George IV. It seems to me to be of importance that the Treaty rights, be they what they may on land, should be enforced through the Courts. The noble Lord described most accurately what the course would be. He pointed out that an application would be made to the Court in the first instance, and that appeals would lie to the Privy Council if there were dissatisfaction with the decisions, and that, of course, the French Government would retain on its part all the power of remonstrating against the result if it had reason to think the Treaty had not been duly carried into effect. The International rights would be entirely untouched. I should a little doubt whether by special Courts the delegates mean Courts in which the French would take part. I should think not, but rather special Imperial Courts which would act independently of the ordinary Courts of the Colony. I am strongly of opinion —and I would press this upon your Lordships — that we should on this occasion establish some Court of competent jurisdiction which would deal with all these matters on land, and I am confident that would go a very long way towards removing the disagreeable feeling among the colonists of Newfoundland with regard to the enforcement of the Treaties upon their coast.
  1432
  The other points which the delegates alluded to it is not necessary that I should 'go into at any length. I will only touch briefly upon one or two of them. With regard to including the whole of these questions in one negotiation, I agree with the noble Lord that I do not think Her Majesty's Government could bind themselves absolutely that they would not negotiate on this subject in such manner as they might think advisable, and that they would not submit a particular question if it was found necessary to do so. The Crown having in its charge the foreign relations of the Empire, and being responsible for the execution of the Treaties must of course, in the last resort, exercise its discretion as to what may be the best mode of negotiating with a Foreign Power. Having said that, I think I am only expressing the view held by the noble Marquess himself, opposite, when I say that it would be far better if all these questions were submitted, and I say so for this reason that in the correspondence which has been presented to Parliament, the noble Marquess himself formulated a series of questions for submission to the arbitrators. The French Government declined to submit to more than one question, and I am not disposed to impugn the action of Her Majesty's Government when they found the French Government would not submit all these questions to arbitration, in agreeing to confine the arbitration at present to the question of lobster fisheries. At the same time, I sympathise with the colonists in their strong desire that the whole matter should be referred to arbitration. That is in the interest of all concerned. It is a matter of great and deep interest to this country that the whole matter should be determined, and when I say that the whole matter should be submitted to arbitration, I mean always the interpretation of the Treaty in the sense in which this Convention has been concluded. Indeed, it seems to me almost impossible to contend that if there is a difference of opinion with regard to the meaning of the Treaty this difference of opinion should be settled by arbitration on one point only, and not upon all. In principle, if it is right to go to arbitration upon one of the points, it must be equally right to go

  1433
  to arbitration upon all, and I still hope that under the Convention it will be found that the French Government, when the lobster question is decided, may agree that the rest of the questions may be submitted. But there seems to me to be a danger which I hope will be guarded against by Her Majesty's Government. I do not think it would be fair to the colony or to ourselves that this Convention should be hung up for an indefinite time. Every one will see that there are strong reasons why the questions at issue should be dealt with within a reasonable time. The object of all parties is to prevent collision, and to allay irritation. Nothing tends so much to increase irritation as to have something of this kind hanging over peoples heads which may be dealt with some day, but they do not know when. It is important, therefore, I think, that it should be dealt with as soon as possible. Then the colonists have one other point of objection—that is, as to St. Pierre and Miquelon. As to that I observe the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a Letter which is printed in the correspondence, himself stated that he felt the force of the argument of the colony with reference to St. Pierre and Miquelon. The question as to St. Pierre and Miquelon are a very difficult and delicate part of the whole subject; but I must say that I agree with the noble Lord that the using St. Pierre and Miquelon to smuggle goods into the colony does seem to me to go considerably beyond anything which could have been anticipated in the Declaration by George III. Therefore, I do not think the contention of the colony unreasonable, that this is a question which might at the proper time be brought forward. My Lords, I have nothing more to say except as to the important question of the proposals of the delegates. I am extremely glad to hear from the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are prepared, under certain conditions, to accept those proposals. I confess, however, that I am sorry they appear to have made up their minds to press the Bill through this House. Unless the necessity is of so urgent a character that it is absolutely unavoidable on account of time—and I cannot conceive that to be the case—that the Bill
  1434
  should be pressed forward so urgently, it appears to me in the interest of our relations with the colony that it is extremely desirable we should fall in so far with the wishes of the delegates as not to proceed with the Bill until they have had a reasonable time within which to pass the necessary Acts. I am told they will pass them with great rapidity. I do not appear here, as your Lordships will have seen, as the representative of the colonists' view. By no means. I feel strongly for the colonists, but I am bound to say that from the very peremptory manner in which they have rejected one proposal after another, and on account of the very strong language which they have thought necessary to use towards Her Majesty's Government, it may almost be said that there has been a certain amount of provocation. But I do not think anything in regard to provocation ought to enter into our minds on this occasion at all. The question we have to deal with is not as to the past, but the present; and if, after all that has passed, the colony holds out the olive branch to us, and if we can see means by which we can smooth down angry feelings, is it not to the interest of both parties to take any means by which that object can be attained? Your Lordships will see this is a question which, although this colony is a small one, may have a very far-reaching effect. There are other colonies besides Newfoundland, and the relations between ourselves and the Colony of Newfoundland are being closely watched by all of them. If we do anything which may appear to indicate that we have put a pressure upon this colony over and above the absolute peremptory necessities of the case, I am afraid it may arouse an unpleasant feeling not in Newfoundland alone. We all feel that if the colonists in Newfoundland have been provoked, there is great excuse for them. I can hardly conceive a more unfavourable position than their colony is in with reference to this Treaty. Then there is this further consideration: that it is only to the interest of Newfoundland, but not of the whole Empire, that the carrying into effect this Treaty, by which we are bound to France, should be as far as possible smoothed and unaccompanied by dis-

  1435
  agreeable incidents to the colonists, for it is impossible for us to conceal from ourselves that we—and this affects us all throughout the Empire—run the risk during the fishing season of some collision or other which we should all deplore. If the colonists are in a friendly state of mind, it is clear the execution of the Treaty may be facilitated. For all these reasons it seems to me to the interest of Her Majesty's Government, and of all parties, that anything which can be done to smooth down these angry feelings should be done under present circumstances. With regard to these proposals, I do not speak, of course, with any authority in reference to them, but only my own opinion as to what seems to me to be their effect. As I understand them—I hope rightly, and I think as the noble Lord is disposed to understand them also—they are these: The first proposal is that they will immediately authorise the execution for this year of the modus vivendi of the Award, the Treaties, and Declarations. I understand that really, in one sense, to stand alone; they promise to do this at once, without any conditions, and that we are not to wait until we have agreed to arrangements as to the Courts. Under Subsection A they have expressed an assurance that they will proceed at once to pass legislation, and their passing legislation under Sub-section A is not to be delayed until you have agreed upon Sub-section C. It would take some time to see what these Courts should be, and, therefore, Subsection A must not be delayed, but must be acted upon at once. It is obviously so, because we have no powers at present to enforce the Treaties, and those powers we must have at once. My Lords, I have very little further to say. I have spoken as to the prior consent of the colony to arbitration upon one particular point being not indispensable, though it is most desirable to agree with them if possible. As regards the arbitration being on all the disputed questions, that is a condition which we have no power to enforce; but as we and the colony are both agreed that it is desirable, that cannot be one of the conditions which the colony make a sine qua non of their action. I will conclude
  1436
  by saying this: that I consider this a very fair and friendly offer as it stands. I am not concerned to look into how it comes about, and I think we should take the offer as it stands. We should endeavour to compose present differences between ourselves and the colony. I should have preferred greatly that Her Majesty's Government should have waited until the colony had had some short opportunity of passing legislation; and if that were done, I think we should find ourselves very happily out of a very difficult and dangerous position. With regard to the Bill itself, I have said what I have to say, and have explained my objections to the particular form in which it is drawn; but as I hope the Bill will never have to be carried into effect, my objections will not have to be pressed as they otherwise would.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks upon this Bill, because it appears to me to be a measure which may have very far-reaching consequences, and may have a result far larger and wider than those which merely apply to the colony most particularly interested. I am sure your Lordships, whatever views you may entertain about this Bill, will approach its consideration with a feeling of considerable reluctance; and feeling that it is a very hard necessity that is placed upon us that we should have to consider such legislation at all, affecting as it does the Government of a self-governing colony. But, my Lords, alongside of that we are face to face with the absolute paramount duty of this country to carry out its Treaty obligations—it is perfectly true that in this case nobody knows exactly what those Treaty obligations are. But in the meantime an arrangement of a temporary character has been concluded with France, and one thing is perfectly certain, and no one in this House will dispute it, that it is absolutely necessary legal means should be provided for carrying out that arrangement. I hold there can be no doubt whatever that if a self-governing colony, by the use of legislating powers devolving upon it, does not provide necessary legislation in a question of this kind, the duty of providing it reverts in that case to the Imperial Parliament. As regards the Bill itself, there are one or two matters

