Sitting of 20 May 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  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 are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords].
  Bideford and Clovelly Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].
  Bridewell Hospital Bill [Lords].
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords].
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Canada Dock Works, &c.) Bill [Lords].
  Prestatyn Water Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STAND ING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

573
Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  BURTON-UPON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL.
    DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
DORKING GAS BILL.
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [Lords].

    MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords].
    NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [Lords].
    NITRATE RAILWAYS COMPANY BILL [Lords].
    SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    SHREWSBURY GAS BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.

BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
BIGGLESWADE WATER BOARD.
Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

HAMILTON BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Consideration, under Section 7, Sub-section (2), of the Private Legislation
574
Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deferred till Friday.

ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Arizona Copper Company, Limited, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Arizona Copper Company, Limited," presented accordingly; to be read a second time upon Monday, 10th June, and to be printed [Bill 195].

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
Mr. BILL reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Derby Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of James Hardy Smith 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 James Hardy Smith, of Alvaston, Farmer, do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That James Hardy Smith do attend the Committee on Group L of Private Bills to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the colock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM WAYS AND STREET WIDENINGS) BILL
  WALLASEY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    BURY CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Honley Urban District Council (Gas) Bill, without amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Poulton-le-Fylde Gas, Coal, Lime, and Coke Company,

575
Limited, to the Poulton-le-Fylde Urban District Council, and to authorise that council to supply gas; and for other purposes." Poulton-le-Fylde Gas Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer powers on the Corporation of Chester to reconstruct the existing tramways in the city of Chester; to construct additional tramways in and adjacent to the city; to work tramways; and for other purposes." Chester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company; and for other purposes." London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, Governors of the House of the Poor commonly called Saint Bartholomew's Hospital, near West Smithfield, London, of the Foundation of King Henry the Eighth, to acquire certain lands necessary or desirable for the extension of the hospital; and for other purposes." St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate a Joint Water Board, consisting of representatives from the Councils of the borough of Southport, the urban district of Birkdale, and the rural district of West Lancashire, all in the county palatine of Lancaster, and to transfer to and vest in such Board the undertaking of the Southport Waterworks Company; and for other purposes." Southport Water (Transfer) Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Weston-super-Mare Gaslight Company; and for other purposes." Weston-super-Mare Gas Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to make an extension railway to Cashel and a branch railway to the Curragh Siding; to execute certain other works; to acquire additional lands; to transfer to and vest in the Company the undertakings of
576
the Limerick and Kerry Railway Company and of the Rathkeale and Newcastle Junction Railway Company; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Great Southern and Western Railway Bill [Lords].

POULTON-LE-FYLDE GAS BILL [Lords].
  CHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].

    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].
    SOUTHPORT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [Lords].
    WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL (Lord].
    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petition from Altham in favour; to lie upon the Table.
COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS, ETC., BILL.
Petition of Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland in favour; to lie upon the Table.
DOUGLAS, HENRY EDWARD.
Petition of Henry Edward Douglas, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
HABITUAL DRUNKARDS.
Petition from Ancoat Grove, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD INQUIRIES.
Petition from Fulham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
Petition from Altham in favour; to lie upon the Table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
Petitions against establishment, from Inverness; Dumfries; and Rothesay; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Settle; Middleton-in-Teesdale; Bolsover; West-houghton; Accrington; Clayton-le-Moors; Salterforth; Wibsey; Ivegill; and Bildeston; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Comrie; Crieff; Galashiels (two); Aberdeen; Huxham; Didsbury (two); Brixton; Leigh; Norton; Fuller; Yardley; Stockport; Rotherham (two); Carlisle; Whitby; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Brigham; North-West Gloucester; Hammersmith; Kettering (ten); Toller; and Todmorden; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Monkton; Scottish Temperance League; and Annan; to lie upon the Table.
SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND).
Petition from Leith, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Governors of Wellington College for the year ending 31st December, 1900, with Accounts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented, of Licence granted to Margaret Lynch, a Convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the East End Refuge, Finchley [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th March; Sir Edgar Vincent]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th May; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of January, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CENSUS OF IRELAND, 1901.
Copy presented, of Preliminary Report, with Abstract of the Enumerators' Summaries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council altering the Scale or Rules and Exemptions set out in the Second Schedule to the Act, for the purpose of the levying of Light Dues with respect to voyages made by Home Trade Sailing Ships and Steamers, and for Yachts which are laid up during the whole of any year ending 31st March [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented, of Report, No. 322 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY
Copy presented, of Return of Military Forces in South Africa, 1899–1901 (in continuation of [C. 462]) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AFRICA (No. 2, 1901).
Copy presented, of Despatch from His Majesty's Special Commissioner in Uganda relating to Travellers in the Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon, the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2602 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—DESTRUCTION OF CROPS AND GRASS.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information to the effect that large areas of Kaffir crops left standing by General French's various columns are now to be destroyed, and that a military movement is taking place for the purpose of burning the grass throughout the territories of the two Republics; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): In reply to inquiry, Lord Kitchener telegraphs as follows—
  "Mealie crops are destroyed as much as possible in districts infested by the enemy. Burning is not general, but at this time of year grass fires are of common occurrence."

  FARM BURNING.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the Return of buildings burnt in South Africa, whether the reasons for destruction of sixteen or seventeen houses in Ventersburg, in the Orange River Free State, are correctly stated to have been that the owners were on commando; and, if so, was the destruction of these houses in accordance with the regulations adopted at the Hague Conference, and subscribed to by the British representatives.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in the Return of buildings burnt in the Transvaal, it appears that several farm houses were burnt, the reasons for destruction being given as proximity to places where the telegraph line was cut; and will he state whether the cutting of telegraph lines is in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Hague Convention, and does the War Office sanction the destruction of houses and property because of the reasons stated.
  MR. BRODRICK: In reply to the first question the whole district of Ventersburg was being used as a military base for the enemy's operations, as is clearly
  580
  shown in the Return. Article XXIII. (g) of the Hague Convention lays down that the destruction of an enemy's property is permissible when imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. In reply to the second question, the Boers used certain houses in the vicinity of the telegraph lines as bases from which they could raid to cut the lines. The necessities of war therefore required the destruction of these houses. The Hague Convention does not lay down any special rules as to the cutting of telegraph tines.
  MR. FLYNN: But is it not the fact that in the cases I have quoted the sole reason given in the Returns is that the owners of the places were out on commando? Do the Army authorities hold that it is justifiable to burn these men's property simply because they are in arms against this country?
  MR. BRODRICK: There is also the fact that the buildings were used as the base of military operations against us.

  RESERVE OF SMALL-ARM AMMUNI TION.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Government Small Arms Ammunition Factory at Woolwich can produce 4,000,000 cartridges a week; that Messrs. Kynoch can produce 3,000,000 cartridges a week; and that, with the additional output of other makers, the total supply of cartridges may be from 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 rounds per week; will he state on what day, and at what hour of the day, the reserve of small arm ammunition stood at 3,300 rounds; how many rounds were at that time en route to South Africa; and how many rounds were being received per day by the Government from all sources; how many rounds of small arm ammunition were in reserve in South Africa and other Imperial stations at the outbreak of the war; how many rounds of this reserve were Mark IV. ammunition or other cartridges found to be unsuitable for use; how many rounds of Mark IV. ammunition were sent to South Africa after the outbreak of war; and how many rounds of Mark IV.

  581
  or other unsuitable ammunition were brought back to this country.
  MAJOR RASCH: When the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, will he also state who is the high official responsible for the state of things alluded to by the First Lord of the Treasury?
  MR. BRODRICK: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, obviously in all matters of this character the Secretary for War is primarily responsible. As to the question on the Paper, I am fully aware of the possible output of the various makers of cartridges in the United Kingdom. I do not think it would be for the advantage of the public service to give all the details demanded by the hon. Member.
  MR. NORMAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that it would be advantageous to allay the almost universal alarm that has arisen owing to the statement of the First Lord?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think there is any cause whatever for alarm. Under the very great strain of providing a large number of additional men at short notice, at one time the supply, which was in excess of the actual amount required to be kept by regulations, ran down very low, but that has long since been put straight.
  MR. NORMAN: Then may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that, in connection with the First Lord's statement concerning the reserve of ammunition, departmental information of a confidential nature may be used by a member of the Government for party purposes—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not ask as to a matter of opinion.

  PAY ALLOTMENTS TO SOLDIERS' WIVES.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has yet received any reply to his repeated cable messages to the Cape with regard to the neglect of the authori-
  582
  ties to advise home particulars of allotted pay by Private W. J. Mankee, No. 25,330 Medical Staff Corps, Base Hospital, Woodstock, and Private Edwin J. Paynter, No. 25,336 C. M. and C, Base Details, Woodstock, and many others.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The General Officer Commanding has informed the War Office that the delay was due to the fact that remittance sheets had not been forwarded by the units concerned. I have not received any reply to a further telegram dealing with the special cases mentioned, but the hon. Member must take into consideration the enormous difficulties of communication with the widely scattered units in South Africa. Further I must remind the hon. Member that I told him that any applications to the War Office for assistance would be considered, and that money would be advanced if the woman could produce reliable evidence that it was her husband's intention to remit money. No such applications have been received from the relatives of the men mentioned.
  MR. CAINE: What would the noble Lord consider reliable evidence?
  LORD STANLEY: When the evidence is produced I will say whether it is reliable.
  MR. CAINE: Is the noble Lord aware that in the months of December and January about forty Cornish miners enlisted at Cape Town in non-combatant corps and were induced to do so by the promise that they could allot £4 per month of their pay through the War Office to their wives at home, and that none of the women had received any of the pay although more than six weeks have elapsed since they applied—
  LORD STANLEY: I must ask for notice.
  MR. CAINE: I will give notice for Thursday, and if the answer is not satisfactory I will make use of the forms of the House to raise the question.

  REGIMENTAL TITLES—IMPERIAL SER VICE OF COLONIAL TROOPS.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the Secretary

  583
  of State for War whether, in recognition of the services rendered by the colonial forces in South Africa to the mother country, he will name some of the regiments on the permanent establishment of the British Army after the colonies who have sent forces to South Africa, for example the Imperial Canadian Regiment and other similar titles; and, if so, will he endeavour to arrange with the Colonial Governments to afford facilities in the respective colonies for men who may desire to do so to engage for service in the regiments so named.
  LORD STANLEY: The regiments of the British Army have already a territorial connection and bear corresponding titles. It would hardly appear expedient to break this connection. Facilities for such Imperial service will, it is hoped, be created for the colonies in connection with the Imperial Yeomanry.
  COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of inviting the colonies to raise Regular corps for service in the Imperial Army at home and abroad both in peace and war.
  MR. BRODRICK: The proposal has been repeatedly considered, but has not hitherto been found practicable. I hope a beginning of such a connection may be made through the Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: And will the right hon. Gentleman also invite the colonies to pay towards the expense of the war?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: They would not do it.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS' CAMP ALLOWANCES.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the case of Volunteer Officers who do not receive while attending camps of instruction the same pay and allowances as those received by Militia Officers attending such camps; whether this difference has been made
  584
  during the present year only; and whether it is intended that this difference should be permanent.
  LORD STANLEY: Volunteer Officers attending camps receive an allowance calculated as being sufficient to cover their expenditure. The payments made for last year's camps were wholly exceptional.

  ARMY RECRUITS—AGE REGULATIONS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the exact terms of the clause which leaves the decision to the district commanding officer, or the commanding officer of a regiment, as to whether a recruit who may be under the age of eighteen, but who has given his age as over eighteen years, shall or shall not be set free from military service if he be unwilling to remain in the service; will he state the circumstances on which the decision of the commanding officer depends; is the consent of the parents of a youth, when his age is under eighteen years, necessary before he can enlist; if so, would the fact that a recruit has overstated his age alter the fact that he is under the proper age when he enlisted; and are recruiting sergeants instructed not to suggest to youths that they should overstate their age in order to be accepted.
  LORD STANLEY: The clause will be found in Table VI. of paragraph 1805 of the King's Regulations. The commanding officer would be guided by what is best for the public service and by the circumstances of the case. It has been decided in courts of law that the consent of the parents is not necessary. If, however, a lad states that he is under eighteen, then the written consent of the parents is obtained. Recruiting sergeants are instructed not to suggest to youths that they should overstate their age in order to be accepted. It is obvious that any decentralisation of business is impossible if the case of every recruit who chooses to overstate his age is to be decided at headquarters.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS— COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: I beg to ask

  585
  the Secretary of State for War whether he will undertake that the Report of the Committee to be appointed to consider the reconstruction and organisation of the Royal Army Medical Corps will be in the hands of Members before the Army Medical Vote comes up for discussion.
  LORD STANLEY: It is impossible for me to give any pledge as to the time which such a Committee as that proposed may think it proper to give to its duties.

  MILITIA DISEMBODIMENT.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the method adopted to ascertain the wishes of the embodied Militia battalions as to whether they desired to be disembodied, and whether the views of the officers and men as a whole were taken on the matter; also whether any battalions which have expressed such a desire are still embodied; and, if so, can he name them.
  LORD STANLEY: The following instructions were sent to general officers commanding: "You are requested to ascertain confidentially the wishes of the officers and men of all Militia units serving in your command as to being disembodied or remaining embodied during the winter." The general officers duly reported that the views of officers and men were taken. All battalions which were reported as wishing to be disembodied were so disembodied in December.

