Sitting of 1 May 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [H.L.] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which
  944
  are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
  Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill [H. L.]
  Kew Bridge Bill [H.L.]
  Ordered that the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [H.L.] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
  St. Andrews Burgh Provisional Order Bill [H. L.]
  Ordered that the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS [H.L.] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
  Brooke's Park, Londonderry, Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  MIDLAND AND SOUTH WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LISBURN TOWN COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; An Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered: to be read the third time.
  Arbroath Corporation Gas Bill [H. L.]
  Cambridge University and Town Gas Bill [H. L.]
  Dumbarton Burgh Bill [H. L.]
  Glastonbury Water Bill [H. L.]
  Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H. L.]
  Inverness Harbour Bill [H. L.]
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.
  Surrey Commercial Docks Bill [H. L.]
  West Highland Railway Bill [H. L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Pilotage Provisional Order Bill.
  Read a third time, and passed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Sir Joseph Pease reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Milton Creek Conservancy Bill had stated that the evidence of Edward John Marmion, Medical Officer of Health for Milton, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Edward John Marmion do attend the said Committee upon Wednesday, at Twelve of the clock, and do produce his medical reports and those of his predecessor, Dr. C. H. Fisher.
  Ordered, That Edward John Marmion do attend the said Committee on Group D of Private Bills on Wednesday, at Twelve of the clock.
  Sir Joseph Pease reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Milton Creek Conservancy Bill had stated that the evidence of William Parham, Clerk of Milton Urban District Council, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the interventifon of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said William Parham do attend the said Committee upon Wednesday at Twelve of the clock, and do produce minute books and correspondence with Local Government Board, Faversham Port Sanitary Authority, Kent County Council, and the Sittingbourne Urban District Council from 1894 to the present time, so far as the same relate to the Creek.
  Ordered, That William Parham do attend the said Committee on Group D of Private Bills upon Wednesday, at Twelve of the clock.
  Sir Joseph Pease reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Milton Creek Conservancy Bill had stated that the evidence of William James Harris, Clerk of the Sittingbourne Urban District Council, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said William James Harris do attend the said Committee upon Wednesday, at Twelve of the clock, and do produce minute books of that Council and correspondence with the Local Government Board and the Milton Urban District Council, and also minute book of the Milton Rural District Council and correspondence with the Local Government Board with the Milton Rural District Council; also copies of medical reports of Edward John Marmion, Medical Officer of Health for Milton, and those of his predecessor, Dr. C. H. Fisher.
  Ordered, That William James Harris, do attend the said Committee on Group D of Private Bills upon Wednesday, at Twelve of the clock.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).
  Mr. Hargreaves Brown reported from the Committee on Group F of Private, Bills, That Mr. Leuty, one of the members of the said Committee, was not present within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
  Reported, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 180.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 180.]
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer additional powers on the Court of Teinds in Scotland with reference to the alteration of the sites of Parish Churches, and of the districts attached, and with reference to Collegiate charges." [Parish Churches (Scotland) Bill [H. L.]
PETITIONS.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Petition of the Incorporated Society of Law Agents in Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Rochdale, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Petition from Leith, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour;—From Leighton Buzzard;—Halifax;—Merthyr Tydfil;—and, Ebbw Vale; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Inverness;—Aberdeen;—Edinburgh (six);—Ayr;—Dumbarton;—Kirkintilloch;—Sanday;—St. Mary's Holm;—Arbroath (two);—Dundee (five);—Westray;—Glasgow(five);—Cromarty;—Kinggussie;—Forfar;—Brechin;—and,Pollokshields; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Petition from St. Pancras, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Hafort;—Killamarsh;—Wynnstay;—Lidgett;—Holbrook;—Whitwell;—St. John's;—Rotherham Main, No. 1;—DenabyMain; Dunkirk;—Chamber Lane;—Allhallows;—and, Wharncliffe and Wath Main Collieries; to lie upon the Table
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Bristol, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Hastings, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Petition from Bolton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment;—From Montrose; Arbroath; Brechin; and Forfar; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Penzance; Wickham Brook; Leigh; Ludlow; Oldham; Rockford; and, Chelsea; to lie upon the Table.
  SCHOOL BOARD CONFERENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS (PROHIBITION).
  Petition from Hastings, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Glasgow (four); Lewis; Row; Dunbar; Perth; Garvald; Stornoway; Abernethy; Dundee; St. Mungo; Lerwick; Glasford; Ayr; Forglen; Kinross; Scottish Threefold Option Alliance; Avoch; and,. Strathbungo; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS, 1867 TO 1898.
  Petition from Derby, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULE).
  Copy presented,—of Rule issued by the Irish Land Commission, dated 17th April 1899, as to the Service of Originating Notices (by Command); to lie upon the Table and to be printed. (No. 176.)
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented,—of Return for the month of October, 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented,—of Return of Proceedings during the month of January 1899 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Return of Proceedings during the month of February 1899 (by command); to lie upon the Table.

  TREATY SERIES (No. 8, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of International Sanitary Convention, signed at Paris 3rd April 1894, and Declaration, signed 13th October 1897. Ratifications deposited at Paris, 20th June 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 9, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Convention between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands providing that Submarine Cables connecting the two Countries shall be their Joint Property. Signed at The Hague, 5th April 1898, Ratifications exchanged at The Hague, 13th December 1898. To which is annexed an Agreement between the Postal Administrations of the two countries respecting the Telegraphic Correspondence of the Direct Submarine Cables. Signed at London, 13th February 1899, and at The Hague, 13th March 1899 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 10, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Treaty between Great Britain and Bolivia for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals. Signed at Lima, 22nd February 1892. Ratifications exchanged at Lima, 7th March 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2234–7 (by Command): to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Chief Inspector for 1898 (Part I.—Tables) (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (SUGAR IMPORTATION AND CULTIVATION).
  Return presented,—relative thereto (ordered 24th April; Sir William Wedderburn); to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WARNED.
  Return presented,—relative thereto (ordered 27th April; Sir Francis Powell); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 177.)

  POST OFFICE (CONVEYANCE OF MAILS FROM HARWICH TO THE HOOK OF HOLLAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Contract, dated the 3rd day of April 1899, between the Postmaster-General and the Great Eastern Railway Company for the daily Conveyance of Mails from Harwich to the Hook of Holland, and of Treasury Minute thereon."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 178.)

  CELTIC ORNAMENTS FOUND IN IRELAND.
  Copy ordered, "of Report of Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to inquire into the circumstances under which certain Celtic Ornaments found in Ireland were recently offered for sale to the British Museum, and to consider the relations between the British Museum and the Museums of Edinburgh and Dublin with regard to the acquisition and retention of objects of Antiquarian and Historic interest; with Evidence, Appendices, and Index."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 179.)

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS.
  SIR J. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what is the number of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank each having a balance of over £100 to their credit; and what is the aggregate amount of deposits in such accounts of more than £100 now held by the Savings Bank?
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrew's Burghs)for the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hanbury, Preston): The information desired by the honourable Member cannot be given for the present date, but at the date of the last special Return—namely, December 31 1895—the number of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank having a balance of over £100 to their credit was—individual depositors' accounts, 240,281; societies' accounts, 8,662. The aggregate amount of deposits in these accounts was—individual depositors' accounts,£35,197,684; societies' accounts,£3,397,831.

  TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC AND THE PEACE CONFERENCE.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have objected to the presence of a delegate from the Transvaal Republic at the coming Peace Conference; and, if so, on what grounds?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,: Her Majesty's Government have not had occasion to object to the presence of a delegate from the South African Republic, as the proposal to send an invitation to the Transvaal has not been made.

  UNITED STATES TARIFF
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office give instructions to our representations to the Government of the United States as to the great injury which is being inflicted on various branches of British Trade by the existing tariff of the United States.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not usual to make representations to foreign countries upon their tariff policy except in connection with some specific commercial negotiations, and Her Majesty's Government do not consider that at the present moment any instructions in the sense suggested would be likely to result in benefit to British commercial interests.

  MILITIA FIELD SERVICE CAP.
  MR. WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could state how many Militia battalions will be supplied with the field service cap this year, and which battalions?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,: It is expected that all Militia battalions will receive the field service cap in time for this year's training.

  TURKISH HOSTILITIES IN YEMEN.
  COLONEL MILWARD (Stratford-upon-Avon): I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the prolonged hostilities in the Turkish dominions of Yemen, whether he would consider the desirability of appointing a British Consul at Sana in the interests of peace?
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Consul at Jiddah reported in December last that the Turkish troops had captured Shahel, an important mountain post of the insurgent Arabs. Since then no definite information has been received as to the progress of hostilities, though it is understood that the country is still in an unsettled condition, and that further reinforcements of Turkish troops were sent to Hodeida in January and February. Her Majesty's Government do not think it desirable to make the proposal suggested.

  CANAL BOAT CHILDREN.
  MR. DRAGE (Derby): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention had been called to the repeated Reports of Her Majesty's inspectors with regard to the irregular attendance at school of canal boat children; and whether he would consider the desirability of introducing any reform in the existing law or its administration with a view to remedying the existing evil?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The matter has been often under the consideration of the Committee of Council. No efficient remedy seems possible so long as children of school age are allowed to travel on canal boats; and this cannot be prevented without an alteration in the law which cannot be recommended without much further consideration.

  TRANSPORT OF INVALIDS FROM INDIA.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that upwards of 200 sick and wounded officers, and 2,500 men are annually brought home as invalids from India and the Colonies, and that the present method of conveyance by hired troop-ship service has been unfavourably reported upon in the Army Medical Blue Book for 1897, he will consider whether the War Office can establish a permanent hospital ship for this service?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The provision of a hospital ship for conveying the sick and wounded from India to this country would rest with the Indian Government, and after very full consideration the Secretary of State is not prepared to press the adoption of such a system upon that Department. The balance of advantage is not by any means entirely on the side of a hospital ship for the conveyance of invalids as against their more rapid and frequent conveyance on board transports, in the equipment of which great improvements have recently taken place. These considerations apply with special force to our widely scattered Colonial garrisons, invalids from which are sent home by packet at the earliest possible opportunity.

  EXPORTS AND THE COLONIES.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion British exports to self-governing Colonies bear to British exports to foreign countries; and
  956
  whether, over a period of years, that proportion shows any signs of increasing or decreasing?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon) said: In 1897 the value of exports from the United Kingdom to the self-governing Colonies was 21.5 per cent. of the value of the exports to foreign countries. In 1877 the corresponding percentage was 19.4.

  THE CROMWELL STATUE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the present Parliament has sanctioned the site for the statue of Oliver Cromwell; and, if not, whether an opportunity will be given the House of expressing by vote an opinion on the matter?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): As I stated on Tuesday last in answer to the honourable Member for Belfast, my predecessor in 1895 granted permission for the erection of a statue to Cromwell in the Westminster-hall Garden, at the expense of a private donor. I merely confirmed the engagement which had been made, and am ready to defend the course I took if the honourable Member desires to raise the Question on the Vote for my salary in Class II.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman, in connection with this, whether he will be kind enough to describe exactly where the site is? If it is where I think it is, I am quite sure the statue will not be seen, and in that case I do not object.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The site selected is in the sunk garden on the west side of Westminster Hall.
  MR. W. REDMOND: A sort of area.

  INDIA AND AUSTRALIAN WINES.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of the Colony of Victoria pay any bounty, direct or indirect, on the production of wine; and, if so,

  957
  whether such wine will be liable to a countervailing duty if imported into India?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I understand that the Government of Victoria have in the past spent money to encourage the production of wine in that colony, but I doubt whether they have ever taken any measure which would bring their wines under the operation of the Indian Act. As I have already stated in this House, the Act will be administered by the Government of India, who must be guided by circumstances and by experience in dealing with the various cases as they arise.

  WINE DUTIES.
  MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Isle of Thanet): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the lowest scale of wine duties in force in any of the self-governing colonies; and whether there is any ground for the apprehension to which he recently gave expression, that foreign wines might be imported into British possessions and subsequently re-exported to the United Kingdom, with a view to evading the additional duties, if such were not applicable to inter-British trade?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH): So far as I am aware the lowest scale of duty in force in any of the self-governing colonies upon wines, except sparkling wine, is 5s. per gallon. In the ordinary way, any one sending wine from Europe to an Australian colony for re-exportation to this country would bond or tranship it there, so as not to pay the Australian duties. I do not doubt that the Australian Governments would endeavour to make arrangements that would prevent this; but there is always the risk of fraud. In the case of a preferential rate of duty of 2s. per gallon here in favour of colonial bottled wines the aggregate amount of such difference of duty upon 56 gallons of wine (the content of a hogshead) would be £5 12s., or upon 120 gallons (the content of a pipe) £12. Such a stake would be very likely to invite attempts at fraud.
  MR. COURTNEY: I would ask whether, under the proposed rearrangement of the wine duties, the duties on Australian Burgundies in bottle correspond to a duty of 13s.6d. per gallon of spirit; the duties on clarets in bottle, 17 degs. to 18 degs., correspond to a duty of 16s. 6d. per gallon of spirit; and the duties on Moselle in bottle, 13 degs., correspond to a duty of 22s. 4d. per gallon of spirit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the proposed duties upon wines imported in bottle had reference solely to alcoholic strength, the rates per gallon of proof spirit contained in such wines would approximately be those named in the Question. But that is not the case. The duty upon bottled wines was designed to fall with greater weight upon the more costly clarets, Burgundies, and hocks (just as the existing surtax upon sparkling wines falls mainly upon champagne), and this it will actually do, because the cheaper still wines will in future come over in cask and be bottled here, and the dearer wines alone will pay the duty of 3s. per gallon. The arrangement, therefore, has the effect of redressing, to a great extent, the defect of the purely alcoholic scale under which a claret or Burgundy worth 12s. per dozen paid the same duty as one worth 80s.
  MR. COURTNEY: May I ask my right honourable Friend whether my figures are correct?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: They may be, but figures, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the matter.
  MR. COURTNEY: Does not my right honourable Friend base his case in some degree on the relative taxation of alcohol?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Quite so. That is, with regard to the duty on wine in the wood, and we are doing with regard to wine in bottle precisely what we have already done in regard to champagne.

  AFRICAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mileage of the railway in respect of which an Imperial guarantee has been asked for by the British South Africa Company lies within the territory subject to their control, what mileage in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and what (if any) within Cape Colony; whether the Cape Government had been asked to contribute a portion of the guarantee; and, in that case, what portion; whether the reply of the Imperial Government was conditional on that of the Cape Government; and whether the railway from Beira to Salisbury with an extension to Bulawayo will shortly be opened, with the result of diverting a large portion of traffic and receipts from the railway for which a guarantee has been asked?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: With reference to paragraph 1, the Bechuanaland Railway Company's existing line lies for about 80 miles within Southern Rhodesia, for about 394 miles within the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and for about 111 miles within the Cape Colony; and, with reference to paragraph 4, the Beira-Salisbury line at present stops at Salisbury, and I have not heard of any present intention of extending it to Bulawayo. Papers will shortly be laid on the Table which will contain an answer to paragraphs 2 and 3; but I may say, in anticipation of them, that we were unable to accept the proposals made to us by Mr. Rhodes; and he has been unable to accept the offer which we made in return.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask whether the right honourable Gentleman's attention has been called to the statement in a letter in the Money Article in "The Times" of April 26th that the debentures of the Mashonaland Railway have been refused a quotation on the Stock Exchange in consequence of the British South Africa Company not having performed the covenants entered into when they were issued.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: When the Papers to which I have already referred are presented the honourable Member will, I think, see that this matter, whatever may be the facts, does not bear on the proposal Her Majesty's Government have had before them.

  THE PACIFIC CABLE SCHEME.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a decision has been arrived at in the matter of the Pacific cable scheme; and whether Her Majesty's Government have decided to contribute, in the form of a yearly subsidy, the full amount which they have been recommended, under the report of the Pacific Cable Committee of 1896, to guarantee for the construction of an all-British cable running from Vancouver by Fanning Island to Norfolk Island whence it will branch to Queensland and. New Zealand, and, if so, whether he can give the House any further information, on this subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: A decision on this matter has been arrived at. Papers will be at once laid on the table explaining the terms on which Her Majesty's Government have offered to contribute to the cost of the scheme.

  FRITTED LEAD.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the master potters proposed in their reply to the Home Office to make delay in the employment of fritted lead; and what steps he intends to take to induce the manufacturers to carry out the requirements of the Lead Report?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): The master potters have definitely undertaken to use in future for glazes only

  961
  "fritted" lead, but they ask that those of their number who have no experience in "fritted" glazes may be allowed a reasonable time to master the practical points. This request seems reasonable As already stated, I propose to amend the special rules for this trade, in order to give effect as far as practicable to the recommendations of the experts.

  ENGLAND AND THE VATICAN.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether confidential negotiations have been proceeding between the Government and the Catholic authorities in London and the Catholic authorities in Rome with a view to the appointment, with recognised diplomatic position and powers, of duly-accredited Ministers to and from the Holy See.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Sir, the answer is in the negative.

  CHILD LABOUR.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the serious condition of matters with reference to child labour recently disclosed, Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in any Bill or take any other steps for the protection of the many thousands of overworked children?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject of this Question.

  CYPRUS MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. ORR-EWING (Ayr Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Cyprus Government have made a contract for the mail service with Austrian Lloyds; and, if so, whether he can state the terms of the contract, and the date on which it will commence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Cyprus Government have made a provisional contract subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Government with the Austrian Lloyds Company for the mail service between Cyprus and Egypt, to commence on June 1st; as the contract is now under the consideration of the Treasury it would not be convenient to state its terms at present.

  TRANSVAAL.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Alfred Milner, Her Majesty's Commissioner in South Africa, has received and transmitted to Her Majesty's Government a petition by Uitlanders in the Transvaal, complaining that they were not accorded the full rights of citizenship in the Transvaal; and whether there was any precedent for receiving a petition on such a subject from residents in a State which in its internal affairs is independent of this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Her Majesty's High Commissioner of South Africa has received and transmitted to Her Majesty's Government a petition to the Queen from over 21,000 British subjects in the Transvaal complaining of alleged oppression and unjust treatment, and, among other things, of exclusion from the franchise. I am not aware of any precedent for such a petition, nor am I aware of any precedent for the state of circumstances which has led to its presentation; but I apprehend that there can be no doubt as to the propriety of receiving the petition, having regard to the position which this country occupies in relation to the South African Republic.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Is the right honourable Gentleman satisfied as to the genuineness of the signatures?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The High Commissioner has carefully examined the petition and considers that the general genuineness of the signatures to it may be vouched for.

  BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, taking into consideration the fact that the increase in the number of British soldiers invalided home from India for venereal disease was 20 per cent. over the preceding year in 1895, 60 per cent. in 1896, and 199 per cent. in 1897 over the figure for 1894, he would at once increase the stringency of the regulations now in force?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I must refer my honourable and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to his Question on this subject on March 9 If the improvement which, as I then said, has begun to show itself in the admission rate for these diseases is continuous, as I trust it may be, a reduction in the number of invalidings may be expected to follow, though necessarily somewhat later. Until the present regulations have had a fair trial I do not propose to take any further action.

  LIVERPOOL SCHOOL BOARD CATECHISM.
  Mr. BILLSON (Halifax) (in the absence of Sir J. Brunner, Cheshire, Northwich): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the adoption by the Liverpool School Board of a Catechism for use in their schools; whether he is aware that several members of the Board objected to the adoption of the Catechism, on the ground that it was denominational; and whether the Board are acting in accordance with section 14 (b) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870?
  SIR J. GORST: A copy of the Liverpool School Board Catechism has been unofficially supplied to me, and I am informed that it is not yet in use. No complaint from any member of the Liverpool School Board has been made to the Education Department. If any complaint was made by any person interested or aggrieved it would be the duty of the Committee of Council to determine judicially whether the use of the Catechism was unlawful under section
  964
  14 (2) of the Education Act, 1870. Under these circumstances, it appears to be undesirable to prejudge the matter by replying to the third paragraph of the Question.

  THE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman a Question of which I have given him private notice; it is whether he can give the House any information as to the terms of the agreement with Russia?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to the right honourable Gentleman, I have to say that the general tendency and effect of the arrangement is to provide that Great Britain will not oppose Russian railway enterprise in Manchuria, or encourage such enterprise on the part of others, and Russia makes precisely the same stipulation with regard to the basin of the Yang-tsze. The full text of the agreement will be laid on the Table as soon as we receive it. There are special stipulations to protect the Niu-chwang Railway.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MCKENNA: Will the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury inform us when the Scotch Estimates will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I propose to take the Scotch Estimates on Friday, commencing with the Education Estimate.

  A SHOOTING RANGE NEAR WHITTINGTON BARRACKS.
  MR. WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if any progress has been made towards getting a range near Whittingington Barracks, Lichfield.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): Yes, sir; the site for a range has been approved, the purchase of the land has been authorised, and negotiations with the owners are now in progress.

  ARMOURERS AND BLACKSMITHS AS ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he explain why armourers and blacksmiths are not eligible in accordance with the Queen's Regulations to become engine-room artificers; and whether a blacksmith serving in the Royal Navy, and borne on the books of one of Her Majesty's ships at Devonport, has recently been examined with a view to his being appointed as an acting engine-room artificer; if so, will he state what was the result of the examination?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY, Antrim, S.): Engine-room artificers must be competent workmen of the following trades:—Engine-fitters, copper smiths, boilermakers, and, in a few cases, engine smiths. Preference is given to engine-fitters who are also turners. Armourers and blacksmiths are therefore ineligible as they do not possess the necessary trade qualifications. A blacksmith serving in the "Colossus" was however, as an exceptional case, permitted to present himself for examination as engine smith (one of the qualified trades) with a view to entry as engine-room artificer, but failed to pass the examination.

  PENSIONERS AS GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the existing regulations permit persons receiving Government pensions to be accepted as contractors for food supplies to the Government; and whether notice on this point is given in the advertisement asking for tenders for food supplies?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: There are no regulations debarring persons receiving Government pensions from being accepted as contractors for food supplies to the Government.

  LIGHTKEEPERS' SALARIES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade will he explain why the light-keepers of Great Britain and Ireland have received no reply to the petition for an increase of salary presented by them in November last; and can he state when a reply may be expected?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): As stated in my reply to the honourable Member for Argylleshire on February 17th, the three general lighthouse authorities have been conferring together upon the question of increased salaries to lighthouse-keepers. I have recently received applications on the subject from the three lighthouse authorities, the last one having only reached me on Saturday. Immediate consideration will be given to these applications.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not a fact that lighthouse-keepers of Great Britain and Ireland are paid on a lower scale than in other countries?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: That is totally apart from the Question. I have no knowledge of what is paid in other countries.

  IRISH TITHE RENT CHARGE BILL.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he can give an undertaking that the Irish Tithe Rent Charge Bill will not be introduced until after Whitsuntide, and that it will not be introduced under the 10 minutes rule?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I must decline to give the undertaking asked for.

  MONEY ORDER OFFICE AND POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BUSINESS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will state the number of post offices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, at which money order and savings bank business is conducted, and the number of offices in each country at which this business is not transacted?
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The number of post offices at which money order and savings bank business was conducted on the 1st of last month was 12,659, distributed as follows:—England, 9,447; Wales, 824; Scotland, 1,225; Ireland, 1,163. The number of post offices at which such business was not transacted was about 9,000. The distribution of these in various parts of the United Kingdom cannot be stated until the returns now being taken are completed.

  LLANSANTFFRAID GLYN CEIRIOG NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the National school at Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog, Denbighshire, was warned by the Department in August last; and, if so, whether he will state the grounds upon which the adverse Report was made?
  SIR J. GORST: The school referred to was warned under Article 86 of the Code on account of the marked weakness in the elementary subjects.

  LEASES OF SALMON FISHINGS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the leases of 50 salmon fishings in Scotland expire at Michaelmas next, will he state on what date, and how often, these fishings will be advertised in the public press?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by Her Majesty's Office of Woods and Forests that the Crown salmon fishings, the leases of which expire this year, will be advertised for three successive weeks, commencing about the beginning of June.

  MILITIA FIELD SERVICE CAP.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could state how many Militia battalions will be supplied with the field service cap this year, and which battalions?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: It is expected that all Militia battalions will receive the field service cap in time for this year's training.

  IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of miles of railway in Ireland between 1887 and 1897 which received assistance from either Treasury or local Irish rates?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): The number of miles of railway constructed in Ireland between 1887 and 1897 (both years inclusive) with assistance either from the Treasury and local rates or from the Treasury alone was 516½. No figures are available at present as to the miles of railway constructed by the aid of local rates alone. The number would, however, be inconsiderable.

  TITHE RENT IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM (Cork Co., N. E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why tithe rent-charge payers in Knockmourne parish, county Cork, are now called upon to pay what are termed arrears of tithe, though the Recorder of Cork, on 26th April 1897, reduced the tithe about 2s. 10d. in the pound consequent on the fall in prices of cereals?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Question relates to lay tithe rentcharges not vested in the Irish Land Commission, the revision of which is affected by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal. I refer the honourable Member to an inquiry on the general Question addressed to me by the honourable Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool.