  1437
  I should like to point out. The principal object of the Bill I take to be to legalise the method whereby the modus vivendi with France may be carried out. I have some doubts whether the modus vivendi with France can be carried out any more easily, or any more legally, by Her Majesty's naval officers after this Bill is passed—if it is passed—than before. The modus vivendi, as your Lordships know, is an arrangement of a temporary character as regards the lobster industry. It makes arrangements that factories shall not be put up except under certain circumstances, and that where disputes arise the naval officers of France and England respectively can decide upon them. As your Lordships are aware, matters were brought, as I may say, to a head not very long ago when a lobster factory, the property of a British subject, was removed by order of one of Her Majesty's officers. An action was brought by the owner of the lobster factory for damages, and judgment was given in his favour, and the object of the present Bill, or its principal object, is to legalise such action on the part of the naval officers should it become necessary to do similar acts again. I think that is a fair statement of the case. What the Bill proposes to do is to reenact certain sections of the Act of 1824, and I would ask your Lordships to look particularly at Section 12, which we are to re-enact. Your Lordships will see that the Queen can, by Order in Council, give such instructions as are necessary for carrying out the modus vivendi to the naval officers, and the naval officers, acting upon those instructions, can do certain things which are specified in this section. That is to say, they can remove certain works from the shore—
  " They can remove, or cause to be removed, any stages, flakes, train fats, or other works whatsoever."
  So far, so good. " Other works whatsoever " is a very comprehensive term, and would certainly include the case of a lobster factory. Naval officers are given every conceivable power they may require. But if your Lordships look at the language following those words and governing them, it appears that the powers are not so ample as might be supposed; for it goes on to say those works are to be—
  " Works erected by Her Majesty's subjects for the purpose of carrying on the fishery."
  1438
  I ask your Lordships' attention to those words because, as I read this section, the only power given to the naval officers would be to remove any " works " erected on the shore for the purpose of the fishery. What is the fishery? My Lords, that is the very matter in dispute. That is the very question about which we are going to arbitrate. We have got to find out whether lobsters are fish, and whether the lobster industry is a portion of the fisheries of Newfoundland. We have made a modus vivendi to enable us to get along amicably until this question whether the lobster industry is a fishery or not is decided, and in the meantime the modus vivendi would be of no use, and cannot be made operative by this section until it has been decided by arbitration whether the lobster industry is part of the fishery. It seems to me we shall be in exactly the same position after this Bill becomes law as before. What would happen would be this: A naval officer might find it necessary to order the removal of a lobster factory, or to pull it down; the owner objects. What is the authority of the naval officer? He derives his authority from this section. " No," says the owner of the factory. "You can only remove works erected for the purpose of the fisheries' and lobsters have nothing to do with the fisheries; " and in the contention of Newfoundland, and in the contention of the present Government of this country, and of all previous Governments, the lobster industry has nothing to do with the fisheries. It is perfectly clear, in those circumstances, that the owner of the factory would be in a position to bring an action against the naval officer, and would be entitled to recover damages precisely as Mr. Beard recovered damages against Sir Baldwin Walker. That is the light in which that section presents itself to me. I am a mere layman, and I should be glad to have the opinion of the legal authorities in this House upon it, because it seems tome, if I am right, or if there is any chance that I am right, if there is the remotest doubt about it, then, in passing legislation of this kind, we should be taking a course obnoxious to the colony and very repugnant to ourselves on that account; and our position would not be

  1439
  one atom improved. That is one objection, I say, to the Bill. I object also to it for the reason which the noble Earl opposite mentioned—the application of this enactment to any permanent arrangement that may be made. It appears perfectly plain by that that the Crown is given power by an Order in Council to carry out and enforce any permanent arrangement that any Government may make of any kind without the sanction and approval of the Colonial Parliament, and without the sanction of Parliament here. It is perfectly true that the draft of the Order in Council is to be communicated to the Colonial Government. It does not say it is to be communicated to the Colonial Legislature, but only to the Government. It does not state that it is to be communicated to them at any particular length of time before the Order in Council is made. It is perfectly possible that the draft might be communicated to the Newfoundland Government on the Monday, and the Order in Council made on the Tuesday following. I am not speaking of what is probable-4 am only speaking of what is possible; and I hold that in contemplating legislation of this kind, we are bound to consider it in every possible light, and from every possible point of view, and we are bound to consider what, under any possible state of circumstances, may happen. It is perfectly certain that, under Subsection 2 of this Bill, any future Government may make and carry out any kind -of permanent arrangement whatever without the consent or dissent, or even the knowledge of the Colonial Legislature, because all it has to do, all it is bound to do by one Provision in this Bill, is to communicate the draft of the Order in Council to the Government in Newfoundland. I agree also with the noble Earl opposite, that the course adopted is a very unusual one as regards Parliament here. The draft of the Order is to be laid on the table of both Houses for one month. It does not say that the terms of the agreement are to,be communicated to Parliament. All that is to be done is that the draft of the Order, which will make the permanent -arrangement operative, is to be laid on the Table of both Houses for that period. Doubtless, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to suppose that any Government,
  1440
  or any Minister, would refuse to communicate the terms of such an arrangement to Parliament, but still, as a matter of theory, there is no question whatever, I think, that according to this Bill the Crown is given power to make any arrangement of any kind, any permanent settlement whatever with reference to this subject, and is given the power to carry it out without the sanction of Parliament. That is the theory, and unless there is a very strong necessity—I see no necessity mentioned in the Bill, and I cannot see any necessity arising out of the circumstances of the case—I confess I cannot see any reason for departing from the ordinary and usual practice, which is to bring a Bill into Parliament to obtain the necessary powers to carry out an International Agreement. Cut, my Lords, there is another matter which I object to, if possible more strongly still, because it appears to me it may have a worse practical effect—and that is, the provision that these re-enacted sections of the old Act are to apply to temporary arrangements that may from time to time be necessary. There is no proviso of any kind as regards these temporary arrangements. They need not be communicated to the Colonial Government; they need not be communicated in any way to the Imperial Parliament. What we are asked to do is to empower the Crown to carry out without any reference to Parliament whatever; without the sanction of Parliament; without the knowledge of Parliament—any arrangement that it may make of a temporary character from time to time pending the conclusion of negotiations. Now, my Lords, what is a temporary arrangement? Considering that this question has been in dispute for about 180 years an arrangement lasting over a very considerable time might be considered temporary in view of that fact. Besides that, this temporary arrangement may be renewed from time to time; there may be a whole series of temporary arrangements. It is perfectly certain that most active negotiations upon the subject have been going on for the last 30 years at any rate, and it is therefore, though I sincerely hope it will not be the case, conceivable that negotiations on this subject may still be considerably protracted.