  MALTA AND GIBRALTAR GARRISONS.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before substituting the royal garrison battalions at Malta and Gibraltar for Regular battalions, he consulted the Governments of either of those places or the Colonial Defence Committee; and, if so, what answer he obtained from them.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. The selection of troops to defend a fortress rests with the Commander-in-Chief.

  KING'S BASTION, PORTSMOUTH.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  586
  State for War if it has been determined to destroy the historical fortification known as the King's Bastion at Portsmouth.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. Some slight modifications have been made in the eastern portion of the bastion which were absolutely necessary, but the main portion of the bastion will remain untouched.

  WEST INDIA DOCK NAVAL STORES- PACKERS' PAY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that some men are now employed at the West India. Dock Naval Stores packing at a weekly wage of 21s., under the supervision of others who receive only 20s.; and whether, seeing that this arrangement gives rise to dissatisfaction, he will take steps to raise the wages of the latter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I imagine the hon. and gallant Member refers to two classes of men known respectively as storehouse-labourers and packers. The storehouse labourers receive from 20s. to 22s. 6d., and the packers 20s. per week; but 25 per cent. of the packers, namely, those who are employed in packing fragile or valuable articles, receive 21s. Both the storehouse labourers and the packers are under the direct supervision of a store-houseman, whose pay varies from 24s. to 36s. a week. There appears, therefore, to be no cause for dissatisfaction on the grounds suggested.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Does the hon. Gentleman say there are not two classes of men doing precisely the same work but getting different rates of pay?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; those who get the higher rate of pay do supervising duty.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: But my point is that there are two classes of men doing exactly the same work—one class receiving 20s. and the other 21s.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will put down another question.

  DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD— RUM DRAWERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that men employed at Woolwich in drawing off rum receive 6d. a day extra pay, which brings their weekly wage up to 24s., he will consider the advisability of extending similar treatment to those employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard who not only draw off but previously blend the rum which is dealt with at Woolwich.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have no information as to what wages are paid at Woolwich to men engaged in drawing off rum. Labourers when employed on the duty in question at Deptford receive their ordinary pay without any special allowance, and no grounds appear to exist for the payment of such an allowance. The term "blend" as applied to the work performed by these labourers seems inappropriate. The process of reducing the rum to issuing strength by the addition of water is entirely controlled by a leading man of stores; and the labourers are merely employed in the manual operation of adding such quantities of water as he may direct.

  VICTORIA TECHNICAL INSTITUTE OF BOMBAY.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that the Victoria Technical Institute of Bombay is an establishment carried on at public expense and under the management or control of Government, can he state why a mechanical engineer is being sent out from Europe for the training of students in that institution in theoretical and practical mechanical engineering at a salary of about £300 per annum; and whether an engineer fit to give such training cannot be secured in India; and, if not, will he state if the Government of India contemplates action in the direction of providing such engineering and other technical instruction as might supply hereafter teachers of the capacity required in the instance mentioned from among the people of that country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I have no information as to any request from the Victoria Technical Institute that a mechanical engineer may be sent out from this country. The institute, as my hon. friend is no doubt aware, though aided by Government funds, is not a Government institution, but is administered by a Board. The list of teachers appears to show that most of them are natives of India. Engineering and technical instruction is already supported by Government at four engineering colleges in India, and at several technical schools. I have no doubt that, among the persons trained in these institutions, some will be fit to become teachers, although it may still be desirable from time to time to obtain instructors from Europe.

  MANUAL INDUSTRIES OF INDIA- MADRAS SCHOOL OF ART.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that Mr. Chatterton, of the Madras School of Arts, has drawn up a memorandum in reference to a project undertaken by the Government of India with the view to encourage a revival of the indigenous manual industries of the country, whether he will state what funds are intended to be devoted annually for this purpose and what are the details of its working, and will he place the papers relating thereto upon the Table of the House.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have seen a copy of the memorandum to which my hon. friend refers in the newspapers, and I believe the question of taking further steps for the development and revival of indigenous manual industries in India is under the consideration of the Viceroy and his colleagues, but I have no official information on the subject. When I learn the results of the deliberations of the Government of India I shall be glad to communicate it to my hon. friend.

  FRENCH AND CANADIAN STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has

  589
  any official information to the effect that the Canadian Government, whose concession of a preference of 33¼ per cent. to British goods entering the Dominion has so far met with no corresponding action on the part of His Majesty's Government, is negotiating with the French Republic for the establishment of a subsidised steamship service between Canadian and French ports.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no official information to the effect stated, but a direct line of steamers, subsidised by the Canadian Government at the rate of £10,000 per annum, ran between France and Canada during part of last year.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information of negotiations between the Dominion of Canada and any other foreign Power?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  MALTA—THE LANGUAGE QUESTION.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to lay before the House a copy of the correspondence relating to the Maltese language question; and whether, if he is unable to do so before Whitsuntide, he will undertake to present it before the Vote on the Colonial Estimates is taken.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Since I stated that I hoped to be able to lay the correspondence before Whitsuntide I have received further despatches, and it would be undesirable and contrary to precedent to present portions only of a correspondence still proceeding. Under the circumstances I fear that the presentation of the correspondence must be deferred. I will lay the Papers as soon as possible, but I cannot at present name any particular date.

  FINANCE—INTEREST ON DEFICIENCY BORROWINGS.
  MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if any portion of the interest charged for deficiency borrowings in the years ended 31st March, 1900
  590
  and 1901, is included in the interest for war expenditure in South Africa; and, if so, whether he can state the amounts so charged for the financial years 1900 and 1901 respectively.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No portion of the interest charged for deficiency borrowings for the period mentioned in the question is included in the interest for war expenditure in South Africa. It would be impossible to say how much of such borrowing was due to war expenditure and how much to ordinary expenditure. The amounts paid for interest on deficiency advances were:—1899–1900, £23,553 3s. 8d.; 1900–1901, £20,082 3s. 7d.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what account these sums were charged?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: They come in the interest that appears in the accounts of the year.

  COAL TAX.
  SIR JAMES JOICEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a resolution, passed unanimously by the Mining Association of Great Britain, to the effect that to meet the requirements of the Government this year, and to give time for full inquiry, the money to be produced by the tax should be raised this year by a tax on the whole output of the Kingdom for last year, and that an impartial tribunal be appointed by Parliament invested with the fullest powers to consider and report on the advisability of the proposed tax on export coal, its incidence and its probable effects upon the coal trade, the workmen employed therein, and the country generally; and whether, if such a proposal is submitted to him, he will be disposed to consider it favourably.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the resolution referred to was submitted to the various branch mining associations, and that some of them dissented from it?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think that the facts are quite accurately represented in the question. I understand that the Council of the Mining Association have made a suggestion of this kind, the precise nature of which I do not quite understand, to their local associations, with the view of considering the answers that may be received; but I have seen it stated that one at any rate of these local associations is opposed to it. The hon. Baronet's question is therefore too hypothetical for it to be possible for me to reply to it, except by saying generally that any proposals that might be made by the Mining Association on behalf of the whole trade would be respectfully considered by His Majesty's Government.

  S.S. "RUNIC"—CASE OF SEAMAN DEAN.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade is he aware that a seaman named Dean was so badly wounded by a revolver shot, fired by the fourth officer of the steamship "Runic" on her last voyage between Australia and Cape Town, that he had to be put in hospital at Cape Town when the ship arrived at that port; and what steps, if any, he has taken to have this case investigated; and if it is the intention of the Board of Trade to prosecute, will he secure the attendance of the seamen who witnessed the shooting and are now in Liverpool, but will no doubt be at sea again if not summoned in time.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am in communication with the owners of the "Runic," and have seen extracts from the official log with regard to the occurrence to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that the vessel is expected to arrive at Liverpool to-day, when further inquiry shall be made, and the matter, if necessary, placed in the hands of the police.

  REGULATION OF USE OF FIREARMS.
  MR. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the recent death of William
  592
  Wynberg Dodd, at Hammersmith, caused by a shot from a revolver, the property of a private in the Medical Staff Corps, who recently returned from South Africa; and whether he will take any steps to carry out the recommendation of the coroner's jury as to the sale, care, and use of firearms, so as to prevent accidents resulting from returned soldiers and other persons unacquainted with the use of firearms having them in their possession.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): To carry out the recommendation referred to would, even if it were practicable, require legislation, and, as my right hon. friend has said several times already this session, it is not possible to promise that.

  CANADIAN LIVE CATTLE TRADE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a memorandum from the Department of Agriculture in Canada protesting against the continuance of the embargo on the admission of Canadian live cattle into this country; and whether, since that embargo was imposed, there has been one case of pleuro-pneumonia in the 800,000 Canadian cattle landed at British ports.
  The following Question (36) also stood on the Paper—
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether His Majesty's Government and the Board of Agriculture have received and considered the memorandum recently announced as despatched by, and containing the protest of, the Government of the Dominion of Canada against the continued exclusion from British ports of Canadian live cattle; if so, whether he can now state the substance of the reply or indicate the policy of His Majesty's Government; and whether papers will be laid upon the Table.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): Perhaps I may answer this and Question 36 at the same time. No such memorandum has as yet been

  593
  received. There were various cases of pleuro-pneumonia between the imposition of the embargo in 1893 and the legislation of 1896. Since that time no cases have been discovered, but, of course, there has not been the same necessity to make the same close examination of the lungs of slaughtered animals.

  ARBITRATIONS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state in how many cases have the Board of Agriculture been asked to exercise, and have exercised, their powers of appointing an arbitrator or umpire to settle disputes between landlord and tenant under the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900.
  MR. HANBURY: Ten applications have been made to us to appoint arbitrators or umpires under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900. Two of these applications were subsequently withdrawn. Appointments have been made in three cases.

  ICE CREAMS IN LONDON—PTOMAINE POISONING.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at an inquest held at Hackney on the 2nd May on a boy who died from ptomaine poisoning, the coroner remarked that the ice cream purchased at street barrows had caused several deaths in London, and that the symptoms had been the same in this case; and in view of the large sale of such articles in East London, will he say whether the inspectors take any steps to secure the occasional analysis of eatables of this description when hawked in the streets.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest referred to. The London County Council, some time since, caused special inquiry to be made into the conditions under which ice-creams are prepared and sold, and
  594
  analyses of samples of this article have from time to time been made by the sanitary authorities in London. I am not, however, able to state whether recent action has been taken on the subject.

  BILLINGHAY INFANT SCHOOL, LIN COLNSHIRE—EXCESSIVE CANING.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it has been reported to him that in the punishment book of the Billinghay Board Infant School, Lincolnshire, 378 cases of corporal punishment were recorded as having occurred between 12th November, 1900, and 12th February, 1901, making, on an average attendance of seventy-eight, ten cases per cent. daily; and, if so, whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action in the matter.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): My attention was called by the officers of the Board of Education to the excessive caning in this infants' school. The punishment book was sent for; but it proved that a new book had been commenced on February 13th, and that on the old book (which had been taken away by the inspector) being returned it had been destroyed. The new book disclosed the punishment of caning to have been inflicted for very trivial offences in eighteen cases during the fortnight which the new record covered. The managers have been warned that the grant will be withdrawn if such a state of things is not remedied.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION—WOMEN SUB-INSPECTORS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, seeing that the women sub-inspectors employed by the Board of Education have recently all been promoted to be junior inspectors, with advancement in status, pay, and rate of allowances, whether the same promotion is to be extended to the men sub-inspectors, and if not, can he explain why similar treatment is not given to them; whether appointments to the junior inspectorate

  595
  are to be limited, wholly or partly, to persons who have graduated, or have passed examinations equal to graduation at the universities of Oxford or Cambridge; and will he lay upon the Table the regulations to be in force for appointments to the inspectorate of schools.
  SIR J. GORST: The women sub-inspectors have never been regarded by the Board of Education as belonging to the same category as the men sub-inspectors. The latter are eligible for promotion to inspectorships. It is not intended to restrict the choice of junior inspectors to any particular class. The responsibility of the Lord President for making these appointments cannot be limited by regulations previously laid on the Table of the House.

  EDUCATION CODE, 1901—COOKERY AND COTTAGE GARDENING.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the requirements of parents of children in rural schools, the prevalence of mixed schools in rural districts, and the early withdrawal of children from the day school, he will give reconsideration to the N.B. at the end of Article 101, Code 1901, under which no attendance at a class for cookery or cottage gardening made by scholars under twelve years of age after March 31, 1902, will be taken into account for the purposes of any grant under Article 101, g. k.; and allow a grant for scholars of eleven and over, instead of twelve and over; and for boys and girls alike, both in cookery and cottage gardening, and a grant for boys of eleven and over for manual instruction, instead of twelve and over, as in Schedule 9.
  I beg also to ask whether the Board of Education will consider a grant for cottage gardening for scholars of eleven and over in cases where the circumstances of the school in the opinion of the inspector make it desirable that horticulture, under Article 15 (b) ii., should be taken up.
  SIR J. GORST: With regard to the supplemental question, I will carefully consider that point. In reply to the
  596
  question on the Paper, I beg to say that it is not intended to raise the age for grants in cookery, etc., till the Code of 1902. Meanwhile careful consideration will be given to all representations made to the Board of Education. The suggestion is made entirely on educational grounds and in the interest of the children. There is no intention of lowering the age for grants in manual instruction.