  FIXING FAIR RENT IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the recent rule of the Irish Land Commission under which an applicant to fix a fair rent in that Court is obliged to procure a certificate of valuation of the holding for the hearing before the Court and file same, which has become necessary by reason of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, in order to enable the Court to decide upon the incidence of taxation, thus imposing an additional cost to the suitor of 2s. 6d. in each case; whether he will make representations to the Land Commission to the effect that, as a public Department, they should themselves procure this information in each case free of expense to the parties by a form of requisition addressed to the other public Department, the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland; and what fund now receives the 2s. 6d. so paid for such valuation?
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Irish Land Commission has issued a new rule by which every applicant for the fixing of a fair rent is obliged to file a certificate of valuation, which must be obtained at the Valuation Office in Dublin at a cost of 2s. 6d.; whether he is aware that certificates of valuation were formerly obtained from the clerks of the various unions, now the clerks of boards of guardians, at a cost of 1s.; and whether, having regard to the fact that this new practice entails an increased expenditure on tenants of holdings who apply to have fair rents fixed, and will form the basis of a claim for
  970
  loss of fees by clerks of unions under the provisions of the Local Government Act, steps will be taken to secure a return to the original practice with reference to the issue of certificates of valuation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matter is still under consideration, and I would ask the honourable and learned Members to again postpone the Questions until next Monday.

  RATES OF CARRIAGE FOR HEAVY GOODS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in a paper read before the London Chamber of Commerce on 8th March it was stated that the carriage of heavy goods per ton per mile was ¾d. in Great Britain, 0.65 in France, ½d. in Germany, and ¼d.in the United States; and whether, seeing that the rates for goods carriage in Ireland are higher than in Great Britain, he will cause inquiries to be made to ascertain the figures and suggest a remedy?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD TRADE: The maximum rates for goods carriage are not, on the whole, higher in Ireland than in Great Britain. The subject was carefully dealt with by Parliament in 1892, and I am not prepared to re-open it.

  COLOUR-SERGEANT GRADY.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why Colour-Sergeant Grady, who has been repeatedly recommended by his commanding officer and is otherwise entitled to the good conduct medal, has never received it?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The honourable Member's description of the man is not sufficient to enable him to be traced for certain. If the honourable Member refers to Colour-Sergeant Grady, of the 53rd Regimental District, the officer in command was informed in October 1896, that his recommendation

  971
  might be submitted for consideration a year later, but no further application has been received.

  ENFIELD FACTORY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretar of State for War if he will state why provision is made in the Estimates for 1899–1900 for increased lodging allowances at the Enfield Factory?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: There is no lodging allowances for Enfield Factory. It is not clear to what item the honourable Member refers.

  MULRANNY FORGERY TRIAL.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in reference to his statement that the Mulranny forgery charge was investigated at Sligo, he is aware that in the county of Sligo, where there is a population of 89,000 Roman Catholics and 8,500 Protestants, the jury who tried the accused sergeant was composed exclusively of Protestant Unionists, and that every Roman Catholic juror who came to the box was challenged by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Malachy Kelly, who was supposed to be conducting the prosecution; and that one of the jurors stated openly in the box that the jury had made up their minds for an acquittal before hearing the evidence of Constable Curtin, who was the most important witness for the prosecution?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The respective numbers of the Roman Catholic and Protestant population of Sligo are correctly stated. Those of the Roman Catholic religion who are qualified to be jurors are, like their Protestant fellows, placed upon the panel in their regular rotation according to the provisions of the statute. The jury panel in the present instance was prepared in the ordinary course for Winter Assizes without any reference to Sullivan's case, and I believe before it was known that the case would be tried at the Winter Assizes. No record is kept of the religion of jurors who serve or of those who are set aside. In exercising his right of challenge, the Crown Solicitor acted in strict conformity with the directions contained
  972
  in the circular of February, 1894, issued by the late Government to Crown solicitors, and was not influenced in any way by the religious or political opinions of the jurors. No inquiries were made by the Crown Solicitor into the religious or political views of jurors. Not before Constable Curtin was examined, but after he and all the other witnesses for the Crown had been examined and cross-examined, and the Crown case had been closed, and the prisoner's counsel had stated the prisoner's case, the jury, through their foreman, and acting within their rights, informed the judge that they had on the Crown case made up their minds to acquit the prisoner. I may mention that a civil action has been brought by the prosecution in the criminal trial against the accused for libel in respect of the very letter upon which the prosecution was based with the view of having the question of the authenticity of the letter determined, and that, although the criminal trial took place in December, the honourable Member's question in reference to it had only been asked since notice of trial in the civil action has been served. I think that the honourable Member will see that Questions such as this, with whatever intention they may be put, are in the result calculated to prejudice the trial, and are unfair to at least one of the litigants.

  WOMEN AS RATE COLLECTORS.
  MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an order has recently been issued by the Local Government Board declaring that no woman shall be qualified to be appointed as rate collector?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The General Order issued with reference to the poor rate collectors appointed under the Local Government Act includes this provision among others.

  ORPHAN HOMES AND SCHOOL ACCOMMODATON.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that in consequence of parish and education rates having been levied on

  973
  the Orphan Homes of Scotland, the private school in connection with those Homes in which till now about 1,000 children inmates of the Homes have been gratuitously educated, has been closed, and that 800 children formally presented at Kilmalcolm Public School on Friday last were met by the clerk to the School Board, who stated that he was authorised to refuse them admission; and whether the Scottish Education Department proposes to take any steps to compel the School Board to provide education for the children in question?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Scottish Education Department have this day received a letter from the head of the Orphan Homes on this matter, and have communicated with the School Board on the subject. I am not prepared to say in reply to a Question what course the Department may ultimately take.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATION REPORT.
  MR. T. SHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Report of the Committee of Council on Scottish Education for the past year, together with relative Return of school expenditure, statistics, etc., will be printed and circulated among Members?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The statistical tables have already been laid on the Table, and their distribution rests with the printers. The Report of the Committee of Council is in course of preparation, but it is not possible to comment upon some matters to which it is undesirable to refer until a somewhat later date. All the essential information is given in the statistical tables.

  THE ORDNANCE FACTORY, BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the maximum and minimum number of workmen engaged at the Ordnance Factory, Birmingham, during the financial year 1898–9; and will he say how many men
  974
  are employed in the factory at the present time?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The are as follows:—Maximum number in 1898–9, 461; minimum number in 1898–9, 409; present number employed, 445.

  ORDNANCE FACTORY, ENFIELD.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the maximum and minimum number of workmen engaged at the Ordnance Factory, Enfield, during the financial year 1898–9; and will he say how many men are employed in the factory at the present time?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The figures are as follows:—Maximum number in 1898–9, 2,277; Minimum number in 1898–9, 2,163; present number employed, 2,230.

  CHAPLAIN AND ORGANIST AT ENFIFLD AND WALTHAM.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he ill explain why provision is made in the Estimates for the payment of a chaplain and organist at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, and for a chaplain at Waltham?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Ever since the origin of the factories at Enfield and Waltham allowances have been voted by Parliament to assist in providing for the spiritual wants of the workpeople employed in them. In the case of Enfield, the payment is made to the Vicar of St. James, Enfield Highway, for providing for the performance of regular services at the Factory Chapel. In the case of Waltham, the money is paid to the Vicar's fund for the provision of curates to minister to the employees. In the case of the organist at Enfield, as the chapel belongs to the Government, the Vicar is not under the necessity of providing an organist, and a grant of £20 is made towards the salary of the latter, the congregation making up the full salary.

  ESSEX MILITIA COMMANDING OFFICER.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if there is any special reason why the officers of the Essex Militia battalions have been passed over and a commanding officer brought in from outside to command the 3rd Battalion Essex Regiment, as the new commanding officer has no connection with the Militia, and there were officers with long service in the Militia battalions qualified to command?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State has acted in this matter on the recommendation of the successive general officers who have been in command of the Eastern District, which recommendations were supported by the Commander-in-Chief.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department will grant a return of the several Voluntary schools in England and Wales the subscriptions or other contributions to which have diminished since the passing of the Voluntary Schools. Act,1897; giving the amounts contributed for each school in the years ending August 1897 and 1898 respectively?
  SIR J. GORST: The Return which the honourable Member desires could not be given without an amount of labour wholly disproportionate to the result.

  A MEDICAL OFFICER TO THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, in view of the public health questions which arise in connection with the attendance of children at the elementary schools, more particularly in reference to the spread of infectious diseases, together with the proper supervision of the centres for defective children, the deaf and the blind, the health and superannuation of the teachers, etc., it is proposed to appoint a medical officer to the Education Department?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have no present intention of appointing such an officer. The schools for blind and deaf children, and for defective children, are under the supervision of an inspector who is a qualified medical man. The Department proposes to use, for the purposes of the Superannuation Act, the local medical officers employed by the General Post Office and the Civil Service Commissioners.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Justices of the Whittlesea Petty Sessional Division of Cambridgeshire have refused a certificate of exemption under The Vaccination Act, 1898, to Mr. G. Goude, who applied on two occasions, on the ground that they did not feel inclined to grant it; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I find on inquiry that it is not the case that Mr. Goude was refused a certificate of exemption on the ground suggested, but that the justices were unanimous in deciding that the applicant had failed to satisfy them, as required by statute that he conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child.

  DANGEROUS TRADES COMMISSION.
  SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the statement made on the 26th instant by the Union Secretary to the Federated Trades, in a public meeting held in Central Sheffield of hand file-cutters, as to the difficulties which will be caused to the file-cutters of finding places in which to follow their occupation, as no one would expend the money required to erect new shops under the new regulations proposed in the recommendations of the Dangerous Trades Commission; and under such circumstances, whether he will suspend the issue of any new orders until fresh inquiry has been made, after full notice to masters as well as to the grinders, cutters, and others whose interests are money required to erect new shops affected?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have seen the newspaper report of the meeting referred to, which my honourable Friend has been good enough to send me, but have not yet myself received any communication from the workers in the file-cutting industry. It is clear, I think, that the conditions under which file-cutting by hand is carried on are far from satisfactory, and I have communicated the recommendations of the Committee to the owners of the file-cutting shops, and asked for their observations. I have not yet decided what form the Home Office action will take; but before any of the Committee's recommendations can be enforced, special Rules will be necessary, and the consideration of the Rules will give ample opportunity for the expression of the views of all persons affected.

  REINSTATEMENT OF MARY GOLDRICK TO HER HOLDING.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in March 1898 the bailiff on the estate of Lord Annaly, at Rathcline, County Longford, made an offer of reinstatement to an evicted tenant, named Mary Goldrick, upon the payment of one and a-half years' rent, and that, although the offer was accepted and the money lodged in the National Bank at Ballymahon, a workman in the employment of the bailiff, named Moughty, was subsequently placed in possession and still remains in occupation of the farm; and whether inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the case with a view to the completion of the agreement entered into with Mary Goldrick?
  MR. BALFOUR: This is not a matter calling for the interference of the Executive Government. However, I have made inquiry and am informed that Mary Goldrick did not accept the offer of reinstatement made to her by the estate bailiff, as she could give no security and had not lodged the amount in the bank. The new tenant was not a workman of the bailiff, but is a carpenter and boat builder by trade. He paid arrears of rent amounting to £8, and, moreover, paid to the previous occupant of the house and farm a sum of £30.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGED DESERVING POOR.
  Mr. Anstruther nominated a Member of the Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Motion made, and (Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Chaplin be one other member of the Committee."—(Sir William Walrond.)
  MR. BARTLEYsaid he had been under the impression that an Amendment was to be moved to the effect that the Colonial Secretary should take the Chairmanship of the Committee. He desired to say one word in the hope that that arrangement would still be carried out. Many honourable Members were keenly interested in this subject, and, although he had not the honour of being on the Committee, he trusted that it would be successful. They were, indeed, most anxious that it should succeed, for they felt that the question of Chairman of this Committee was one of immense importance. He had worked for many years to bring the question to a practical issue long before it became a political question, and the decision of Chairman of this third and last Committee would be of very great importance to the movement. The Chairman should have a great knowledge of poor law questions and the social condition of the people, and be a kind of expert on the financial difficulties of the Old-Age Pension schemes, which were very great. He hoped he was not going too far when he said that it would test the qualities of the very best man on the Government Bench to conduct the Committee efficiently and successfully. The Colonial Secretary had made the subject his own, and therefore it was very desirable that he should be a Member of the Committee. If the Committee failed to solve the problem, he ventured to think it would be a very great blow to the Government. Both Parties were pledged to consider the question, but the Party at present in power had a very large majority, and he felt that if the question could be carried out in such a way as would promote thrift and self-reliance amongst the people they were bound to carry it out. No doubt the Colonial Secretary would say that he had a great deal to do. He had, but

  979
  he had been occupied lately with the Small Houses (Acquisition of Ownership) Bill, which no doubt was an excellent Measure, but he would ask him whether he was really off with the old love of pensions and on with the new of small houses. They could not for a moment suppose he was on with both. The credit of the Government was concerned in this Committee, and, as he himself wished the Committee to be successful, he suggested that the Colonial Secretary should be a Member and Chairman of the Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member cannot move the insertion of the name of the right honourable Gentleman, because he has not given notice of any such Motion.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid he would put himself in order by moving to leave out the name of Mr. Anstruther.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am put in some difficulty by the Speaker's ruling in answering the speech of my honourable Friend, for the speech has not been at all directed to the leaving out of one name, but to the putting in of another, which my honourable Friend cannot move. If I answer the argument I shall not be dealing with the Motion. But I may, perhaps, say that this is an entirely unprecedented course. I have known many Motions for the omission of a name, but the Motion to insert a name is, so far as I know, entirely novel. It would be invidious and quite out of place to discuss the respective qualifications of the 670 Members of the House who are, no doubt, competent to serve on the Committee. With regard to my right hon-
  ourable Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, it is perfectly true that he has, more than anyone else, in or out of this House, identified himself with this question, and the Committee would be great gainers if he would serve. But my right honourable Friend has got already upon his shoulders as heavy a load of official responsibility as anyone of his colleagues, and to ask him to undertake, day by day, the work of a Committee which, however closely related to his general views of public policy, has nothing to do with the office he holds, seems to me to be asking my right honourable Friend to accept a burden which ought not to be put upon him. The question of the Chairmanship of the Committee does not arise on the Motion before the House. It is for the Committee, and the Committee alone, to decide which of its Members shall preside over them. No doubt it would have been to the advantage of everybody concerned if my right honourable Friend could have joined the Committee, but it is impossible to ask him to undertake that immense load in addition to what he already bears.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid he had no desire to press his Motion.
  The name of Mr. Anstruther was then agreed to.
  Motion made, and Queston put—
  "That Mr. Chaplin be one other Member of the Committee."
  MR. WARNERopposed.
  The House divided:—Ayes 254: Noes 82.—(Division List No. 109.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir A. F.

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Aird, John

  Balfour, Rt Hn G. W. (Leeds)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balfour, Rt Hn J. B. (Clack.)

  Bill, Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Billson, Alfred

  Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Bolitho, Thomas Berford

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

  Bonsor, Hy. Cosmo Orme

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bathhurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Ballie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir M.H.(Bristol)

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middle.)

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Brassey, Albert

  Baker, Sir John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Broderick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bethell, Commander

  Burt, Thomas

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pender, Sir James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hazell, Walter

  Penn, John

  Carlile, William Walter

  Heath, James

  Percy, Earl

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cavendish, R. F (N. Lancs.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. C. H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford,E.)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Hoare, E. B (Hampstead)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Bir.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Holland, Hn. L. R. (Bow)

  Rasch, Major F. Carne

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Howard, Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hudson, Geo. Bickersteth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Round, James

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt.)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, H. (Sussex)

  Samuel, Hy. S. (Limehouse)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cox, Irwin E. B. (Harrow)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHn.SirU.

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kimber, Henry

  Sharpe, Wm. Ed. T.

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Shaw, Thos. (Hawick B.)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renf.)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawson, J Grant (Yorks.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Denny, Colonel

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie

  Smith. Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Leighton, Stanley

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Llewellyn,E. H. (Somerset)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Dorington, Sir J. Edward

  Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Hn. A. (Ormskirk)

  Doughty, George

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Stanley, Hy. H. (Lambeth)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

  Stephens, Hy. Charles

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Hart

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. (Kent)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strauss, Arthur

  Elliot, Hn. A. R. Douglas

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Strutt, Hon. C. Hedley

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fardell, Sir T George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot,Rt Hn J.G.(Oxf'd Uni.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Thorburn, Walter

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  McCalmont, H.L.B. (Cambs.)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Melver. Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Marks. Harry H.

  Usborne, Thomas

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

  Verney, Hon. R. Greville

  Flower, Ernest

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J.W.(Yorks.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Middlemore. J. Throgmorton

  Webster, R, G. St. Pancras)

  Fry, Lewis

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

  Webster,Sir R.E.(I of Wight)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Garfit, Wiliam

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(City of Lond.)

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Gilliat; John Saunders

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Willox, Sir J. Archibald

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. H. J.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn E.R.(Bath)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. E.

  Newark, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Staff.

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  O'Neill, Hon. R. Torrens

  Greene, W. R, (Cambs.)

  Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Palmer, Geo. W. (Reading)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.

  Pease, H. P. (Darlington)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  982

  983

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Randell, David

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kitson, Sir James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Souttar, Robinson

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Spicer, Albert

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Strachey, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)

  Daly, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh, P. A. (Leitrim)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Ure, Alexander

  Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Duckworth, James

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Morley, Rt Hn J. (Montrose)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morton, E. J. C (Devonport)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Gold, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woods, Samuel

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm.

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Mr. Warner and Mr. McKenna.

  Harwood, George

  Perks, Robert William

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  The name of Mr. Chaplin was then added.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Cripps be one other member of the Committee."—(Sir William Walrond.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid that when he came down to the House he was under the impression that the nomination of the Committee would be the first Order of the Day, and was quite unaware that it would come under the preliminary notices, and be subject to the rule allowing a speech of 10 minutes for and against. The situation was so embarrassing that if it were possible he would move the adjournment of the Debate. He conceived that under such a Motion Members would be relieved from their embarrassment, and there would be a Division somewhat different in character from the one just declared. It was useless to disguise the fact. It was recognised on all hands, and, with no desire to be disrespectful to the honourable Members who were proposed for the Committee, a Committee so constituted would be quite unequal to the work to be entrusted to it. He was sorry this should be so, and
  984
  he had known former occasions when in similar circumstances a Committee was constituted in another form. In the situation in which they were now it was impossible to make such a proposal, because Members were debarred from moving the adjournment of the House, a Motion which would produce a Debate in which the judgment of the House would be manifested. It rested with the Speaker, if he might respectfully remind the right honourable Gentleman, to determine whether there should be a Division on the question of adjournment if it appeared that the Rule caused public inconvenience. The whole question of the composition of the Committee must then be brought up in proper form. In the present position, the House could only divide upon names, and in the end a Committee would be appointed; in respect to which he was satisfied he expressed the feeling of nine-tenths of the House when he said it would be quite unequal to the very grave and weighty business to be entrusted to it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I will put the Question of adjournment because a right honourable Gentleman of position in the House, with apparently substantial support, desires it should be put, and I think

  985
  it is not unreasonable that the House should have the opportunity of saying if the Debate should be adjourned or not. But I protest against the suggestion that in so doing I express any opinion of my own.
  Question put—
  "That this Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 218.—(Division List No.110.)

  AYES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Connor, Jas.(Wicklow, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gourley, Sir Edwd. Temperley

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gunter, Colonel

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Baker, Sir John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Balfour, Rt Hn J. Blair(Clackm.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Pease, Sir Jos. W. (Durham)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  Perks, Robert William

  Billson, Alfred

  Hazell, Walter

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Blake, Edward

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. H.

  Price, Robert John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Randell, David

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Holland, Wm. H.(York, W. R.)

  Redmond, Jno. E(Waterford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Burt, Thomas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Johnson-Ferguson, JabezEdw.

  Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robertson,Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Jones, Wm.(Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Souttar, Robinson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kitson, Sir James

  Spicer, Albert

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Labouchere, Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'ld.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.

  Crombie, John William

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Daly, James

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Strauss, Arthur

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dillon, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Ure, Alexander

  Duckworth, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  McKenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Sir Francis H(South'ton

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W.(Yorks.)

  Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno.(Montrose)

  Woods, Samuel

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. Jno.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

  Mr. Courtney and Mr. Strutt.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Gold, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Aird, John

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Brassey, Albert

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir M.H.(Bristol)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Batcher. John George

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Biddulph, Michael

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

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

  Bigwood, James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Bill, Charles

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hubbard, Hn. Evelyn

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cechrane, Hr. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cohen. Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Kimber, Henry

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Cooke, C.W. Radcliffe(Heref'd)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Round, James

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Russell, Gen. F.S.(Chelt'ham.)

  Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning(Corn.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Henry S. (Limehouse)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Curzon, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Leighton, Stanley

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewellyn, Evan H.(Somerset)

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sidebottom, T.H.(Stalybridge)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jno. P.

  Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Digby, Jno. K. D. Wingfield-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(L'pool.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Smith, Abel H.(Christchurch)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Doughty, George

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James(Kent)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Duncombe, Hn. Hubert V.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

  Fergusson, RtHnSir J.(Manc'r.)

  McCalmont. H. L.B.(Cambs.)

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MeIver, Sir Lewis(Edin.,W.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Marks, Harry H.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Ox.Univ.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herb. E.

  Thorburn, Walter

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Flower, Ernest

  Middlemore. Jno. Throgmorton

  Usborne, Thomas

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Milner, Sir Frederick George.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fry, Lewis

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Verney, Hn. Richard Greville

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd.)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Murray, Col. Wm. (Bath)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Newark, Viscount

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

  Goschen, RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  Green, Walford D.(Wednes'y.)

  O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

  Wodehouse. Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Pender, Sir James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Penn, John

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hardy, Laurence

  Percy, Earl

  Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

  Heath, James

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampstead

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Holland, Hn. Lionel R.(Bow)

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  The name of Mr. Cripps was then added to the Committee.
  On the question that Mr.Davitt's name be added,
  MR. J. ELLISexpressed the opinion that the First Lord of the Treasury was stretching the Ten Minutes Rule too far, by putting under it a question for which it was never intended.
  The name was added to the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice be one other member of the Committee."
  SIR W. LAWSONsaid he objected to the acceptance of the name. This Committee was not one on which any self-respecting Liberal ought to serve. It was nothing more than a transparent sham, for if it had any object at all, its only object was the rehabilitation of the Secretary for the Colonies. They used to hear about Ministerial responsibility—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable baronet must confine himself to the question whether the name should be added.
  SIR W. LAWSONsaid he was quite satisfied. He had said quite enough.
  Question put—
  "That Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice be one other Member of the Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 280; Noes 77.—(Division List No. 111.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Cpt. Sir Alex. F.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Aird, John

  Chelsea., Viscount

  Fry, Lewis

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Claney, John Joseph

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Garfit, William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Baget, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Baillie. Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Goschen, Rt Hn G.J.(St George's

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Balfour. RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds)

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Balfour, Rt Hn J. Blair(Clackm.

  Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

  Green, Walford D (Wednes'y.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs.)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Curzon, Viscount

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir M.H.(Bristol)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hardy, Laurence

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Hazell, Walter

  Bethell, Commander

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Heath, James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Biddulph, Michael

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. II.

  Bigwood, James

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Doughty, George

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Holland, Wm. H.(York, W.R.)

  Brassey, Albert

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Howard, Joseph

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Howell, William Tudor

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Hubbard, Hn. Evelyn

  Burt, Thomas

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Butcher, John George

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fergusson, RtHnSirJ.(Manch'r

  Jessel, Capt. Herb. Merton

  Carlile, William Walter

  Finch, George H.

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kimber, Henry

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

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

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Spencer, Ernest

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Llewellyn, Evan H.(Somerset)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

  Pender, Sir James

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(L'pool.)

  Penn, John

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Percy, Earl

  Strauss, Arthur

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Ox. Univ.)

  Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thorburn, Walter

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Usborne, Thomas

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Redmond, Jno. E.(Waterford)

  Verney, Hn. Richard Greville

  McCalmont, H.L.B.(Cambs.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  McIver, Sir Lewis(Edin., W.)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Marks, Hairy H.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Webster, Sir R.E.(I.of Wight)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J.W.(Yorks.)

  Robertson, Herb, (Hackney)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Round, James

  Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Russell, Gen. F.S.(Chelt'ham.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. Jno

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E.R.(Bath)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Morton, Arth. H.A.(Deptford)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Murray, Rt HnA. Graham(Bute)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

  Newark, Viscount

  Sidebottom, T.H.(Stalybridge)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Sir William Walrond and

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Mr. Anstruther.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Joicey, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  Baker, Sir John

  Jones David Brynmor(Swansea

  Randell, David

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Billson, Alfred

  Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Blake, Edward

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sinclair, Capt. Jno.(Forfarsh.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Leng, Sir John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Souttar, Robinson

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Lough, Thomas

  Spicer, Albert

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip J.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  McKenna, Reginald

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crombie, John William

  Maddison, Fred.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Daly, James

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

  Ure, Alexander

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno.(Montrose)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Duckworth, James

  Morton, Edw. J.C.(Dev'port.)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Gold, Charles

  O'Connor, Jas.(Wicklow,W.)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Harwood, George

  Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Perks, Robert William

  Sir Wilfrid Lawson and

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Mr. Warner.