  1441
  I do protest strongly against what appears to me to be a very unconstitutional action in providing beforehand for carrying out, without any reference to Parliament, any temporary arrangement or any number of temporary arrangements, for however long a period they may last, whatever number of years they may extend over, provided they are not in final settlement of the question. I object to both of these sections, because they appear to me to interfere with the rights of Parliament, as ordinarily exercised, and because they appear to me to interfere largely with the rights and privileges of the Colonial Legislature. It is impossible, my Lords, to reconcile those provisions with the Despatch which has already been quoted of Mr. Labouchere, afterwards Lord Taunton. He laid down—I do not mean to say that it is exactly correct—that—
  " The rights are not to be ceded or exchanged without the assent of the colonists, and that the Constitutional means of obtaining that assent is by laying the measures before the Colonial Legislature."
  We are about to proceed by arbitration to define what the respective rights of England and France are. Well, assume that those rights have been defined and specifically ascertained by both parties, it is obvious that the rights of Newfoundland cannot be modified or affected in any degree provided nothing is " ceded or exchanged" after the rights have been defined as laid down in the arbitration. But I would point out to your Lordships that there is nothing whatever in this Bill to prevent any Government making any permanent arrangement it likes for ceding those ascertained and acknowledged rights, and from exchanging those acknowledged and ascertained rights. That may be an almost impossible thing for a Government to do; it certainly would be most unconstitutional; but there is nothing in this Bill to prevent it. If this Bill passes, any Government in the future will have the power, I maintain, of modifying, ceding, or exchanging the acknowledged and ascertained rights of Newfoundland without obtaining the sanction or without the knowledge even of the Newfoundland Legislature, and without the permission or sanction of the Imperial Parliament. If that be so, it is a very serious [matter
  1442
  and one which I hope the House will well consider. The only other point which I wish to speak about is the question of arbitration. I did not quite understand in the first place how we stand as regards this question of arbitration. The noble Marquess expressly reserved in his last Despatch relating to arbitration the approval of Parliament. I suppose that is the arbitration mentioned in the Preamble of this Bill, and is one of the reasons why the modus vivendi is required. I should presume that in agreeing to this Bill the House will be agreeing to the proposal for arbitration. If the Bill is dropped altogether then I have not the slightest idea how the arrangement for arbitration is to be brought before Parliament. The arbitration as I understand it, is to, define the,respective rights of the two, countries, and I must entirely and cordially agree with that principle. But. I do entertain objections to the method. Newfoundland has agreed to-arbitration and accepts it provided all questions in dispute are submitted to-arbitration after the lobster question, has been decided. I think there is a. great deal of justice and a great deal of sense in their view. I look upon it that proceeding to arbitrate piecemeal in a. matter of this kind will be exceedingly dangerous, and for this reason: that the questions involved are so intimately associated together, and depend so-closely upon each other that it would be-absolutely impossible to disassociate-them and separate them. It is only natural to suppose that whatever way-the award may go one of the parties wilt be dissatisfied. I never have known anybody yet who was satisfied with an award which went against him. It is only natural to expect that the people on the spot will be somewhat exasperated, and they will be inclined to push their claims in other matters infinitely more strongly than they would be inclined to do before; and I fear greatly that if we proceed in this way to arbitrate piece by piece, the difficulties which goodness knows are hard enough to overcome now, will be greatly increased in the future, and that there will be much greater danger of collisions and regretable incidents occurring than even in the past. Let me take for one example the question of the lobster in-

  1443
  dustry, the one which tells least in my favour, and the one question which Newfoundland does not object to have treated separately, a matter which I confess greatly astonishes me. Suppose we go to arbitration on this question of lobsters; suppose the award is given against us; lobsters are decided to be fish, very much, I have no doubt, to their own astonishment, and lobster factories will come within the category of those buildings which France has a right to erect upon the shore. Very well, my Lords, what will happen. It is not likely that the people of Newfoundland will be pleased with that award. The French will have a right to catch lobsters, to erect lobster factories, and so on. Three other questions will immediately come up, which will still be in dispute. There will come up our claim of concurrent right of fishing, our claim to pursue the same right of fishery concurrently with the French. There will come up the question of what constitutes " interruption " of the French, and the question of our right to erect permanent buildings, which has nothing to do with the fishery. If these questions are pushed, as they are likely to be pushed, even more strongly than they have hitherto been, it seems to me exceedingly probable that difficulties will arise. On the other hand, supposing the award to be for us, lobsters, whether they be crustaceans or whether they be fish, may be said to partake of the nature of the hare, because before you can cook them you must catch them; before you can put them in a tin you must extract them from the sea. Then what happens? Other disputed rights immediately come up. The French claim that we must not interrupt them in their fishing; and who is to decide what constitutes interruption? It may be perfectly possible that France might press her claims; and if those claims were allowed, and not resisted, might insist upon every lobster pot being taken up and every lobster factory taken down, on the ground that we were interfering with their right of fishing in the sea, and of using the shore for the purpose of drying their fish, and they might make an award in our favour absolutely null and void. It seems to me there is an immense danger involved in our
  1444
  proceeding by that method, and I sincerely hope Her Majesty's Government will re-consider the question and reconsider the advisability of doing what Newfoundland is so anxious should be done, that is, to arbitrate on all the questions at once. As I read the Papers, France has no objection to such a course, or rather I will not say has no objection, but I will say no strong objection. I will ask your Lordships to look at the Despatch of October 2, 1890, from M. Ribot. On page 38 of France No. 2 (1891), containing further correspondence respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries, he says, at the end of the Despatch, that
  " The Government of the Republic are, however, quite prepared to consider such other conditions of an agreement as may be submitted to them, whether they approximate to the bases of the scheme drawn up in 1885, or whether they contemplate an eventual resort to arbitration, in conformity with the preliminary opinions already exchanged on the subject between the two Governments."
  Well, my Lords, the French Government say there they are quite ready to contemplate a general resource to arbitration. They make no mention of arbitration on one particular point.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: They refer to the former negotiations which turned upon the lobster question.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I will now ask your Lordships to look at the Despatch from the noble Marquess to M. Waddington on page 90 of the same Blue Book, in which the noble Marquess says that he has seen his Excellency the day before Christmas, and continues—
  " And I conveyed to you the probability that, in view of the recent failure of all attempts to close the question by agreement, we should take an early opportunity of inviting the French Government to refer the principal questions in dispute to arbitration. You ex, pressed a general concurrence in this policy-and intimated your willingness to receive any proposals I might have to make. I now submit to your Excellency, for the consideration of the Government of the Republic, a proposal to refer the extent and limits of the rights secured to France by the Treaty of Utrecht, and subsequent stipulations, to the decision of an arbitrator."
  My Lords, that certainly appears to me to be the whole question, and I cannot see that in the Papers presented, France has made anything in the nature of a definite refusal, as has been stated. It is perfectly true that on page 91 of

  1445
  the Despatch of the noble Marquess to Lord Lytton, lie states that—
  " The French Government accept arbitration as the means of putting an end to the difficulties in regard to the Newfoundland Fisheries which the two Governments desire to adjust. They agree at once that the arbitrators shall adjudge any question which may be submitted to them by either Cabinet in regard to the capture and preparation of lobsters. They think there would be considerable difficulty in settling beforehand the exact issues to be:submitted, end that it should be open to either Government to submit to the arbitrators any question connected with the western shore of Newfoundland, provided that it is one which concerns the capture and preparation of lobsters,"
  and so on. Well, that I should judge to mean that there is considerable difficulty in settling beforehand all the issues to be submitted, that they prefer to go on with this question of the lobster industry, but they distinctly say they will accept arbitration-as a means to putting an end to the difficulties with regard to the Newfoundland fisheries, and that, I should think, includes all the difficulties that have arisen. Be that as it may, I sincerely hope, for the reasons I have given, that the noble Marquess will, if the resources of civilisation are not exhausted, impress upon the Government of France the great dangers that are likely to arise if arbitration proceeds piecemeal and if every question is dealt with separately, because it will exasperate public opinion in certain' events, and other questions will be pressed to their utmost limits, and the difficulties and dangers arising will therefore be greatly increased. That is all I have to say about the Bill. I am sorry, exceedingly sorry, that Her Majesty's Government intend to pass the Bill through this House. What your Lordships are asked to do by Her Majesty's Government appears to me to be this: to read this Bill a second time now with a view to passing it, on the understanding, as we all know, that the Bill is never to become law.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Not at all.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I understand that the Bill would be dropped if the Colonial Legislation does what is required. When we have the assurance of the Prime Minister and the assurance of the Opposition that the colony will legislate it is not a very strong presumption, I think, that this Bill will never
  1446
  become law. But supposing the Bill does pass through this House, your Lordships will have no opportunity of saying another word about it. Some of your Lordships might feel willing to pass the Bill through its various stages on the assumption that the colony will legislate after what was said the other night; but if the Colony does not, we shall have no further opportunity of considering the Bill. I should think that it would have been a more graceful act to have simply hung the Bill up in its present condition, when we have the most strongly expressed promise on the part of the Prime Minister of the Colony to bring in the necessary legislation, and that the Newfoundland Legislature will pass immediately an Act authorising the modus vivendi. You cannot have a more distinct undertaking; and it appears to me that it would have been a more graceful way of treating the matter if this Bill had not been pressed now. Her Majesty's Government know perfectly well that if the Colonial Government does not legislate in time it could pass this Bill through all its 'D statues in one afternoon, if they chose. I sincerely hope Her Majesty's Government will not insist upon that. I would rather the Bill was left in its present condition and the Debate adjourned, and then, if the legislation was not passed in proper time, to go on with the Bill and pass it through the other House. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has commented upon the fact that for a long period of time the powers of the naval officers was ample, and that there was no occasion for any legislation of any kind; but your Lordships must remember that the powers of the naval officers were ample, because they were never asked formerly to exercise them in the performance of the kind of duties that have fallen to them of late. It is only recently that it has fallen to a naval officer, of his own action, to do anything that would affect property of British subjects on shore. It is perfectly true they conducted their arrangements at sea, which was quite within their function; but it is quite another thing for them to perform duties on shore, and that they were not called upon to do until quite recently. The noble Lord also says that this Bill will not affect the right of the colony to legis-