  PENSIONS IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is any, and, if so, what, regulation in regard to pensions held by officials of the Post Office; and, seeing that the postmaster of Bristol has a pension of £460, the postmaster of Hastings a pension of £460, the postmaster of Manchester a pension, the nautical assistant in the office of the Secretary of the Post Office a pension of £185 10s., and the officer in charge of eastern mails of India and Australia a pension of £69, whether any deduction is made in consequence in their salaries; if so, will he state the amount.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): There are two regulations bearing on the point raised:—(1) Act 4 and 5 William IV., Cap. 24, Section 20, under which the salary and pension of a civil servant when re-employed must not exceed the amount of his former pay. The deductions under this Act are made from the pensions, not from the salaries of the officers affected. Thus, the postmaster of Bristol suffers a deduction of £200 from his full pension of £600, and the postmaster of Hastings a deduction of £40 from his full pension of £500. No deduction is at present necessary in the case of the assistant surveyor whose emoluments do not as yet exceed his former pay. (2) The second authority is found in the rules applicable to naval or military pensioners holding a civil employment of profit, drawn up by the Treasury under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887. Under these rules, the nautical assistant in the Secretary's office, and the officer in charge

  597

  of eastern mails suffer, an abatement of 10 per cent. from their civil emoluments.

  POSTMEN'S WALKS IN NOTTINGHAM.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can arrange for the vacancies on postmen's walks at Nottingham to be exhibited on the notice board in the letter carriers' room, with a view to the senior men having the first choice, as the practice has been for years at centres such as London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Brighton, Liverpool, Sheffield, Birmingham, Hull, Dublin, and Belfast; whether in the public interest, he can abolish the practice of appointing men by rotation on different walks in diverse parts of the town, and thus avoid the confusion experienced under existing arrangements; and whether he can arrange the duties in such a manner that the Tweedmouth recommendation of nine hours rest at home out of the twenty-four may be carried into effect.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The practice of advertising such vacancies on a notice board does not exist at most of the towns mentioned, nor is it necessary in order to secure that the senior men should have the first choice in regard to any vacant walk. At present it is a matter of local arrangement in each case, and it is proposed to allow it to remain so. The system of employing men partly on outer walks and partly on inner walks was adopted at Nottingham to prevent any postman being obliged to walk an excessive distance. No confusion is caused by it, and it is proposed to continue it. The duties are arranged as far as possible with the view of allowing each man nine hours rest per diem, and in the few cases in which it has not yet been possible to secure this end, measures are being taken to secure it.

  PUNISHMENT FOR TELEGRAPHISTS' ERRORS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to an order issued to the telegraph staff, stating that errors in certain words will
  598
  be punished by the receiving telegraphist performing extra duty without pay; whether any steps are to be taken with a view to discover whether it may be the forwarding operator who is at fault; whether the Postmaster General, with a view to secure efficient working of the telegraphs, will direct that in future no learners, paid or unpaid, shall be employed in the transmission of the public work, the more so that by the new order referred to loss might be caused to the efficient staff; and whether it has been duly considered whether the infliction of extra duty without pay is equivalent to a fine, and may be illegal, unless consented to by the staff on entering the Post Office service, or entering on the duties of a telegraphist.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General presumes that the order to which the hon. Member refers is one recently issued by the Controller of the Central Telegraph Office respecting certain errors which have been of frequent occurrence. Due enquiry is; always made in such cases with a view to fixing the responsibility for the errors upon the proper officer. The rule of the telegraph department is that no learner is to be employed in the transmission of public telegrams unless capable of passing a satisfactory test. The answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The Postmaster General sees no reason for varying the practice referred to.

  CENSUS—POPULATION OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate for Scotland whether he is in a position to state the population of Scotland at the recent Census.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Registrar General for Scotland that approximately, and subject to corrections after the Census returns have been thoroughly examined, the population of Scotland at the Census day may be given as 4,471,957.

  CENSUS—SCOTTISH ENUMERATORS' PAY.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether

  599
  he is aware that Census enumerators in Scotland are complaining of not having received payment of the money due to them for Census work, and whether he can state when payment is likely to be made.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Census accounts for all Scotland are necessarily voluminous, and their examination and audit is obviously a work of very serious dimensions. I am, however, informed by the Registrar General that the accounts to the amount of one-third for all Scotland have been examined and settled, and that every effort will be made to complete the settlement as soon as possible consistently with the requirements of a proper examination.

  REFRESHMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR LATE SITTINGS.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will undertake to see that, on such evenings as the 12 o'clock rule is suspended, arrangements are made by which Members desiring supper in the House shall be able to obtain it.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: As a rule supper is only provided when a late sitting of the House is expected, but if hon. Members will communicate with the manager on any evening when the 12 o'clock rule is suspended, by 11 p.m., every endeavour will be made to meet their convenience.

  BUSHEY PARK—REFRESHMENT KIOSK.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, having regard to the fact that during the summer months a number of persons, chiefly from London, visit Hampton Court Palace, will he consider the advisability of erecting in that part of Bushey Park adjacent to the gardens a small refreshment kiosk similar to that in Kew Gardens.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I will gladly consider the suggestion of my hon. friend; but
  600
  must point out to him that there are this year no available funds for such a purpose.

  RENTS ON THE WARDEN ESTATE, CO. KERRY.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the rent of Patrick Sullivan, residing at Derryleigh, on the Warden estate, Sneem, county Kerry, was fixed by the sub-commission in 1882 at £21 15s., the previous rent having been £23; that in 1898 the second term rent was fixed by the sub-commission at £19 14s.; and that recently the valuators, acting for the head commission, have raised the rent to £22 15s., an increase of £1 over the rent originally fixed in 1882; is he aware that one of the valuators was one of the sub-commissioners in 1882, and has now, after a lapse of nineteen years, in spite of the fall in agricultural prices and the rise in the price of labour, appraised the rent at £1 in excess of his previous valuation; and will he say whether he proposes to take steps in this case.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): An appeal is pending in the case referred to, and this being so, I am precluded from making any statement on it.

  AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION IN MUNSTER—MALLOW CONFERENCE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the proceedings at a conference in Mallow on the 14th inst. between the representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction and delegates from the county councils of Munster and from the Munster Dairy School, in reference to the provision for agricultural instruction in Munster; is he aware that a resolution was passed at the conference to the effect that there should be no unnecessary delay in giving effect to the provisions of the Act of 1899, Section 16, Sub-section (1), which has allocated a capital sum of £10,000 to extend the Munster Dairy School and Agricultural Institute; and whether, in view of the result of this conference, and

  601
  of the fact that the Cork County Council has voted a sum of £1,000 a year towards the upkeep of the institute, immediate steps will be taken by the Department to give effect to the above-mentioned provisions of the Act of 1899.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No unnecessary delay will take place in giving effect to the conclusions arrived at.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases of land purchase are now pending from county Longford; can he give the number of estates sold, and the number of tenants who have become peasant proprietors; and whether he can state if any applications are pending for the application of the 40th Section of the Act of 1896 for the purpose of completing sales in that county.
  MR. WYNDHAM: 2,718 applications for loans under the various Land Purchase Acts were received from the county Longford to the end of last month. Loans have been sanctioned in 2,227 cases; 89 cases are pending; and 402 applications were refused. No request has been received in the Land Commission under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896.

  GRANARD UNION-TRAINED NURSE
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain on what grounds the Local Government Board have required the medical officer of Granard Union to employ a trained nurse at £1 11s. 6d. a week to nurse a baby whom he found in charge of a pauper inmate; is he aware that the nurse in question refused to live in the workhouse and took a room in the principal hotel in Granard; and can he state when such orders of the Local Government Board will be withdrawn.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board did not require the medical officer to employ a nurse at the remuneration stated. The master was directed by the medical officer to procure a nurse for
  602
  a sick child whom he found in charge of a pauper inmate. There is no apartment available for the nurse in the workhouse, and she has obtained temporary accommodation in a hotel outside. I am making further inquiry in the matter.

  GRANARD UNION—LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in October, 1899, the Granard Rural District Council adopted a scheme under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts to provide for the erection of 150 houses for labourers in Granard Union, but that only fifty of these have been passed; and will he, as in the case of the Longford Rural District Council, be prepared to direct the Local Government Board to receive further representations, without cost to the ratepayers, with a view to including in the new order about fifty additional houses, provided the Granard Rural District Council can satisfy them that these houses are absolutely necessary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The scheme proposed 113 cottages and forty-one allotments; thirty-eight cottages and twenty-six allotments were approved. Forty-four representations were informal, and although this was explained to the council no steps were taken to amend the representations. Under the circumstances a new scheme is necessary, and a fresh inquiry essential.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: But the hon. hon. Gentleman has already promised that the Local Government Board will consider such cases as these.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have said a new scheme is necessary.

  LONGFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUN CIL—LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in October, 1899, the Longford Rural District Council adopted representations for the building of over 100 new labourers' cottages and providing seventy-six labourers with additional half-acre plots; that, after the lapse of a year, an inquiry was held by Captain

  603
  Connellan, Local Government Board inspector, whose report has only just now been issued; and that of this large number of houses and plots applied for barely one third has been granted; will he state whose fault it is that such is the case; and whether the Local Government Board are prepared to consider, without additional cost to the ratepayers or incurring further legal costs, the advisability of issuing a supplementary order for the erection of thirty-five additional houses and the granting of thirty additional half-acre plots on the evidence already before it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The scheme of the district council was not received by the Local Government Board until the 24th September last. The inquiry was held on the 13th December. The grounds upon which the inspector reported against a number of the applications have been communicated in detail to the district council. If the council considers it can establish a case for the thirty-five additional houses and thirty additional half-acres it can make a new scheme for the purpose. The cost would be inconsiderable. Any other Course would delay the issue of the existing Provisional Order.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost in all these cases is very considerable? Seeing that he has promised—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot argue the question.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I will put down another.

  LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1896, SECTION 40.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends during this session, and, if so, how soon, to introduce legislation dealing with the estates in Ireland which come under the scope of the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896; whether he will take steps to provide that the uncontrolled action of mortgagees and incumbrancers on these estates should not render almost useless the beneficial tendency of the 40th Section; and
  604
  whether the block in the court will be removed so as to afford relief to both landlord and tenant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot anticipate by way of question and answer statements which are proper to a motion for leave to introduce a Bill.

  IRISH INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the fact that the effect of the circular of the Lord Lieutenant of October, 1898, has been to reduce committals to Irish industrial schools by 28 per cent., the Government will consider the advisability of compensating the owners or managers of those schools for the loss to vested interests entailed, particularly as those schools are mainly in the hands of religious communities and worked for charitable purposes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  KNOCALLASSA GRAZING FARM DISTURBANCE.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two young men named Leonard were, while returning from divine service at Riverstown, county Sligo, on Sunday, the 3rd February last, assaulted by the caretaker of Knocallassa grazing farm, a man named M'Guinness, and his two sons; that Joseph Leonard, who witnessed the scene at a distance, succeeded in making peace, all parties going to their respective homes, but that afterwards M'Guinness followed these young men and renewed the attack, one of them firing a shot from a gun at Joseph Leonard when six yards distant, the pellets tearing his clothes, and that he was only prevented from firing again by the gun being taken from him and broken; and whether this M'Guinness holds a gun licence, and whether the police have arrested or prosecuted M'Guinness for this conduct; if not, will they be instructed to do so.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Roger M'Guinness, who is alleged to have discharged

  605
  the gun at Leonard, is not licensed under the Peace Preservation Act. He was arrested by the police, and has been returned for trial at the assizes on the charge of firing at the person. There are other proceedings arising out of the occurrence awaiting magisterial investigation, and in the circumstances I cannot make any further statement in the matter.

  LAND JUDGE'S COURT—SALARIES OF RECEIVERS.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the salaries of the receivers, the officers in the Land Judge's Court, and the solicitors on each estate are paid out of the estates in the Land Judge's Court, and seeing that such a system of payment delays or prevents sales, only slow progress being made in the sale of such estates, the Government will endeavour to devise some other method of payment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, but the change suggested would involve an addition to charges on public funds, which are already very heavy in respect of land purchase. I am assured that the present method of remuneration does not entail delay. I cannot discuss previous or future legislation.

  BOYLE TOWN COMMISSIONERS' BYE LAWS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any record exists at Dublin Castle or in the offices of the Local Government Board as to bye-laws having been adopted at any time by the Boyle Town Commissioners under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or any of the Acts incorporated therewith; and whether he can state if the Boyle Town Commissioners can make regulations as to fairs and markets under Sub-section 2, Section 21 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. There are no records either at Dublin
  606
  Castle or in the Department of the Local Government Board of the adoption of the bye-laws mentioned in the first paragraph. With reference to the second paragraph, it contains an abstract question of law depending on the construction of several statutes in no way affecting the Executive Government, and I must respectfully decline to answer it.

  CENSUS—POPULATION OF IRELAND.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to state the total population of Ireland at the recent census.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The population was 4,456,546. These figures show, I regret to say, a decrease of 5·3 per cent. as compared with the population in 1891. But the decrease for the previous decade was 9·08 per cent., and the number of emigrants for the last decade was 50 per cent. lower than the number in the preceding decade.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Do you propose to alter the policy in Ireland which has caused this decrease of population?
  MR. WYNDHAM: We are making every effort in that direction.