  The Resolution was then agreed to.

  The names of Sir Fortescue Flannery, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. Samuel Hoare, Mr. Lionel Holland, Mr. Lecky, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Sir James Rankin, Mr. W. Redmond, and Mr. S. Woods were then added to the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  " That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. LABOUCIIEREdesired to ask a question on a point of order. The Member for Wolverhampton had placed an Amendment on the Paper which would limit the discussion to the Sinking Fund, and he wanted to know whether in the event of that Amendment being negatived a general discussion on the Finance Bill would afterwards be permitted?
  *MR. SPEAKER: After the question raised by the Amendment in question is put from the Chair, any Debate which may follow would have to be relevant to the subject-matter of the Amendment; though this is not the practice where an Amendment on Second Reading is an alternative or argued negative to the whole Bill. If the Amendment is negatived and the Question is put from the Chair that the Bill be read a second time, the Debate will then be on the contents of the Finance Bill, except that part upon which the House will have already expressed its opinion—namely, the Sinking Fund. Therefore the Debate will divide itself into two parts.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Is not the effect of your ruling this—that when my right honourable Friend moves his Amendment it will then be impossible, whatever may happen to the Amendment, to have a discussion, upon the whole scope and contents of the Finance Bill; in other words, after the
  994
  Amendment is moved, the possibility of raising such a large and general discussion will be extinguished
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is so; the discussion afterwards would be limited in the way I have stated. There might be a discussion of a general kind before the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman was moved, but then it would be possible for any honourable Member to take advantage of being called upon to move an Amendment in anticipation of the right honourable Gentleman. I am following the usual course in calling upon the right honourable Gentleman, who, I understand, represents the Opposition on this occasion.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)said that he had Amendment on the Paper which had been put down on behalf of the Irish Members, and he wished to know whether the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton could be put in such a form so as to allow his Amendment to be moved afterwards.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that if one Amendment was moved and negatived no other division could take place except on the question that the Bill be read a second time. The Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman could not be put in such a way from the Chair as to allow the honourable Member's. Amendment to be moved afterwards.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  SIR H. FOWLER: I feel somewhat embarrassed by the difficulty in which the House has been placed, and I desire, as far as possible, to obviate that difficulty. I do not intend to discuss at any great length various points that present themselves for observation with reference to the Finance Bill, the Second Reading of which has been moved by the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. An impression appears to prevail that my moving the Amendment on the Paper in my name will confine the discussion to a specific subject, and thus restrict Debate. I should

  995
  be quite willing not to move that Amendment, but to move a general Amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. I would be the last man to limit a Debate of this sort, and if it be the general wish of the House I will adopt the plan I have suggested. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one preliminary remark on this Finance Bill with reference specially to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right honourable Gentleman the other night stated, and the statement has been printed in the papers, and generally commented upon in the country, that the revenue for the year ending 31st March 1898 was £108,336,000. It is quite true that he also at the same time explained that to that should be added the local taxation account; but the general impression in the mind of the public is that the revenue of the year just closed was£108,336,000. As a matter of fact it was £117,000,000. That was the amount paid in taxation to the Imperial revenue during the last year. Not only is that confusing so far as the general amount is concerned, but also as far as the items are concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the customs and excise produced together £50,000,000. As a matter of fact they produced £55,000,000. He told us that the death duties produced £11,400,000. As a matter of fact they produced £15,633,000. I am quite willing to admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his published weekly returns has set the matter right, but at the end of the year, when the House and the public are dealing with the revenue and the expenditure of the year, it is only fair and right that we should get rid of this transparent device, and that the real amount of revenue and expenditure should be put in figures as they really stand. The Finance Bill with which we are dealing to-day does not deal, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, with an estimated revenue of £111,000,000, but with an estimated revenue of £120,000,000. I think the time has arrived when the distinction between local taxation of this character, which is subsequently paid back in the shape of grants, should be put an end to, and the reform which Mr. Gladstone carried many years ago of not allowing any interception of revenue on its way to the
  996
  Exchequer should be reverted to. We should go back to the good, sound financial maxim and show in our accounts exactly the sum we are raising, namely, £120,000,000. Now, Sir, the Budget which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presented has two features. It imposes additional taxation of a very different character. I am not going to discuss this question, as I know there are many honourable Members of much greater competence than myself who understand the difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised by his proposals. So far as the modification of the stamp duties is concerned I would express my opinion that the time has arrived for a complete revision of the stamp duties, and for a Consolidation Act. I think that the right honourable Gentleman would find that a field of much profit. It would add to the public convenience, and he would secure a large and just addition to his revenue. I am sorry for the alteration in the duty on light wines, not only because of the complications it creates in the trade, but also on account of the effect it may have so far as foreign affairs and Colonial affairs are concerned. It is a very small sum from which to raise the questions which may be raised in these two directions. And when we look at it, that the wine duties are not increasing, but for years have been a decreasing quality—that the consumption of wine is under 16,000,000 gallons, while the consumption of spirits is 40,500,000 gallons, and of beer 1,251,000,000 gallons—I think there was another sphere in the drink duties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he desired to enter into the happy enclosure, might have attacked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night that he saw no reason—and the House cheered, and the honourable Member for the Central Division of Sheffield cheered—why he should not impose these duties, bearing in mind that the Colonies imposed very heavy import duties on manufactures from this country. But who pays those duties here and there? If the Colonies choose to enhance the price of manufactures by imposing duties upon them, we think that is their misfortune and their mistake. If, on the other hand, in this country we impose these duties—they are not of a protect-

  997
  tive character, for there is no one in this country who makes wine—the consumer will pay the tax. The tax will not be paid by the people of France or by the people of Australia, who export the wine, but by the British consumer. The effect will be, and that is what I deplore in connection with this matter, that you will reduce the trade with France, by diminution of the consumption of these cheap clarets—a consumption most desirable in the interests of temperance—and also diminish the trade with your Colonies. Now, the proposals with which I wish to deal with to-night are those relating to the Sinking Fund. I frankly admit that this is a very difficult subject, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with it is entitled not only to the fullest credit with reference to his opinion on this question last year, and the policy which he then adopted, but he is also entitled to the fullest credit for the great difficulties with which this question is surrounded. Circumstances have varied very considerably since 1883, when the last dealings with these annuities took place, and it is impossible fairly to consider this question in 1899 without recognising that there is a different state of circumstances with reference to the prices of funds, to the rate of interest, and to the position of the Savings Banks, which I will not say were not fully considered, but which it was not anticipated in 1883 would prove a difficulty of this magnitude. I venture to submit to the House, with the greatest deference, that it is impossible to fairly discuss this question without a full consideration of its details. I do not wish to look at this thing as a general question. I rather want to ask the House to go through it item by item, and to see exactly where we are, where the difficulties really arise, and what are the reasons why we object to the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take. It seems to me that in such a full consideration of this question we have to look at the Sinking Fund in three different branches—the old Sinking Fund, which is wrapped up and concealed in terminable annuities: and the new Sinking Fund. Whatever consideration we give to that question we cannot separate from it the peculiar and, I would almost say, anomalous—certainly the most difficult and complicated—posi-
  998
  tion of the National Exchequer with reference to the Savings Bank Fund. I think it is worthy of note, when speaking of the Sinking Fund, that the creditors of this State have no right to claim any repayment of their capital. Now that is a totally different position from that occupied by most foreign countries, and certainly from the great bulk of foreign loans. Our State is under no obligation to provide any Sinking Fund for any of its liabilities. In consideration for the money advanced to the State, we undertake to issue perpetual annuities, once at 3½ per cent., then at 3 per cent., now at 2¾ per cent., soon going down to 2½. In 1923 we have a right to redeem those annuities at par—namely, at £100. Now the old Sinking Fund, to which Mr. Gladstone attached the greatest importance, and which was certainly his favourite instrument in dealing with the reduction of Debt, was the realised surplus of each financial year, the amount of income raised in excess of the expenditure incurred. The House will see that that is a very variable figure, and also a very variable system, that it led frequently in times past to tempt Chancellors of the Exchequer to put their estimates of revenue too low, and to put the estimates of expenditure too high, and in that way to create a surplus which was available at the end of the financial year. Nevertheless, a great deal of good has been done down to recent times by that old Sinking Fund. In three years—from 1864 to 1866—Mr. Gladstone paid off £10,500,000. Lord Sherbrook (then Mr. Lowe) paid off in five years £15,750.000, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—I cannot say he has paid off, but, he has had in three years—from 1896 to 1899—nearly £12,000,000, including the sum which was appropriated by a special legislation at the end of the first year for extra unanticipated expenditure. The actual realised surplus, beyond all question, was, in 1895–6, £4,200,000; in 1896–7, £2,473,000; in 1897–8, £3,678,000. It was from that surplus from which he appropriated, I think wisely, £2,500,000 for the purpose of shipbuilding. Last year the realised surplus was £186,000. These figures show the House that this is a variable quantity, and I think that it is a sound principle, to which the House will not dissent, that a fixed pay-

  999
  ment of a fixed amount, not varying according to the exigencies of the year, is the safest and surest way of making provision for the National Debt. Now, the second and greatest Sinking Fund, which is to some extent touched by this Bill, is the terminable annuities. I have heard a very many financial authorities, both in and out of the House, regard that scheme as a perfect mystery. They do not understand it, and I do not believe that the public generally understand it, and perhaps in times gone by it was never intended that the public should understand what they were doing by paying these terminable annuities. There is no doubt that by means of terminable annuities we have affected enormous reductions of Debt, and I think it is only by that means that we shall be able to continue those reductions in the future. A terminable annuity is an annuity which ends at a fixed term. I will give the House one illustration showing how it works out, not with the Savings Bank Fund, and not with the funds under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but with the general public. Suppose I want an annuity for 15 years, and that I have £10,000 in Consols. The National Debt Commissioners will give me for that an annuity—I quote round figures—of £800 per annum. The Consols will be transferred into the National Debt Commissioners' names, and they will be cancelled, and the Commissioners undertake the liability of paying me for the next 15 years £800 a year. The payment to me of that amount—£800 a year for 15 years—will ensure to me my income at 2½ per cent. on the Consols, and will provide a fund which, accumulated at compound interest, will replace my £10,000 at the end of the time. That is a very simple operation, but it is an operation which has a very limited extant. But in 1863 Mr. Gladstone extended this sound principle of terminable annuities, to a very large extent, by dealing through their instrumentality with the funds under the control of the National Debt Commissioners. In that year he exchanged £24,000,000 held on account of the Saving Banks for certain temporary annuities, which expired in 1885. Let me give the House one figure to show how that was done. I take one sum of £5,000,000 in any sort of description of
  1000
  stock. The interest on that £5,000,000 at 3 per cent. was £150,000. Mr. Gladstone exchanged that for an annuity of £315,000 a year, expiring in 1885. The £5,000,000 Consols were cancelled at once in the books of the National Debt Commissioners and in the Bank of England, and the effect of that would appear to be an apparent reduction of £5,000,000 in the National Debt. So there was in the Funded Debt, but there was a corresponding sum put into the Debt due on terminable annuities representing the capital which had to be provided during the course of the years that that annuity would run in order to replace it. And here we will have the first difficulty with the Savings Bank Fund. That £5,000,000 Consols was not taken from the open market; it was absolutely extinguished, but it had to be replaced during the time the annuity ran. There had to be replaced from the open market, year by year, such an amount of Consols as would at the end of the time produce the £5,000 000 back again. There the difficulty is created, arising from the fact that the Savings Bank have to receive the full interest upon their sum of £150,000, and as fast as the money is repaid they have to replace a certain sum per annum in Consols, so that at the end of the period they have to replace the whole £5,000,000. The House will see, therefore, that there is no merit due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of these annuities compared with what is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was in office at the beginning of the annuities. At the end of the period there is a much larger sum wiped out, and a less amount of interest to pay. What you have received in exchange for the £5,000,000 is an equal sum of £315,000, payable every year. How that is applied in the payment of interest and in replacing the capital is a matter for the creditor, and not for the debtor. The annuity is safeguarded—that is, the repayment of the debt—but the debt is not absolutely repaid until the last year has expired. Now this mode of conversion which Mr. Gladstone established was very popular, and he applied it in many succeeding years. But in 1881 Mr. Gladstone foresaw what would happen in 1885, and in his Budget speech of that year he re-

  1001
  ferred to it, and he made proposals for dealing with the annuities which would expire in the rapidly approaching 1885. I remember his making a proposal to deal with these annuities which would expire in 1885 by longer annuities than he had created in 1881. I will not trouble the House by stating what he did on that occasion, because, owing to the state of foreign and home affairs, he had not time to develop his proposals in legislation. It was not until 1883 that Mr. Childers dealt with the annuities which we are now asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with in this Hill. In 1883 the Debt stood at £756,000,000. The reduction of the Debt in the previous year—I am quoting these figures to show the light that it throws on our present situation, for one of the arguments we have had to deal with is the undesirability of reducing the Debt by such large sums—but, so far back as 1883, the reduction of Debt in the previous year by Mr. Childers was upwards of £7,000,000, and the average for the three years which had elapsed since Mr. Gladstone came into office was £6,839,000. The proposals which Mr. Childers made involved a reduction of Debt in the year 1883 of £8,000,000. I only mention this to emphasise the fact that in 1883 a reduction of £8,000,000 was not considered an extravagant or intolerable sum, and at that time I think the revenue was only something like £77,000,000. Now, Mr. Childers not only dealt with the annuities which were expiring, but he said he did not propose to appropriate one shilling of the money that was going to be saved at the expiration of those annuities. Every shilling was to be employed in the creation of fresh annuities. He not only took £30,000,000 from the Savings Bank, but he did a still bolder thing, which Mr. Gladstone had indicated in 1881—he took £40,000,000 from the funds under the control of the Court of Chancery. The House will remember that the State is as much responsible for the funds paid into the Court of Chancery as it is for the funds paid into the Savings Bank. Mr. Childers calculated that there was then £60,000,000 in the Court of Chancery, and he took £40,000,000 of that, and turned his Consols into an annuity of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 a year. These were subsequently converted
  1002
  in the year 1888 into the annuities which will expire in 1902. The effect of that operation of Mr. Childers was that the £70,000,000 was cancelled, and the same process is now going on, and has been going on, and the difficulty of replacing that £70,000,000 of Consols is now coming to an end in the next few years. One great portion of those annuities which we are now dealing with will expire in 1902, another portion in 1904, and I am not quite sure that there is not one portion goes into 1906. At any rate the bulk of them expire within the next few years. It may be asked, What is the advantage of paying off terminable annuities in this way? The advantage is this—that the taxpayer pays a sum, without knowing it, towards the redemption of the National Debt. The terminable annuities he knows is a national obligation, the payment of which he regards as a nauseous powder which is disguised in a quantity of jam, and he swallows it without any objection. I do not think that beyond the desirability of securing a fixed payment for a certain number of years and converting it into a permanent payment there is any advantage. There is none theoretically, but the proof of the pudding has been in the eating of it, and the large sums I have mentioned and other large sums have been extinguished in the course of the last series of years by this method, and I do not think they would have been reduced to such a large extent in any other way. The other point I was going to allude to at the commencement of my speech was the new Sinking Fund, established by Sir Stafford Northcote, and that is the Sinking Fund which the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to attack. Now, Sir Stafford Northcote in 1875, when he brought in his scheme, after having alluded to the success of what he called the continuous and steady efforts for the reduction of the National Debt, which had been made by means of these annuities, said:—
  "I do not think Parliament has any great reason to be proud of the amount we have expended in the past year for the reduction of the Debt. We are paying this year £27,200,000 of Debt. But let us remember that up to the year 1860 our ancestors, from the time of the Peace, and ourselves in early days, never paid less than £28,000,000."

  1003
  Sir Stafford Northcote proposed to the House that there should be a fixed amount of £28,000,000 devoted to the Debt charge, and that was to be appropriated first in payment of the interest on the Debt, the management of the Debt, the terminable annuities, and the balance which remained was to form the new Sinking Fund. One of the features and one of the advantages of that new Sinking Fund was that it was to be an automatically increasing sum, as year by year the debt was paid off. It was not to be a fixed sum, but as the Debt and the interest was reduced the amount was to increase. Sir Stafford Northcote then thought, and I think so too, that the state of public affairs was so prosperous then that he thought £28,000,000 was a sufficient sum to be appropriated for that purpose. I have given the House, I am afraid, too much detail, but I have brought it down to the present time. That Sinking Fund has been dealt with twice, and that £28,000,000 has been dealt with twice since Sir Stafford Northcote's time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes to deal with the three annuities about to expire. There is the Savings Bank annuities of £2,199,444, or in round numbers £2,200,000, and he proposes to deal with that sum and commute them into longer annuities running over 20 years. His first argument is—and I will take it rather more fully from his Minute than from his speech—that, in effect, his scheme will be to diminish the annual charges in the next four years by £7,000,000. The effect of the present state of things and of the expiring annuities will be a reduction of the Debt, which will add £7,000,000 to the Sinking Fund in the course of the next four years. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that that is a fair and a plain statement. But in order to arrive at that he has to make two or three large assumptions. He takes into consideration and places to his credit the reduction of the Debt in 1903. That, I think, is a question with which we shall have to deal when the time comes, and whether it would be desirable to apply that to the reduction of taxation, or whether it would be advisable to apply it to the reduction of the Debt is quite an open question. There is no legislation providing for that sum, and it would go
  1004
  into the new Sinking Fund. But the right honourable Gentleman makes another assumption, for he assumes that the annuities which are to expire in 1904 are going to be abandoned. To arrive at that £7,000,000 you have to assume that there has been the concession of utilising these for the purpose of creating fresh annuities.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS-BEACH, Bristol): In the Treasury Minute and in my Budget Statement, I referred to what would be the effect unless Parliament made an alteration in the law.
  SIR H. FOWLER: My argument is this: That according to precedent the alteration should be the creation of fresh annuities for the purpose of paying off the National Debt, and not for the purpose of relieving the Sinking Fund. Then he adds to the £1,388,000, which is now the new Sinking Fund, a possible condition, which may or may not arise year by year, and he puts the state of the new Sinking Fund for the time he mentions at £8,500,000. The wording of the Treasury Minute—which to my mind is a surprising document—is a very strong argument in favour of creating fresh terminable annuities to absorb that figure, and he bears in mind that in 1885 such measures were proposed by Mr. Gladstone, and were actually taken by Mr. Childers. Now we come to the actual proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is to convert this £2,200,000 annuities into three new annuities. In one he proposes to extend the time of the unexpired portion of these annuities—and this is perfectly legitimate—which will expire in 1902 until 1923, and he then proposes to take what is called "The Book Debt" in the Bank of England, which was created by the present First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the conversion, and which stands to the debit of the country at the Bank of England, and he proposes to convert that into an annuity. I think that is an arrangement which is open to some discussion as to whether they could not have dealt with it in a more effective manner to relieve the pressure upon the Consol market. He then proposes to increase the annual amount to£870,000 in regard to the new annuities which he takes from the Savings Banks. Now, the

  1005
  ultimate effect of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is that, so to speak, in consideration of his renewing these annuities so as to absorb upwards of £2,000,000 of money he shall reduce the fixed amount of the Sinking Fund from the £25,000,000, at which it now stands, to £23,000,000. That, Sir, is the operation of his proposals, which I propose to challenge on this occasion. The first point he mentioned in his speech was that he was justified by precedent, and that was his first argument. He said he was doing only what Mr. Gladstone did when the long annuities fell in, and also what Mr. Childers did. I think we must say something about Mr. Gladstone's finance in connection with this proposal. Mr. Gladstone, in 1860, himself said that they were approaching a most important epoch in British finance, and that was the falling in of what was called the long annuities, amounting to upwards of £2,000,000. They have nothing to do with the terminable annuities or the payment of the National Debt. But amongst the various ways in which money was raised during the time of the great war, and before the great war, in addition to the ordinary annuities and Consols, about which I have been talking, the Government of the day used to give bonuses in the shape of small annuities, amounting to a large sum in the aggregate—and some of them were created long away back in the last century—and they were all made to expire in 1860. It was a distinct relief, said Mr. Gladstone, that there was such a windfall as had never come into the Treasury before. Now, what did Mr. Gladstone do with that large sum? He was face to face with a gigantic expenditure, an expenditure which had been materially increased towards the close of the previous year by an extraordinary military and naval outlay. He had a large taxation on tea and sugar, the relics of the Russian War, and he had an income tax of 9d. in the pound. But if he contented himself simply with proposing that the sum should be absorbed into the revenue, and nothing more, it would have been a financial operation which no one would have questioned. That was not Mr. Gladstone's mode of finance. He discerned in that a great opportunity of carrying on and developing the commercial legislation of the country, which had already produced such
  1006
  happy results, and he faced the situation. Not only that, but he had to face the great loss of revenue arising from the French Treaty, which had been finished that year. He also proposed large remissions of taxation—and we have none in this Budget—to the amount, I think, of upwards of £4,000,000 upon consumable articles of the food of the country. Ho also proposed dealing with the paper duty, and would have dealt with it if the House of Lords had let him; and he also proposed a very ample scale of expenditure. That, no doubt, absorbed the £2,000,000, but he did not flinch from asking, and the House of Commons did not flinch from granting, an income tax of 1d. in the pound to carry out those arrangements. He raised the income tax 1d. in the pound when £2,000,000 were falling in, and that was the precedent of 1860, which I commend to the right honourable Gentleman. In 1881 Mr. Gladstone was again face to face with this question, and from the Budget Statement, to which I have already alluded, I should just like to quote to the House what Mr. Gladstone said. He was dealing with the annuities which would expire in 1885, and he said—
  "The effect of this conversion is to liberate a considerable annual sum. I should regard it as a wholly illegitimate proceeding to apply any portion of the sum so liberated in favour of the Ways and Means of the year. I propose to use it to the last farthing in the re-conversion of stock into those longer annuities which will expire in 1906."
  I do not think that Mr. Gladstone's precedent is an encouraging one for the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, in 1883 Mr. Childers not only disclaimed any intention of appropriating any part of the money to meet the demands of the revenue for the year, but he created a larger demand upon the revenue in order to provide money for the reduction of the Debt. Therefore I say that the right honourable Gentleman has no precedent in the action of past financiers to justify his present proposals. He lays stress upon the enormous burden of seven or eight millions to be applied in the next few years, and he proposes to reduce the Debt charge from £25,000,000 to £23,000,000. In the first Budget after the accession of Her Majesty in the financial year which expired on the 5th of

  1007
  January, 1838, the Debt charged for that year was 29½ millions. The country could then afford to pay that large sum, and we are now told that we cannot afford to pay £25,000,000, although 29½ millions was paid in 1838, and of that amount £2,000,000 were applied to the repayment of the Debt. That sum has varied for a long series of years from £31,000,000 downwards, till in 1860 it was below 28½ millions; and with the solitary exception of 1886, when the Sinking Fund was suspended, it has never been below £25,000,000, and this will be the lowest figure that this item has ever appeared at in our national balance sheet. Is there anything in the condition of the country to justify this? I am not a believer—and I never held that view—in the doctrine that the Sinking Fund is never to be suspended. There are circumstances which will arise—circumstances of foreign complications, circumstances of commercial depression, and circumstances of oppressive taxation—which will justify, as they justified Mr. Childers when he was suddenly called upon to provide for an extra expenditure of £20,000,000, or when my right honourable Friend the Member for West Monmouth during his term of office had to deal with an unexpected deficit, although he only suspended a very small portion of the fund. I do not lay down the doctrine that the Sinking Fund is an Ark of the Covenant which ought never to be touched; but what I do object to is a permanent reduction of the amount. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is there any reason for this? I go back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, for he is the very best witness I can call upon that point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made his Budget speech last year, and two years ago when he went into office, had to explain the difference between the estimated receipts and the actual yield of the revenue, and he accounted for that to his own satisfaction, by dwelling upon what appeared to be the entirely exceptional circumstances of the year. I was wrong, and we were all wrong. Ever since that time there has been a sudden and steady advance in the activity of our trade, in the high-spending power of the masses, in the profits of the nation, and in the accumulation of wealth. He said there
  1008
  was no sign that the apex of our prosperity had been reached, or that there was any indication of a downward tendency; that so far as he could make out there was no falling off in our foreign trade; that in certain great industries profits and wages had increased, and that the standard of comfort in the country had also increased. That is what he said last year; but what did he say a fortnight ago? He said there was no alteration in the condition of the people between 1898 and 1899. He said that the returns of the bank clearing houses and the railway traffic showed the activity of our trade, that there had been a distinct increase in the rate of wages, and that our own trade was good; the agriculturists had had a good season, and foreign, trade had reached an enormous sum. I venture to submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no case for his argument in the condition of the country. The revenue is the largest that has ever been known, for it is £121,000,000, and now we are to be told, in this year of unexampled prosperity, that it is too much to pay £7,000,000 towards the reduction of the Debt, when in 1883, at which time the revenue was only £77,000,000, we paid the same amount without grumbling. That is my objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal. There is no foreign complication at this moment, and every fact refutes the argument in the Treasury Minute that the devotion of such a sum as £8,000,000 to the reduction of the State's liability does not transgress reasonable limits. That is the point where we are at issue. We say it does not, and that it is inside reasonable limits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that this question should be decided without recourse to the Sinking Fund, for he held it to be legitimate to suspend the whole or part of the Sinking Fund to meet a temporary national emergency. That is exactly where we agree with him, and it is only when he applies his argument, that we differ at the conclusions at which he arrives. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself laid stress upon an argument of a more practical character, arising out of the position of the Sinking Fund in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank. I pointed out to the House how the Savings Bank funds are dealt with, and not only have