  1447
  late on its own affairs, because it only -affects Treaties with a foreign Power. But the peculiarities of this case is that although it deals with a matter affecting a treaty with a foreign Power, it does affect the domestic affairs of Newfoundland, and it does affect most seriously the whole internal development and the whole internal arrangements of the colony. When those Treaties were made, as your Lordships know well, Newfoundland was practically a barren and deserted Island, a mere adjunct to a fishery. Now it is settled: it enjoys a full and responsible Government; it has many industries besides fishing, and it enjoys all the means and appliances of a regularly organised society. Over nearly half the sea-board of the community, owing to the claims of the French, the inhabitants have been deprived of right of legislating in their domestic affairs, and of control over their own territory. They cannot legislate to protect their main industry. They cannot do one single thing to prevent their fisheries from being utterly destroyed; they cannot make wharves upon their harbours, they cannot bring roads down to the sea; they cannot construct railways to the coast; they can do nothing that can ordinarily be done by a civilised community. It is impossible to say that such legislation does not affect the internal arrangements or powers of the colony. It appears to me to affect our own sovereignty; you cannot grant good titles to land over this long strip of coast, you can only grant a right subject to an indefinable something, and that is the rights of France under the Treaty. You cannot grant mining licences, and it is perfectly certain that the ordinary Courts will be, after the passing of this Act, superseded in so far as that naval officers will have the power to interfere with the property of British subjects, without those British subjects having any right to compensation or redress. I do not know what the nature of the proposal of the Newfoundland delegates will be, but I suppose it will be a substitution of some Judicial Authority for the non-judicial authority now exercised by naval officers. I suppose they would wish, when questions are in dispute, that some-
  1448
  body accustomed to take evidence, knowing the country and the locality, and the circumstances, could decide upon the justice and the legality of the matter, and then that the executive power should remain with the naval officer. If that be so, I think that would be a very natural request to make. Consider what the position of the fisherman may be. He may be called upon by the commander of a man-of-war to take up his anchor and go to sea or get out of a particular place. The naval officer need not make any inquiry or take any evidence. It is not necessary in such a case that evidence should be taken. We know from what has been said by the noble Lord that the duties of the naval officers are exceedingly difficult. I should say that he has not said one word that is too strong in recognition of their services; but I should think they would themselves be glad to be relieved of their judicial functions in this matter, and I sincerely hope Her Majesty's Government will consider the possibility of establishing Courts of some kind for this purpose. I do not understand that the promise on the part of the delegates to legislate under Section A is in any way dependent upon Sub-section C. That is another matter altogether. What I understand is that the Newfoundland delegates undertake to pass legislation through the Newfoundland Parliament at once as to the modus vivendi and the award, and desire that the terms of an Act to deal with the Treaty rights should be arranged; but I apprehend that legislation is to go on immediately on the first point, without regard to whether legislation on the second is carried out or not. I have detained your Lordships at considerable length, and I thank you for listening to me with so much patience. I feel very strongly on this subject. I feel that in some respects the colony has been hardly dealt with, and even in the matter of this very Bill. They knew nothing about the Bill. The delegates who came over to protest against the Bill and against the form of it had never seen the Bill until they came to this country. I do not think your Lordships' House was treated altogether fairly in the matter of this Bill. The noble Lord only gave us one clear day

  1449
  after the presentation of the Papers of his intention to call attention to those Papers, and to bring in a Bill, and then he made a most important speech on the First Reading. It would require a superhuman genius to master all these Papers in one day, and it was probably impossible for your Lordships to be present—I know it was physically impossible for me to be in my place to hear the speech of the noble Lord. A whole month elapsed before the Bill was printed, and within one clear day after the printing of the Bill the noble Lord put it down for Second Reading. Whatever may be good in the Bill no one can deny that it contains provisions of a most far-reaching character, provisions which will be most closely scrutinised in every position, in the most distant parts of the British Empire; and I think, in the circumstances, we might have had a little more time and notice given to us to consider the matter. I think the Newfoundland legislators have a right to complain of the fact that Her Majesty's Government never communicated to them either the nature or the provisions of the Bill. It has been urged that the colony ought to have itself legislated; that when it assumed responsible government it took over all the Treaty obligations affecting Newfoundland which had hitherto rested on the Imperial Parliament. That is perfectly true. But if your Lordships consider for one moment the position of Newfoundland, when she accepted responsible government, and her position now, and the enormous difference between the French claims as understood then and as put forward by them now, the enormous difference between the whole conception of what our relative Treaty rights were 50 years ago and now, it is impossible to say that Newfoundland, in accepting legislative Government, accepted the liability to legislate for carrying out the present modus vivendi, or to carry out the Treaty engagements as understood by France. Newfoundland has never objected to carry out her Treaty obligations as understood by us. The Newfoundlanders have always said: " We will legislate to carry out our duties as interpreted by you. What you say are our Treaty rights we are willing to carry out, but we never undertook to, carry out the interpreta-
  1450
  tion put by France upon the Treaty or to carry out the modus vivendi. "If we consider the grievous effect of these Treaty rights upon the colony I do not think we ought to be surprised that they demurred to giving legislative sanction to anything that may possibly be conceived to mean that they have for one moment recognised the justice of the French claims. I regret that the Colonial Legislature did not legislate to carry out the modus vivendi. From what has been said by the Prime Minister at the Bar of the House, and from what we know he has undertaken, as far as he can, that is that the colony will legislate, I believe that will be done. I sincerely hope that will be so, and I also hope that Her Majesty's Government will not press this Bill through all its stages in this House, but that they will consent to hang it up in order to give the colony an opportunity of fulfilling its obligations itself.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, it seems to me this is a Bill which it is extremely unpleasant to vote for, and quite impossible to vote against. It is quite impossible to vote against it because it is proposed to Parliament under the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown who come down to Parliament and tell us that they have no adequate powers to fulfil our Treaty obligations. Nor can it be denied that that allegation is true, and that circumstances have arisen which seriously impede the existing modus vivendi of a very difficult and complicated nature on the shores of Newfoundland. I think, therefore, it is quite impossible under the circumstances that the House should say " not-contents " to the Second Reading of the Bill; but I hold that in passing the Second Reading, or in assenting to it without further discussion we are not committed to more than its principle, which is that it is the duty of Parliament to place in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown undoubted and complete powers to enforce our international obligations in Newfoundland.. My noble Friend who spoke so ably on this side of the House said he hoped that no feeling of irritation or provocation against the colony would interfere with our deliberations, and I think that sentiment was heartily responded to by the noble Lords opposite. My Lords, I go