  INNS QUAY, DUBLIN, POST OFFICE.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to solicitors and others by the closing of the post office at Inns Quay, Dublin, and that complaints have been made of the absence it any place to post letters along the quays except in the hall of the Four Courts, which is closed at an hour unsuitable to solicitors and other professional men, who require to post their letters later in the evening; whether his attention has been directed to a memorial signed by influential people and solicitors, on behalf of a lady who carries on a stationery business at Upper Ormond Quay, asking for the opening of a post office at her establishment; and whether the Postmaster General will grant the prayer of the memorial in view of the inconvenience caused by the closing of the post office referred to above.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No complaints have been received of inconvenience caused by the closing of the Inn's Quay office, Dublin. A memorial such as that described was received, but the person therein recommended was not eligible for appointment, inasmuch as she did not reside on the premises in which she carried on business, and was merely a weekly tenant. Arrangements have now been made for an office to replace the Inn's Quay office, and a sub-postmistress has been appointed.

  CORK POST OFFICE—EXCHANGE OF DUTIES.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the same facilities for exchange of duties as are allowed in the sorting office, Cork, could be extended to the telegraph department; whether he is aware that exchanges were refused in the latter department recently, although no inconvenience would have been caused to the department thereby, and would have been of convenience to their staff; and will instructions to sanction and regulate such exchanges be now issued to the Cork post office authorities, and to give reasons for any future case of refusal.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: All reasonable facilities for exchange of duties are allowed in the telegraph office as well as in the sorting office at Cork, but it is necessary that applications for exchange should be made in good time and on grounds that can be recognised. In two instances recently such applications have been refused, because in one case sufficient notice was not given and in the other no adequate grounds were stated by the applicant.

  QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT.
  MR. RANDLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the desirability of making arrangements for questions to be asked at the conclusion of public business or at eleven o'clock instead of before public business.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the suggestion of my hon.
  608
  friend is an exceedingly ingenious one, and if, or perhaps I ought to say when, the subject of questions comes to be considered by the House in a practical shape this suggestion should have attention.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I suggest that it might be desirable to hold a special sitting of the House for questions, say, at half-past nine in the morning.

  PRESERVATION OF LOCAL RECORDS.
  MR. BULL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to take any steps to ensure the better preservation of local records in order to prevent the destruction and falsification of wills, parish registers, and other records, such as the recent Shipway case demonstrates can in their present custody be perpetrated; and, if no scheme has been decided upon, will the Government take steps in conjunction with local authorities to gradually establish suitable local records for counties or groups of counties in convenient centres, similar in their scope to the Register House at Edinburgh or the Record Office at Dublin; and can he state whether the Treasury Committee appointed in 1900 to consider the better preservation of local records has yet made any report thereon; if not, when will such report be made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The investigations of this Committee are far advanced, but its final Report has been delayed owing to the lamented death of the late Bishop of London. Still, I understand that it is likely to be published before the end of the session.

  CHINESE INDEMNITY.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the sum to be exacted from China by the Powers exceeds the expenses to which those Powers have been put, and whether the Government will do its best to secure such arrangements for the payment of that sum as will be least injurious to the trade between this country and China.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In reply to this; question, I have to say that the sum to

  609
  be asked by this country from China is based entirely upon the expenses actually incurred. I cannot give any detailed information as to the course taken by other Powers. As to the last part of the hon. Member's question, we have had the consideration present to his mind very much before us in determining the policy we ought to pursue.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN LONDON.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the difficulties which arise, under Standing Order 22, in the making of tramways in London in order to facilitate the housing of the working classes; and, whether, having regard to the pledges which were given by the Government in relation to that subject during the last Parliament, immediately before its close, the Government propose at an early opportunity to take measures to give effect to those pledges.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any specific pledge of the nature referred to, though of course there are strong arguments in favour of the course my right hon. friend wishes to see adopted. I ought to remind my right hon. friend that, even if we effected an alteration in the Standing Orders, that alteration would not complete the reform he desires to see carried out—legislation would be required in addition.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Is my right hon. friend not aware, or has he forgotten, that on the Third Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and with the sanction of my colleagues, I gave such a pledge on behalf of the Government myself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not that in my memory, and my attention has not been called to the fact.

  COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to say when he will propose the reappointment of the Committee on Municipal Trading, having regard to any useful purpose during the present session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to see the Committee reappointed, but I may point out that there are one or two Committees of an even less controversial nature which we have been prevented reappointing this session by the action of hon. Gentlemen who take objection after twelve o'clock.

  BEER BILL.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been directed to a memorial addressed to him, on the 23rd of April last, on behalf of a great number of members of both parties in the House of Commons, praying that facilities might be given to refer the Beer Bill to a Grand Committee, by the concession of an hour of the time at the disposal of the Government, and whether he will accede to that request.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the memorial of 23rd April. I do not think it is desirable at the moment to give any other answer than that already given to similar questions. The time of the session has not come when it is usual or convenient to make any definite statement on the subject.

  GIBRALTAR WORKS—THE RECENT INQUIRY.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now give the House any information as to the result of the recent inquiry into the naval works at Gibraltar.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not in a position to do that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that due notice will be given of any alteration of policy on the part of the Government.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the House will have information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine that it will not be a very long time, but I cannot give my hon. friend the day or the hour.

  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the First

  611
  Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the House is to adjourn over 5th June, on which day the Church Discipline. Bill is set down for Second Reading, he can state whether the Government intend to introduce any legislation for the suppression of illegal practices in the Church of England, or to afford any facilities for dealing with this matter during the present session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite true the Bill to which my hon. friend refers is put down for the 5th June, but it does not stand first order; it is second to the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, and my hon. friend has sufficient experience of the House of Commons to know that the second Order will not have the remotest chance of coming on upon that day. I do not think it is possible to provide the special facilities for a debate such as the hon. Member desires to see initiated.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I shall call attention to the subject on the motion for adjournment for the Whitsuntide recess.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It would be convenient to hon. Members to know if the Government intend to take Supply after 12 o'clock.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, we do.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: With regard to the arrangements for the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether facilities will be afforded for a general discussion, in addition to that on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is my hope that the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be ended on Tuesday; but, if not, Thursday is at the disposal of the House. I do not pledge myself, however, not to put down the motion for the holidays as the first Order on Thursday.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will it be competent for hon.
  612
  Members to enter upon a general discussion on the Amendment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That question should not be addressed to me.
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton is one that covers the whole ground.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If it should be the case that the Amendment will allow a discussion on all points connected with the Finance Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to close the debate before Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It does not rest with me whether the debate is closed or not. Personally, I should hope it will finish at seven p.m. to-morrow. That will be for the general convenience of Members; but if the House insists on going on, Thursday is at its disposal.

NEW BILL.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I beg leave to move to introduce a Bill to amend Sub-section 1 of Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and Sub-section 2 of Section 43 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896. I can explain what the Bill is in very few words. It is almost of greater importance to explain what the Bill is not. The Bill is not the measure mentioned in the gracious Speech from the Throne. The general object of that measure I have already indicated to the House. It is to extend the facilities for, and consequently to increase the pace of, voluntary purchase in Ireland. This Bill is not a substitute for such a measure. Still less is it a dilatory proposal brought in to justify any delay in bringing forward the measure referred to in the Speech from the Throne, at the first opportunity available in view of other demands on the time of the House. On the contrary, this Bill is necessary in order to prevent the cessation of land purchase in Ireland under the existing system; and a for

  613
  tiori, I argue that it is necessary, as a preliminary to any change in the law which may be brought in hereafter, to accelerate the existing system of voluntary land purchase. The Bill is to amend Sub-section 1 of Section 9 of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act of 1891, which provides that any advances for the purchase of holdings in any county shall not exceed twenty-five times the share of the county guarantee fund. In Wexford loans have been issued to the amount of £737,000. The credit of Wexford, calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1891, was estimated to be £742,000. That being so, the advances to the county of Wexford had to be suspended until the credit of Wexford had been recalculated. This has now been done, and it is found that the sums paid by instalments did increase the credit of Wexford beyond the estimate of 1891, but did not increase it so far as to effect any substantial diminution in the present or prospective excess of the loans applied for over the credit of the county. Therefore I am asking for leave to bring in a Bill which will give a discretionary power, under which the advances to any one county can be increased when two conditions are fulfilled—first, that the Lord Lieutenant shall recommend such an extension, and, second, that the Treasury is of opinion that further advances can be made without risk of loss to the Treasury. Another object is provided for. By a parity of reasoning it is proposed to give a like discretion to the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury in respect to advances to the Congested Districts Board made under Section 43 of the Land Act of 1896. Under that section advances may be made to the Board for the purchase of land and holdings from landlords, and also the Board is empowered to resettle and resell. This provision is all but indispensable for the working of voluntary purchase by the Congested Districts Board, and since it might be imperilled in other counties by the same causes as in Wexford, the remedy is provided for in this Bill which I am now asking leave to introduce.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I recognise that this Bill is an absolutely necessary proposal to prevent the whole machinery of land purchase in Ireland
  614
  coming to a standstill. The right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinarily interesting explanation to an expectant House that this Bill is not the Bill promised in the Speech from the Throne. That is very well so far as it goes. We are glad to know that the Bill mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is something more serious and substantial than this; but I cannot help regarding the introduction of this Bill as a clear indication that the Bill mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is about to share the fate of so many other Bills, and will be included in the massacre of the innocents. None of us from these benches ever believed that there was any serious intention from the first of proceeding with the Bill mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. We regarded from the first that announcement as a piece of political humbug, which was forced from the Government by the activity of the movement in Ireland generally, and in Ulster in particular, in favour of compulsory land purchase. I have no doubt this Bill is absolutely necessary, and we do not intend to oppose it; but it is a clear indication that we were right in our opinion, and that the Irish people will look in vain for the fulfilment of the illusory promises of the Government.
  Bill to amend Sub-section 1 of Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and Sub-section 2 of Section 43 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
"To amend Sub-section 1 of Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and Sub-section 2 of Section 43 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 6th June, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

FINANCE BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The Budget embodied in the Finance Bill which we are now asked to read a second time has been described as a momentous Budget and as a disastrous Budget. I will not quarrel with either of those descriptions; but I regard the Budget as more the result of the financial policy which has been pursued by the present Administration since 1896. I think it is the harvest of what they have been sowing, and we ought not to be surprised at the point which has now been reached. I say the policy of the present Administration, and I wish to emphasise that. I do not myself accept, to the complete extent to which modern usage apparently has developed it, the supreme and departmental authority of Ministers in the various departments. I think we ought to uphold, especially in finance, as well as in other matters, the solidarity of the Cabinet, and that we ought not to individualise the Chancellor of the Exchequer as if these were, so to speak, his personal and private proposals, and as if he alone was to be subjected to criticism, or was to have the credit or discredit of the acceptance or rejection of the proposals by the House. I regard this as a Cabinet proposal, and as such I intend to discuss it, although I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no desire in any way to undervalue his position or authority in this question, or to undervalue the position and authority of the Treasury.
I have to complain, as I have had to complain on previous occasions, of the confused and inaccurate manner in which the national accounts are presented to the House—a manner which necessarily confuses debate, gets the House and the country into the habit of using wrong figures, and, I may say, involves the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in that unfortunate proceeding. I have said so much on that subject before that I should not repeat it if it were not for what happened in connection with the Budget this year on the day after the finance accounts for the year were published. The Times on the day after the close of the last financial year commenced a leading article with a censure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the inaccuracy of his Estimates. They said
616
that Sir Michael Hicks Beach had underestimated to an extent which was probaably without parallel in English finance—by something like twelve and a half millions—the receipts for the year. They said that he estimated a total revenue of £127,520,000, while the actual receipts were £140,018,000. Of course, there were experts who in the evening papers ventured to point out to The Times that they were wrong; and the next morning The Times commenced their article as follows—
"We are sorry to say that the revenue returns, on which we commented yesterday, were not as satisfactory as we assumed them to be. We have to apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for charging him with an excessive under-estimate of the yield of taxation. Out of the total yield of taxation in 1900–1901, amounting to over 140 millions sterling, upwards of £9,600,000 was paid over out of the proceeds of the estate duties, Excise, and Customs to the local taxation account. This latter sum does not enter, therefore, into the calculations of the national Budget, and the real excess over the estimate of Sir Michael Hicks Beach on last year's revenue is something over £2,800,000. In this and in other respects the form of the public accounts has been complicated of late years by the policy of grants-in-aid of the ratepayers out of the general taxation of the country."
I quite agree that much has been complicated by that unfortunate policy, but what I complain of now is the continuance by the Treasury of this misleading statement of accounts. The country is allowed to believe it is paying less taxation than it really is paying. Now this last year, as has been pointed out, the estimate of revenue was twelve millions less than what it really amounted to. Not only was the estimate inaccurate, but we are confused with the receipts of certain sources of taxation which the House, and naturally the country, wish to watch. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his Budget speech that Customs and Excise produced £59,000,000; they produced £65,000,000. He told us that the death duties produced £13,000,000; they produced £17,000,000. These are taxes imposed by this House, imposed by the Imperial authority, collected by the Imperial authority, paid by the taxpayers as one sum. When a spirit distiller pays his tax in respect of spirits, he does not draw two cheques, but one cheque, which covers the whole of his duty. And so also in