  1009
  the Savings Bank funds increased—augmented by the appropriation of large sums of Consols to replace the £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken from them, but there is a growing increase in the deposits of the Savings Bank, and the average in the last four years is upwards of £10,000,000, all of which, unfortunately, has to be invested in Consols. Now, this Savings Bank fund creates an increasing demand in the market where the supply is constantly decreasing. I did not catch the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures, but I think he said that the Savings Bank holds £173,000,000 of Consols. Now, why should not these funds be invested? I know the answer will be that you must give the national guarantee. These people have deposited their money, and they can have nothing short of the national guarantee. But why is the national guarantee sounder or more obligatory when it is invested in Consols? I should like to put to the House a concrete illustration to clear up what I think is this Jekyll-and-Hyde confusion and complication in this doctrine, and in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as borrower and lender, head of the Exchequer, head of the National Debt Commissioners, and as head of the Savings Bank Department. Suppose I am a depositor in the Savings Bank for £100. It is called the Post Office Savings Bank, but that has no meaning—it means a deposit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer ultimately. I lend that £100 and deposit it with him, and upon that sum he agrees to pay me £2 10s. interest, and to repay me my capital whenever I want it. The Savings Bank is a national bank, under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he being liable, as representing the State, for every shilling that is invested there, Now, what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer do. He takes my £100, and invests it in Consols, for which he is going to pay me £2 10s., and he is going to get £3. When Consols were below par it was a profitable operation. But now he is investing in Consols at 110, and for that he only receives £2 10s. a year, which is what he has to pay me. Say he invests the money for what it will fetch. He can only get £90 of Consols for his £100, and the time is coming when they must be paid off at
  1010
  par. It is an operation which is bound to result in a great national loss if it is allowed to go on. The real debtor in all these transactions is the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not make £100 into £110 by transferring it from his name in one capacity to his name in another capacity. The time has arrived when some more complete, safe, and practical mode should be constructed for dealing with this new aspect of the funds of the Savings Bank. This very heavy premium, which I do not believe to be justified by the state of the market, practically arises from the Government buying against themselves. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there may not be a larger development of the Public Works Loans Commissioners' operations? May I not ask him whether there is not upwards of twenty millions of stock at 2¾ and 2½ now in the hands of the public which is redeemable at par in 1905, and which might be converted and redeemed? The Chancellor of the Exchequer being himself the debtor on the faith of the United Kingdom, the individual Savings Bank man has nothing to do with what is called the investment. He looks to the State—why should he not, instead of buying Consols at this premium of—10, lend the Secretary of State for India the money on the security, not only of the revenues of India, but upon the enormous reproductive works, so that he would get an interest which would not involve him in this heavy loss? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will not appoint a Select Committee of this House—totally irrespective from all Party considerations, and dealing with this question as a national question—to look at the whole question of these Savings Bank funds, and to see whether we cannot protect the Consol market and the terminable annuities, and relieve him of many difficulties by a thorough reconsideration of the whole of the State's liability in respect of these investments. Several honourable Members have contended that it was an advantage to have a National Debt. A nation is but the aggregate of individuals. Does the honourable Member who cheers consider it an advantage for himself to be in debt? Does he think that his position is stronger and better because he has overdrawn his banking

  1011
  account? Does any landed proprietor think the burden of a mortgage to be an advantage? There is no advantage to anyone in being in debt. It is a tax on the industry of the country, because it is industry which pays the interest of the Debt. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will repudiate the idea that it is his business to find investments for people. His duty is to get rid, as far as he can, of debt. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself gave one reason, which is, I think, stronger to-day than it was 12 months ago. After alluding to our efforts to pay off debt, he pointed out that the increased debt of local authorities far exceeded the amount by which the National Debt had been reduced, and he said—
  "I do not wish to enter into comparisons between the reproductive character of the National Debt and that of the local debt, but both are heavy burdens, and ultimately they are borne by very much the same shoulders. In view of this continual increase of the local debt, there is surely an additional reason, if any were required, for perseverance as far as we reasonably persevere in the payment of the National Debt."
  The right honourable Gentleman's virtue has succumbed to the temptation of the present time. There have been two reductions of this Sinking Fund, and both were effected by the present First Lord of the Admiralty. He effected his first reduction in 1887, when he reduced the 28 millions to 26 millions, in order to take a penny in the pound off the income tax. The situation then was so happily described by the right honourable Gentleman's predecessor in office that I must quote to the House some of Lord Randolph Churchill's words—
  "We are told that economy is very unpopular, that the people of this country like to know that they have a strong Army and a large Navy. All I say is, place the cost of these things on the taxation of the country. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer placed it upon the taxes? No; what he has done is this, he has manufactured a surplus by reducing the repayment of the capital of the National Debt. I, for one, do not believe that his proposals will do much good. I do not believe in his Budget."
  The sentence which follows is the most singular, for Lord Randolph Churchill had sat in Conservative Cabinets, he had been a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had prepared a
  1012
  very striking Budget of reductions for that year—
  "It is a Budget that has been made for him partly by general political circumstances and partly by the persuasions—I will not call them the prejudices—of the colleagues with whom he has to deal."
  I think history has repeated itself.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square); It was absolutely untrue
  SIR H. FOWLER: The right honourable Gentleman is the living authority, and I will bow to him. But what did Mr. Gladstone say of this procedure in 1887?—
  "We are now going to reduce the total annual provision for the reduction of the National Debt to appoint lower than the lowest point at which it has stood in the recollection of any of those that hear me…Is that a proposal worthy of support?…Is it congenial to Conservative tradition? Who are the Conservative financiers whose proposals are favoured and cherished in connection with Conservative recollections? Is this a proposal that Mr. Pitt would have approved? Is this a proposal that Sir Robert Peel would have approved?…I myself am convinced that serious, reflective, and sober-minded men, on this determination to stint the means applicable to the payment of the Debt with the view of not only what is called relieving posterity, but with the view of making provision for a rainy day, and enlarging your means and resources for great expenditure when the necessity for great expenditure arises—I cannot think that serious and deliberate reflection will warrant a proceeding so inadequately corresponding to the courageous tradition of Englishmen, to the far-sighted tradition of English statesmen, or to the general interests of the British nation."
  Those who had the honour of being associated with Mr. Gladstone in financial affairs will attach the weight to those opinions which they deserve. We are asked to tamper with these funds at a time of unexampled prosperity. Our Debt mainly represents a great war expenditure; there is very little of a truly reproductive character. Our only war-chest is this provision for the repayment of the National Debt. It is our true national resource; it is the most powerful instrument which the Government has if war breaks out. It is powerful not only by enhancing our financial reputation, but by enabling us at once to raise 200 millions without adding to the taxation of the country. In no other country in the world can they perform a financial operation like that. If

  1013
  a, war should arise it will not be done cheaply. The expenditure now on modern armaments is something far out-stripping anything that history records, and we shall not only have to raise a very large sum of money, but no doubt that expenditure would have a tendency to increase. I think that nothing has occurred that justifies this tampering with this Fund, and I ask the House to adhere to this moderate provision for the reduction of our liabilities and the strengthening of our resources. I ask them to do it as a measure of supreme importance, as a matter of national defence, and our national defence means the preservation of peace. Under these circumstances I hope the House will in some shape or other record its disapproval of the proposal as being not only a weakening, but tending also to destroy our strongest and most impregnable bulwark of defence financially. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. HALDANE, who seconded the Amendment, thought that his right honourable Friend (Sir H. fowler) had clearly shown that the matter was to be dealt with on general grounds alone, and it would be unreasonable to debate it upon any other. The reduction of the Sinking Fund could only be justified by special circumstances in a time of enormous difficulty, which he did not see existed at present. With the price of Consols standing at 111, either the terms of the conversion of the National Debt in 1889 had been too favourable, or the operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been of an unsatisfactory character, and he thought the burden lay upon the right honourable Gentleman to prove to the House that there was no way out of the difficulty in which he was placed than by suspending the Sinking Fund. Looking at the matter, and taking it in a concrete form, what did they find? The Savings Bank deposits showed a surplus of something like £12,000,000, and everybody supposed that the Savings Bank was a concern which conducted its business on profitable lines, but on a closer examination it bore a different aspect. It was a Government concern, and took this money, upon which it agreed to pay 2½ per cent. to the depositors, and with it it bought Consols, but when those Consols were bought at
  1014
  £111 it did not look very profitable, seeing that on each purchase of £100. the Government were losing £10. He thought it was extremely bad business to pay Savings Bank depositors 2½ per cent., and then buy with those funds Consols at 111, paying 2¾ per cent. interest. The practice of investing, whether by means of the Sinking Fund or in any other way, in Consols at a premium to meet the liabilities of the Savings Banks was a practice that was involving the country in a great loss, and was a great deception of the public. At somebody else's expense they were paying a large sum of money to the depositors in these Savings Banks, and they were not getting their money back from anybody. The bearing of that upon the question which they were considering to-day was that they must find some other mode of dealing with the Savings Bank investments. What he wished to lay stress upon was this, that in 1923 it would be possible to redeem these Consols at par, and the difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not exist then, or would not exist in the same form, and therefore it seemed most expedient that they should be making provision against that great day when they would be able to pay off their liabilities to the creditors of the nation at par. The question was how they were to invest in the meantime. The Government invested a large amount in loans to local authorities, but on such terms of repayment in regard to permanent improvements that many of these bodies found they could do better by going into the open market. There was abundant business of this kind to be done by the Government if they could only make their terms a little more workable. He was repeating what he had been told by business men outside when he said that if the Government were a little more elastic in the terms on which they went into the market, they could at any rate do better than they did at present. It was not only in the matter of local loans and of those Indian securities to which his right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had referred, but it was the same in regard to Colonial securities, He was quite aware of the difficulties of Colonial securities, but it was nonsense for the Government to shut trustees out from doing as part

  1015
  of the general law what they did privately and freely in this respect. He should support the Amendment because he felt that an opportunity had now occurred in which to revise the whole field of finance, to adapt the machinery to the conditions of modern times, and to manage the finance of the country in a fashion which would be more tolerable judged by the ordinary standards of bankers and financial authorities in the great departments of trade.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The little comedy which preceded the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is the curious result of the divergence of opinion with regard to the financial proposals of Her Majesty's Government on the Opposition side of the House which is displayed by the Amendment Paper. The right honourable Member for Wolverhampton does not object to make provision for the finance of the year, and it is perfectly clear from his speech that he does not materially object to my proposals for new taxation. What he objects to is the permanent reduction of the fixed Debt charge, and, therefore, objecting to that, his view would doubtless be that further new taxation should be proposed in addition to that which I have suggested. The honourable Member for Northampton takes an entirely different view to the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton. The honourable Member for Northampton, not having approved of our expenditure, has put down an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the first paragraph of the right honourable Gentleman's Amendment, and I know from his previous statements on the subject and his undoubted consistency of opinion that the honourable Member for Northampton believes that the reduction in the provision for the repayment of Debt is sound finance. Then we come to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. He does not agree either with the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton or the honourable Member for Northampton. He only objects to providing so much of the expenditure as is included in what he describes as adventures in Africa or in those provisions for securing the greater strength and efficiency of the Army which he endeavoured to defeat last year, but in
  1016
  which he did not succeed in obtaining the support of the House of Commons. Finally, the right honourable Baronet and the honourable Member for Bolton object both to what they mistakenly call, I think, the diminution of effort to pay off Debt, when all I propose is really that we should devote more annually to the payment of Debt in proportion to the amount of Debt than was done before. But they regret also the imposition of any fresh taxation which is injurious to trade. I do not want, after the speech of the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, to go at any great length into the questions of fresh taxation which I propose. I think a better opportunity of dealing, for example, with the wine duties will undoubtedly occur in Committee. But this much I will say—that if it be assumed, as I think the right honourable Gentleman does assume, that fresh taxation is necessary; if it be also true, as I believe it is felt practically unanimously to be, that a certain proportion of that taxation should be indirect, I look upon it as absolutely impossible to suggest any additional taxation which would less interfere with trade and industry than the additional taxation on wine. I refer, of course, to the trade and industry of this country. Wine is not an article which is produced in this country, or, at any rate, it does not employ any large number of people like spirits or beer or other subjects of taxation in the production either of the raw material or of the article itself. The trade connected with wine here is purely a distributing trade, and therefore I maintain that in selecting wine for additional taxation I have selected an object which is an article of luxury, and, though I do not deny that, in anything imposing any new indirect taxation there must be a. certain interference with trade, I believe I have less interfered with trade than by any other new indirect taxation which could be imposed. The right honourable Member for Wolverhampton said with regard to the increased duties on wine that they might raise a difficult question with foreign countries and with the Colonies. But then he argued that practically any increase in our duties on wine did not affect either foreign countries or the Colonies, because any increase of those duties would be paid by the consumers here.
  SIR H. FOWLER: I said that such increase would have the effect of diminishing the trade.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have gone very carefully into the trade and as to the probable effect of increased duties in diminishing the consumption of wine. There may be a certain diminution of consumption—I admit that—but it will be very small indeed according to the opinion of the expert authorities whom it is my duty to consult in such matters, when compared with the total amount of wine which is introduced into this country. Almost the whole of the speech of the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton was devoted to what is the object of his attack in this Budget—the reduction of the fixed Debt charge. It would have been the natural result of his opinion if he had moved the Amendment which stood in his name. Why did he not move that Amendment, and stick to his guns, I cannot for the life of me imagine. He placed that Amendment on the Paper as the representative of the Front Bench opposite, who I imagine lead the Party opposite. It was an Amendment which I suppose might have attracted the confidence and support of those who sit behind the right honourable Gentleman. It appears not to have done so, for he himself ran away from his own Amendment and moved that this Bill should be read a second time this day six months.
  SIR H. FOWLER: In case there should be any misapprehension upon that point I wish to say that I in no way ran away from moving the Amendment. Nothing would have induced me not to move it except that it was pointed out from the Chair that if I did so it would limit the area of the Debate. It was in order not to limit the area of the Debate that I did not move my Amendment, and for no other reason whatever.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am surprised that an old Parliamentary hand like the right honourable Gentleman did not think of that sooner. But, of course, if his Amendment succeeds, the Budget will be defeated and the Government will resign office. He would then possibly take my place. I wonder, having regard to the
  1018
  divergence of opinion, on these matters, that have been expressed—and which I cannot help still thinking has been somewhat at the bottom of his withdrawal of his Amendment—what he supposes would be likely to be the success of a Budget which he might himself propose. In the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman placed on the Paper he asked the House to affirm that it is of opinion that it is inexpedient permanently to reduce the annual charge for the National Debt. That is a very sweeping statement. He asks the House to affirm it without the slightest qualification of time, or of amount, or of circumstances. He does not say that in a time of prosperity you must not reduce the permanent Debt charge, but he says that you must not at any time make any reduction, but that at whatever amount the National Debt may stand the permanent annual fixed Debt charge of £25,000,000 is still to continue. If the National Debt is reduced to £100,000,000, to £50,000,000, or even to £30,000,000, still the taxpayers of the country must go on paying £25,000,000 until the whole Debt is extinguished, quite irrespective of whether it is possible—long before this happens—to purchase the Debt in the market at all. Again, the Amendment is irrespective of circumstances. The country may have been for years engaged in a great war. It may have suspended during that time, as it naturally would, the Sinking Fund for the National Debt. It may have incurred an increased Debt; it may have emerged from a great war, half ruined and bleeding at every pore, and yet, directly peace is restored, according to the Resolution which the right honourable Gentleman intended to ask the House to pass, £25,000,000 a year would again have to be paid or provided by the taxpayers for the permanent Debt charge. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman intends it, but that is what his Amendment says, and I am bound to say, if he intends anything like it, to my mind it would be financial purism gone absolutely mad; and if he lives, as I hope he may, for the next 10 years, and if, during the latter part of that time he should happen to occupy, as I very much hope he may, the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, I absolutely defy him to put such a view

  1019
  of the fixed Debt charge into practice when the time comes for the great reform to which he referred in his speech. There was one thing upon which I wished to congratulate the House in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman and the speech of the honourable Member for Haddington. We have had quiet and fair argument on the proposition I ventured to make. We had not that quiet and fair argument the other night; we have not always had it in the country. I have had plenty of abuse. I think the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, when he fell foul of the Treasury Minute the other night, which was not my Minute at all, but a mere figment of his own imagination, must have been thinking of some of those ecclesiastical controversies in which he has recently been engaged, and of the language which they have generally provoked. But to-night we have discovered that abuse is not argument, and that misrepresentation of your opponent's proposal does not strengthen your own case. Both the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the honourable Gentleman the Member for Haddington have gone a long way in admitting the strength of the reason which I put forward in support of my proposal. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton frankly admitted that there were in the matter of the Sinking Fund at present great difficulties which had arisen since 1885. He stated that the premium arising from the fact that the Government on behalf of the Sinking Fund and the National Debt Commissioners on behalf of the Savings Banks were competing against each other in the purchase of Consols was a serious matter. That was also frankly admitted by the honourable Member for Haddington. But that very argument was derided the other night by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. His contention was that my defence of the reduction of the fixed Debt charge was absolutely fatal to the whole of the Sinking Fund, and he added that my argument was that the more we took off the Sinking Fund the more secure it would become until there was nothing left of it, and then it would be absolutely secure. It would be impossible to give a more
  1020
  absurd and unfair version of my proposition; which was, that if you largely increase—as you must under the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton—the sum annually given to the reduction of Debt while at the same time the market for Consols is seriously narrowing, the premium at which you have to purchase Consols must go on increasing. The right honourable Gentleman charged us with placing the real defence of our proposal upon the price of Consols at this moment, and said that if that argument were carried to its logical conclusion it would stop the payment of the Debt altogether. It is a very old saying that logic is a good servant, but a bad mistress. I should never have supposed, from his past financial and political career, that the right honourable Gentleman was such a slave to logic as he has shown himself in this matter. The right honourable Gentleman actually mistakes the premiss of the argument. I have never put forward that Consols standing at a premium of 110 or 111 was sufficient in itself to justify the reduction of the fixed Debt charge. What I did do was to point out that in the purchase of a certain amount of Consols for the reduction of the Debt we are paying nearly £2,000,000 more than we would have to pay for the reduction of the same amount of Consols in 1903. I said that that was a loss to the country. And so it its. Will any honourable Member deny that? Can they pretend for a moment that it was not desirable to avoid that loss if it could be properly avoided? My argument was not that, on account of this loss, great as it is, the reduction of the Debt should be stopped now; but it was that we should not do what I believe would certainly tend to increase largely that loss in the future by adding largely to the amount of interest set aside annually for the reduction of the Debt when the market for Consols was every year considerably narrowing. That has been my argument throughout, and I will add this to it now. It is not only a matter of the premium at which Consols may be bought; but I say, speaking after a conference with high authorities—not that it is not my opinion alone, for that would be worth nothing—that were we to go on as the right

  1021
  honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton desires us to go on, without making any reduction in the fixed Debt charge, we are in measurable distance of the time when it will be practically impossible to purchase the Consols we require at all. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton frankly admits that there are both sense and truth in that argument. But his reply is that our difficulties will vanish if we put an end to the competition in the purchase of Consols between the Savings Bank and the Government.
  SIR H. FOWLER: I said it would remove your difficulties to a great extent.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Precisely. And that is to be done by enlarging the powers of investment of Savings Bank deposits in securities to other securities, such as Colonial securities? But I want to know how far honourable Members opposite are prepared to go in that particular direction. I have heard of foreign countries who receive deposits in their savings banks and spend them and hold nothing whatever against them. They might as well give an I. O. U. to those who deposit their money with them. How far are we advised to go in the purchase of securities, that are certainly of less value than those which are guaranteed by the Government of this country, to be held against deposits in our Savings Bank? I noticed the action of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire while the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was referring to that matter, and I never saw a more vigorous disclaimer of what I believe he regards as an even greater financial heresy than mine, than was announced in the demeanour of the right honourable. Gentleman at that moment. When the right honourable Gentleman addresses the House in this Debate I trust he will not fail to denounce the financial heresies on his own Bench in the same vigorous language as he used towards myself. Let me put this to the House. You cannot deprive the National Debt Commissioners of the Consols they hold on behalf of the Savings Bank to any large extent. If they are to keep up,
  1022
  in the first place, the nest egg, which all are agreed they must hold—namely, Consols as against deposits—they must hold a considerable amount of Consols for that purpose. Then, the right honourable Gentleman attaches, as he said, very high value to the redemption of the Debt through the process of terminable annuities. That is carried out through the great blocks of Consols that are held by the National Debt Commissioners being cancelled and terminable annuities set up in their places. Now, I ask, how can you continue the system of terminable annuities if the National Debt Commissioners do not hold Consols on behalf of the Savings Bank? The right honourable Gentleman may say, let them hold the large amount of Consols they hold at present and it will be quite sufficient to work the terminable annuities. So it would, no doubt. But we are bound to remember that it is impossible to exaggerate the difficulty of investing these largo sums in any new security except by means of Consols. It is a comparatively easy thing to invest £10,000 or £20,000, or even £100,000 in a new high-class security. But when you come to investing many millions a year, as we have to invest on behalf of the Savings Bank, if we allow the National Debt Commissioners to go into the market and invest seven or eight millions a year in, for instance, Indian Government securities—which, I think, are not much more than 120 millions—how long would it be before you would run up the price of these securities to the full value of Consols, and how long would it be before you ceased to be able to obtain any of them in the market at all? Further, it should be remembered that if you allow the investment of the money of Savings Bank depositors in any security beyond those we can guarantee, it does seem to give a kind of limited or quasi guarantee to the securities chosen—a course that might be fraught with great difficulty and danger to the country. I do not deny that the position of the Savings Bank and its funds is one of very great difficulty. I have admitted that more than once. We pay a high rate of interest, and we invest at a high premium. It may be necessary to enlarge the area of investment; but I must say that I look upon the proposal with a good deal of doubt and hesitation. I

  1023
  think the whole question is one of such difficulty at the present moment that it deserves a thorough and exhaustive inquiry. That inquiry should include not merely the area of investment, but also the rate of interest and the limit of deposits in the Savings Bank. It is not for the good of the working classes that the Savings Bank should be a charitable institution. We have paid during the last year or two—and the House has voted it cheerfully—a small sum to make up the deficiency in the income of the Savings Bank rather than raise this difficult and complicated question, and rather than take the only other alternative of reducing the rate of interest by ¼ per cent., which would deprive depositors of a very considerable annual amount—an amount far greater than the sum the House has voted by way of relief. But as soon as the stress of the discussion we are now engaged in is over it is my intention to place myself in communication, so far as I can, with honourable Members on both sides of the House who take an interest in this question—for of all questions it is one that should be divorced from Party politics—with a view of ascertaining in what way and by whom such an inquiry as I have suggested may be best and properly carried out. But whatever might be the result of such an inquiry, I should be still at variance with what the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has said to-night. Whatever you may be able to do with the Savings Bank money in the future, I still differ absolutely from his view of the fixed debt charge. He thinks it should be immutable. I do not. That is the difference between us. I have looked back to the Debate which occurred when the fixed debt charge was instituted in 1875, and I find that Mr. Gladstone stated as his strong opinion that attempts to fix an annual sum for the repayment of the Debt, which should never be departed from, had been tried before, and had always failed; and in answer to that statement, what did Sir Stafford Northcote say? Why, Sir, he admitted in the frankest language that, although he proposed this with the idea of making the provision for the repayment of the Debt more certain than it had been before, yet he quite felt that in circumstances of many different characters it might be necessary for Parlia-
  1024
  ment to alter the law in this matter, and that it would be altered. Well now, Sir, there is one point to which the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire alluded on which I should wish to say a word. Circumstances have changed, undoubtedly, since those which existed in former years by the fact that Consols are now irredeemable until 1923. When my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty converted Consols and lowered the interest on the Debt it was necessary to give a considerable fixed term to the holders to induce them to convert. Conversion would have been impossible without it. But what has been the result so far as the taxpayers are concerned? When Consols were redeemable at short notice, if they rose above par and remained above par for a considerable time, of course it was open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to do what was done by my right honourable Friend and convert them into stock bearing a lower rate of interest. That was to the great advantage of the taxpayer in two ways—because he not only secured a lower rate of interest to be paid, but it would bring the level down to par again, so that in the repayment of the Debt Consols could never stand at a high premium. I do not know whether I have made myself quite clear. But this has been altered now, largely owing to the fact that Consols are irredeemable until 1923. You have them risen to this premium and you cannot reduce them. My belief is that that premium will probably largely increase in future years before it begins to decrease. Well, Sir, that being so, what is the result of the right honourable Gentleman's view? He would compel the taxpayer of the present day to pay a high premium for the reduction of Consols, and at the same time he would deny him any benefit from the reduction of the rate of interest on the Debt which, so to speak, has been bought by bringing Consols up to the premium at which they now have to be redeemed. Sir, I contend that that proposition is utterly unreasonable as regards the tax-payer of the present day. I contend that it is another reason why he should be entitled, as I have argued before, to any benefit that may accrue to the country from the reduction of the rate of interest on the Debt. And remember this. Some