  1451
  much further, and say that I heartily believe that the feeling and sympathy of this House is entirely with the colonists in the difficult position in which they are placed; by which I do not mean to say that we agree in all they have said in their argument, for I think they overstated their case on several important points; but I think we all sympathise with them in the difficulties in which they are placed with regard to France, and we seethe serious impediments which, in the present position of affairs, our Treaty obligations impose upon the prosperity and advancement of that colony. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said he regretted, I think, something in the tone of the address which was delivered to us at the Bar of the House by the Prime Minister of Newfoundland.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Not in the tone of the address at the Bar, which I spoke of as able and temperate, but of the Petition.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought he alluded to the address. I was going to say that although there are several paragraphs in that address which overstate the position of the colony with regard to our right of initiative in a matter of this kind, a matter of purely Imperial legislation, yet the tone of that Petition was admirable in all respects. It was a recognition of the ultimate responsibility of the Imperial Parliament; and although it was, of course, tinged with that feeling of independent action which is common to all the colonies of our country, I do think that a great deal of what has fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Dunraven) who has just sat down is perfectly true. The irritation of the colonists has arisen mainly from the overstrained interpretation, as it humbly appears to me, which France has put upon our Treaty obligations. If you read the clause in the Treaty of Utrecht which refers to this question, I venture to say that no human being would imagine that the French had any other right on the coast than that of simply landing to dry their fish upon our shores. I daresay many Members of this House have seen the process as I have seen it on the shores of the North American Continent, which is unlike anything that exists in this country.
  1452
  They have there a very much hotter sun than we have, and the result is that in the fishing season, having split the fish, they dry them in immense quantities upon the rocks, and, where there are no rocks, upon wooden stages. I have seen the shores of New Brunswick literally white with the split fish being dried in the sun. That is the right which was conceded to the French—nothing more, nothing less. Where, as I have said there are no rocks, they put up stages on the shore. The rocks generally being highly glaciated are used for the purpose; but where there is only shingle or other kind of shore, what they do is to erect wooden stages; but that is only on the foreshore, and there can be no doubt that those who drew up the Treaty of Utrecht were thinking of that practice. It has been made a subject of complaint in the Petition and in the address at the Bar, that the French have claimed not merely the right to dry their fish upon these shores, but the exclusive right to fish along the whole of this coast to the exclusion of British fishermen. There is not a word to that effect in the Treaty of Utrecht. I am told also the French claim a monopoly of the right to use the creeks and harbours which are habitually used by the boatmen and fishermen of Newfoundland. There are certainly words in one of the Declarations connected with the Treaty of Utrecht which speak of competition being limited; but the obvious meaning is, that we ought not to prevent them fishing by ourselves occupying the whole of the shore in such a way as that they shall have none of it, for the purpose of drying their fish; but surely there is, within the limits of the Treaty, room both for the French and the Newfoundlanders to fish. Then, with regard to the question of the lobsters, I think that was a question which had not arisen when the Treaty of Utrecht was drawn up. I have no doubt that nobody knew anything about the canning of lobsters at that time. As to what the noble Lord said, that naval officers should not be entrusted with duties on the land, I apprehend that the duties on land mean duties on the foreshore. The noble Marquess shakes his head; but if the Newfoundlanders have been prevented from making roads down to their own coast, from erecting buildings

  1453
  on their own shores out of the reach of the tide so as not to interfere with any right of drying fish, then I think that is a most undoubted exaggeration of their claims by the French. I think, under all the circumstances, the Newfoundlanders have a great and serious grievance, and I am not surprised that they have found it, practically, very difficult in the state of feeling and irritation in the colony to legislate for themselves. I am not very sure that an Act of Parliament, passed by us will not reliveve the Government of Newfoundland from a serious difficulty rather than otherwise; but I should be very glad if the promise which they have made should be realised, and if the noble Marquess opposite at the head of the Government should be able to wait until something has been done by the Newfoundland Government to enforce the modus vivendi with regard to the rights of the French. I know it is not in the power of the noble Marquess opposite to force France into a larger and general arbitration on the whole question; and if the Treaty is as I hold it to be I can well understand how the French should refuse to do so. Circumstances have enormously increased their original claims, and their proposal is to enforce those claims. My noble Friend behind me has made some observations upon certain clauses of the Bill which would seem to give the Government greater power than is absolutely necessary in the present emergency. I do not know how far that is true—certainly the clause referred to seems to give them the power of enforcing any new arrangement with France as if it was a new Treaty; and the only check upon that is, that the Order in Council must be laid on the Table in both Houses of Parliament for a month. Perhaps, if the Bill is to be further proceeded with, the noble Marquess will consider how far that clause might be modified. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the argument at the Bar of this House with:'regard to the pledge given by Mr. Labouchere, afterwards Lord Taunton, has no bearing upon the question before us now. We all admit that the territorial rights of the colony, which are, in fact, the territorial rights of the Crown, ought mot to be altered or abated in any manner without consulting the Local Legislature. But I suppose the noble Marquess does
  1454
  not propose to abate or sacrifice any of the Treaty rights of the Crown; and, therefore, I think the argument on Mr. Labouchere's letter falls entirely to the ground. I am not sure, however, that words of Mr. Labouchere would not cover the case of a new arrangement made such as is contemplated by the 2nd clause in the Bill. I heard with great pleasure from the noble Marquess that there is some hope that the arrangement suggested by the colony may prevent the necessity of going further with this Bill. I believe the Government have been as reluctant as their political opponents could have been to bring in this Bill: but they have been forced into doing it by regard for the interests and honour of the Crown; and I am sure the feeling of your Lordships, as far as the colonists are concerned, is one of entire sympathy with them in their difficulties.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, there has not been, as there could not be, any difference of opinion to-night with regard to the obligations which rest upon the Government of this country to see that the Treaties which are in existence are enforced and fulfilled. The rights, whatever they may be, and whatever their extent, are ancient. They came into existence at a time when there was no inhabitant population upon what is known as the French shore of Newfoundland. The Treaty obligations were not imposed upon any existing community by the wish of the British Government, and the community that has since grown up has come into being subject to the existence of these Treaty rights. I think that is beyond the possibility of question. The liability of the inhabitants of Newfoundland to the burden of these Treaty obligations does not depend upon any connection of the colony with the British Crown. If that link were severed the inhabitants of Newfoundland would be not one whit less under the Treaty obligations; those obligations would be in no degree less binding upon them. I think it is essential this should be borne in mind: that they would then find themselves still subject to the Treaties, face to face with the French nation insisting upon their performance, and they would be subject to the entire pressure of the force existing in the French people. I am quite sure, under those

  1455
  circumstances, the inhabitants of Newfoundland will feel that these ancient Treaty obligations, resting as they do upon us, bring a serious burden, attendant with manifold risks and responsibilities, and that the Government of this country is deserving of consideration at their hands in the difficult position in which they must often find themselves placed when called upon to enforce these Treaties. On the other hand, I am quite sure that the people of England will regard with sympathetic consideration the difficult position in which the inhabitants of Newfoundland are placed. The Treaty presses upon them with a heavy burden, and the conditions which exist at the present time differ most materially and vitally- from those which were in existence, or which could have been in contemplation, at the time the Treaty was entered into. At that time the country was comparatively unpeopled; there was no desire to develop its resources—indeed, its resources were unknown. It was regarded as a mere accessory to a fishing ground; but now a population has grown up in this region, possessing settled civil institutions and a small organised system of government. It is a growing population, naturally anxious to spread itself and to develop the resources which undoubtedly exist in the country. Under these circumstances, it is not unnatural that the people of Newfoundland should chafe and murmur under the restraints to which they find themselves exposed by reason of these Treaties, the more so when they conceive that the Treaties are being pressed by the other party to them beyond their legitimate bounds. If, therefore, the people of Newfoundland have sometimes appeared to press their claims unduly, or to have exaggerated their rights, or to have exhibited an over-sensitiveness or jealousy of the action of the Government at home, I am quite sure that the people and Government at home in this country will have every disposition to view their attitude in that respect with the utmost generosity. I certainly feel bound to say that I think they have in one respect somewhat overstated their case. I think it is impossible to contest the position that the Government of this country, bound as this country is to observe the obligations under these Treaties, must
  1456
  have the power, pending the negotiations for a settlement, or while the matter is in train for a settlement, to arrange a modus vivendi which will permit the matter to be discussed and negotiated upon. There is no tribunal to which appeal can be made; in the last resort the arbitrament of war is all that can be relied upon for a decision; and when it is remembered that a war would involve not only this country, but all her colonies and dependencies — that it would be war of a terrible description — surely it cannot be contended that a country thus bound by obligations which in the last resort may lead to war with all its fatal consequences is not to be in a position, even if there be opposition on the part of the colony interested, to arrange a temporary modus vivendi. I am quite satisfied that upon reflection the people of Newfoundland will see that is a position which cannot be maintained, that it would not be to the interest of any colony that it should force such a position upon the Imperial Government which holds its powers in trust not only for the people of this country, but for the colony connected with it. But in entering upon any modus vivendi which becomes necessary, the wishes and views of the colony should be anxiously considered, and as far as possible carefully consulted, and every effort should be made to secure that the modus vivendi agreed upon should be as little unpalatable to the colony and as little burdensome to themselves as it can possibly be made. This further matter I think also is not in conflict. When Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that there was no existing power of properly enforcing the Treaties at that moment, it became their duty to see that that state of things should exist no longer. I know there are those who think that having regard to the history of these Treaties, and of the connection of Newfoundland with the British Crown, the Treaties were a part of the conditions upon which the colony obtained its legislative powers, and that it is not correct to say no power exists of enforcing them there. But even if such a view is correct, it can only be ascertained after the lapse of a considerable time, and it would then prove that such means even as existed were of an im-