617
reference to the payment of the death duties. I complain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury should persist in this misleading practice. These sums form part of the national revenue—payments to local taxation is the euphemism by which they are called, which means subventions to local taxation. All that is wanted to put our accounts right is to state what is the true receipt from the Customs, from the estate duties, and from the Excise, and to add to the payments a separate item, stating the payment to local taxation account.
For the sake of the criticism which I shall make upon the financial proposals of the year I shall disregard the inaccurate statement of receipts and payments, this pretended make-believe that taxation is really less than it is. The history of the question, as the House knows, is connected with the Local Government Act, 1888, and the death duties of 1894. There was a sort of make-believe that the gentlemen on whom the succession duty was being increased were going to be repaid. Again in 1894 the death duties were going somehow or other to be repaid by grants to local taxation. So far as that is concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pardon me if in going through these figures I make the necessary addition to his receipts. There is another point of inaccuracy in these figures. The country not only levies taxation and pays away taxation, but raises also a large sum of money called non-tax revenue. That really means in the main the proceeds of the Post Office. The Post Office, of course, has to be carried on at considerable-cost. In 1896 the total receipts of the Post Office were fourteen millions and a quarter, and it took ten millions and a half to earn that, so that the real receipts were only three millions and three-quarters. I have observed in a criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals that he is described as increasing the Estimates by something like three or four millions, which really is an increase upon the ordinary expenses of the Post Office. The Post Office is earning more than in 1896, and it costs more to earn it. The receipts that were fourteen millions have gone up to over seventeen millions, and the expenditure has increased to
618
13¼ millions. A Return, with which I have the honour of my name being associated, was prepared at the Treasury some fourteen or fifteen years ago, and has received the stamp of approval of the subsequent Chancellors of the Exchequer. It is that Return which enables the country really to know what is paid in taxation and what is expended in taxation. It will be hopeless for me to attempt to deal with these figures now, because that Return was only carried to 1900, and we are now dealing with 1902, and I must therefore deal with gross figures.
Subject to these two remarks, I propose to take three epochs in our national finance. The House can hardly appreciate the change that has taken place during the last few years by taking the matter year by year. They must take distinctive epochs and contrast the position now with the position then. I propose to take first the year ended 31st March, 1893, for the finance of which Lord Salisbury's Administration, though it retired in 1892, was responsible; secondly, the year ended 31st March, 1896, when Lord Rosebery's. Administration retired from office; and, thirdly, the year ended 31st March, 1900, before any war expenditure began. I want to draw the attention of the House to what I may call the normal or peace expenditure of the country. Taking those three epochs, I will give the House the figures as nearly accurate as I can. I take first the income. In 1893, when Mr. Goschen left office, the Imperial income—and I include in this the sum for local taxation purposes—was 97½ millions. In 1896 it was 109¼ millions. In 1900 it was 130 millions. Therefore the House will see the enormous sum by which our expenditure has been in-reased—from 97½ millions to 130 millions. But now let us come to the more important question of the expenditure of these three epochs. The expenditure of 1893 was practically the same as the revenue—97½ millions—although there was a surplus of £20,000 at the end of the year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Is the right hon. Gentleman going

619
to include in his comparison of expenditure the money paid to the local taxation account, just as he includes the receipts for that purpose in revenue?
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Certainly.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then I think he ought to state it.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am doing so, but I am only just approaching the expenditure. In 1896 the House will remember that the income was increased by the death duties coming into operation. In that year the expenditure was increased towards the end of the year by including a good many items which my right hon. friend the Member for West Mon-mouth would, if he were here, probably say ought to be added to the surplus. The expenditure amounted in that year to 105 millions. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman took office in 1896 with an expenditure of 105 millions and an income that gave him a surplus of four and a quarter millions. Now I come down to 1900. The expenditure in 1900—including not a single item connected with the war—the peace expenditure in 1900 reached 120½ millions. I put the income at 130 millions, and so the right hon. Gentleman had a large surplus, which might be put at nearly ten millions, which he applied afterwards to war expenditure. The House will see that we have raised our peace expenditure during the present Administration before the war began by over 15 millions sterling. I ask, where have these increases arisen? What are the items? They can be given in a very few figures. The Army and Navy expenditure in 1896 was thirty-eight millions; in 1900 it had risen—the peace expenditure—to forty-six and a half millions, an increase of over eight millions and a quarter. The grants to local authorities were in 1896 £7,250,000. In 1900 they were £10,000,000. The education expenditure increased from £9,000,000 to £11,250,000, and the ordinary expenditure accounts for the rest of the difference. So that the House will put its finger very readily on two or three points.
The first question I would ask is, Is the policy of the Government on these
620
items of increase defensible? Have they acted rightly? Are these increases necessary? So far as the Navy is concerned they had in 1900 increased the expenditure from £19,600,000 to £26,000,000. I have no hesitation in answering the question I put just now and saying "Yes," so far as the Navy is concerned. I believe that it is not only the sense of the House, but of the country that the Navy must at all risks and at all costs be kept up to that point which experts deem to be necessary in order that we may remain supreme mistress of the seas. The Navy, I venture to think, is our first, our second, and our third line of defence. Do not let us confuse these issues with any imputation or suggestion that there is any desire to reverse the policy which was initiated by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, carried on under circumstances of great difficulty but with most courageous perseverance by Lord Spencer, and then completed by Mr. Goschen and his colleagues. I dissociate myself from any adverse criticism so far as the Navy expenditure is concerned. But when I come to the military expenditure a different question is raised. The amount we spend on our Navy is in a great extent our insurance against a very large military expenditure. We cannot, we ought not, and we do not rival the great military Powers of the Continent. Any attempt to rival them must fail. Our frontier is not the land. It is theirs and they require large armies to defend it. Our frontier is the sea, and we have to defend our Empire and to insure our commerce with our Navy. Therefore the conditions are not analogous. Up to 1900, before the sky was disturbed with signs of war, our military expenditure had increased to an alarming extent. Our military expenditure in 1896 was 18½ millions, in 1900 before the war it was 20½ millions. In 1901, exclusive of war expenditure, it was 24½ millions, and the estimate for 1902 is 30 millions. The naval and military estimates for the current year exclusive of all war expenditure have reached the enormous sum of 61 millions. The Secretary of State for War told us the other night that the country demanded

621
an increase in our military expenditure. I do not deny that at the General Election the country was very much dissatisfied with the condition of the Army. I do not deny that the country made a loud demand for such reform. I do not think it was so much a reform of the Army as it was a reform of the War Office. The mandate was from both parties, and hon. Members of all shades of political opinion were nearly pledged to recognise the general feeling of dissatisfaction there was with reference to Army administration, and to do their best to effect a reform. But the crux of my argument is whether it was necessary, in order to effect necessary army reform, to incur an annual expenditure of upwards of 30 millions. The country was ready, and is ready, to pay a proper sum for its military necessities; but it believes, rightly or wrongly, that it does not get its money's worth. The country believes that there has been an atmosphere of extravagance in connection with military expenditure, and those who entertain this view are justified in taking this occasion to discuss the subject. With reference to this expenditure I should like to ask whether there has been any report presented from the Committee which sat on the reorganisation of the Army, and which, if common rumour is to be credited, presented its Report last week. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has seen it?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I happen to know that the Report has been presented, and I think it ought to be in the possession of the House.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is the organisation of the War Office, and not the Army.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Yes; but there is a question behind which perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury does not appreciate. That Report, I believe, put its finger on the causes of the extravagant expenditure of the War Office, and points out where that expenditure might be,
622
and could be, reduced; and I say it is an astounding thing that that Report is not in the hands of Members as it ought to be when we are discussing this increase in our expenditure. It touches the very essence of the controversy—namely, the bad, the extravagant administration which ought to be dealt with. I do not know whether the hon. Member for King's Lynn will give us an interesting piece of autobiography about the Gibraltar question; but there is another rumour—he has not said anything to me; I am only speaking as one of the ignorant, outside public—that there is a proposal that that Committee should rewrite its Report. And possibly proposals may have been made to the Army Committee to rewrite its Report. This is a Government of rewriting Reports and despatches.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is not a shadow of justification for saying that.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I do not say anything about the Gibraltar Report; but I do say that the Report with reference to the Army or the War Office has been presented, and I think it is time that the House was put in possession of its recommendations. I come to the third item—the Education Vote—in which there has been a large increase. The Education Vote since 1896 has gone from £9,000,000 to what is rapidly approaching £12,000,000. I am one of those who hold that we cannot spend too much money on education; but we can spend the money foolishly and we can spend it wisely, and I say that here again we do not get our money's worth. A large sum of money is voted readily, enthusiastically, by the House for educational purposes, but there is no proper control over that expenditure. There is in reference to a great portion of it no public control and no public responsibility, and, without desiring in the slightest degree to impair the efficiency, the extent, or the quality of our education, I say there is room for economy in the administration of the public money for that purpose. In 1901 the gross expenditure (exclusive of the war) was 125½ millions, In 1892 it is estimated at upwards of 137 millions—and this

623
does not include either war expenditure or interest on the war debt.
I come now to the point as to how the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to meet this extraordinary and increased expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Budget speech, said that the taxation which in 1896 yielded £102,000,000 would, if it had remained on the same basis, have produced £118,000,000 now. But with the expenditure which we have now reached that would not meet the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech the other night stated that, with the ordinary expenditure, the ordinary revenue for 1901–2 based upon the results of 1900–1 would show a surplus of £2,850,000. I join issue with him there because, in the first place, that was not ordinary income. The income of 1901 included a large amount for war taxation, the incraese of income tax to 1s., and the additional taxation of last year. Therefore the actual state of the case is this, that if he had deducted from the income of 1900–1 and his extra war taxation taken at, say, 12 millions, his income would have shown a very large deficit. Assume that there had been no war; assume that there had been an ordinary normal peace expenditure and income: the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had to have constructed his Budget this year on a peace basis for an enormous deficit and to impose new taxation to meet it.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said I should have had to impose some.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that, because it will affect the future argument as to the amount of taxation which should be called war taxation. This taxation which is called war taxation is really peace taxation. The actual result, so far as I work it out, is that the estimated expenditure for 1902 is £197,602,000. From this has to be deducted the war expenditure of £58,200, showing the normal expenditure to be £139,400,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget has not provided solely for a war deficit; he has provided for a peace
624
deficit, and we have to deal with his proposals on those lines. Supposing this war had not occurred, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had to come down to the House and say," I want to propose a Budget in order to meet this additional peace expenditure." I think that the House of Commons would have been alarmed at the enormous increase of the Estimates which has gone on year after year, and having regard to the surplus which he had when he came into office, the increase in the death duties and other branches of revenue, that there should still be so large a deficit. In the absence of final figures I can only estimate that deficit. I am sure it is more than five—I think it is upwards of seven millions. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he might have proposed under these circumstances. Let us consider the imaginary proposal that he might have made. Supposing he had said, "For this expenditure of £7,000,000 in excess of the present taxation of the country, I want to renew an expenditure which was a temporary expenditure, and for which Parliament has not as yet provided beyond the present year. There are two classes of ratepayers in this country who bitterly complain of the pressure of local rates. One class pays 6s. in the £, and the other class 2s. 2d. Well, I propose to relieve those who pay 2s. 2d., but not those who pay the 6s., and I propose to levy an additional tax for that purpose, and it will take pretty nearly £2,000,000." Under those circumstances what would the House have thought of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had come down and said, "I propose to raise this money in an entirely novel way. There is a class of people in this country who are very wealthy. They are the producers of coal, the colliery proprietors; they are unpopular at the present moment, because they have charged very high prices for coal. I think they are a very fair object for taxation. I think it would be a legitimate thing to tax their products for the benefit of the community." But assume he went a step further, and said, "I am going to sub-divide these into two classes. There are a great many wealthy coal proprietors who export their coal; there are a large number who do not export, but

625
who have been making quite as large a profit on the inland coal market as the exporting coal proprietors; they have been sharing in the prosperity, but I shall not tax them. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not have rejected such a proposal. I want to ask him whether he would have proposed what he is proposing now. The deficit on the year is entirely a peace deficit. It is called a war deficit, but it is really a peace deficit. We are hiding a peace deficit under a war deficit, and a peace expenditure behind a war expenditure.
Now I come to another branch of my Amendment—the branch of my Amendment in which I challenge the mode in which he proposes to meet the war expenditure included in the Estimates for the present year. The total war expenditure is estimated at £153,250,000, and of this, I think, £3,250,000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer attributed to China; therefore we practically have a total war expenditure of something under £150,000,000. How is that to be met? I am told that I have no right to object to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for meeting that war expenditure in view of the position I have taken up with regard to this war—views to which I do not shrink from saying I adhere. Many friends of mine, friends for whom I have the greatest possible respect, have their conscientious opinions about the war. I conscientiously differ from them. I have impugned no man's motives, I have attacked no man's character, and I only ask that the same treatment should be accorded to me that I have measured out to others; but the fact that I hold these opinions, whether they are right or wrong, does not compel me also to support all the financial proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to apply to that expenditure. In Committee of Supply I voted and would vote again for supplies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked for, but that does not bind me to vote for him in "Ways and Means." I do not object to the payment for the war, but to the mode of payment. I object in the first instance to the proportion between debt and taxation.
626
Our net Debt in 1898 was £613,000,000, in 1901 it was £672,000,000. Now, with the loan the Chancellor of the Exchequer has issued this week, it will be £732,000,000. After the Crimean War the Debt stood at £827,000,000. Now, these being the figures, I want to ask whether the surplus, including the surplus of 1900–1 and the additional war taxation of last year and this, which do not amount to more than £33,000,000 or £34,000,000, is a fair proportion for the country to pay out of taxation, and whether it is fair to defray all the rest by debt. When the Queen came to the Throne the people of this country paid an annual charge for the National Debt at £29,500,000; in 1875 Sir Stafford Northcote put it at a fixed sum of £28,000,000. That was not disturbed until Mr. Goschen reduced that £28,000,000 first of all to £26,000,000, and then to £25,000,000, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has since reduced it to £23,000,000; and if you take into account the suspension of the Sinking Fund the amount charged for the Debt this year is very low. It is not easy to propose new taxation, and I can quite understand that it is easier to vote supplies and then say the money must be borrowed, but I do not think that is sound finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say, "If you are not prepared to vote for borrowing we must have increased taxation; how are you going to do it?" But that is not the business of the Opposition—I do not think it is the business of the House of Commons. It is their business to settle the principles of taxation and debt, and to leave it to the Government to work out those principles. So far as taxation is concerned, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right with regard to spirits, but I dissent from him so far as beer is concerned, and I dissent from him so far as wine is concerned, and so far as tobacco is concerned. At the present moment we have actually reduced the duty on tobacco to below what it was before the war. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget of 1898–9 we took 6d. off tobacco, and then as a war tax we put on 4d., so that the wholesale manufacturers and the retailers of tobacco benefit to the