  1025
  persons have argued as if the provision which we make for the reduction of the Debt was properly included in the expenditure of the country. Sir, it is nothing of the kind. The provision that we make for the reduction of the Debt is surplus revenue, set aside, and properly set aside, for that purpose. But it is surplus revenue all the same, raised by taxation, and what is asked by the right honourable Gentleman opposite is this—that we should keep on year by year practically adding to that surplus revenue devoted to the reduction of the Debt even when, as in the present year, for that purpose it is necessary to impose fresh taxation. Sir, that contention appears to me to be utterly unreasonable, and therefore more likely to bring about an agitation against the Sinking Fund than anything that I can conceive or anything that I have proposed. For what is it that I have proposed? Why, Sir, it is just this—that, in the first place, we should practically bespeak the terminable annuities that fall in in 1902. Why? Because, Sir, the taxpayer, to my mind, is entitled, not only to the benefit that may arise from the reduction in the rate of interest on the Debt, but also he is entitled, at any rate, to some benefit from the reduction of the amount of interest that is annually paid owing to the reduction of the amount of the Debt itself. He has received no benefit from that second source since my right honourable Friend reduced the fixed debt charge by £2,000,000 in 1887. Sir, since that time the amount by which the annual interest paid on the Debt has been reduced, by the reduction of the amount of the Debt itself, has been no less than £2,100,000 a year, and therefore I say that I am fairly entitled to ask, on behalf of the taxpayers of the present day, that they shall not be charged that additional taxation, having, as I have said, reduced the rate of interest on the Debt by that amount, and that this £2,000,000 should be applied to their benefit in that way. But while I do that I maintain a sum approaching £6,000,000 this year, and annually increasing in future years, to be devoted to the reduction of the Debt in future—more, I will venture to say, than would have been considered sufficient in the past, and far more than in several past years would have been considered sufficient to devote to the re-
  1026
  duction of the Debt. And, further, I am sure that having, so to speak, bespoken the terminable annuities which will fall in in 1902 they should not fall in at that time and then be devoted to the reduction of taxation, or anything of that kind, by extending them until 1911 and setting other terminable annuities in their place until 1923. Well, Sir, these are my proposals, and I contend that it is an absurd and ridiculous exaggeration to say, as it has been said, that they are fatal to the credit of the country or to the reduction of the National Debt. What was said when my right honourable Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty made a similar proposal on similar grounds in 1887? Then he was told that his proposals were fatal to the credit of the country, and fatal also to the reduction of the Debt. But what has happened? Have these prophecies been fulfilled? No, Sir, not at all. The credit of the country since that time has stood higher than it ever stood before, and the provision made for the reduction of the Debt since that time has been greater than in any similar number of years in the past century. Sir, there is one thing to which the right honourable Gentleman appears particularly to object. He says, "You are doing this in a time of unexampled prosperity." Well, I gather the right honourable Gentleman does not object to a temporary suspension of the Sinking Fund, and when I suggested the other night that, instead of this proposal, if I had merely consulted my own convenience, I might have proposed to the House, on sufficient grounds, the temporary suspension of the new Sinking Fund for a couple of years, I heard the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire say I might have done it for one year. Well, Sir, if it is so wicked, so immoral, so dishonest, and all the rest of it to permanently reduce the fixed Debt charge in a time of unexampled prosperity, why is it moral, and honest, and courageous to simply suspend temporarily the Sinking Fund in a similar time? Why are we so wicked for proposing permanently to reduce the fixed Debt charge in a time of prosperity? Why should we have escaped condemnation if we had merely proposed the temporary suspension of the Sinking Fund? Sir, to my mind the alternative course would have been infinitely more dangerous to the future reduction of the

  1027
  Debt than our proposal. I have placed before the House on more than one occasion the reasons which to my mind amply justify us in dealing with the fixed Debt charge, quite apart from the financial exigencies of the year. The strength of these reasons, although he does not agree with my conclusions, has been admitted by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. But for the temporary suspension of the Sinking Fund there could only have been this reason, that it would have been proposed in order to avoid the imposition of taxation in a year of unexampled prosperity. Do that once and you may do it in any number of successive years on the same grounds. There would be no security whatever for the new Sinking Fund if it were suspended on such a ground as that. Therefore, Sir, I do not understand the condemnation which right honourable Gentlemen opposite have placed upon the one proposal while they are ready to condone the other. But, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, towards the close of his speech, quoted some observations I made last year and this year with regard to the prosperity of the country. His quotation was perfectly accurate. I have admitted that the country is prosperous. If the right honourable Gentleman likes it I will adopt his own words and say we are living in a time of unexampled prosperity. But we are also living in a time of unexampled expenditure. How is that expenditure defrayed? The other night, addressing the House, I referred to the date, 1875, at which Sir Stafford North-cote established the fixed Debt charge. I quoted the figures for which he then had to provide for the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service. I compared those figures with the amount which I have to provide for in the present year. The total showed that I have to provide, in this year, under those three heads, for an expenditure of over £31,000,000 more than Sir Stafford Northcote had to provide for in 1875. And how has this great increase in expenditure since that time been defrayed? Sir, this is an important matter which, in view of the suggestions made by right honourable Gentlemen opposite, I think honourable Gentlemen on this side of the House may do well to consider. Here are the figures. Taking the same ob-
  1028
  jects of duty in Customs and Excise in 1875 and in the present year the yield of indirect taxation for Customs and Excise in the first year was £47,766,000, and this year it is estimated to be £56,977,000, an increase of indirect taxation of £9,211,000. But, Sir, if you turn to direct taxation, what do you find? You find that in 1875 direct taxation produced £17,576,000, but this year it is estimated to produce £43,986,000, £26,410,000 more than it produced in 1875. Then the income tax stood at 2d. in the pound and produced £4,000,000, now it stands at 8d. in the pound and produces £18,300,000. The death duties—well, Sir, I really will refrain from alluding to the death duties because I always notice that the pleasure which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire naturally experiences when he looks back on his handiwork of 1894 is quite eclipsed by his evident disgust at the fact that the proceeds of that Act are being expended by his political adversaries. But take the whole case, and this is absolutely clear, that the great increase in the expenditure of the country since that time when the fixed Debt charge was instituted by Sir Stafford Northcote has been mainly defrayed from direct taxation. Well, now, this evening the right honourable Gentleman referred to the action taken by Mr. Gladstone in 1860, when he appropriated the long annuities to a considerable amount instead of continuing to devote that annual sum towards the reduction of the National Debt—when he appropriated those annuities in aid of the reduction of the burdens of the country under the head of indirect taxation. Well, Sir, at that time the burdens of the country under the head of indirect taxation were considerable, far greater than they are now, and I daresay Mr. Gladstone was perfectly justified in appropriating this annual sum which fell in then and devoting it to that purpose. Sir, No one will contend that the present indirect taxation is as heavy now as it was at that time. But there is a heavy burden on the taxpayer, and it is the burden which has to be borne not so much by the indirect as by the direct taxpayer at the present time. Why are we, if Mr. Gladstone is to be praised for his conduct in 1860 in this matter, to be blamed because we decline to pro-

  1029
  pose the increase of the burden of the direct taxpayer in order to raise the sum annually devoted to the reduction of the Debt to an amount far greater than has hitherto been considered necessary? Sir, I can only say this, that I look back with some suspicion to an argument which was addressed to the House last Session by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire in the Debate upon the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman then prognosticated the finance of the future, and his idea of the finance of the future was this, that all indirect taxation except the taxation of alcohol should be abolished, and that the void should be made good, partly, I suppose, by reduced expenditure, but mainly at the expense of the direct tax-payer. That, of course, is the view, practically, I suppose, of the entire Party opposite; they would be opposed to any increase of indirect taxation; they desire to reduce indirect taxation. If they are contending now against the reduction of the fixed Debt charge, the idea at the bottom of their minds in this contention, I take it, is this, that the income tax should be increased this year in order to retain the fixed Debt charge at £25,000,000, and that it should be so continued until that happy time arrives, between 1902 and 1904, when they possibly may be sitting on this Bench and may propose a really democratic Budget. Well, Sir, if my proposals made this year incidentally make it a little more difficult for right honourable and honourable Gentlemen opposite to carry out such an idea as that, I do not think on that account that they may less commend themselves to my honourable Friends on this side of the House. But, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton charged me finally with having violated what is described as the war chest of the country. Well, Sir, I attach great value to the Sinking Fund as the war chest of the country, but a war chest must not be always kept too tightly locked, even in time of peace. Let me remind the House of what happened in the years 1884 and 1885. In the year 1884 an amount of £6,800,000 had been devoted to the reduction of the National Debt, the greatest amount from the fixed Debt charge
  1030
  that had yet been devoted to that purpose. A very few weeks after the close of that financial year the Prime Minister of the day had to come down to the House, at the time of the Russian war scare, and propose a Vote of Credit for £11,000,000, which was hurriedly voted and wastefully expended, and with this result on the Sinking Fund—that it had altogether to be suspended for the whole of that year. And why? Because the country was not in that state of preparation for war in which it ought to have been; and because the money that should have been devoted, and more properly devoted, to that preparation, had been used in paying off the National Debt. The real resource of this country, after all, whatever may be the value of the Sinking Fund at a time of crisis, is in the pockets of the taxpayer. We have set up an engine for obtaining the funds we may need in any such crisis to an extent which our forefathers never could have dreamed of, having regard to the present wealth of the country, and that is the engine of direct taxation. I say that it would be wrong to impose such a burden on the direct taxpayer—a limited class, a comparatively small class, when compared with the whole of the country—as would prevent that engine, important as it is, from working with real and thorough efficiency at a great time of need. I say that you have no right to do what you really propose—namely, to impose additional direct taxation in order to keep up the fixed Debt charge to a greater amount proportionately to the amount of Debt than it has ever been at before, to keep that up and increase it automatically quite irrespective of the possibility of buying Consols, or of the price at which they are to be purchased. I say any policy of the kind ought, in my belief, to be rejected by this House as an impossible, pedantic, and unfair interpretation of the meaning and intention of the fixed Debt charge.
  MR. HARWOODsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of windfalls as though they were unexpected meteors revolving in the financial heavens. The fact was, however, that they were prophesied at the time. Sir Stafford Northcote foresaw that there would be someone prowling about after these so-called windfalls, and

  1031
  prophesied exactly what had happened. To come to the House, therefore, and talk of this as some surprise was beyond the conception of anyone who understood reasonable book-keeping. There were only two reasons which would justify a reduction in the Sinking Fund—war and bad times. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own confession, neither of these prevailed now. He said it was quite true that we were in a state of great prosperity, but it was also true that our expenditure was greater than ever before, and that therefore we were perfectly justified in paying off a smaller proportion of Debt.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I argued that we were justified in paying off a greater proportion of the Debt, and so we are.
  MR. HARWOODunderstood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that although we were more prosperous we were more expensive than in 1875. He would remind the House of the objection he had made to the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his Budget Statement, so as to include the Post Office and the Telegraphs in the national expenditure. That was not national expenditure at all, and in the figures he would give he would exclude the Post Office and Telegraphs. In 1875 when Sir Stafford Northcote was Chancellor of the Exchequer the total expenditure was £75,025,000, that on the Post Office and Telegraphs, £4,194,000, leaving a net expenditure of £71,000,000. In 1899 the current total expenditure, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement, was £111,000,000. That on Posts and Telegraphs was £12,191,000, leaving a net expenditure of £98,390,000. Another thing had to be considered, and that was, that in 1879 the population of the country was 33,000,000, while in the present year it was 40,000,000. If the population had been 40,000,000 in 1875 the expenditure would have been £86,000,000—that was taking man for man and person for person, and at the same ratio £98,000,000 in 1899. It was well known that the income tax was the best gauge of the power of the people to bear taxation. A penny in the pound income tax yielded in 1875 £1,900,000; this year it yielded £2,250,000. If we were to take the test
  1032
  according to population and power to bear taxation this particular year we ought to be able to stand an expenditure of £100,000,000, whereas in reality our expenditure was only £98,000,000, and instead of taking £2,000,000 from the Sinking Fund we should have been no worse off than in 1875 if we had added £1,500,000 to it. We were in reality paying in proportion to numbers and ability £1,250,000 less than our forefathers in 1875. If in 1859 the average payment towards the redemption of the National Debt had been £1 per head of the population, now, if we paid off £25,000,000 per annum, the average would have been only 12s. 6d. per head. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we were accumulating capital, spending money now which we ought to have spent in previous years. We were accumulating what capital, and what assets? Some said that we had a better Fleet. We were all proud of that, but what of the future? The future might have its own difficulties. It might be possible that aluminium may become practical for constructing warships, and our successors would have to spend money. It was not safe for us to presume that posterity would not have their own duties as onerous as ours. We had no assets for this enormous expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say we had the Suez Canal shares, but our greatest assets were our coal fields, and these were being exhausted. According to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there would be in 1905 £9,250,000 of terminable annuities at his disposal, and when we saw this large sum looming in the future it was a good reason why we should consider the whole matter carefully, and make up our minds to a broad general policy in dealing with the National Debt. What should that policy be? He was sure that the country felt that we should get rid of the Debt in a reasonable time. Some people said that it was an advantage to have a National Debt. A Debt might be an advantage for others to trade in, but he never heard that it was an advantage to those who owed the money. He should be slow to acknowledge that the financial ability of the country was unequal to the task of providing that accumulated surpluses should be employed in

  1033
  the extinction of Debt. Six hundred millions was the amount of the debt for the French War. Would anyone say that that was an asset, or that it was unreasonable to pay off the cost of that war? He held that every thoughtful patriot would be delighted to see an end of the Debt. A scheme to pay off the whole Debt would excite the popular imagination. We derived great strength from our Navy, and as much from our Army, but our greatest strength, even from a physical point of view, was in the smallness of our Debt, and it would become greater still if there were no Debt at all. His next point was the particular way in which the taxes were raised. It was quite obvious that we might be told that it was ridiculous with one breath to say, "Add to your taxation," and with the next to condemn the imposition of taxation. He did not object to fresh taxation, but to fresh taxation injurious to trade. He held that the proposed new taxation was the most expensive and most foolish method by which to raise money, because it discouraged trade. It discouraged trade in two ways. In the first place it disturbed trade, and there was nothing worse for any trade than disturbance and uncertainty. Now, the wine trade was peculiarly sensitive to disturbance of that kind, because it was necessary that large stocks should be kept. In the second place it discouraged trade in general. One was amazed to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer proclaim doctrines which were sometimes apparently accepted in the House, which would be laughed at in any gathering of moderately intelligent schoolboys. The most expensive way of raising money is by putting on a tax of any kind which prevents us trading with other countries. We heard of keys and open-doors," and closed-doors," but the worst possible use to which you could put a key was to lock your own door. The notion that seemed to possess the mind of the honourable Member for Sheffield was to send your commodities to everybody else, but not to let them send anything to us. But if we sent goods to another country we must, directly or indirectly, take back from it some other commodity. He did not care for the heresies about, exempting some countries from taxation and not others, and he hoped they would not take that backward step. They ought to welcome any country in sending us
  1034
  commodities, being quite sure that in the long run we should have to send it something in return. Another reason why he objected to the new taxation was that it would discourage temperance. They were all agreed that the people ought to be encouraged to drink refreshing light alcoholic liquors rather than the heavier, but now we were asked to take a retrogade step. In 1860 the import of wine into this country was only 600,000 gallons, but now it was over 6,000,000 gallons. Now, all knew that duties discourage trade, but the proposed duties would differentiate in favour of the choicer wines as against the cheaper. For instance, they would involve an increase of 8 per cent. on the lighter wines and only 1 per cent. on the choicer wines—thus punishing a class of people whom we ought to take care of—all the more because they made themselves so little heard in the strife of politics—the class of poor professional people and the struggling middle classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the duties would not make any difference in the consumption of the light wines. But they knew that in the time of John Knox claret was the common drink of Scotland. He would venture to say that, in all their excellent qualities, the Scots would have been better still now if they had retained their national drink of claret, and that it was not to the advantage of Scotland that they had turned, by the force of excise and customs laws from claret to whisky. As to our own nation, he believed that the wit and buoyancy of its great days would not have been possible had they soaked themselves in beer. The lightness and the buoyancy and the wit were due to the light French wines which the people drank. He would not speak of free trade as if it were a goddess before whom we ought to bow down and worship, but he begged the House not to go back upon it. He held that free trade had made the nation great and prosperous. He begged the House to hesitate before agreeing to the new duties, because they were retrograde from the point of view of temperance, and unjust in the point of view of trade.
  Upon the return of the SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  *MR. COHENsaid that his right honourable Friend, in the

  1035
  powerful speech he had just delivered to the House, began by twitting the Member for Wolverhampton that he had not moved the Amendment now before the House in the form in which he had put it on the Paper. He had been a Conservative long before the new Sinking Fund was established, but that did not make him any the less regret and deplore that for the second time it should be a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer who was reducing the amount set aside for the redemption of the Debt, and that it should be the Party opposite, of which he had never had the honour of being a member, which stood up for and was seeking to maintain that solid and sure basis on which the finances of this country had been established, and to which, in his opinion, its prosperity and power were pre-eminently due. The House had listened with a great deal of interest to the very lucid way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained his proposals when he introduced the Budget. One passage in particular gave him intense pleasure. After explaining the sums which had been applied to paying off the Debt, the right honourable Gentleman said that he did not want to alter the practice which had prevailed, which was the only safeguard which this country had from something like financial ruin, and he said, "Long may this practice prevail." It did prevail for about three-quarters of an hour, for before the right honourable Gentleman sat down the practice had been put an end to by the hand of his right honourable Friend himself. He hoped the House would bear with him while he examined the reasons by which his right honourable Friend had defended his proposals. He dismissed at once the suggestion that the proposals had anything to do with the fact of there being a deficit in this year's Budget, and he did so for two very excellent reasons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself assured them that it was only a coincidence. In the absence of that assurance it might have been natural to have connected the deficit with the reduction of the Sinking Fund. He was quite sure that the House would accept the assurance that for two years his mind had been applied to this subject, for the right honourable Gentleman had told them that he was strongly opposed to the prac-
  1036
  tice of reducing the Sinking Fund in order to remit taxation. There appeared to him to be a very thin line separating the reduction of the Sinking Fund in order to relieve taxation and refraining from imposing taxation when the source to which they had to come to supply the necessities of both was the same identical source of the new Sinking Fund. For those two reasons we must take it the reduction of the Sinking Fund had nothing to do with the case. He wished to examine those reasons. If it was an unpardonable financial sin to reduce the Sinking Fund in order to remit taxation, it was difficult to see how it could be easily justified if it was only to avoid imposing taxation. The right honourable Gentleman had given as one reason the high price of Consols, and the imprudence of buying them at 110 when they would be redeemable at par in 1923. There seemed to him to be some little confusion in the minds of honourable Members with regard to the expression "redeemable in 1923." It was quite true that they could not be redeemed till then, but who was going to say that they would be redeemed in 1923? He had been in business himself for over 30 years, and his experience induced him to say that he would be a very bold man who would express an opinion in 1899 as to what would be the state of the world in 1923, and what would be the state of the National Debt in that year; and of all the problems the most insoluble was what would be the price of Consols in that year. He had known of fluctuations in the market for 30 years, and he should be very loth to express an opinion as to any particular year, much less for 25 years. He would now pass to what his right honourable Friend laid stress upon. Let it be admitted that it was unwise and not economical to go on buying Consols at premiums which might be possibly higher and higher. What was the answer? His right honourable Friend explained the point the other night, for he said that £75,000,000 would be too much for the Savings Bank to lock up in terminable annuities. Speaking for himself, he would rather do that than reduce the Sinking Fund. Supposing his right honourable Friend had created terminable annuities to obtain £1,000,000 of the £2,000,000 which he had reduced the Sinking Fund

  1037
  by, half his difficulties would have been solved by one stroke of the pen, and the other £1,000,000 could have been found by another easy process. He thought it could be shown that there were inequalities and irregularities which might arise in connection with the new stamp duties. He did not complain of the stamp duties suggested on foreign and colonial bonds, although he did not think it would work in the manner contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They did not believe that bonds to the bearer should pass almost free from taxation as they did now, and it was unjust that they should. He should be the very last person to try and arrest by such duties the formation of good, sound, and solid companies. If companies were sound, and their prospects were good, they could very well pay a great deal more than they were now paying; but if they were unsound, then the more that could be rescued from their capital for the benefit of the Exchequer, the better it would be for the community at large. The stamp duty question could not be undertaken this year, and so he would pass on to the suggestion of his honourable Friend the Member for Haddington, that the way to reduce the competition which forced up the price of Consols would be to extend the field of investment, and in particular Savings Bank deposits. He had himself in past years advocated that the State should guarantee the Indian Debt. He could not argue that point now, but until that had been done and the law was altered the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not put Savings Bank deposits in Indian stock. It was interesting to observe that it was only two years ago that his right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton was pressing, with the approval of the country, upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Secretary for India, the necessity of the British Exchequer coming to the aid of India, which, was then very depressed, and now two years after, notwithstanding famine and war and devastation which had occurred in India, it was India which had the surplus and England the deficit. His right honourable Friend had referred to the competition in the market for Consols, and that competition was at the bottom of the whole thing. He was very glad in-
  1038
  deed to hear his right honourable Friend to apply himself to that question with such a, sympathetic attitude, which he was sure was welcomed by the whole House. He believed that the House of Commons would be glad to see a powerful committee constituted capable of examining into this question to see how far it would be safe and proper for the Savings Bank money to be invested in stocks which had not got the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund. Every depositor was entitled to have the State guarantee, although he did not say that it would be a wrong step to put the same money into securities which had not got the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund. It would, however, be a very serious step, and one which should not be sanctioned without a very careful inquiry. Then there was the proposal of the Member for North Islington, which struck him as being very ingenious and perhaps a practical suggestion. He should not, however, be prepared to adopt it without some amendment. This question was becoming more urgent every day, and ought to be inquired into. He did not think the local debts of the county councils and other local bodies should be resorted to, because they needed no encouragement to borrow, and it was quite possible that if the terms were reduced it would act as a stimulus to those bodies to create debt, and it would be in the interests of the House rather to safeguard that disposition. Those were questions which showed that the inquiry should be a. serious one. He apologised to the House for the length at which he had intruded upon their attention. He had tried to examine the reasons which his right honourable Friend urged in support of his proposals, and he would only say in two or three words what were the reasons which occurred to him which operated against them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt very eloquently in introducing his Budget upon the large amount which he had to provide for the Army and Navy. He did not regret that expenditure. On the contrary, he desired that it should continue. His right honourable Friend had said that they all hoped for a great deal from the coming Peace Conference, but, speaking for himself, he hoped it would dispel some of the illusions regarding armaments. Those large arma-

  1039
  ments in his opinion were the most powerful protection against a European war, which might be precipitated if any great Power were to lessen its armaments and thus expose itself to the attack of other better equipped nations. If such expenditure was to go on, as he thought it should do, it seemed to him that such expenditure suggested and required at the same time provision being made for the continuance of the reduction of the Debt. No one contended that under no circumstances should the Sinking Fund be suspended, but the very reason which induced every reasonable and thinking man to acknowledge that, under certain circumstances of commercial trouble, the suspension of the Sinking Fund was necessary and even legitimate—those very considerations strengthened the necessity for reducing the Debt in times of prosperity. He believed in the en-endurance and in the permanence of the commercial supremacy of this great capital, but they could not shut their eyes to what was going on every day. Their labour troubles were more frequent and more serious than they used to be. Foreign competition was far more keen and far more insidious than it used to be in former years. There might be times when they might not have an income of £112,000,000, and when they would not be able to do what they were doing now. If they would not buy Consols at a premium to pay off the Debt, were they going to wait until they were at a discount? If such a time arrived it would be because they had some great commercial trouble or possibly a political crisis, and that would be just the time when they should suspend the operation of their Sinking Fund. In his opinion the welfare and prosperity of this country would continue with its responsibilities, and foremost amongst those responsibilities, in his judgment, was the continuance of the system of the automatic increase in the provision made for the reduction of the Debt, which was the sole fabric on which their sound system of finance and their great material prosperity and political power had for a long time been maintained.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the words of the honourable Member who had just sat down showed that on the Liberal side of the House they were essentially
  1040
  purists in finance. They did not ask whether a thing was popular, but whether it was right or not. His right honourable Friend, and a great many others on this side of the House, held that it was undesirable to reduce the amount of the Sinking Fund. He did not believe anyone would say that if the country was given the chance of choosing between being taxed to the extent of £2,000,000 extra, or of that amount being taken from the Sinking Fund, they would decide in favour of the former. Human nature was so constituted that it preferred to pay off debts as soon as possible. Supposing any of them in that House were to buy a coat, and the tailor said, "You must either pay me £5 down or you must give me an I O U from your great grandchild." There was no one who would hesitate about giving an I O U on his great grandchild, although it would be more reasonable for him to pay for it himself. He was astonished at the argument used in favour of reducing the Sinking Fund which was put forward by the right honourable Gentleman. He said they owed it to their great armaments that they were not at war at present with some foreign Power. His argument amounted to this—that they were not at war, and if they had been they would have incurred a large debt. That was a very astonishing argument. The right honourable Gentleman had said that on the Opposition side of the House they thought his proposals were wicked and immoral. He confessed that he did not go so far as to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was politically wicked and immoral on account of his proposal in regard to the Sinking Fund, but there were other grounds upon which he thought both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues were politically wicked and immoral. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire always regretted that the spending of the result of the death duties was in the hands of the present Government. The right honourable Gentleman had cause to be proud of the death duties, and he (Mr. Labouchere) could perfectly well understand the regret and sorrow of the right honourable Gentleman that they should be spent upon such foolish pro-