  1457
  perfect and insufficient character. Therefore, I think nobody can blame Her Majesty's Government for endeavouring at once to procure the means of enforcing these Treaties. I will not go over again what has been said by the noble Lord opposite me, but I confess it strikes me, as it did him, that as soon as that conclusion was Arrived at it would have been in the highest degree expedient that it should have been communicated to the colony with suggestions on the part of the Government as to legislation by the colony itself and an indication of the kind of legislation which might have been suggested or recommended by Her Majesty's Government. But Newfoundland has a Constitution with a power of legislation upon its internal affairs. I entirely agree that the power of enforcing these Treaties cannot be regarded as a matter merely concerning the internal administration of the colony, because we are bound by the Treaties and under obligation to enforce them; but, still, I think that the enforcement of the Treaties ought to be carried out as far possible under the provisions of the Municipal Law prevailing in the country and in harmony with settled constitutional principles. What is the proposal of Her Majesty's Government in this Bill? It is simply to revive the powers contained in the Act which was passed in the middle of last century, and those powers are certainly of a most arbitrary description. Power is given to any naval officer under the authority only of Orders from the Executive Government of the day to go ashore along the whole of this coast of Newfoundland, and there to take down buildings and generally interfere with the property of British subjects—they can take down buildings, houses, anything that they may have specific instructions to remove, or which they may consider require to be removed within the general instructions which they may receive from the Executive Government of the day. Undoubtedly that is a very serious and arbitrary power; I use the words "arbitrary power" in the sense of one which can be controlled by nothing but the will and discretion and judgment of the Executive. It was not unnatural that the Government, feeling the necessity of a power to enforce these Treaties, and having this method ready
  1458
  to their hand, should have contemplated its adoption; and yet, I think, it was due to forgetfulness of the elaborate conditions, as now existing, from those which existed at the time when this legislation was first adopted by Parliament. There were then no inhabitants on the shore, and no Courts; the country had no settled Institutions; the territory was not brought within the municipal law at all, and probably at that time the course taken was the only one practicable. But now there is a different state of things in all those respects. It is a settled territory, under municipal law, with Courts exercising jurisdiction there, and with a settled organised population. It seems to me that that which in the middle of the last century might have been a proper or even necessary means of enforcing Treaty obligations, ceases to be so when you have this altered condition of things which I have exhibited to your Lordships. The ordinary way of enforcing a Treaty right, when any act is to be done within the territory right, is to make a breach of the Treaty—a breach of your municipal law, to proceed in your Courts for penalties for breach of that municipal law, and giving the right to remove any erections which have been constructed contrary to the provisions (as they would be) of the municipal law. That, I apprehend, is the ordinary proper constitutional method by which th e Treaty obligations which have been undertaken are to be discharged, and I can see no reason why that course should not have been adopted on the present occasion. Of course the decisions of the Courts would not be binding on the other Power which is Party to the Treaty, but no more will the instructions of the naval officers be binding on the Power which is the other Party to the Treaty. In the one case, as in the other, remonstrance would be open to them if our part of the Treaty were not being properly discharged. Here let me say that I draw a distinction between acts to be done upon the shores within the bounds, if I may say so, of the Municipal or Local Government, and acts to be done in the territorial waters. As your Lordships, I daresay, may know, there was considerable discussion some years ago with regard to what were known as territorial waters being so, to a distance of three

  1459
  miles around the coast of any country. According to the views of all,writers upon international law, there exists a certain dominion, or sovereignty, or power exercisable by the nation whose shores are washed by those seas; but there arose in the case of the Frauconia some years ago—where a foreign vessel was sunk in English waters—a question which was very fully discussed as to what were the rights in territorial waters. The majority of the learned Judges were of opinion that the land covered by those waters was not to be regarded as a part of the adjacent territory within its local law, and that we could only deal with any acts done there or treat them as offences by legislation expressly for that purpose. Accordingly in the year 1878 or 1879 an Act was passed which applies not only to the United Kingdom, but to the whole of our colonies, which does make certain offences in territorial waters subject to what is known as the jurisdiction of the Admiral, and triable by the Courts of the United Kingdom; but that Act only deals with certain offences, and would not in the slightest degree affect offences which might arise in virtue of breaches of these Treaties. But the very necessity of the case being, as it seems to me, with regard to territorial waters, would justify making the naval forces do the police duty with regard to these Treaties within those waters. It would be the only practicable means by which the Treaty obligations could be carried out, and any attempt to carry them out by the Newfoundland Government within those waters would be so burdensome and so difficult that I do not apprehend there would be any objection on their part to the territorial waters being dealt with by the naval officers, under instructions from Her Majesty's Government, and I do not think that the question of the propriety of dealing with matters on shore would extend to territorial waters. Therefore, I should be disposed to draw a broad distinction between the two cases. Now, having regard to the circumstances to which I have called attention, do not the proposals of the Newfoundland delegates really afford a basis for the settlement of this matter? I quite agree that such an arrangement as I have sketched out would
  1460
  be a matter of some little complication and difficulty. It would be one which it would be impossible to make applicable at once; and therefore I think, in spite of their objection to the naval officers thus acting upon shore, the Newfoundland delegates indicate that' the Newfoundland Legislature would be willing at once to pass an Act giving all the powers which Her Majesty's Government ask under this Bill, notwithstanding their objections to it on principle, as a temporary expedient, until a better plan can be arranged, and they indicate their willingness afterwards to carry out legislation on the subject. That is, I think, briefly the proper constitutional method of enforcing Treaty rights. I cannot help hoping that Her Majesty's Government will endeavour, upon such a subject as this, to come to a settlement of these very difficult questions, and that they will not insist upon pressing forward this measure, even in your Lordships' House, at the present time. I cannot think, having regard to the objections which are entertained to this measure, and the objections to which it has given rise, it would be for the credit of your Lordships' House that the measure should be pressed forward through this House, notwithstanding the strong objections raised to it, and the offer to provide a substitute which Her Majesty's Government, as I understand, admit would be a sufficient substitute for it; because if that is done before a certain stage is reached in the next House, they have intimated their willingness not to proceed with the Bill. Then would it not be better that it should go no further in your Lordships' House, and that we should not seem to pass a Bill overriding the desires and wishes of the people in the colony, when that disagreeable necessity is not to be imposed upon the other House of Parliament. I press this the more because if this Bill is proceeded with, it will obviously be necessary to us to enforce in this House the views I have expressed with regard to the manner of passing this Bill. This would be the actual measure, and if it is passed through this House, we should have no further voice in the matter if the arrangement should unfortunately not be arrived at. We should then have given our sanction to a form of legislation which is without