627
extent of 2d. a pound. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that the tobacco is better.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There is less water in it.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Yes, much to the annoyance of the people who smoke tobacco, especially the working men. At all events, what I have said shows that there are spheres of taxation which are not shut out. I have not said anything about the sugar tax.
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You ought to say something about it.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: That is the hon. Member's opinion. I am only responsible for my own opinion. I am not prepared to say that there are no anomalies in this tax upon sugar. But I know that both Mr. Gladstone and Sir George Cornewall Lewis, when they had to deal with war taxes, imposed a tax upon sugar, as well as upon beer and other articles. I do not like the tax upon sugar; but, at the same time, I have no right to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we are pressing him to raise more by taxation, if he puts a tax on an article which the whole of the community will feel.
MR. DILLON: Put a tax on wheat.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the courage to do that. When he does we shall be prepared to deal with it. I should like to repudiate the notion which I have seen expressed that it is our duty to penalise working men with reference to the prospective taxation, and that they specially should be made to pay their share of the expenses of the war. ["Hear, hear" from Nationalist Members.] Hon. Members behind me cheer that statement. I do not think, if they pay the sugar tax, they will be paying their share of the expenditure on the war; I think they will be paying their share of the ordinary peace expenditure of the country. I do not like the phrase, perhaps used incautiously, of making people, because they have taken
628
certain views, pay their share, or more than their share, of what those views have involved. I think all classes in this country have participated in the sorrows and the bereavements of the last eighteen months. The highest and the humblest homes have alike been darkened by the shadow of death. The rank and file—the common soldiers, as they are called, the Englishmen, the Scotchmen, and the Irishmen, whose uncomplaining endurance, whose chivalrous self-sacrifice, whose splendid courage, have rivalled the noblest traditions of the British Army—have paid their full share of the terrible total of wounded and dead which has been recorded in the official return circulated to-day. Disease, ruined health, and loss of life are heavier burdens to the soldier and his family, and I think that in the adjustment of the burden of taxation, which I frankly admit all should bear, they are entitled to have no heavier burden than justice absolutely demands.
I have already said something with reference to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for imposing a coal tax, and it is to the coal tax that my Amendment points. I regard the tax as calculated to do injury to trade and commerce. In other words, I do not think that the game of imposing this tax is worth the candle, so to speak, which it will produce. I do not know if Members of the House have read the Finance Bill; I read it only this morning; but I find in the Finance Bill a still more ominous indication of the intention of the Government. The income tax is renewed for one year, and the increased duties on beer and spirits are continued for one year, but the sugar tax and the coal tax are perpetual. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made them part of the permanent fiscal system of this country. I do not think he said he would enact that in the Finance Bill. When the subject comes up next year, it will be out of the power of this House to discuss it; only an Act can deal with it.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: You can move that the clause be repealed.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Then I withdraw that, but the point to which I was directing attention was that the tax was.

629
not a temporary tax, but a permanent tax.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said so.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman did not say it in the Budget speech. He said it in the subsequent debate, in Committee on the coal tax. He only used the word "permanent" once. He did not say in proposing the tax that he was proposing it as a permanent addition to the revenue of the country. If that be so, we are at once entitled to say this is not a war tax; it is a peace tax; and then we are entitled to press arguments upon the right hon. Gentleman which we should not have pressed in a temporary emergency. Why do I object to this being a permanent part of our fiscal system? I do so, first, because in sound finance you have no right to levy an export duty except upon an article of which you have a monopoly, which a customer elsewhere is compelled to buy from you because he cannot buy it anywhere else. In those circumstances must inevitably pay. Export duties, he except in those circumstances, have been abandoned by all the authorities on political economy for the last half-century. I say further that this tax will check home industries. I think it will diminish the export of coal, and, so far, it will affect trade and shipping and railway and other industries. It cannot be both a revenue tax and a prohibitive tax. If you mean to prohibit your coal from going abroad your export tax is of no advantage to you. I object to it, further, because the wealthiest coalowners are not touched, The great bulk of the collieries will be exempted from this tax; their trade and their their profits will not be interfered with. This tax has every vice which I think a tax can have, and it produces only something like £2,000,000 a year.
The last clause of my Amendment alludes to the alarming increase in our expenditure—whether you include or exclude the war expenditure. Our Imperial expenditure is increasing by leaps and bounds. But our Imperial expenditure is not all. In dealing with the burdens of the people of this country you should not forget that the taxpayers are not the only people
630
who pay taxes; there are ratepayers, and the rates of this country are increasing with extraordinary rapidity. While we are increasing the National Debt, the local debt is increasing also at something like a rate of £10,000,000 a year. In 1898 the local debt was £262,000,000, and it is, I believe, now nearly £300,000,000, and rates are steadily rising. Of course, the House will remember that a great portion of that local debt is reproductive debt, which will not only pay good interest, but will pay itself. So far as the increase of that portion of the debt is concerned, it is not a burden but an advantage to the community; but I am sorry to say there is a very large amount of expenditure which is not reproductive and necessarily adds to the burden of the people. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will repeat the invitation to-night, but he has said—
"I hope the new taxation will turn the thoughts of the country, as it has already turned the thoughts of the House, in the direction of economy."
That is exactly what I am endeavouring to do. That is my main object. I would not have interposed in this debate except for the purpose of directing the attention of the House and of the country towards economy. I think economy has been ignored. There has been a lavish expenditure going on in all Departments of the State, and I think the time has come to check it.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Stop the war.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Ah, stop the war! If the war was stopped to-morrow you would have to impose nearly all this additional taxation for your ordinary expenditure. In 1885 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a similar motion to that which I am making to-night. He proposed that the House should not reject the Budget, but he took great exception to the proposals in the Budget. He said—
"I do not move a vote of want of confidence, but I want to ask the consideration of the House to my arguments, and to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remodel his Budget.'
I should not presume to use that language to him. I know what he is smiling at. He

631
is going to say the Government of that day did not take that view. The right hon. Gentleman sitting next to him will tell him better than I can how that Government fell, and why it fell. It did not fall on account of the Budget. There were external and internal causes—which, I think, form a regrettable chapter in our history—which brought that Government to an end. What was the Chancellor of the Exchequer alarmed at then? He was appalled at a hundred millions Budget. Now, I will not say he is appalled, but he is obliged to produce a two hundred millions Budget. He was dissatisfied with the 6d. duty on tea—he thought it ought to have been increased—but he very much objected to increasing the duty on wine and on beer.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I opposed the Budget because it did not increase the duty on wine.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I was mistaken. Mr. Childers did not increase the duty on wine, but he did increase the duty on beer. I think the best remarks made in that debate in support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were made by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. He gave three strong reasons for supporting the recasting of the Budget, and I think history has wonderfully reproduced itself. He said the normal expenditure had reached many millions more than had ever hitherto been the case. That was in 1885; and I think it is so in 1902. He also said that the average annual increase had taken place by leaps and bounds, and that the Supplementary Estimates had attained to an extraordinary high figure.
Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman will say that this is a vote of want of confidence in the Government. They make everything a vote of confidence. The Government appears to require a vote of confidence every week. All efforts to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of their schemes and plans are treated as matters of confidence. I do not know what the new Members think, but I think they will have already learned that there are now three questions on which the House of Commons is always asked to vote—the first is the suspension of the
632
12 o'clock rule, the second is the closure, and the third confidence in the Government. The Government is a plant which requires pulling up by the roots and looking at every week. This is a mistake from a constitutional point of view, and it strikes at constitutional government altogether. There should be more freedom for the expression of opinion in the House. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich said the other day, in a speech which was somewhat misunderstood, that the power of the Cabinet was increasing and the power of the House was decreasing.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I did not connect that with the present Government.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Well, the noble Lord's own experience is limited, I think, to the past six years. But I think that this is a great constitutional danger. The old-fashioned doctrine that a Government should not go out except on a distinct vote of want of confidence on a main principle of policy or on a vital proposal was a good one. The course which the present Government adopts reduces the House of Commons to a farce. They assume with respect to the details of their measures the infallibility of the Vatican and the autocracy of the Tsar. Last week the Government carried their proposals against the general opinion of the House because they were made a vote of want of confidence. I should have thought that it would have been desirable for the House to have had a freer hand in the discussion of Ways and Means, but from that we are excluded. I have no doubt that this Amendment will be rejected. The House will again affirm its confidence in the Government—in a Government that can never make mistakes, that can never bring in a Bill which needs amendment, and cannot make a proposal which cannot be regarded as almost of divine origin. I do not expect to shake that belief; but the day will come when the House will wake up to the fact that this policy of concentrating all wisdom and power in the Executive is a mistake, that it is time the House of Commons asserted its individuality and its right of criticism. I believe the mature judgment of the

633
country is that our expenditure is increasing at an unnecessary and dangerous rate; that our taxation is, in the main, raised by the brain labour and the hand labour of the bulk of the nation; and that it is the supreme duty of the House of Commons to require unflinching economy in all departments of the State, to prevent, as far as possible, the waste of public money, and to insist that the public shall have that full value for its expenditure which would be demanded in every well-managed business concern. It is because I believe that that I venture to move the Amendment which stands in mv name.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, while ready to make adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire, is of opinion that the financial proposals of His Majesty's Government are objectionable both with regard to taxation and debt, are calculated injuriously to affect industry and commerce, and do not exhibit that regard for economy which the alarming increase that has recently taken place in the normal expenditure of the country imperatively demands.'"—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech with a short dissertation on a subject of which he is very fond—namely, the manner in which the financial accounts of the country are presented to the House of Commons. He accused me of confusing those accounts. He condemned me for not including in my statement of Exchequer revenue the revenue which goes to the Local Taxation Fund, and he blamed me because I did not include it on both sides of the account in introducing my Budget. The right hon. Gentleman failed to do me justice in that matter. I have, in accordance with his own wish, presented monthly, nay, weekly, accounts to Parliament, showing precisely how it stands. I have in every Budget I have had the honour to introduce explained to the House at the time precisely the amount which is devoted to the Local Taxation Fund from taxation, as well as the amount devoted to the ordinary
634
purposes of the expenditure of the country. But I will venture to say that now, after the practice of presenting the accounts which the right hon. Gentleman has complained of has gone on, as he has stated, for thirteen years, to enter on a new departure by presenting the accounts as he has presented them to-night would be simply misleading the House and the country, and make all statistical comparisons in this matter impossible. We are bound by law, whether it be right or wrong, to allocate certain receipts from taxation, from the death duties, from the spirit duties, from the beer duties, to the Local Taxation Fund. Part of that law was in existence when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in office for three years, and they never touched it except to confirm it by continuing that allocation. Therefore, though he may now find fault with the system I should not be acting in accordance with the established custom and in accordance with the law if I presented to Parliament the accounts of finance in the manner in which he has presented them to-night.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day said it was his intention to alter it.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not prevail on his colleagues to alter it during those three years, whereas, as a matter of fact, it has remained in that position ever since and must remain so until the law is altered. But this is only a small part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the Amendment which he has submitted to the House. With respect to the Amendment, I do not think I ever remember a time when the notice paper on the Second Reading of a Budget Bill was more crowded with Amendments. They are appalling both in number and variety. But there is only one of them that is absolutely inconsistent with itself, and that is the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has just presented to the House, which is the first-born offspring of a united and renovated Opposition. I do not venture to