  1041
  jects as the Uganda Railway and other absurdities. He opposed the fresh taxation suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he thought that if more money was required it ought to be provided by those who could best afford to pay. The rich ought to pay for the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that he had to provide for an expenditure which exceeded that for which Sir Stafford Northcote was responsible when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer by £31,000,000, and had asked whether it was his fault. It undoubtedly was, because he should have stopped and have refused to agree to such an expenditure, but he has allowed it to go up. He had not the control of his colleagues. He should always weigh the policy and the expenditure entailed by that policy which his colleagues proposed, and refuse the money if he does not think, or he imagined that others will not think, that the expenditure is legitimate. The right honourable Gentleman Should always bear in mind that he was the people's representative, and must always look after the interests of the community at large, and not after any particular fad of the Government of the moment. The Government, according to the right honourable Gentleman, had increased their expenditure by £17,000,000. He was informed that the figure was £19,000,000.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not know whether the honourable Member would care to know what I really did say, but, if he would, I might tell him that what I did say was that the estimated expenditure, including the contribution to the Local Taxation Fund, for the present year had increased by about £19,500,000.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the House should bear in mind that, while it had been pointed out that the expenditure had increased by leaps and bounds between the date when Sir Stafford Northcote was Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present time, more than half of the expenditure was due to the enormous increase of our armaments. A very large amount had been expended on the Navy, owing to the declaration which had been made that we intended to maintain the supremacy of the sea. That meant the
  1042
  supremacy of the World, and nobody could be surprised that, when such a declaration was made by the country, that other nations should increase their navies. It was not a fact that this country had been enforced to increase its Navy owing to the action of Foreign Powers. It was quite the reverse; other navies had been increased because of our declaration. What did the supremacy of the ocean mean? It meant that all foreign countries held their Colonies and their commerce at our mercy, and that if they did not agree with us we could bombard their ports. It was impossible for him to suppose that other nations would allow it. When Napoleon threatened to have supremacy over Europe he for a time succeeded, but, having united all Governments against him, he very effectually lost that supremacy. This country had gone no further. We had not only declared our intentions to maintain the supremacy of the sea, but we had stated that we intended to enter into some species of alliance with the United States of America, and that that country and ourselves had a mission to seize upon and civilise any part of the world which we desired to possess, and which did not happen to belong, to any civilized nation that particular moment. What happened with regard to Fashoda, a town in the interior of Africa, which certainly did not belong to this country; and whether it belonged to Egypt or not was a matter of opinion. When our troops got there they found the French in possession. Whether the French were there rightly or wrongly it was not necessary to discuss, but at all events the representatives of the Government of this country refused to enter into any discussion before they withdrew, and threatened them with an ultimatum that if they did not withdraw without discussion we should compel them to do so by force of arms. They withdrew because they were sensible people, and knew our Navy was stronger than theirs. But honourable Gentlemen must not forget that that would be a great object lesson to other countries who might combine and lay down a declaration that we should not be masters of the sea. We should probably unite all the nations of the world against us to contest that supremacy. Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the

  1043
  Admiralty see how absurd their contention was that this country's fleet must be equal or superior to that of any two Foreign Powers. Let them suppose that we were engaged in a war with France and Russia, and that we only had a Navy equal to those two Powers, if Japan joined the Alliance against us we should be at her mercy. In his opinion the whole contention was one of the most foolish that possibly could be put forward. The result of it was that there was a war expenditure in the time of peace which was constantly increasing. It was supposed that our safety in this respect lay in the fact that we were so much richer than other nations, but he would remind the House that we were not richer than the whole of them if they found it necessary to combine against us. He recollected perfectly well that when this House was first asked to vote for a large Navy the argument put forward was that the Army was so small. Now that we had a large Navy, the House was informed that it was necessary to have a large Army, and the expenditure was consequently growing. The House was told that expansion was the law of our existence, and therefore we have expanded. The right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had informed the House that where our frontiers ran with the frontiers of other Powers it was necessary to have garrisons of equal strength with theirs, so that we had put ourselves into competition with the great Continental nations with their huge armies. With regard to the African markets, he would only say that they were absolutely worthless. In his opinion the proper course would be to look after the old markets that we possessed and endeavour to improve them. The time and money that had been devoted to making markets in Africa was a waste of energy. A nation only had a certain amount of commercial energy, and that was wasted if it was exerted in a wrong direction. At the present moment we had an Army of 10,000 men in South Africa, and the reason for their presence there was that President Kruger had lately been spending money in increasing the defences of his own country. No one dreamt for a moment that he was going to invade Cape Colony, and, with the experience of the Raid, there could only be one opinion as to his wisdom in securing the
  1044
  defences of his country. Yet 10,000 men were sent to Africa at a cost of over £1,000,000 a year. He believed the country would not agree to this immense expenditure in times of peace. Already the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he was reduced at the present time to all sorts of expedients to meet the expenditure. Nobody would object to his reducing the Sinking Fund had the money been required for the purposes of education or Old-Age Pensions, or in any way where it could be employed to greater advantage than in the Sinking Fund. There was no objection to the money being spent; the objection was to the way in which it was spent. With regard to the wine duties, no doubt it would be proved by experts, and proved conclusively, that that increase in the duties ought not to be made. He himself thought it was a great mistake to increase the wine duties as against France and Italy, and it, was a still greater mistake to increase them against our Colonial wine growers. The House was constantly being told that the Colonies ought to be drawn closer to the Mother Country, but in his opinion it was hardly the way to carry out such an excellent sentiment to tax their wines. It was disgraceful when they were told by the Vice-President of the Council how miserable and bad the schools were and how desirable it would be to spend more money on them that such amounts had been spent on armaments. Out of all the money the Government had spent during the time they had been in office they had been unable to spare a penny for the purposes of improving education. In conclusion, Mr. Labouchere said he should oppose any indirect taxation whatever, but he would welcome direct taxation if the money was spent in a proper manner—such as in Old-Age Pensions, education, and any other matter which should be governed by the State for the benefit of, and which would affect, the entire community. He admitted that the Liberal Party was not free from blame in regard to the great expenditure on armaments. They had dallied with the unclean thing, and had actually voted the money for it, but they had grown wiser, and now declared that they objected to it. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw his Budget and bring in a

  1045
  fresh one, where the incidence of taxation was placed upon a sounder financial basis than at present. He should vote against the Budget.
  *MR. BANBURYdid not think that the majority of Members on the Government side of the House and the great body of feeling in the country would agree with the honourable Gentleman who had just spoken. Either the conditions of the country warranted a suspension of the Sinking Fund or they did not, and he thought they did. The speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton went to prove that during past years, when prosperity was not so great, there had been enormous reductions in the Debt, and that our prosperity now was not likely to diminish. That surely was an argument in favour of the suspension of the operations of the Sinking Fund. If the Debt was burdensome, and the interest was hard to pay, and if there was a period of unexampled prosperity which it was thought was not likely to continue, then everything that was possible ought to be done to reduce the Debt; but, as had been pointed out, the prosperity of this country was not likely to decline, and, therefore, under the circumstances, he did not see why the Government should not avail themselves of the advantage now before them and reduce the Sinking Fund instead of wasting the money in taking up Consols at so high a premium. He quite agreed with the honourable and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, who had said it was easy enough to suggest in the House that there were other investments quite as safe as Consols in which the Government might invest, but it was a very difficult thing to find those investments. When one came to consider that £15,000,000 was the amount to be invested in Consols, in 10 years that meant £150,000,000, and it was very easy to say that it could be put in something else, but it was very difficult to find suitable securities. The honourable and learned Member opposite had alluded to the advantage of lending money to local authorities, but he forgot that the Savings Banks were in a peculiar position, because the funds had to be easily realisable. If they lent the money to municipalities they could not realise it
  1046
  when they wanted, and in the event of a run on the Savings Bank it would be very dangerous to have their money invested in such securities. It was a very large question, which required a great deal of consideration, but on one point he agreed with the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and that was that if the Savings Bank money could be invested in Indian securities it would be an advantage, because India was part of the Empire. That question, however, hardly arose at present, and would require a very great deal of time to deal with it. The right honourable Gentleman wound up his speech by saying that the Sinking Fund was the war chest of the nation, and that statement had been repeated in a great many newspapers. That merely meant that a certain amount of money could be raised without any additional taxation. He did not suppose that any honourable Member would say that the mere act of the suspension of £2,000,000 of the Sinking Fund would prevent the country raising any amount of money should a crisis arise. He might point out that the price of Consols had not been moved at all by the suspension of the Sinking Fund which had been proposed, and the credit of the country had in no way been impaired. He would give them an example. Suppose in five years, by some misfortune, they had a war with another European Power, and they had to raise £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 of money. They could raise it with equal facility whether the Sinking Fund was partially suspended or not; what they would have to do would be to put on fresh taxation to meet the interest on that 60 or 70 millions. The question before them was whether they should put £2,000,000 on their taxation to-day in order to provide for a contingency which might arise in five or six years' time. Was it not better to wait till the emergency arose? He did not suppose the country was prepared to pay extra taxation to deal with an eventuality which had not yet occurred. Now, how had this money been spent? It had been spent in making preparations to avoid war. Last November when they went through a very critical period of their history the expenditure of putting their Fleet in order was something like £70,000. But some years ago, when they had a dispute with a

  1047
  European Power their expenditure to put the national armaments in good order was £11,000,000. Was it not better to suspend a small portion of the Sinking Fund and have no increase of taxation, than to continue the Sinking Fund and then ask for a large amount of taxation? The right honourable Gentleman opposite seemed to think it was an absolute evil to be in debt, but he might point out that many large firms considered it an advantage to be in debt, and he would give them a simple illustration. Take a manufacturing firm which had spent a large amount of money, say £100,000, upon a freehold warehouse. Suppose they borrowed £75,000 on mortgage and gradually reduced it to £50,000, which they borrowed at 3½ per cent. They would not pay off that £50,000 because they could employ their money more profitably in the business. Now, with all due deference to the great ability of the right honourable Gentleman, he thought the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a sound one. He had met a good many financial authorities recently, and he had discussed this matter with them, and with hardly a single exception they agreed with him that a partial suspension of the Sinking Fund at the present moment, when the National Debt was reduced and when the national credit was good, was an advantageous circumstance, and a good piece of finance on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. BUXTONsaid the right honourable Gentleman had stated that the only alternative to his proposals was an additional penny on the income tax. He had never heard a Budget speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say—what is your alternative proposal? That was not their business, although he might say that there was the obvious alternative of the re-imposition of the tobacco duty. Nobody wanted that relief, and it benefited nobody but the middlemen. If he had carried out that policy there would have been no necessity for going to the Sinking Fund, because the amount of the deficit would have been very small. He said the other day that he was bound to provide for the expenditure, but that was no justification for suspending the Sinking Fund. When there was a great emergency the suspension of the Sinking
  1048
  Fund was justifiable, for that was the purpose for which it was instituted. If circumstances arose under which they could no longer purchase Consols in the market, it would be necessary to deal with the Sinking Fund, but he did not anticipate a day on which such a necessity could possibly arise. He should have thought that the experience that they had had in reference to this matter would have been sufficient to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have refrained from again using the old argument used by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1887, that if he then dealt with the Sinking Fund and reduced it, it would prevent any future Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with it in the same way. When the First Lord of the Admiralty made a somewhat similar proposal in 1887 he said that £6,000,000 was a formidable sum to have at his disposal, and he placed it on a safer footing in the future by reducing the annual amount to £26,000,000. The right honourable Gentleman seemed to have totally misconceived the whole aim and object of the Sinking Fund itself, and he said be had taken £2,000,000 from it because it had accumulated since 1887, when the last raid was made upon the Sinking Fund. That was simply cutting against the whole principle of the Sinking Fund. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the new Sinking Fund was never intended to be anything but a small unappropriated balance of the fixed Debt charge. He could hardly have read the speech of Sir Stafford Northcote when he introduced the new Sinking Fund, or the return which was issued, showing what was in the minds of those who introduced it. Sir Stafford Northcote calculated that the amount of reduction of the Debt in 1899 would be no less than £10,900,000, and that by the year 1904 the reduction would be about £13,000,000 a year, proving that Sir Stafford Northcote never intended that £28,000,000 should be the permanent charge. The right honourable Gentleman had said that the circumstances had altered since, but they had altered for the better, and the country was more able at present than it was in 1874 to contribute to the reduction of the Debt. He did think that the House ought to consider the position in which the country stood with regard to its great indebtedness. It had been men-

  1049
  tioned the other day that not only was the National Debt £640,000,000, but that they had also £300,000,000 of local indebtedness as well. That was called reproductive expenditure, but it was still a debt of the country. This year the net reduction of that £640,000,000 was only £3,500,000, and under those circumstances it was not too much to ask that the Sinking Fund should not have been further touched, but should have been allowed to carry out its object. He thought they ought to look at the general total of taxation in deciding whether the country was in a position to bear a smaller or a larger charge, and anyone who took the trouble to go into the figures would see that they were now consuming a larger amount per head than they were in 1875, and that the income tax and all other sources of revenue were much more reproductive now than they were at that period. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that they ought not to buy Consols at the price which they were at the present moment. It was obvious that if Consols were cheaper they would make a better bargain, and it seemed to be forgotten that if they ceased to buy they would still continue to pay interest on them. Consequently, they would be a better bargain now than at a later stage. A good deal had been said about reducing the price of Consols by finding other investments, and the Member for Haddington mentioned the Savings Bank, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had practically admitted that there was some force in what had been said to justify an inquiry into the matter. His right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had pointed out that there were the Two-and-a-half Per Cents, which it would be all the better to extinguish, because they were not stock which was easily dealt with, and they might involve, some £20,000,000 of investments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the creation of further terminable annuities, said he was going to cancel £15,000,000 of Savings Bank stock, and it was said that he might cancel sufficient to make up the £2,000,000 which he had taken from the Sinking Fund. He had also stated that in order to do that it would be necessary to cancel £60,000,000 of stock, and that that would reduce the amount in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners to too small a point. Taking that £15,000,000
  1050
  for 23 years it would involve a charge of £870,000 a year; and, therefore, to utilise the £2,000,000 would have involved not £60,000,000 of stock, but only £35,000,000. In view of the amount which was at present in the hands of the Savings Bank, he would ask the right honourable Gentleman if he could not see his way to cancel another £15,000,000 in order to spread this charge to the furthest extent possible. Mr. Childers, in 1885, cancelled no less than £70,000,000 of stock, which left him only something like £40,000,000 of Consols, whereas if the right honourable Gentleman did what he had suggested he would still have about £80,000,000 of stock. He thought this was a matter which they might very well bring to the right honourable Gentleman's attention, because if it only involved about £35,000,000 the difficulty might be overcome by creating terminable annuities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dwelt very largely on the great expenditure of the country as one of the reasons why he proposed to reduce the repayments on the Debt. That was the very last argument which the right honourable Gentleman ought to use as an explanation for meddling with the Sinking Fund. A great many of them believed that a great amount of the national expenditure, especially for the Navy, had been absolutely necessary for the safety of the country, but they believed there was no sufficient check on that expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury had been giving money out with both hands, and nothing tended more to extravagance than the thought that each Department could get as much money as it liked. The only real check in the past, as in the present, was the knowledge that if there were a deficit it must be met by taxation. That knowledge strengthened the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made for economy. On the ground of economy, and because it was especially advantageous to the country that it ought not to cease to repay the Debt, and ought not to break that principle for the sake of about £200,000 a year, he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid that the indictment raised against the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed

  1051
  to be drawn on abstract lines. The right honourable Baronet the Member for Wolverhampton endeavoured to prove that in making any proposal for the reduction of the Sinking Fund my right honourable Friend was proving himself a financial heretic. In the matter of financial orthodoxy and heresy, he thought the Committee was very much in the state of the early Church during the Ayrian controversy, when parties were so evenly balanced that orthodoxy and heresy were bandied from side to side. He wished the House to consider the matter from the plain business point of view. He thought they all agreed that a Sinking Fund once set up was worthy of respect, but there was a fallacy in endeavouring to erect into an immutable law a principle that was of general application. In finance, as in morals, circumstances should be allowed to alter cases. The right honourable Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, asked what were the circumstances that could justify the reduction of the Sinking Fund in a time of prosperity. The Government, to be successful, must be run on sound business lines. In all great industrious concerns it was the practice to "write off" a fixed percentage, and that continued in normal years, but not in abnormal years. In a year in which stock had to be renewed, or where there was a large expenditure for plant, or for other purposes, the amount written off would be found to be less, the justification being that the value of the assets had been increased. That appeared to him to be exactly what the Government had done. They had added very largely to the extent and power of the Navy, and in doing that they had endowed the country with the most valuable asset it could have. It seemed to him, therefore, that the Government was justified in diminishing somewhat the amount "written off," and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proceeded in a perfectly businesslike manner. There was no doubt that the real justification of the Sinking Fund was the fact that in time of war the six or seven millions now paid would represent a capital sum of 200 or 300 millions raised without any cost to the country. That was an advantage which no other country possessed, and surely it was only reasonable that in a year when they had undertaken so much that the Fund
  1052
  created for the purpose of meeting a war charge should be in part appropriated for the expense of the present year, incurred for the very purposes for which the Fund was created, namely, to provide against the risks of war. The Budget was a popular Budget. Every Budget should be popular, but it was especially necessary at present that they should not put any heavy charge on the people that could be avoided in order that they should not create a reaction against the increase of the Army. Such reaction would be a great disaster, and the Government had very wisely followed the line of least resistance. The right honourable Baronet said that he considered the proper way to reduce the Debt was by fixed payments of fixed amounts. It seemed to him that that was not such a sound proposition as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the reduction of the Debt should bear a certain proportion to the amount outstanding. That appeared to him to be the more logical method. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be possible to arrange annuities rather on the principle of payment by instalments of a fixed sum of capital with interest that diminished every year. He would accomplish the same object with greater symmetry and with greater fairness to succeeding years The question of how to find when Consols stood at a prohibitive premium an investment for the Savings Bank Fund was indeed a matter of extreme difficulty, and he was very glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was willing to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. Look at the amount they were paying. In 1894 £37,000,000 of Consols were bought, at an average discount of 2½, which was very good business; since 1894 no less than £75,000,000 had been bought at an average premium of 7¼, which actually meant a loss to the country, when the time of maturity arrived, of no less than 5½ millions. That could not be said to be a satisfactory financial transaction. The question now arose, were they going to continue to run the Savings Bank at a loss, or should they reduce the rate of interest? He confessed, if it were possible to avoid it, that he would very much regret to see the rate of interest reduced at a time when they were doing

  1053
  all they could to foster habits of thrift. But they could not, as business people, continue to run the Savings Bank at a loss. They might meet the difficulty by widening the area of investment, and it seemed to him that India stocks formed a very suitable field of investment for the Savings Bank Fund. It would not cause any very heavy burden on the country, because they practically guaranteed them already. Another subject to which he would venture to call attention was that of local loans. The Local Loans Fund was not a very suitable stock for investment by municipalities and local bodies. It was a 3 per cent. stock, which stood at a high premium, and was redeemable as soon as 1912. Local debts of the country had been increasing at even a greater length than the National Debt was being paid off, the increase during the last five years being something like 45 millions. Would it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain leave to make another issue, say a 2½ per cent. Local Loan Stock, and to invite the municipal corporations, urban sanitary authorities, and district councils to borrow from it? Would it not be possible to place the Government in somewhat the same position as regards its system of finance as that occupied by the London County Council? He would not refer to the wine and stamp duties, except to remark that the business in foreign securities ran on high and very delicate lines. He thought right honourable and honourable Gentlemen who objected to the reduction of the Sinking Fund were bound to indicate an alternative. The right honourable Baronet had held up to them for admiration the example of Mr Gladstone, who in time of peace refused to reduce the charge on the Debt, but put a penny on the income tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did that, he would meet with even greater opposition than was shown to his present proposals. It was practically impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to endanger his Government by proposing new sources of taxation which would be unpopular throughout the country, and he could not blame the right honourable Gentleman if he declined to walk into the snare laid for him by the Opposition, instead of taking the more cautious course he adopted. There was, however, danger to the country lest the necessity for popularity,
  1054
  or rather the necessity of avoiding unpopularity, should impel them into methods of cowardly, niggardly, or paltry finance. It was, perhaps, utopian to hope that finance, like their foreign policy, might be removed beyond the sphere of Party politics, but he thought that in times of crisis, or when they were preparing for a great national emergency, there might be some co-operation between Chancellors of the Exchequer, present and potential, and that with the approbation of Leaders on both sides, something might be done by the imposition of some tax, direct or indirect, that should, without exemption or fear or favour, bring home to every man in the country the responsibility of his vote. It seemed to him that it was unfair that any charge for any great national object should be laid upon any class exclusively. The great and salutary lesson should be taught that those who have sanctioned expenditure for the national defence should also take their part in paying the bill. He begged to give his most hearty support to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he was convinced that the line he had taken would meet with the concurrence of the business community of the country, and would obtain, not only the approval, but the gratitude of the country at large.
  MR. MOULTONsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew from the various Amendments the idea that there was a difference of opinion among Members of the Opposition on the subject, but the right honourable Gentleman would find that there was no difference of opinion on the main point of the Budget, namely, that increased taxation was to be avoided in the circumstances of the year by diminishing the amount for the repayment of the Debt. It appeared to him that the reasons on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had based his action were not only equally open to criticism, but were more injurious even than the step he had taken with regard to taxation itself. He admitted that the circumstances of the day were exceptional, but exceptional in a very different way from that in which they were regarded by honourable Members on the other side. He did not agree entirely with the limited view that paying off the Debt was a payment into the war chest, unless it was meant to

  1055
  leave the nation with a greater reserve of strength for any exceptional trial or Calamity. It appeared to him that the sanction of the regular payments of the Debt was far higher than that. It was that while they had a right to call on their successors to assist in bearing exceptional expenditure, they could not do that with a good conscience unless they felt that they too had borne their share of the exceptional expenditure of their predecessors. He was astonished to hear the references of the honourable Member for Peckham to the enormous sacrifices which the country had made in paying off the Debt. It had only paid off one-fifth of the Debt in the sixty years of Her Majesty's reign. Was that an enormous sacrifice for a great nation? The fact was that the figures were so large, and the amount of the Debt itself so overwhelming, that it was considered astonishing that they were not satisfied at a payment of seven millions. That was because it was forgotten that the Debt itself was between 600 and 700 millions. They had tried several methods of reducing the Debt, and of keeping before the mind of the people the duty of doing so. They had invented the system of terminable annuities, and in Sir Stafford Northcote's time a fixed Debt charge was introduced, which was a. most excellent idea. What he felt that they had a right to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for was, that his argument struck at the root of all attempts to pay off the National Debt within anything like a reasonable time. The right honourable Gentleman's argument was that supposing the interest on the Debt was reduced, clearly the taxpayers of the moment had a right to take the benefit of that reduction. But he saw no reason why the fall in the rate of interest should release the taxpayers from a simple duty. Suppose the rate of interest had gone up for some reason instead of down, would that have been a reason for their not paying off the same as they would under more fortunate circumstances? In fact, in his view, as the interest went down, they ought to increase rather than decrease the amount of Debt paid off. A still more dangerous argument was, that as we paid off the Debt and the Debt got smaller, we ought to lessen the amount devoted to Debt extinction. Now that was exactly opposed to Sir Stafford Northcote's principle of a fixed Debt
  1056
  charge. The essence of a fixed Debt charge was that you paid a certain amount every year, and gradually the proportion that went to the extinction of the capital Debt got larger and larger every year. But if they diminished the reduction of Debt in proportion to the amount of the Debt, there was not a man who knew anything about figures who would not say that meant they were not going to pay off the Debt for a whole eternity. But it was further said that they ought to diminish the amount paid off in proportion, not to the amount of the Debt, but to the amount, which was decreasing more rapidly every year, of the Debt in the hands of the public. On that principle they would pay off more slowly than ever. If these arguments were to be treated as a justification for relaxing efforts for the payment of the Debt there was no chance whatever for future Chancellors of Exchequer ever contemplating the extinction of the Debt at all. They had had this year, in support of the action—which might be right or might be wrong—four reasons assigned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for diminishing the Debt charge in a prosperous year, any one of them being sufficient to excuse, under any circumstances, any future Chancellor of Exchequer, however cowardly he might be in regard to increased taxation, or however faithless he might be to his duty of keeping up the discharge of the Debt, for not keeping up the amount of Debt to be paid off. He regretted more than the diminution of the Debt charge by two millions the reasons which had been assigned for diminishing it. The only way was to fix a standard of sacrifice, and to keep to that through evil report and good report. Unless they did that the sense of duty in regard to paying off the Debt would wax feebler and feebler, and the result would be a recognition by the Government of the perpetuity of the burden, which would be a disgrace to an honourable commercial nation like England. So much for the reasons which depended on abstract matters. Let them turn to the excuses given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this particular instance for relaxing the payment of the Debt. Those reasons were equally bad and equally effective in any year; but those which depended on the circumstances of the moment were, if possible, worse. In the first place the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that three or four