  1461
  precedent, and which, I feel sure, is likely to excite jealousy and suspicion in the minds of our fellow countrymen in the colony. I feel it our bounden duty, on the grounds which the noble Duke did his best to impress upon the House, to consider the changes which would be necessary to make it such a measure as ought to pass into law. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to the criticisms of the delegates with regard to the second sub-section of the first clause, which has excited great alarm in the colony, said it gave no powers to the Government to make arrangements with France without the consent of the colonists. I quite agree it does not give them any new power to make a Treaty which they could not make to-morrow. And possibly it may be said it does not withdraw the absolute necessity of laying the matter before Parliament, because an Order in Council must first be laid on the Table in both Houses. But, strangely enough, it does not provide what is to be done in order to pass the measure into law. Looking at the matter practically, it may make all the difference in the world as to a Government entering into a modification of the arrangements without the consent of the colony; whether in order to enforce it they had to come and get the necessary power to make that arrangement, or whether they had only to lay an Order in Council on the Table for a certain time, after which, if not objected to, it passes into operation. The effect is very different, and I do not wonder that the inhabitants of Newfoundland, in view of the promise given them in Lord Taunton's letter, should view this with jealousy and alarm, because it does contemplate the making of an arrangement, which they do not like, easily enforcable. Therefore, my Lords, I hope that sub-section will not be insisted upon. I draw a broad distinction—I think it is a distinction which has not always been kept in view—between an arbitration which merely interprets, and an arbitration which affects our trade rights. In order that you may enforce what is called the result of an arbitration which is merely an arbitration to enforce a Treaty you want no new power. It is the Treaty you are enforcing just as much afterwards as you would have been before.
  1462
  The parties to the trade have agreed upon somebody to interpret the Treaty for them, but it does not make a new right, any more than a Court in enforcing the terms of an Agreement is making a new Agreement. Therefore in respect of enforcing the Treaty rights it seems to me if you have power to enforce the Treaty you have all the power you need, because the Treaty is the Treaty just as it was before, and you are not enforcing anything else but the Treaty, which is!the arrangement between the parties. It is just because it seems to me' to be only enforcing the Treaty that I do not think it infringes in the slightest degree upon the assurances given by Lord Taunton. If I thought it were not enforcing the old Treaty that would be a different matter. It seems to me that you are arranging for new rights if the rights you are going to enforce are not enforcible under the old Treaty. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with observations upon the other parts of the case; the hour is late, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer. With regard to the desire of the colonists that there should be an arbitration upon all questions, I am quite sure everybody will agree that it is natural, and that it is desirable. I cannot think Her Majesty's Government will, at any time and in any circumstances under which a general solution of the question seems possible, do otherwise than use their best endeavours to secure that result which it is obvious is in the best interests of the country, the colony, and Her Majesty's Government. As regards the present arrangement, I do not understand that there is at present any binding agreement on the Government to refer any question except the question with regard to the lobsters. That is agreed to be referred. As to the rest, though there is a practicability of further references, none of them could be referred except by a new Agreement between both the contracting parties. I confess I sympathise very much with the view of the colonists as to the danger to them of separate arbitrations on a variety of distinct points which do not cover the whole ground, and still leave certain matters unsettled. Of course there may be still some burning question, in view of which, to avoid infinitely serious dangers, you must

  1463
  obtain a solution by arbitration; but putting that aside I quite understand it would be against the interests of the colonists—and they are naturally jealous of it—to have a series of references unless that series of references cover all questions. Therefore I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that before agreeing upon any further arbitration upon any particular point they should consult the colony, should ascertain fully its views, and unless they feel themselves bound from paramount considerations to do so, they should yield to the wish of the colonists not to refer any single question—I mean without the consent of the colonists themselves—unless they could refer them all. I quite feel the difficulty of giving an indefinite pledge as to the future, but all I understand the delegates to ask is an assurance as to the present. Of course this arrangement is not to be kept open indefinitely. It is not to be kept open to either party indefinitely in the future to suggest other matters for arbitration for an indefinite time; and, therefore, I cannot help thinking that Her Majesty's Government might well convey to the delegates of Newfoundland, without, of course, acceding to their view, the assurance that, unless from some paramount necessity, Her Majesty's Government would not refer individual questions unless they could get such a reference as would cover the whole of the existing controversies. I am quite sure we are all conscious of the evils which are likely to result if this measure be pressed forward into law against the will of the colonists. With all their feelings of antagonism and hostility aroused it will not be easy to carry it out, and we may add to our difficulties instead of diminishing them. But, my Lords, if on the other hand we can carry with us the willing assent of the colonists it would be much better to do so. In enforcing this measure on the Colony of Newfoundland we cannot forecast all the evils which may ensue, though we may apprehend that they will be serious and grave. On the other hand, if we can bring them to a willing mind with us upon some programme or upon some plan which both are able to say is satisfactory and sufficient, then, my Lords, the Colony of Newfoundland, one of our oldest colonies, which has shared our peril for
  1464
  centuries, and which has had its part in our glories, may be, and will be, a contented member of this great Empire.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has said, the hour is late for the virtuous habits of this House, and for that reason I should not trespass upon your Lordships at any length. I have another reason for not wishing to do that. I cannot conceive any question upon which it is a more anxious or a more responsible task to speak than the question which is at present under the consideration of the House. We are dealing with a question on which there is the acutest possible feeling, not only on the part of our colonies, with whom we have so deep a sympathy, but also on the part of our neighbours and allies across the Channel, with whom we wish to live in as much harmony as possible. It is therefore an occasion on which I think anybody in an official position may be excused for admiring the proverb which says that "Silence is golden." The general course of the Debate in this House does not seem to call for much observation on my part. It has on the whole been exceedingly friendly. The noble Lords opposite though they demur to some of our proceedings have maintained that spirit of candour which distinguished their speeches when the matter was first submitted to their judgment. The Bill has, on the whole, been received with favour. I believe that in all essential matters there is a strong amount of agreement, and the smaller matters which have been referred to are hardly worth discussing at any length. The Bill itself in its details and structure has been the subject of a good deal of criticism, but I say, though with some hesitation, speaking after so distinguished an authority as the noble and learned Lord, that I cannot help thinking that he has not read the Bill with his usual care. It seems to me that the last sentence of the Preamble must be brought into consideration when you attempt to interpret the peculiar phrases which are found in the rest of the Bill. The words in the Preamble are—

  1465
  "And whereas differences have arisen between the United Kingdom and France with respect to the Newfoundland fishery engagements, and negotiations are in progress with a view to arrange such differences, by referring the questions in dispute to arbitration, and pending the completion of such negotiations temporary arrangements may from time to time be necessary, and it is expedient to remove the above doubts, and revive the enactments set out in the Schedule to this Act, and apply the same to any temporary arrangements that may be made as aforesaid. and to any permanent arrangement with respect to such differences."
  I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord said it, but I think I heard it said that the liberty to confirm temporary arrangements would extend to new and temporary arrangements without any limit of time. It is obvious that the temporary arrangement referred to in that Preamble is that precise modus vivendi which is known to your Lordships, and which is laid upon the Table of the House. It is obvious that the permanent arrangements are the result of the negotiations which were going on when the Bill was introduced, and that these permanent arrangements have exclusive reference to the differences which have arisen between this country and France on the fishery question.
  THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: Differences of interpretation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Differences of interpretation, certainly. They are said to be differences. Of course, there are differences of interpretation, but they are differences which, as a matter of public notoriety, are now in existence, and are the subject of negotiations. I do not, however, wish to defend absolutely the drafting of the Bill. It very often happens that a layman accepts the drafting without entirely seeing the mode in which the language used fits in with his ideas, and yet he accepts it with that humility which the laity show to the learned professions. One of the services which I hope from the discussions in this House is that, if there is any ambiguity or any difficulty in ascertaining the precise meaning of the language, the Bill, on leaving this House, will no longer be marked by any such defect. That matter is one which when we come into Committee I hope we shall be able easily to correct if the Bill is at all
  1466
  indefinite in its language. Then there was another veryingenious point referred to by the noble Lord behind me (the Earl of Dunraven) which would have made the Bill an absolute absurdity, but which will be one of the subjects for consideration in Committee — that is, that the works which we should have a right to order to be removed under an Order in Council are for the purpose of carrying on the fisheries, and we are at this moment contending that lobstering is not a fishery, so that the works would not be for the purpose of carrying on the fisheries, and could not be removed. That, I think, we can correct when we get into Committee. However, I do not regard these criticisms as being of so much importance on the Second Reading as they would be on the Third. The only matter in regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Bill which has met with the criticism or censure of noble Lords opposite is that we did not communicate the Bill to the Newfoundland Government before laying it upon the Table of the House. It must be borne in mind that the Newfoundland Government is occupying a position distinctly hostile, and communicating with the Government meant communicating with the Legislature. Is it respectful to Parliament to communicate a Bill to another Legislature before it is communicated to the Legislature through which it will have to pass? I have my doubts on that point. I think, at all events, it is a breach of the ordinary practice and rule of Parliament, which, at any rate in a highly-contested matter, is not easily to be defended. Setting that aside as a question of ceremony and sentiment, there was another reason why we were very unwilling that the Bill should be discussed in the Legislature of Newfoundland before it was introduced here. We did not wish our policy to be misunderstood. We were anxious to have it introduced here with a speech by a responsible Minister stating the grounds on which it was recommended to Parliament. If it had been crudely sent to the Newfoundland Legislature to be subjected to the criticisms which certainly would not have been entirely just, I think our policy would have been put into a very unfair position, and a fair and impartial judgment of the question would have been seriously imperilled. I