635
inquire into the parentage of that Amendment. I am afraid it showed traces of that connubial discord which sometimes unfortunately happens in married life when a child represents the faults of both its parents. But who the parents of this Amendment are is entirely beyond me. The right hon. Gentleman said that above all things this action of a reunited and renovated Opposition, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman who sits next to him, is now to undertake a great and serious function, is not intended as a vote of want of confidence in His Majesty's Government. We are blamed by him for constantly demanding from the House of expressions of confidence. I have never done so yet. We are blamed by him for being ready to accept the success of such a motion as this on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill as tantamount to a vote of want of confidence, and that from a member of a Government which went out upon the question of cordite upon a snatch vote in Supply. I have never known an Amendment of this description moved on the part of a responsible Opposition to the Second Reading of the Budget Bill treated as anything else than a vote of want of confidence.
What, Sir, is the main feature, after all, of the Budget of this year? I venture to say that it is the war expenditure. Yet that is the one thing on which the right hon. Gentleman never said a word, and which by the very terms of his motion and speech it is absolutely clear he entirely approves of. This motion if adopted by the House would condemn His Majesty's Government in a great many things, but there is one thing which it affirms, and that is the necessity for the war expenditure. When I introduced the Budget this year I spoke very plainly to the House upon the great expenditure on war—on the war in South Africa and, though to a very much less extent, on the war in China. I saw no reason for concealment. I was not ashamed of it, and I mentioned it to the House. My statement was received with demonstrations which rather puzzled me at the time. But I understand better now what they meant, for they are interpreted in the Amendment which the hon. Member
636
for East Northamptonshire has placed on the Paper. In his opinion the expenditure upon the war is a needless expenditure, the money spent on the war has been wasted, probably he would say worse than wasted, and I dare say he would go on to argue that the magnitude of the expenditure is proof that the war is wrong. Well, that would be a most inconsistent argument. The expenditure of 140 millions upon the war is a matter of great importance to this country; I admit that to the full; but the question is whether it is necessary expenditure or not, and if the issue was whether Briton or Boer should be supreme in South Africa, why, even the expenditure of 140 millions is a trifle in comparison to the importance of that issue. I do not want to go back, of course, to the policy of His Majesty's Government as before the war; that has been discussed here over and over again, has been repeatedly affirmed by a majority of the House of Commons, and has been sanctioned by the verdict of the country at the General Election. Nothing now remains but the judgment of history upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: And payment of the bill.] But as soon as the Boer ultimatum was delivered, as soon as British territory was invaded, one thing was absolutely clear, as clear to the right hon. Gentleman as it was to us—namely, that the war must be brought to a complete and successful conclusion. The question was solved in a wrong way, in our opinion, in 1881, and it had to be solved in the right way now. If it had not been so solved, why South Africa would have been lost to us and the disintegration of the British Empire would have begun. Compared with such an evil as that, Chancellor of the Exchequer though I am, I say the expenditure of 140 millions is a small thing. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken out, as he always has spoken out, plainly and courageously to-night. He approves of the war. He does not agree with certain stray sheep from the Liberal fold, such as the hon. Member for Northampton, who thinks that we are altogether wrong and should make peace on any terms. The right hon. Gentleman approves of the war and so far approves of the main features of this years Budget. All that he disapproves of in the arrange-

637
ment of the war expenditure is the manner in which it is proposed to be raised. He blames me for raising too much by loan and not enough by taxation. He very properly said he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore it was not his business to suggest what the taxation should be by which the expenditure should be met. But one tiling he will admit; it is this—that the war charge of fifty-eight millions could not be met by taxation alone. I am justified, then, in borrowing, in his opinion, to a certain extent, and the difference between us is a difference of degree. Now let us see what is the proportion of the cost of the war which has been raised during three years by taxation. I will include both the cost of the China and South Africa wars, and I hope the House will understand that in the cost of the war I include not only the cost of military operations, but the interest on the amount borrowed for the purposes of the war, and in the taxation I include, of course, all kinds of taxation—not merely increased taxation, but all taxation devoted to war purposes, including that which has been or will be so devoted by the suspension of the Sinking Fund.
MR. DILLON: The suspension of the Sinking Fund is the same thing as borrowing.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The suspension of the Sinking Fund borrowing! Why, the hon. Member can hardly know what the Sinking Fund is. What is the Sinking Fund? It is simply a surplus—
MR. DILLON: It is laid by for the purpose of paying off debt, and if you cease to pay off debt you are borrowing.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Well, I do not know how that may be in Ireland. In England ceasing to pay off debt is not the same thing as borrowing. In any case the Sinking Fund is simply surplus revenue derived from taxation, which the country chooses from time to time to devote to the paying off of old debt. If you were not to include this as taxation, which is just as much taxation as any other kind of taxation, because it is ordinarily devoted to the Sinking Fund, it seems to me, with all
638
deference to the hon. Member, it would be absurd In the year 1899–1900 we devoted £9,335,000 from the surplus revenue of the year to the purposes of the war from taxation. Last year we devoted £15,413,000 of excess revenue above ordinary expenditure raised by taxation for the purposes of war. This year, according to the Estimates before the House, we propose to devote £20,523,000 excess revenue above ordinary expenditure in the same way to the same purpose. These make £45,271,000 altogether, while the total estimated cost of the South African and Chinese wars is put down as £153,317,000. Therefore we have devoted towards this from the taxation of the country £45,271,000, and we have borrowed £108,046,000. Now, I quite admit that the proportion raised out of taxation is less than our predecessors raised for the cost of the Crimean War. But I think that I have imposed a sufficient proportion of the burden on the taxpayers of the present day. This year, at any rate, trade is not so generally prosperous, and it is not a good time to impose an excessive burden of taxation on the country. For that reason I have moderated my demands on the taxpayers this year, and have proposed, and this the right hon. Gentleman has blamed me for, an addition to our system of indirect taxation of a permanent character which will go on beyond the war, and will, therefore, be available towards the formation of a sinking fund in order to pay off the money which has been, or may be, borrowed for payment of the cost of the war. That, I think, is better finance than an attempt to impose excessive taxation in the year in such circumstances as I have described. The right hon. Gentleman practically said in his speech that this is not a fair argument, because the new taxation, according to him, is to go almost as much towards ordinary expenditure as towards war expenditure. Well, I entirely demur to his argument on this head. Let me try to state to the House how the matter appears to me. He would not apparently consider for a moment the taxation of last year as anything but war taxation; but I put it plainly to the House in my Budget speech that a great part of the taxation of last

639
year, originally, of course, intended to be only a temporary war taxation, would be necessarily devoted now if there were no war to the ordinary purposes of the country. I never attempted to conceal this at all; and you must take this additional taxation into account in dealing with this matter. Now, what would be the ordinary expenditure of the present year according to the Estimates if there were no war expenditure at all? I calculate it would be £127,373,000.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The ordinary expenditure reduced by suspension of Sinking Fund?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No. That includes the amount ordinarily allocated to the Sinking Fund, but, of course, does not include that which ought not to be included—the amount paid towards the Local Taxation Fund. Assuming no war expenditure, and adding the interest on the new war loan—£3,350,000—the total ordinary expenditure would be, in round figures, £130,500,000. Now, as against that, I should have to set on the old basis of taxation, before the increase of taxation last year, the actual revenue receipts in the year, which I estimated in my Budget speech at about £118,000,000, but which was not a fair statement of what I may call the proper revenue of the year, because, as hon. Members who have followed these matters know very well, the proper revenue of the year was diminished this year by large forestalments, to the amount of £3,250,000, in the months of January and February. Therefore the £118,000,000 only represents what I anticipate the Exchequer would receive from the revenue on the old basis of taxation this year if there are no similar forestalments next January and February. If there are not the proper revenue for 1902–3, augmented to that extent, would amount, all other things being equal, to £121,500,000. But taking the actual revenue receipts for this year on the old basis of £118,000,000, and deducting that amount from £130,500,000 of ordinary expenditure, I find a deficit of £12,500,000. Very well.
Now, what are the additional taxes that were imposed last year, and
640
that I purpose to impose this year? Their estimated yield together amounts to about £25,000,000. Therefore, as against this deficit of £25,000,000, I have to set £12,500,000 of that to meet ordinary expenditure, leaving a balance of £12,500,000, which might be devoted to the Sinking Fund for the redemption of the new war debt, to the remission of taxation, or any other purpose the financial position at the moment might seem to require. That, I think, is a fair statement of the case as it really stands. But now the right hon. Gentleman objects not merely to the proportion between the amount which I propose to raise by loan and by taxation, he also objects to the war taxes. Very well, but he did not object to the income tax; he hardly said a word about it. A good many Members on his side, I think, would have liked to have seen the income tax a little higher still. [Opposition cheers.] But I knew the right hon. Gentleman would not take that view; he was not speaking on behalf of the united party in that matter, because only two or three years ago he censured me a good deal for not reducing the income tax, which then stood at 8d. in the £. Then he did not find fault with the sugar duties; I thank him for his support. But I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman who sits next to him, the Leader of the Opposition, was so grateful. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Yes. There we have not got a united Opposition either, because I observed the other day that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in addressing an audience in the north of England, spoke of the sugar tax as a dreadful tax upon women and children—though why women and children should not share taxation I really do not know—and as a tax that would cost the ordinary working man earning 15s. a week, with a small family, 4½d. a week, an enormous amount of taxation? That is a most exaggerated estimate of the amount of sugar that would be consumed in such a family; and the right hon. Gentleman entirely forgets what the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton so properly reminded him of to-night—namely, Mr. Gladstone's views and action on the

641
matter of the sugar duty and the tea duty at the time of the Crimean War.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Existing taxes.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What is the difference in principle between maintaining and increasing, as Mr. Gladstone did, an existing tax and imposing a new one? I do not believe that if it were possible for Mr. Gladstone to be here among us now he would have opposed this sugar duty, any more than has the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. [A MEMBER on the Opposition benches: We should not have had any war then.] I will venture to say that on this matter the working men are a little more reasonable than the Leader of the Opposition; they are perfectly willing to bear this taxation, they are proud to bear it. They know perfectly well that the duty I propose will not increase the price of sugar more than to the amount at which the price of sugar without the duty stood no longer ago than 1893; they know that their wages have risen since that time, and that they are perfectly well able to bear this tax without stinting themselves or their children in anything that is necessary. But there was a part of the taxation, and the only one, in spite of the terms of the Amendment, to which the right hon. Gentleman objected, and that is the coal duty. Well, we have already discussed the coal duty at very considerable length. The right hon. Gentleman did not say much about it to-night; but what he did say was that he objected to an export duty altogether unless it was a duty upon a monopoly.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: A commodity.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Well, a commodity which was a monopoly. I believe, as a matter of fact, that our export coal may be very largely so described. [Opposition cries of "No."] I expected to hear that assertion questioned from the other side; but it is not seriously questioned by those who have spoken moderately with regard to the coal tax as far as regards the best kinds of our coal. The hon. Baronet opposite, the Mem-
642
ber for the Berwick Division of Northumberland, went so far the other night as to suggest that this export duty on coal would rather tend to increase the export of the best classes of coal. And as to the other classes of coal, the more I look into it the more I am convinced that those countries of Europe which do not themselves produce coal cannot get coal so cheaply from any other source as they can from this country, even with the additional duty, and that the same thing is true of large parts of countries like France or Russia, for example, which do produce coal for themselves, but also import coal very largely from this country, imported in spite of the fact that they impose an import duty of 1s. or 2s. upon the coal that comes to them from us. The amount which the coal importers of the countries of Europe and the Mediterranean require, even in a slack year such as this, is so large that I believe it would be absolutely impossible to supply it from any other European source except our coalfields. We are the only country in the world that, with regard to coal, not only supplies its own needs without any importation at all, but also exports largely to other countries; and, although I do not want to go into this argument to night, I will venture to say that there is nothing in this duty on coal which, as far as the discussion has hitherto gone, has in the least shaken my conviction that it can be safely imposed without any injury to the industry or commerce to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Why, what is the strongest case of all against this coal duty? That of the Northumbrian coalfield, which was ably put forward by the right hon. Baronet the other night, and which has often been put forward in this matter. What are stated to be the circumstances in that coalfield? Simply these—that the natural outlet of the Northumbrian coalfield is Northern Europe, and not this country, as one would suppose; and that if it is produced at all it must be exported, because there is no demand for it here. And why is there no demand for it here? Because the Scottish coalfield on the north and the Yorkshire coalfield on the south prevent it being consumed in England or Scotland. But why? Because the railway rates from

643
Northumberland to such places as York and Leeds are more than half again as much for that short mileage as the seaborne freights are from Northumberland to places like Hamburg and Cronstadt. I would advise Northumberland coalowners to agitate for a reduction of their railway rates. We are told that there are 150 ships exporting coal from the north of England to the nearest European ports, and coming back only in ballast, many of which would be thrown out of employment if the export of coal from the Northumbrian coalfield were seriously diminished. Well, I live in the south of England; I know something of the price of railway-borne coal in the south of England, and if these ships cannot find a good market in European ports they might do worse than bring Northumbrian coal to the ports in the south of England to compete with the railway-borne coal there. I do not believe in these assertions as to the injury that is to be done to this great industry by a 1s. export duty on coal, still less do I believe in what the right hon. Gentleman suggested to-night as the injury that would be done to our commerce. We have heard a good deal about the way in which this duty could not be imposed on the foreigner, and must therefore fall on the coalowner, and through him upon the miner; but now we are told it is to be borne by the shipowner, and that, because freights have gone down since the commencement of the year, the depression in freights is due to this duty, although the exports of the month of April have really been larger than they were in the month of April of 1900, and although in regard to a large portion of those exports, under existing contracts, no duty will be paid at all by anybody concerned. I do not wish to delay the House with arguments on a matter which I do not think they want to discuss to-night; but I have felt obliged to allude to it shortly, because I differ altogether from the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the effect of the duty on coal.
Now I come to the remarkable part of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. He is willing to make "adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire," but he thinks our financial proposals "do not exhibit
644
that regard for economy which the alarming increase in the normal expenditure of the country imperatively demands." I do not understand the connection between those two sentences; they look like two policies. I do not quite understand how he combines them. Now, what is the cause of this increase? He told us: in the first place, he said, the increase of the Navy Estimates, and he spoke out manfully and rightly upon that subject. But did he voice the opinion of the united Liberal party? I noticed that the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman upon the importance of a large Navy were uttered without a single cheer from that side of the House. [Opposition cries of "No."] Yes; then he went on to the only two heads of our expenditure, on which he suggested economy. One was education, but he did not mean to spend less money on education, he did not suggest that for a moment; he thought that the money might be better spent than it is.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: More economically.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Well, that it might be spent so as to secure better results.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: That results could be secured at a less cost.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes; but I think I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice if I say that he would go on to expend money on other kinds of education than those on which it is at present expended, and that he does not wish to see the diminution of the total expenditure of the State on education, but would rather like to see it increased. That, at any rate, I am convinced, is the opinion of the opposite side of the House. One thing is clear—that if economy means less expenditure, you cannot find it in the matter of education. But the right hon. Gentleman suggested, and I think it was rather an unfair suggestion, that there might be some economy in our grants for the purposes of local taxation—our old friend the "doles." I was glad to notice he did not use that word, because a greater mis-