  1057
  years hence, thanks to the sacrifices of their predecessors, the interest charged on the Debt would be greatly reduced. That was a strange reason. Because some years hence the interest on the Debt charge would be reduced, they should take advantage of it before it came! But it was still more strange, when they considered that that was the result of the sacrifices of past years, in the hope that the Debt would be got rid of in a reasonable time, to make that an excuse for not imitating those efforts, but for relaxing them. Another reason given was that Consols were very dear, and they had to pay a premium for them it they wanted to buy them back. He did not understand how the present Chancellor of the Exchequer could put that forward effective in the present year. In 1903 there were the Two-and-a-Half per Cents, which could be redeemed to the extent of something like 20 millions, and the consequence was that, instead of taking up Consols about 110 or 111, they could get them at 103. He did not want to rest on that, because he thought that the question as to the effect on the national finances of Consols being at a premium was one that ought to be looked at in the face. Sooner or later it would come plainly before the House that the price of Consols corresponded with the fact that the rate of interest for such a security as that was not much above 2 per cent. They saw the Two-and-a-Half per Cents. going to be paid off in 1905 standing at 103, and those that were going to be paid off in 1923 standing at about 113. Persons who bought these were investing their money so as to receive 2 per cent. upon it. Therefore they had got to consider that in all departments of national finance interest on money was 2 per cent., and when they bought Consols at 110, not only was the capital indebtedness of £100 which was paid off in 1923 got rid of, but also the 2½ per cent. per annum which had to be paid for the intervening years, one half per cent. of which was exaggerated interest. How, therefore, could it be said that it was a loss to buy Consols at 110? He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider what ought to be done in regard to the savings of the nation. Either he must go on purchasing Consols at 110, which he had shown would be a bargain involving no loss, or he was bound to face the difficulty of finding some other method of investing
  1058
  the savings of the nation. If the price of Consols was fictitious, just consider the iniquity of the position which compelled the Government to invest in Consols and in kindred stocks, the balance of the deposits in the savings banks. They were making them buy a security which was not worth the money they were paying for it. He believed himself that it would be found that the fall in interest was the true cause of the rise in the price of the security. Instead of discharging Debt they were taking up liabilities every year which did not appear in the National Debt accounts, and every penny so taken up constituted a 2¾ per cent. liability. The consequence was that they were adding to the liabilities of the country every day. Surely that was a state of things which ought to make them pause. But if our liabilities were greater than we had realised, surely that was a reason why they should still continue to save. Anything was better than at this moment to abandon saving; and that was what was proposed to be done to the extent of no less than two millions a year at this critical moment. He noticed that many honourable Members seemed to think that there was a Heaven-sent method of escaping this rigorous examination of the state of things by reason of the fact that we could use terminable annuities. Now, terminable annuities had completely changed their character since Consols had gone above par, and the amount paid off every year was larger than that taken by private persons on the terminable annuities. Changing £20,000,000 of Consols in the hands of a Government Department for terminable annuities was practically a pure illusion. If we were going to spend £20,000,000 in terminable annuities and to pay a million more in interest on that stock, the only change that was made was that that Department of Government had got a good investment for these millions instead of the National Debt Commissioners. Those sums in the hands of the Government Departments represented the sums that they had to keep at interest in order to meet the liabilities of the Savings Bank Fund. The consequence was that unless they were prepared to enlarge the list of securities in which the Savings Bank could invest, they were doing very little indeed in taking to terminable annuities. He was himself perfectly convinced that when this matter was looked into,

  1059
  when they decided whether they were going to lower the interest on the Savings Bank deposits or not, and when they realised what a fearful thing it would be if, for the next 20 years, they were to diminish their efforts at saving simply because they had to buy Consols at a premium, he thought they would have to take some form of investment so as to prevent a very exaggerated price of Consols. But if he was right in thinking that the true rate of interest had fallen to 2 per cent., they would never get any other value for Consols than that which represented the premium that ought to be paid upon them, because they could not be paid off till 1923. He asked the House what reason was there, at a time of unexampled prosperity, for their shirking the two millions of the burden which last year and the year before, and the year before that again, they had borne. Why should they not pay their fair share this year? It was idle to talk of the nation not paying off Debt till 1923 because Consols could in that year be redeemed at a lower price. Each year the nation changed. The nation of this year ought to face its duty, and they would be unable to maintain their high standard in the years to come if they allowed such trivial excuse as that. How could they expect the nation that would come after to be more conscientious. See what the result would be. There was a Debt of 640 millions, and seven millions were held to be too much by which to reduce it every year, and it was curtailed to five millions. But if they only paid off Debt at the rate of five millions a year instead of seven, that meant that it would take something like 130 years before the existing Debt was paid off. And who would venture to say that throughout those 130 years England would have the same power to bear a heavy Debt as now? This was the heyday of national prosperity, largely on account, of our trade conditions and our position. But it was known that our finest resources—our coal and iron—were diminishing very fast. Could it be suggested that any one of them, as an honest man, could be entitled to say that he was so justified in thinking that the prosperity of England would last another 100 years, that we need not pay off our Debt. By resorting to this species of repudiation they would be lowering the national standard to a great degree. The burden of the speech of the Chancellor of
  1060
  the Exchequer was that the poor did not like taxation, and the Government would not put it on the rich; therefore, what could they do but diminish the payment of the Debt? It was an act of dishonesty towards posterity to actually diminish the standard of Debt discharge fixed years ago and loyally adhered to so long.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEYthought that, as to the propriety of paying off Debt when Consols were at a high premium, almost everything had been said that could be said without going deep into technical details. Honourable Gentlemen opposite must not suppose that he was content with a state of things in which we were gradually converting the National Debt from an irredeemable annuity into a debt which was payable in cash at sight. That was not a satisfactory state of things. It had been assumed all through the Debate that this was a year, not only of prosperity, but also of peace. It was nothing of the kind. If he might borrow the expression used in one of the earlier Debates by his honourable and gallant Friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division, that peace, if it existed, was a precarious peace. It was a peace which we could only maintain by this gigantic expenditure. The peace which the country enjoyed at the present time could not be said to be further from war than was the peace in 1878 and 1885, in both of which years the Sinking Fund was partly suspended, except by the use of arguments too thin to stand the test of examination. In 1878, it was thought fit by Sir Stafford Northcote to suspend the Sinking Fund, as we wanted to prevent Russia from going to Constantinople, and we thereby made such preparations as prevented a war with Russia. In 1885, we suspended the Sinking Fund again to prevent Russia from going to Herat, and in that way again prevented Russia from assuming a position which menaced the peace of the whole Empire. The difficulty of the present Debate was that Her Majesty's Ministers could not, from considerations of international relations, use the arguments which would be the virtual defence of their policy, and he must say that he did not think honourable and right honourable Gentlemen opposite had made fair use of the advantage they thus enjoyed. The present situation was this, that when they reflected upon the events of 1898, there

  1061
  was not a man in the House who could say with certainty that we should not have been at war if in 1898 our Navy and national defences had been relatively to those of other nations such as they were, say, before the initiation of the Spencer programme of 1894. Did any man doubt that if now we were to allow our defensive power to fall behind that of other States, it was more than likely that we should be at war for our national existence? As alternatives to the suspension of the Sinking Fund, they had had specific proposals from a number of Members, but none from the Member for West Monmouth, and it was only from his record that they could venture to guess what his alternatives would be. The right honourable Gentleman was great upon courage, but he had never faced a deficit except by one of three methods. He either taxed those who were certain to vote against him, and from whom he therefore had nothing to fear, or he taxed those who were electorally so insignificant that it required no courage at all to tax them; or to meet a temporary financial deficit he was content to go on with ships without guns, or with guns without ammunition. He (Mr. Stuart Wortley) was glad that the present Government had not courage of that kind. The best part, to his thinking, of the proposed suspension of the Sinking Fund was its presumptive permanence. The present situation consisted of a rivalry for supremacy, and the only way to stop that rivalry and the consequent abnormal expenditure was to indicate to other nations that whatever they spent on armaments, we would spend as much and more. To such contest there could only be one end, and those must win to whom the contest was not a question of mere adventure, but of national existence and of life and death. Such a struggle had now been forced on us by Powers that need not be named; and he was glad the Government, by having the courage to make permanent provision for the expenditure thereby rendered necessary, were doing that which was most likely to remove the causes which led to our present financial necessities.
  *MR. MENDLsaid it was fundamental fallacy to treat our armaments as if they were all that was necessary in case of a European war. The possibility of our being able to succeed
  1062
  in the event of war would depend upon the financial reserve we had in hand, and that reserve seemed to him to be very seriously impaired by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Surely, in a time of prosperity, it was our business to do all we could to keep up the payment of the Debt in order to provide for any emergency which might arise. The question of the present price of Consols had really nothing whatever to do with the matter of our obligation to pay off Debt. He was very glad to hear that the Government had agreed to an inquiry into the question of the Savings Banks, and pointed out that since the limit of deposits had been increased to £300, which had, of course, increased competition in the Consol market, Savings Bank investments could not be said to be those of the working classes so much as formerly, and it was not right that the Government should practically make a money present to a class of people very well able to take care of themselves. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal as to the Sinking Fund simply meant that the Debt would be extinguished in 1959 instead of in 1943, and that meant that for 16 years the country would have to go on paying interest on, and cost of management of, the Debt longer, in consequence of the successive reductions of the Fund made by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He protested that we had a right to consider the taxpayers of the next generation. He asserted that the proposal was disapproved of by business people of all shades of opinion in the country, and that it would ultimately prove the Nemesis of the Government.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved the adjournment of the Debate at midnight.

  REPORT OF SUPPLY.
  The Report of Supply of Friday last—the Education Estimates—was brought up, and, on the Question that the House agree with the Resolution then arrived at in Committee,
  SIR J GORSTrose and said: Just before the Committee of Supply closed

  1063
  on Friday night, the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was pleased to make some personal observations about myself. I had, in my statement, laid before the House matters of very grave importance connected with the education of the country, and matters of far greater importance than any question of any person's personal position or interests. The Debate throughout the evening had been maintained at a very high level, and I was extremely sorry that at the very end it should have been dragged down by so small and unimportant a matter as that brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman. The House of Commons has a right to call upon any Minister of the Crown to explain his position at any time, and when the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to challenge me to explain my position with the Government, I think it is only due to him and to the House of Commons that I should as shortly as possible do so. I am sure the House of Commons will give me that fair treatment and courtesy which it always shows to Ministers. Since the present Government has been in office the Duke of Devonshire has been the head of the Education Department. I have never been the head of that Department; I have only been a subordinate member of it. I know I have said so repeatedly in the House of Commons, but they have been reluctant to believe me—I believe chiefly because my predecessor, Mr. Acland, was at the head of the Department and held a position very different to that which I hold. He had powers which I do not possess; he had responsibilities which are not properly thrown upon me. I heard said—in fact, it was publicly stated—that an attack was to be made on Friday night on my position in the Government, and I therefore read to the Committee, with the approval of the Lord President, whom I consulted on the subject, the Order in Council which defined the constitutional position of the Vice-President, and which explained the position which he actually holds in the present Government. I have never found any difficulty in acting as a subordinate official of the Duke of Devonshire and in carrying out the various directions, administrative and legislative, which I have received from him, because, if I may be allowed to say so, the views and opinions of the Lord
  1064
  President and myself upon the subject of education are entirely in sympathy with each other. In my remarks on Friday night I went on to say there never has been a difference of opinion between us. On some minor questions I should be very sorry to try to make the Lord President responsible for every expression I have used in Debate in this House; but upon all questions, upon all important questions, we are entirely in sympathy, and the general education policy which I have propounded and tried to enforce in this House is entirely in accord with my noble Friend's, opinions and views. Then it is said that the Department has been several times overruled by the Government No doubt it has. But Departments are overruled by all Governments, because a Department looks upon a question only from its own point of view. The Government has to look at it, in addition, as it relates to the general policy and the general proceedings of the country. We have frequently desired to make reforms in education for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us he could not find any money. We have often desired to have Bills promoted in this House, when the Government have thought that other Measures were more important and pressing, and that ours must give way. But if, when a Department was overruled by the Government, the Parliamentary officials of that Department were all to resign, it would be quite impossible to carry on the government of the country. There is no doubt that cases may arise—I believe extremely rarely—but cases may arise in which the head of a Department might find it to be his duty to resign. But surely that is a function that should be discharged in the first instance by the head of the Department, and not by a subordinate official. The present Lord President of the Council is a man of very much longer and very much more extensive political experience than I, and is a man who, I believe, on both sides of the House is regarded as the very embodiment of political honour, and so long as he is able to continue to hold his office and to continue to act with the Government as the head of the Educational Department it would be in my opinion a piece of rashness and presumption on the part of the second officer of the Department to presume to resign his office and thus inflict an un-

  1065
  founded censure upon his chief for not having taken the same course. Now, I think the intention to attack the office which I hold was a little interfered with by my reading out the Order in Council on Friday night; therefore, the right honourable Gentleman was good enough to supplement his attack by an insinuation that I conveyed to the House matters in such a form as to ridicule the Department to which I belonged and the Lord President who is my chief. He said—
  "When he speaks of the Department and the President of the Council there is a hardly disguised ridicule conveyed to the House."
  Now, I have always tried to enliven the dull speeches which I am often obliged to make to the House by harmless pleasantry, which I thought sometimes amused the House. But I deny with the utmost indignation that I have ever east ridicule either upon the Department to which I belong or upon its chief, the President of the Council. This is not the first time that an insinuation of this kind has been made against me, and, oddly enough, by the same right honourable Gentleman, because, as he had the temerity to remind the House on Friday night, he made a similar charge against me in reference to Lord Cross when I held the office of Under Secretary of State for India. These sort of insinuations are obviously intended to sow dissension between Members of the Government. On that occasion the right honourable Gentleman entirely failed, because I remained for a long time after that Under Secretary of State for India, and during the whole of the time I held that office I retained the full confidence of my noble Friend Lord Cross, and he refuted in the strongest terms that he had any idea that there was any truth whatever in the insinuation which the right honourable Gentleman made. I believe I have now exactly in the same way the confidence of the Duke of Devonshire. Why should I seek to cast ridicule on the Department with whose policy in education I entirely agree, and why should I try to cast ridicule on the chief for whose political career and political honour I have the profound respect which I entertain for the Duke of Devonshire? To misinterpret anything which I may have said in the House of Commons as a desire to cast ridicule upon my chief is an accusation which I do not think the
  1066
  right honourable Gentleman should have made, and as it was made in the House of Commons, I in the House of Commons beg most emphatically to repudiate it. I wish the House of Commons to understand that I discharge the duties which are made in the Order in Council, the duties which I understand to be the duties of my office: that I am not responsible for the policy, I am not responsible for what is done in this House, except in the sense in which a person that has received directions is bound to carry those directions out and to defend that policy in the House when it is assailed. And as long as I retain, as I believe I do retain, the confidence of my chief, the Duke of Devonshire, and his colleagues, I do not care what the right honourable Gentleman or those who support him may say of me.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right honourable Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, has thought fit, and I am not surprised, to recur to the subject which we treated of on Friday night. The right honourable Gentleman speaks of a personal attack which I made upon him, and he appears to think that that attack came in opportunely or improperly at the end of a Debate upon educational topics, which was of an unusually elevated tone. I quite agree with him in that, and I said so the other night. But it was the right honourable Gentleman himself who opened the subject of his own personal position in his speech in introducing the Vote to the House. He anticipated that he was to be attacked, and he proceeded to give us that defence of himself which he thought would be most effective by reading the exact terms of the Order in Council which defines his duties in his Department. Therefore, it would have been a strange thing indeed if I had not taken any notice at all of that part of the right honourable Gentleman's speech. But the right honourable Gentleman complains, or, at any rate, in extenuation of anything he may do, asserts, that he is not at the head of his Department; that he, therefore, is not in the same position as his immediate predecessor, Mr. Acland, and that he cannot be expected to have, as it were, a policy of his own on educational matters. But Mr. Acland was not the right honourable Gentleman's only predecessor. We can go back to the days when my friend, the late Mr. Mundella, occupied exactly the same position as the right honourable

  1067
  Gentleman for many years—not a member of the Cabinet, serving under the Lord President, and yet practically directing the educational policy of the country, and, at all events, never provoking those curious little episodes which have been periodic in the case of the right honourable Gentleman. The truth is that the right honourable Gentleman has a pretty turn for ironical wit, and he cannot help bringing that ironical wit into play even when he is speaking of so exalted a person as the head of his own Department. He assures us that when we find him taking a line in argument or in action in the House which we find difficult to reconcile with what appears to be the ordinary course which his duty would prescribe for him, he says that he is perfectly at one with the Lord President. The Lord President is a mythical person to us. We look to the right honourable Gentleman for the exposition of the policy of his Department, and it is because we find him constantly—I will speak plainly on the subject—constantly speaking of himself on these questions with his tongue in his cheek, it is on that ground that I think I am justified in saying that there is some ridicule—I think the word I used was contempt, but I may have used the word ridicule—thrown upon any doings of his Department. If the House wishes to have an example of the very thing I am speaking of, we need not go further back than the speech he has now delivered, because, when referring to the suggestion that if his action and his opinions differ so much from those which commend themselves to the Government, as they have on some occasions, he should resign his office, he immediately suggests that the President of the Council ought to resign—
  SIR J. GORST: I never said that.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And that so long as the President of the Council, who has such a high sense of honour, remains in his office, the right honourable Gentleman himself is perfectly entitled to remain where he is. All I have to say is, and I say it openly, my quarrel is not with the right honourable Gentleman. I did justice, think, the other night, in speaking of him, to his great and known ability, and even to that very humorous turn which we all so much admire in him, but my
  1068
  quarrel is much more with Her Majesty's Government for allowing this great question of national education to be made, as it were, the sport of the light fancy of the right honourable Gentleman. It has been apparent to us for a long time. Actually, we have had a Bill on an educational question introduced and passed through the House upon which the right honourable Gentleman was not allowed—or, at all events, as a matter of fact upon which he did not take any part from first to last—
  SIR J. GORST: Oh, I beg your pardon, if the right honourable Gentleman is referring to the Education Bill of 1897 I spoke several times, both on the Bill and in Committee.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There may have been just enough of interference to prevent the absolute accuracy of the allegation of total abstinence, but, at all events, the right honourable Gentleman ostentatiously remained at the far end of the Bench during the greater part of the discussion and he has been in the habit of conducting the business which falls to him as a representative of the Department with that spirit and in that way which certainly does not conduce to satisfactory progress. I know I am speaking the opinion, not of myself or of my immediate friends, but of the great majority of the House, when I say that we have never seen the affairs of a Department conducted in the manner in which the right honourable Gentleman seems to think it becoming to conduct the great questions with which he deals. It is on that ground that I made the observations which I made the other night, to which I adhere, and which I think have met with the approval of most of those who watch the proceedings in educational matters of this country. As I said before, my complaint is rather against the Government than against the right honourable Gentleman. Let the Government avail themselves of the benefit of being able to command the services of the right honourable Gentleman by putting him into some other place where he will not have a Lord President, or even a Committee of the Privy Council, and where he will have the liberty of independent action, then I have no doubt they will derive great use from his assistance. But in the present position in which he stands, so long as his duties are conducted in the manner to which we

  1069
  have become accustomed, I am afraid that all the friends of education will see much to complain of in the arrangement.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The right honourable Gentleman has made what he describes as an attack on Her Majesty's Government. He has carefully abstained from pretending that his attack was directed against the Vice-President, but he has said that it is directed rather against Her Majesty's Government than against any particular Minister. We owe a great deal to the Leaders of the Opposition in this House, and, among other Leaders, to the right honourable Gentleman. They perform useful and important functions, but it has never been pretended that it falls within their province to determine either who are to form part of Her Majesty's Government or what particular offices the Gentlemen who are to form part of it are to fill. It appears that the right honourable Gentleman has carefully watched the career of the Vice-President. He has studied his speeches and his performances. He admires his wit, and has a great opinion of his humour; but, says the right honourable Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Council would be rather more suited to some other office than the office of Education. The right honourable Gentleman really must allow Her Majesty's Government to settle their own little internal affairs for themselves. The time will no doubt come when the right honourable Gentleman will give important advice on the constitution of a Government which no doubt will have the great weight which ought to attach to the advice he may give; but the Government to be formed on his advice will not be formed by Gentlemen on this side of the House, and as far as they are concerned he must permit us—I say it with all respect—to form our own Administration in our own fashion.
  MR. J. ELLIScomplained that the right honourable Gentleman had not dealt with the constitutional point which had been made by his right honourable Friend, with whose views he desired to associate himself. He was astonished that the Leader of the House did not rise on Friday evening, when he had ample time to do so, to reply then to his right honourable Friend. It was not for the Vice-President of the Council to do so; it was for the Leader of the House. In order to show how these proceedings
  1070
  struck the outside public, he quoted from the leading article in "The Times" of that morning, in which it was said "the joke has gone too far." To that remark he quite agreed. He also endorsed the observation made by his right honourable Friend (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) that education was a sacred measure, and he had been disgusted at the levity of tone imported into the Debates by the right honourable Gentleman They were dealing with the interests of millions of people and children in this country, and it was the right of the House in this sacred matter to have someone on that Bench who spoke with the authority of the Government, and who would perform the functions that he was glad to acknowledge the other Members on the Treasury Bench, of whom he could speak with respect, had faithfully performed. He hoped the Leader of the House would take this matter into serious consideration, and before the House met again next February would give them someone in the place of the right honourable Gentleman.

  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
    CLAUSE 1
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
    CLAUSE 2.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
BUSINESS DEFERRED.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 19th June.
  UNIVERSITY DEGREES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [9th March] further adjourned till this day.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [23rd February] further adjourned till Thursday.
  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  FARNLEY TYAS MARRIAGES BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE ((SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  INDICTMENTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 16th May.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 17th May.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [8th March] further adjourned till Thursday.
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 29th May.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (RATING CERTIFICATES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [12th April] further adjourned till Monday next.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [21st February] further adjourned till Thursday.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  The House adjourned at thirty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Four of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway.
Great Western Railway.
Midland Railway.
And the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—
Brooke's Park, Londonderry—(Petition for Bill).
Millwall Dock—(Petition for Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Monday next.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUND BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Monday next.
FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
Committee to meet To-morrow.
GAINSBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Thursday Next.
BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE URBAN DISTRICT (WATER) BILL
Committee to meet on Thursday next
HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL
Committee to meet on Friday next.
ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the Consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that the petitioners had no locus standi before them; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 2nd March and 20th April last, discharged, and Bill committed forthwith.
CHURCH STRETTON WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported with amendments.
ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (RATES) BILL.
Reported without amendment.
ILFORD GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
MID-KENT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT (GAS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) RULES).
  Rules for carrying into effect the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  No. 2234. France (Calais and District);
  No. 2235. Portugal (Lorenço Marques and District).
  No. 2236. France (Brest and District);
  No. 2237. United States (Baltimore and District).

  TREATY SERIES, 1899.
  No. 8. International Sanitary Convention, signed at Paris, 3rd April 1894, and declaration signed 13th October 1897. [Ratifications deposited at Paris 20th June 1898.]
  No. 9. Convention between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, providing that submarine cables connecting the two countries shall be their joint property, signed at The Hague 5th April 1898. [Ratifications exchanged at The Hague 13th December 1898.] To which is annexed an agreement between the Postal Administrations of the two countries respecting the telegraphic correspondence over the direct submarine cables, signed at London 13th February 1899, and at The Hague 13 March 1899.
  No. 10. Treaty between Great Britain and Bolivia for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals, signed at Lima 22nd February 1892. [Ratifications exchanged at Lima 7th March 1898.]