  1467
  cannot see that the colony has any reason to complain on this ground. If we had attempted to hurry the matter and to rush the Bill through Parliament, or if we had attempted to take from them the proper time for remonstrance, if there was anything to be objected to, then, no doubt, their ground for complaint would be very just. But that our intention should be communicated in the first instance to the body we serve—that is, the Parliament of England—and not to any one else, does not seem to me to be a matter of censure, but rather the setting of a precedent which it would always be wise to follow. I do not think that there is any other matter on which the noble Earl was disposed to censure us. But both he and the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down made several suggestions on the nature of the jurisdiction which was intrusted to the naval officers by this Bill, and they both indicated a very strong preference, which has also been expressed by the Newfoundland delegates themselves, for some legislation which should place the disposal of the more contested matters, especially upon land, in the hands of a more regular tribunal —the local Courts of Justice. I have nothing to say against that view. It commends itself on many grounds, although it may not be so easy to carry into execution as the existing system; but it commends itself on many grounds. We shall be glad to consider any proposals for that purpose, and very glad if we can hit upon any arrangement which will carry out the essential objects we have in view, and, at the same time, will satisfy the very proper, reasonable, and orthodox scruples about intrusting such large powers to naval officers as are naturally entertained both in this country and in the colony. I think it is clearly understood that it would be impossible to introduce any provisions of that kind into the Bill now before Parliament, because they would necessarily be of a difficult and complicated character, and much time would be required to be spent on their consideration. If any legislation for that purpose is undertaken it must be in a new Bill; but I see in principle no objection to the adoption of such a course, and the judgment we form upon it must entirely depend upon the details of the measure that is pro-
  1468
  posed. The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that it would be sufficient to enact that the Treaty is to be observed, and to prosecute in the Courts of Law any person who disobeyed that Treaty. Surely the noble and learned Lord must see that that would give to the particular tribunal the task of interpreting the Treaty, and the Treaty is to be interpreted by a tribunal whose moral authority will be high, but whose legal authority will be zero. The arbitrators will determine what is the meaning of the Treaty. France will require—and we have engaged by Treaty that it should be so—that we shall absolutely carry out the decision of the arbitrators, whatever that may be; but if you go into a Court of Law and claim that the Treaty is made a part of the municipal law, and that the person who breaks it is to be punished or to suffer loss for soy doing, the Treaty must be interpreted by the Court according to its own lights; and the whole work of the arbitrators will be set aside, and the whole of the diplomatic difficulties with France will be exactly what they are now. I cannot think that that particular mode of dealing with Treaties will be satisfactory. The only other observation on the part of noble Lords to which it is necessary that I should refer is the one which I think they urged with the greatest emphasis, and that is their proposal that we should accept the promise of the Prime Minister of Newfoundland that certain measures should pass the Legislature of Newfoundland, and, accepting that promise, should forbear to pursue the Bill we have in hand. Now, I wish your Lordships to examine the question of time. The fishery begins not later than the end of May. By the time June has arrived there must be power—whether it be conferred here or in Newfoundland —in the hands of the Executive to carry out the modus vivendi. The actual arbitration does not press quite so much; but it cannot begin until the Executive Government has been fortified by the approval of Parliament, and has received the power which is necessary to enable it to carry out its engagements. Therefore, it would be impossible to delay this Bill for any considerable time. The Bill that is to sanction the modus vivendi could not be delayed beyond the end of

  1469
  May. But my noble Friend on my left (the Earl of Dunraven) seemed to say—I think that was the tone of the observation of the noble Lord—" You have the promise of the Prime Minister of Newfoundland; what more do you want? " If he has given that promise, I am sure he has given it in absolute sincerity, and has an entire belief that he can carry it out; and it is the same with regard to the delegates who accompanied him. But is any man in a position to promise absolutely for a numerous Assembly sitting at a distance, subject to other influences than those by which we are surrounded here, and, of course, liable to constant changes in its composition, and to the accidental loss of some influential man, to the arrival of some other influential man having other views, and to a great variety of incidents which may make the Assembly, when a division comes, unwilling perhaps only in some one point—but that an important point —to carry out the engagements which have been made on its behalf? Or it may not understand engagements in the same way; or some one or other of those numerous accidents which may happen in transactions of that kind and prevent the Bill from being- passed which has been promised. I do not say they are probable—I do not say that that will be the case. I hope that the Bill will pass, and that no difficulty will arise. But we are bound to consider the case if it should not pass. The modus vivendi would not be in existence; all the liabilities to conflict would be as vigorous as ever, sharpened by the discussion which has taken place, and by the attention which has been drawn to them; and all the dangers of leaving this question open, which were so eloquently dealt with by the noble Earl opposite, would be as acute as ever. Therefore, it appears to me to be more prudent to go on with this Bill, as far as this House is concerned, with the distinct understanding that if by the time the House of Commons comes back after the Whitsuntide Recess the other Bill is passed in Newfoundland no further efforts will be made to pass this Bill before the Imperial Parliament. My noble Friend opposite also suggested that we might put aside the consideration of this Bill in this House, reserving to ourselves the right, if difficulties arose, of passing all its stages at one sitting.
  1470
  I do not think that would be a satisfactory proceeding. The very acuteness with which he proceeded to point out the defects of the Bill shows that it is necessary that the measure should go through the ordinary consideration of the House, especially on the part of those great legal authorities we have in this House, in order that if, unhappily, such a Bill is necessary, it may be at least a Bill which will do the greatest amount of good and the least amount of harm, of which such a Bill is capable. I do not think we should be justified in passing such a Bill, as it were, at a day's notice and without some consideration, and, therefore, I prefer to recommend your Lordships now to read the Bill a second time, and then to send it for consideration to the Standing Committee. Then if, as we all hope, the Bill is not necessary, I do not think that there is very much harm done, either from the point of sentiment or from any other point of view, in consequence of the needless labour to which your Lordships have been put. But if, unhappily, the Bill is wanted, it will be in a condition fit to pass into law, and we shall be able to go to the House of Commons with a better hope that they will take notice of the exigency of the circumstances. On those grounds, though I cannot accede to the request that we should not go on with the Bill now, I do most earnestly join with the noble Lords opposite in expressing the hope that the Newfoundland Legislature will take this matter into its own hands, and will pass the measure necessary. I believe that in doing so we shall give an infinitely greater chance of a peaceable and effectual execution of whatever the arbitrators decide to be the Treaty than could be the case if the obedience to the Treaty is imposed, as it were, from without. I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord said of the anxiety which this Government must feel that if there is any further reference to arbitration all the contested points should be submitted for decision, that it is very undesirable that the matter should be hung up, and very desirable that we should know exactly where we stand. But, as he observed with the greatest justice, there is a great difference between the arbitration which interprets a Treaty and the arbitration which decides a right. We must not

  1471
  misunderstand the position of the French in this matter. I do not think that the French will shrink from arbitration which decides what the documents mean; but they do shrink from any arbitration which shall decide their general rights in Newfoundland, and whether the Treaties shall stand upright or not, whether they are obsolete or not, and whether or not they have a right to enforce them. They have again and again said they will not carry into arbritation their international rights in this respect, and I think it is because such extreme demands have been made in Newfoundland that the French have this dread of carrying the arbitration too far. I do hope that as time goes on that reluctance will be overcome, and that we may be able by this arbitration to remove all those difficulties which have done so much to imperil, not only our relations with our old ally, but also the industry and prosperity of the colony, whose well-being we value so highly.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  LONDON (CITY) TRIAL OF CIVIL CAUSES BILL—(No. 103.)
  Read 2a. (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL—(No. 93.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, at quarter past Ten o'clock.