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  I. (Judicial Rents). Return for the month of October 1898;
  II. (Proceedings). Returns for the months of January and February 1899;
  III. (Rule). Rule, dated 17th April 1899, as to the service of originating notices.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1898: Part I.—Tables.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
  Petition for amendment of; of the Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Alton (Hants) Gas, Bedworth Gas, Elstree and Boreham Wood Gas, Limavady Gas, and Wellingborough Gas, (No. 62.)
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Farnham Gas, Freshwater Gas, Morecambe Gas, and Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Gas. (No. 63.)
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Herne Bay Gas, Hoylake and West Kirby Gas and Water, Tonbridge Gas, and York Town and Blackwater Gas. (No. 64.)
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Burnham and District Water, Harpenden Water, Maidstone Water, Stourbridge Water, Tilehurst, Pangbourne, and District Water. (No. 65.)
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts 1882 to 1888, relating to Heywood, Longton, Ludlow, Mirfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Rawtenstall. (No. 66).
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first time; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882, 1888, and 1890, relating to Arbroath, Hawick, Kirkcaldy, and Musselburgh. (No. 67.)
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Crayford, Halesowen, Handsworth, Lye and Wollescote, and Lymington. (No. 68.)
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bethnal Green, Blackheath and Greenwich District (Extension), Lewisham and Plumstead. (No. 69.)
  Presented by the Earl of Dudley; read the first, time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

BILL DEFERRED.
  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL
  Second Heading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Monday next.
PUBLIC BUSINESS

  AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I desire to ask a question of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, of which I have given him private notice, whether he is in a position to give any information to the House as to the terms of the Agreement entered into with the Russian Government?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the Marquess of SALISBURY): I am in a little difficulty, because I am not quite sure whether I am acting in accordance with the wishes of the Russian Government in entering into the matter. That I have not been able to ascertain. But I imagine that as soon as the text arrives, which will be in two or three days, I shall be able to lay it upon the Table. As to the general drift of the Agreement the noble Lord probably knows that it is a railway agreement concerning our fields of operation in China, and that, while England agrees neither to undertake nor to encourage any railway, by English persons or others, north of the Great Wall, Russia, on the other hand, has made exactly similar stipulations with respect to the basin of the Yang-tsze. There are certain stipulations in the Agreement with respect to the railway to be made to Niu-Chwang, about which there has been a great deal of controversy, and our interests in that direction are, I think, entirely protected. I may say that, while I could not be silent on the subject, I am very anxious not to appear to attach to the particular stipulations of this Agreement an exaggerated importance. But I attach very great importance to the Agreement itself, as a sign of good feeling between the Governments of Great Britain and Russia. That is very much to be desired; and what is still more to be desired is that good feeling should grow up between the Russian and English peoples. But this particular Agreement will be of value in preventing the possibility of collision between the two Governments in that distant part of the world, and therefore it is a gauge for their future agreement for a long time, and will, I trust, lead to agreement in other matters.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into committee read

  MONEY-LENDING BILL.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee to confine the provisions of the Bill to the securing of honest dealing in money-lending, and to strike out the provision that fixes the rate of interest."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he felt that the Motion would more properly stand in the name of his noble Friend, the Duke of Argyll, as it was simply the embodiment in Parliamentary form of the noble Duke's wise views on the subject which he put forward some time ago in the letter to the "Times." He agreed with the noble Duke that it was desirable to prevent fraud, but that it would be impolitic and uncalled for to fix the rate of interest. By all means let the Government make the law more stringent, but it would be taking a step backwards if they attempted to re-enact the Usury laws which were repealed many years ago. He did not see how they could justify this retrograde step. In his opinion it was a bit of grandmotherly legislation. In a grandmotherly spirit they were going to save the fool from his folly, and, in his opinion, the Bill would prevent people, who were not fools, and who wanted money for good purposes, from getting it, and would in that way do more mischief than it could possibly hope to do good. He had been informed that the feeling on the part of borrowers was not one of gratitude to the noble Lord for his proposal in this direction. The effect would be that money would be much more difficult to get, and people would not undertake the risks as limited by this Bill. He had no doubt this kind of legislation was put forward with the most excellent intentions, but it was disguised under all sorts of humanitarian and philanthropic phraseology. Under the specions phrase that the Bill was to protect the weak against the strong, they were apt to forget that this was retrograde legislation, against which they should protest. He would suggest that whenever the Government brought in a Measure of such a retrograde character the Member of the Government who brought
  in the Bill should

  929
  appear, whether in their Lordships House or in the other House, in the dress of the period to which he asked Parliament to retrograde. How would this work out in the present case? The usury laws were first mentioned in 1334. They were in the hands of the Bishops of that day, and therefore if his suggestion had been adopted in this case his noble. Friend would have appeared in ecclesiastical canonicals—no doubt those of the Bishop of Hereford of that day. He had no knowledge as to what the canonical dress was so many years ago, but he had no doubt it was of a highly ritualistic character such as would have sent a cold shiver through the frame of Sir William Harcourt, but would have warmed the heart, perhaps, of Viscount Halifax. No doubt the Government, under the guidance of Mr. Chamberlain, would bring about a new heaven and a new earth. In taking this backward step they were thoroughly consistent with what they had been doing since 1870, when the Irish Land Act was passed. Upon what Ground—it had no principle—was that Act passed? It was said that the state of Ireland was thoroughly exceptional, and that they were justified in dealing with it in an exceptional manner. The Government had fixed the price of land and rents, had cancelled debts, and two years ago fixed the price of a man from his head to his little finger under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The result of that Act had been that one great company, of which the Duke of Devonshire was the head, declined to take any man into their works over the age of 50. They had gone back very much to the dark ages of the Plantagenets. They had Bills before Parliament at the present moment designed to interfere with the rights of the owners of property and of their tenants without any regard to the contracts entered into between them. But the Bill which might be regarded as a reductio ad absurdum of this kind of legislation was the Seats for Shop Assistants (Scotland) Bill, which was read a third time in the House of Commons, and would shortly come before their Lordships' House. The Bill provided that seats should be supplied for shop assistants in Scotland, but there was nothing in the Bill to say whether the seats should be stuffed seats, and if so whether they should be
  930
  stuffed with hay, straw, or horehair, or covered with canvas or leather. It would require an amending Act to define more clearly what was meant by "seats." He hoped, however, that such trifling, pettifogging legislation would be cast out by their Lordships. The modern tendency was rather to bring in Bills which would please, which would be popular with the masses, whether they were founded on principle or not. These Bills, in fact, generally threw all principle aside. The basis of all legislation should be liberty, and this was the only sound basis upon which they could properly legislate. He desired respectfully to enter his protest against this kind of legislation, believing, as he did, in the liberty of one man to deal with another in all matters of money, trade, and commerce without State interference. It was on that basis that their great national prosperity had been built up, and he was perfectly certain it was only on that basis that they could hope that trade, commerce, and industry could prosper and progress. Therefore it was that he had ventured to put this notice on the Paper.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I had hoped that several Members of your Lordships' House would have taken part in this discussion, but I do not propose to allow the matter to rest with your Lordships without a word or two being said by me in reply to the speech of the noble Earl. I could consent to this instruction without any interference to the Bill, but if I did so some misunderstanding might arise. My noble Friend is mistaken in saying that this Bill fixes the rate of interest. That is an impression which I see some of those who have written to the newspapers entertain, but there is no clause in the Bill which fixes the rate of interest, and I am quite certain my noble Friend has not looked at the Amendments on the Paper which fortify me in what I am now saying to the House. I do not propose to follow my noble Friend in his discursive speech, but I am certain every one of your Lordships, if you will look carefully at the Bill, will see that there is no intention of repealing the usury laws, and an examination of the clauses will, I am convinced, lead to the conclusion that the undertaking that there should be no

  931
  such repeal has been fully carried into effect. Clause 2 gives power to our to courts to revise contracts only when, in their opinion, they are hard and unconscionable. I could have left the clause there, but in order to protect persons with whom there is no intention of interfering it has been thought better to afford that protection by providing that if a certain rate of interest should be charged, or below a certain rate, the court shall not have power to interfere at all. A man may charge 100 percent. when this Bill is passed so long as the contract is not hard and unconscionable. I have put this clause into the Bill in order to protect the fair and honest dealer, and the noble Earl wishes to strike it out, and to give full power to the interfere with any contract. But that is not the intention of the Government or of those who drafted the Bill. My noble Friend is shocked at what he calls this retrograde movement, but in 1872 this House passed a Bill which did fix the rate of interest. There was then exactly the same state of things—a man borrowing and a man lending; but instead of going to the money-lender's office the borrower went to the pawnbroker's shop. By the Act of 1872 it is distinctly laid down that the more than 20 per cent. interest in certain cases, nor more than 25 per cent. in others. There is the whole principle against which my noble Friend is contending—namely, the principal of limiting the interest charged. If my noble Friend is right in his construction of the Bill, then the Government are following the precedent same amounts have been taken. If the money-lender charges more than the pawnbroker, however, he is in the position that he may be able to recover the money he has lent with interest, unless the Court should decide it was a hard and unconscionable bargain. The Court of Equity has always been reviewing bargains of such a character. This Act does nothing more. It does not give power to review bargains unless they are of a hard and unconscionable character. I understand my noble Friend to contend we ought never to interfere with a contract made between men capable of judgment.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Unless immoral.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I would ask my noble Friend to consider whether we are not now precluded from saying that no such legislation shall exist, for it does exist under the Truck Acts and the Pawnbrokers' Limitation Act. The noble Lord says we are introducing a novelty and a retrograde action, but I can give him many instances in which the Legislature has stepped in in the manner now proposed. The Legislature has fixed the exact sum that a cabman may demand from a passenger, and you constantly interfere with the freedom of contract there. It is far too late now for us to attempt to say that there shall be no such legislation as that proposed, and I submit that of all the legislation affecting the controlling of contracts there has never been one attempt more meritorious than the present, which is to prevent injury being done by the strong to the weak, whose necessities are being affected by causes that they cannot possibly avoid.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches in general terms expressed the opinion which he entertained, notwithstanding the speech they had just heard from the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill. But, at the same time, he did not agree with much that had been said by the noble Earl in his rather wide and discursive essay on the legislation of the past half century. There was a general feeling that they should not interfere with grown men as to freedom of contract, unless there was a great public necessity for doing so. Some years ago, by a mere accident, he was called upon to look into a case of ruination by a scoundrel of a money-lender, and what especially struck and shocked him was the evidence which came before him that these swindling transactions were strictly within the law, and, what was more, not only within the law, but actually facilitated by the law. He inquired closely into the matter, and he came to the conclusion that there was no remedy except by directing the attention of Parliament to the subject, and securing an alteration in the form of the law under which debts were recoverable. He heartily approved of the present Bill as a whole, except the clause which seemed to fix the rate of interest. He under-

  933
  stood from what his noble and learned Friend opposite had said that that was not the intention of the Government, and the noble Lord had put certain Amendments down, but until he saw the Bill in the amended form in print, he could not finally judge of the effect they would have. Their object should be to prevent fraud or facilities for fraud; but so far as the rate of interest was concerned, he thought it would be a mistake to mention it at all in the Bill. The Society of Writers to the Signet of Edinburgh had made several recommendations with regard to the Bill, which he hoped the noble and learned Lord would carefully consider.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I have considered them, and have prepared Amendments to meet them.
  Question put.
  Instruction negatived without a Division.
  Motion made—
  "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  House in Committee, the EARL of MORLEY in the Chair.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I think it will be convenient to your Lordships if I state in general terms the nature of the Amendments I have placed on the Paper. The suggestions put forward by the Writers to the Signet of Edinburgh, the Procurators of Glasgow, and the Law Societies of England, were suggestions of a practical character, and I have endeavoured to meet every one of them in the Amendments which I propose to move. I am perfectly well aware of the delicacy of the subject with which we are dealing. I think we ought to confine the remedy to the disease, and ought not to interfere with the commercial transactions of the country. Of course, commerce depends upon the circulation of money, and that is represented to a great extent by the borrowing and lending of money. I agree that every care ought to be taken not to interfere with the legitimate lending and borrowing of money, and therefore I propose to exempt by name all loan societies, building societies, and societies
  934
  which lend money to their members. I take them out of the jurisdiction of the Court, and for this reason: they are all subject by Statute to certain specific regulations, and so long as they obey the Statutes under which they exist, we ought not to interfere with them by fresh rules. I have also endeavoured to alter the definition I had placed in the Bill of those who should not come within the term "moneylenders." All bankers, insurance societies, solicitors, and all persons who do not make the lending of money their primary object will be exempt from the operation of the Bill. I am narrowing its application to those persons who notoriously carry on their business under conditions injurious to borrowers. In clause 2, from which my noble Friend has drawn a wrong inference, I have extended the limitation as to the amount of interest charged which shall give jurisdiction to the Courts. It was pointed out that it was somewhat anomalous that pawnbrokers might charge, without any restriction, 25 per cent. when the loan was under 40s., and 20 per cent. up to £10. I have accepted the pawnbrokers' rates of interest for small sums, because it seems from experience that those rates are not excessive for such sums lent for a short time. The money-lender will be entitled to receive, without the jurisdiction of the Court coming into play, if he can obtain it by his contract, in respect of a loan not exceeding 40s., 25 per cent. per annum; for a loan exceeding 40s. but not exceeding £10, 20 per cent. per annum; and for a loan exceeding £10, 15 per cent. per annum. For larger sums I think 15 per cent quite sufficient to charge. I have provided in the Bill as it stands that the contract of the money-lender, if he does not register as a money-lender, shall be voided. It was pointed out to me that this would hamper transactions in mortgages and various negotiable securities, in respect of which the borrower might be ignorant as to whether the lender had registered or not. These were arguments of a practical character, and therefore I have considered them, and have struck out the clause rendering the security void, and have made non-registration by the money-lender the subject of a penalty only in the case of a man who ought to have been registered. That will be a great protection to the commercial

  935
  transactions which are not sought to be affected by this Bill. There are other Amendments of a minor character, and I claim that the Bill, if these Amendments are inserted, will not do injury to any man who carries on his business honestly, but will be a strong, and, I hope, conclusive remedy against that numerous class who now inflict systematically great evil and great injustice on persons who are unable to protect themselves against their own necessities.
  Amendments then considered.
  On clause 1—
  Amendments proposed—
  "Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out 'every' and insert 'a'; line 12, leave out 'shall'; line 13, before 'register' insert 'shall'; line 19, before 'carry' insert 'shall'; line 22, leave out 'down' to end of the clause."
  and insert—
  "(c) shall not enter into any agreement with respect to the advance and repayment of money or take any security for money otherwise than in his own name; and
  "(d) where the advance of money to a borrower is evidenced or secured by any document, shall furnish to the borrower at the time when the advance is made, a copy of that document; and
  "(e) shall not take any document evidencing or securing the repayment of money unless the document specifies his true name and states on the face of it that he is a registered money-lender."—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Question put.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Question put.
  "That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  On clause 2—
  Amendments proposed—
  "Clause 2, page 2, lines 9 and 10, leave out 'for the recovery of money lent.'"
  "Clause 2, page 2, line 10, after 'moneylender' insert 'for the recovery of any money lent after the passing of this Act, or the enforcement of any agreement or security made or taken after the passing of this Act, in respect of money lent either before or after the passing of this Act.'"
  "Line 11, leave out 'loan' and insert 'sub actually lent.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 2, line 12, leave out 'ten per cent, per annum,' and insert 'interest mentioned in the schedule of this Act.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  LORD DAVEYobjected to the court having power to reopen a transaction on the mere ground that the interest exceeded a certain sum. He felt sure they all sympathised with the noble and learned Lord in his endeavour to protect the weak from the strong, and to put an end to those shocking cases to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had referred, and the extortionate and unconscionable proceedings which, no doubt, had taken place in connection with money-lending. The noble and learned Lord said the Bill did not fix the rate of interest, and that the clause was intended merely for the purpose of giving the courts jurisdiction in the case of unconscionable and harsh bargains irrespective of the rate of interest. He confessed he did not read the clause in that way. The clause at present provided that—
  "Where proceedings are taken in any court for the recovery of money lent by a moneylender, and the court has reason to believe that the interest charged in respect of the loan exceeds the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, or that the amounts charged for expenses, inquiries, fines, bonus, renewals, or any other charges, are excessive, the court may re-open the transactions."
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: But it must be hard and unconscionable in addition.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he could not find those words in the Bill. If the Bill had been framed in that manner, and it was stated definitely that the court had power to reopen transactions in the case of hard and unconscionable and oppressive bargains, and where there was evidence of fraud, it would have removed many of the objections.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Lord Knutsford has framed an Amendment which the Government has accepted, and which will meet that objection.
  LORD DAVEYsaid that even reading Lord Knutsford's Amendment into the

  937
  clause, he still thought that the court would have power to reopen a transaction on the mere ground that the interest exceeded a certain sum. What he objected to was making any particular rate of interest the ground for reopening the transaction. The interest might be exorbitant without the bargain being harsh and unconscionable. This would depend upon the particular circumstances of the case. A certain interest might be harsh and unconscionable in some cases which would not be so in others. It was impossible to predict beforehand, until they knew the circumstances of a certain case, whether a particular rate of interest was harsh and unconscionable in that case or not. The risk was a large element which had to be covered by the rate of interest, whilst in cases where the risk and expense were not so great, the same rate of interest which was not unreasonable in one case might be perfectly unreasonable in another. In his opinion, it was an entirely false mode of legislating on the subject to adopt the rate of interest as the ground or the standard on which the court was to act.
  *LORD KNUTSFORDexplained that the object of the Measure was to stop harsh and unconscionable bargains, and it was so stated in the Preamble. But it was necessary to provide for this in the enacting part of the Bill, and he therefore proposed to move an Amendment to insert in clause 2, after the words "are excessive," the words "and by reason thereof or otherwise the transaction is harsh and unconscionable." If those words were inserted, the court could not re-open the transaction on account of the interest charged unless the contract was harsh and unconscionable.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would, submit to my noble Friend opposite that this Amendment, as it is worded, does not carry into effect what he desires. He proposes to insert "and that by reason thereof or otherwise the transaction is harsh and unconscionable," and if you read these words into the clause, it runs as follows—
  "Where proceedings are taken in any court for the recovery of money lent by a moneylender, and the court has reason to believe that the interest charged exceeds the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, or that the amounts charged for expenses, inquiries, fines, bonus,
  938
  renewals, or any other purpose, are excessive, and that by reason thereof or otherwise the transaction is harsh and unconscionable, the court may re-open the transaction."
  According to my reading of the clause, as amended, my noble Friend's words will apply only to the amounts charged for expenses, etc., and not to the interest. If the Amendment applies to the whole of the words in the clause, then I think it meets to a very considerable extent the objections of my noble Friend behind me, but I should like the learned and noble Lord in charge of the Bill to assure us on the point.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The intention is that the words "and that by reason thereof or otherwise the transaction is harsh and unconscionable" shall apply to both—the rate of interest, and the amounts charged for expenses, etc.—and care will be taken in the Standing Committee or on the Third Reading that that intention is carried out.
  Question put—
  "That the words 'ten per cent. per annum' stand part of the clause."
  Motion negatived.
  Question put—
  "That the words 'interest mentioned in the schedule to this Act' be here inserted."
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 2, page 2, line 14, after 'excessive,' insert 'and that by reason there of or otherwise the transaction is harsh and unconscionable."—(Viscount Knutsford.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 2, line 13, after 'bonus,' insert 'premium. 'Clause 2, line 26, after 'moneylender,' insert 'and if the moneylender has parted with the security may order him to indemnify the borrower.' Clause 2, line 35, at the end of the line insert as a new sub-section: (4) 'Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall affect the rights of any bonâ fide assignee or holder for value.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  New clause proposed—
  "Insert as a new clause after clause 2:—1. "Where a moneylender fails to register himself as required by this Act, or carries on business otherwise than in his own name, or elsewhere than at his registered address, he shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both.' 2. 'Where a moneylender fails to comply with the requirements of this Act as to the form and contents of agreements and securities, or as to furnishing copies of documents to the borrower, he shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for each offence.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Question put.
  New clause agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  New clause proposed—
  "Insert as a new clause after clause 3—"(1.) A prosecution for failure to register as a money lender under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. (2.) In this section the expression "Attorney-General" means the Attorney or Solicitor-General for England, and as respects Scotland means the Lord Advocate, and as respects Ireland means the Attorney or Solicitor-General for Ireland.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Question put.
  New clause agreed to.
  New clause proposed—
  "Insert as a new clause after clause 3—'4. Where in any proceedings under section 2 of the Betting and Loans (Infancy) Act, 1892, it is proved that the person to whom the document was sent was an infant, the person charged shall be deemed to have known that the person to whom the document was sent was an infant unless he proves that he had reasonable ground for believing the infant to be of full age.'"—(Lord Norton.)
  LORD NORTONsaid his object in moving this clause was to render operative the very useful Act introduced by
  940
  the late Lord Herschell, and carried with perfect unanimity through both Houses of Parliament, making it penal for a moneylender to incite an infant to borrow money. Unfortunately, the Act threw the onus of proof on the prosecutor of the moneylender that he knew that his victim was an infant. He believed, owing to this being the case, that the Act had been rendered inoperative, and that the Public Prosecutor had refused to prosecute in certain cases because there were no means of proving that the moneylender knew the boy was an infant. He (Lord Norton) called Lord Herschell's attention to this fact, and the noble and learned Lord agreed that it was necessary the words should be altered, and promised to introduce a Bill for that purpose. The new clause which he was moving was in exactly the same words as the late Lord Herschell would have adopted. He could hardly suppose there was any Member of their Lordships' House who would not be most ready to accept this new clause.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I am glad enough to accept it. I knew that Lord Herschell wished this Amendment, and I do not think any injustice can be inflicted by asking a moneylender to show that he was not aware that the borrower was an infant.
  Question put—
  "That this clause be here inserted."
  Motion agreed to.
  On clause 4,
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 4, page 3, line 7, after 'person' leave out to end of clause and insert 'whose business is that of moneylending or who advertises or announces himself or holds himself out in any way as carrying on that business; but shall not include—(a) any pawnbroker in respect of business carried on by him in accordance with the provisions of the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872; or (b) any registered society within the meaning of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, or any registered society mentioned in sections 2 or 4 of that Act; or (c) any person bonâ fide carrying on the business of banking or insurance or any business not having for its primary object the lending of money.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Insert as a Schedule—'Schedule.—Rate of Interest.—In respect of a loan (whether made by one or more advances)—Not exceeding 40s., 25 per cent. Per annum; exceeding 40s., but not exceeding £10, 20 per cent. Per annum; exceeding £10, 15 per cent., per annum.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  Question put—
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments to the House.

  RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHinquired whether Her Majesty's Government had information respecting the numbers, size, and armament (if any) of the vessels composing the Russian Volunteer Fleet, and whether such fleet was acting under control of and by instructions from the Russian Admiralty; secondly, whether these vessels, if armed, were authorised and permitted to pass through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles into the Mediterranean. He disclaimed all unfriendly feeling towards Russia, more especially after the gratifying announcement which had been made by the Prime Minister, but he felt that inasmuch as the strength of our sea forces was based entirely on that of other nations, we ought to know, as far as possible, what the forces of other nations actually were. It had come to his knowledge, and probably to the knowledge of most of their Lordships, that in addition to the known armaments of Russia, she maintained, whether or not, a very considerable Volunteer Fleet. If those vessels were of any considerable power it was absolutely essential that their force should be known, and also what their duties were, and whether the Russian Government intended to employ them for warlike purposes. He had been informed that ships of the Russian Volun-
  942
  teer Fleet had passed through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles carrying munitions of war.
  LORD CHURCHILL (in the absence of the noble Duke the PAYMASTER-GENERAL)said that in answer to the question of the noble Viscount he had to inform their Lordships, on behalf of the Admiralty, that the Russian Volunteer Fleet comprised 15 vessels at present afloat. Two more were building, and two were said to be projected. Their size ranged from 7,000 tons gross downwards. The fleet was managed by a special committee at St. Petersburgh, subject to the general approval of the Minister of Marine. These vessels could pass through the Straits when flying a merchant flag, but all armed vessels of war required the Sultan's permission, and it was understood that an Iradé from the Porte was necessary to enable the vessels of the Russian Volunteer Fleet to pass when carrying troops or war material. The Admiralty were not aware that the vessels were at present equipped for war with ammunition and armaments aboard.

  LUNACY BILL.
  Motion made—
  "That this Bill be read a third time."
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 21, page 7, lines 33 and 34, leave out 'and subject to confirmation by the County Council"; Clause 21, line 39, at the end of the clause add, 'Provided that if the allowance or gratuity is payable out of the county fund, it shall not be paid until the grant thereof has been confirmed by the County Council.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Question put—
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read a third time.

BILLS ADVANCED
  BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order); an amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  INFECTIOUS DISEASES (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
  To be read the second time on Friday next: (The Lord Thring).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  To be read the second time To-morrow: (The Lord Belper).
  BROUGHTY FERRY GAS AND PAVING ORDER BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Friday next.
  House adjourned at Six of the clock.