645
nomer than to describe the Agricultural Rating Act as a dole to landlords I do not think was ever invented.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I regard them as doles or donations.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Why is it a dole to remit a portion of local taxation to the occupier of agricultural land—which was unjust taxation—[Opposition cries of "Oh, oh."]—out of the Exchequer, if it is not also a dole to remit entirely local taxation to the owner of stock in trade by annual Act out of the pockets of the other ratepayers? I see no difference in principle whatever between the remissions. [Opposition cries of "Oh."] But more than that, it has been a favourite argument of hon. Members opposite in the course of our debates on the Budget that if we impose a duty on coal it is not paid by the foreigner but has to be paid by the coal-owner, and that he will pass it on to the miner who works for him, in the shape of reduced wages. Very well. If that be true, if a tax gets to the workman in that way, may not the remission of taxation also get to the workman? This dole, as it is called, under the Agricultural Rating Act, has gone into the pocket of the occupier of agricultural land. [Opposition cries of "No."] I defy any hon. Member to produce a single instance in which it has gone into the pocket of his landlord. Well, if it has gone into the pocket of the occupier of agricultural land has it not enabled him in these times when the wages of the agricultural labourer have happily increased, to employ more labour and to pay his men better than he could afford to pay them when he had higher rates? Why is that argument not true in the case of the agricultural labourer, if the converse is true in the case of the miner? I do not think, if the matter comes to be fairly examined, that these grants can be called doles to the landlord. But the point is this, How are we to economise? If the right hon. Gentleman opposite were standing at this box now, in the office which I have the honour to hold, how could he economise with regard to them? Will he venture to say that he really believes that he could restore to the Exchequer the million and
646
a half, or whatever it is, which is devoted under the Agricultural Rating Act to this purpose? No, Sir; he knows very well that the Members for agricultural constituencies in England and Wales who sit on his side of the House would have nothing to say to such a proposal as that. Does he think that he could deprive Scotland or Ireland of the sums which under corresponding Acts have been devoted to local purposes in Scotland and Ireland out of taxation? I should like to see him try it. No doubt Irish and Scotch Members on that side of the House might desire to see those sums devoted to other purposes than those to which they go now, but as for handing them back to the Exchequer for the general expenditure of the country, the thing is impossible. Then you cannot save on education; you cannot save on these doles, as they are called. The right hon. Gentleman thinks you can save on the Army. He considers that our military expenditure is excessive, and he supported that proposition by the astounding assertion that we have no land frontier to defend. Why, Sir, he is a little Englander indeed in that respect! And yet he was Secretary for India. Has he not spent any money in defending India? Why, do we not keep up a very large part of our Army for the simple purpose of defending India?
SIR HENRY FOWLER: And India pays more than she ought to do.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: India pays only that portion of the British Army which may happen to be there at the time; but if India were attacked on its land frontier, as India may be attacked some day, as nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, surely it would be necessary for us to be prepared to defend her with a much larger army than that which happens in peace time to be in India. Has Canada no land frontier? Are there no other parts of our Empire which have land frontiers! Hoes the right hon. Gentleman of all men—no, it was a mistake on his part to make such an assertion as that. He knows full well that we keep up our Army not merely for the defence of these islands, but for the defence of the Empire as a whole.
And what are the responsibilities of that Empire? They have been

647
largely increased in recent years. Yes, not merely under the present Government. We did not go to Egypt; we did not accept the protectorate of East Africa. I do not blame our predecessors for either of these actions. The Empire expands in spite of the Government of the day, and as it expands our military responsibilities for its defence increase. We look out from these islands on a world very different to that which presented itself to us a generation ago. Then there was only one great civilised Power which could give us cause for anxiety either as a rival or as a possible opponent. Now there are four, if not five, who have increased in wealth and strength beyond even the increase that has been vouchsafed to us. I will say that there is reason, and good reason, for military expenditure in advance of the standard which was sufficient for this country ten or fifteen years ago. But at the same time I am disposed to be jealous of military expenditure when compared with naval expenditure. I never would be a party to any such military expenditure as would be vying with the great military Powers of the Continent—never. I do not believe it is necessary for this country. I believe it would be the utmost folly to engage in anything of the kind, and I would never be a party to it. But it is the first duty of every Government, whatever its political opinions—it would be the duty of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that Bench if they succeeded us to-morrow—to provide for the safety of the country. That need not mean greatly increased expenditure as compared with our present standard, although there might be some increase. I have never stated that in my belief the expenditure of this country could be reduced, but I have said that it might have to be increased, and that therefore we must strengthen the basis of our existing indirect taxation; but I do not think—and I say this with the consciousness of my responsibility as Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is possible for us to continue at the rate of increase which we have seen for the past six years without the gravest danger to that financial system which has long been established in this country, and to which, through its light and easy taxa-
648
tion on the industries of this country, I believe we owe much of our prosperity. Sir, it would be foolish and a false economy to cut down what is required to provide for the safety of the country. But it is not necessary to my mind that the taxpayers of the United Kingdom alone should always bear, as now they almost exclusively bear, the whole charge for the naval defence of the Empire. Further, Sir, it is well that in some things the State should undertake work at the cost of the taxpayers for the benefit of the country at large. But it is not well, and it would be foolish to the last degree if this House ever imposed upon the State largely increased burdens for anything like all the work which we have seen for generations past well done by private enterprise and by individual action, with this great advantage, as it seems to me, that among the proudest attributes of our national character are independence and self-reliance. I do not think you can find the true way to economy in such a speech or such a motion as that of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not question his motive. I know he desires economy for economy's sake. I know that he has spoken to-night, as he has often acted, without being biased by mere party feeling. But this I must venture to say as my own opinion, that it is in such directions as I have ventured to indicate rather than in the mere denunciation of our existing expenditure that the path of true economy lies.
MR. HALDANE: The concluding words of the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer contrast with the early utterances in that speech. In this place, as elsewhere, the art of debate consists not a little in diverting the attention of the audience from the point at issue by throwing if possible as many appeals as you can to the discord amongst your opponents. And the right hon. Gentleman has proved himself a past-master in that admirable art of debate. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by suggesting a number of things, which proved him to be a diligent student of the London correspondents of the various newspapers in the provinces. He suggested that this

649
Amendment, if voted for, would prejudge opinion on the war. He raised the question of the Navy, and suggested that the Opposition would divide itself into various camps over the Amendment, and then the right hon. Gentleman went on to meet the very formidable indictment contained in the speech of the right hon. the Member for East Wolverhampton, and to give what was his real and only answer to that speech.
What was the gist of the speech of my right hon. friend? It was that above everything the Budget scheme as disclosed in this Finance Bill did not sufficiently take into account the gravity of the financial situation of the country. My right hon. friend made his point by showing in a striking fashion that if ten millions extra revenue were raised, five millions must go to covering the normal deficit on the normal expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman answered that, and also the charge that the great burden which the war was throwing on the national finances was not being met vigorously enough, by a suggestion, which I think was the only real suggestion the right hon. Gentleman made in answer to the argument of my right hon. friend. It was that we were laying the foundation, he did not say that he had constituted it, but he suggested that a foundation might be laid—I do not think he put it at more than a hypothesis—of a Sinking Fund of twelve and a half millions a year, which would go to relieve the burden and the cost of the war. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman got at that was by taking a comparison of the revenues of the last three years, and showing, what I have no doubt is quite correct, that forty-five millions has in these three years been paid out of revenue towards the cost of the war, which he estimated at 153 millions. That may be true, but we are face to face with a situation in which on the normal basis of our taxation our expenditure is rapidly overtaking the yield of that taxation. We have got to look forward, and certainly I know no limit, at the rate we are going, to an increase in expenditure, and to talk of twelve and a half millions as anything in the nature of a Sinking Fund is basing
650
his case on the most shadowy foundation The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that the twelve and a half millions was to be regarded in itself as a Sinking Fund. He only said it might possibly be so treated. I wish to follow out the line which my right hon. friend so appropriately put to the House in his speech. I do not think this is the occasion to discuss particular taxes. We shall have a discussion on them in Committee. We have discussed them to some extent already, and we shall hear a great deal more about them. I do not wish now to enter into controversial questions as to coal or sugar or the amount of the income tax, but I wish to try and impress on the House what seems to me to be the great gravity of the financial position in which this country stands, looked at from the broadest point of view. My criticism upon this Budget Bill is that it does not contain any resolute effort to grapple with that position. By an increased income tax and by a duty on sugar and coal we have this year added some ten millions to our revenue, and by borrowing we have added a very large sum to our debt. My criticism is that the scheme of finance as shown by the Bill is not sufficiently vigorous in view of the position in which we stand to-day. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his Budget speech said that the position which we were in was that trade began to show signs of falling off, and that he would not be justified in putting heavier burdens on the taxpayers. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that he has got to the end of that falling off in trade? Does he imagine that the sources of revenue of this country are going to be again as good as they were three years ago, or as good as they were even a year ago? If there is anything that is more than ordinarily evident it is that within a few months the country will be less able to bear the burdens it has at present than is the case now, and if that process is one which by degrees gets worse and worse, surely it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as long as he has a large revenue, to make as much provision out of it as possible to meet a charge which is becoming heavier and heavier in proportion to our resources.

651
The right hon. Gentleman says, and it is perfectly true, that the income tax at the time of the Crimean war was 2d. in the £1 heavier than it is now. But surely in a time such as that in which we live we cannot take into account income tax only. At the time of the Crimean War the nation made a most resolute effort to discharge the cost of that war in the smallest possible time. The borrowing was comparatively small—under forty millions—and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day did not hesitate to raise the income tax to 1s. 4d. in the £, notwithstanding that there were other taxes pressing on commodities which do not exist now, and which made heavier charges on the country than anything contemplated under this scheme. In the forty-three years since the Crimean War 198 millions of debt has been paid off, but the borrowing for the war has absorbed the savings of nearly a score of years past, and we are in a position in which, if we do not make a resolute effort to retrieve the situation, we shall have to leave those who come after us in a very much worse position than our forefathers left us. That seems to me to be a consideration which ought not to be left out of account in considering what we are doing in a time such as this, because this war is not like one of those wars with a first class Power, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made reference. It is a war of great importance, but it is not a war of which we can say that we have effected by it the saving of the country from such disasters as threatened it during the Napoleonic wars at the end of the last century and the beginning of this. Surely we owe it to those who will come after us to make some provision that the burden of the cost of the war shall not come upon them with the weight that is threatened if the redemption of our position is to proceed at the very slow rate contemplated by the proposals of the Government.
But, apart from that, there are several reasons why it seems to me we ought to deal with this matter upon the basis of making the most vigorous effort in our power. In the first place we have got not only an increase in the normal expenditure, not only an increase in the
652
dead weight of the Debt, but we have got remarkable indications that we are going to be presently face to face with a time in which we cannot count on the elasticity of those sources of revenue to which we have been accustomed to look up to now. I observe with a great deal of concern the suggestions which have come from influential journals, such as The Times newspaper, that we should adopt some other system of taxation than that to which we have been accustomed, for the raising of our revenue. I am glad to think that there is no response to these suggestions, so far, in any of the utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken like a strong free-trader, and he is certainly not inclined to turn a listening ear to Sheffield, and I trust he will not turn a listening ear to Birmingham either, in whatever forms those suggestions may come. Any attempt to raise revenue on a large scale on the basis of indirect taxation, any attempt to take to those new principles of taxation, must have this effect, and can have no other—that they will deprive us of the knowledge of the extent to which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said, we are putting a burden upon the raw material of industry, a burden on the very sources from which we derive our revenue, and which will prevent us from knowing how we stand as regards the basis of normal prosperity in this country. The indications are that we will do well to stand in the very strictest and strongest way by the existing foundations of our national system. What advantages have we in this country? We have a coal supply by no means inexhaustible. For a long time that was thought of as marking us out from the other nations of the world, but they are rapidly developing their coal supplies, and there is no reason to think that we can look forward for an indefinite period to pre-eminence in trade by reason of our coal supply. What has given us a certain position of stability and contributed to a very large extent to our vast and successful commercial activity? It is that this country is the place where the raw materials of industry are brought in free; that we have free trade; that we can get materials to an extent that no other nation can; and thereby have a

653
great advantage in holding our own against people who have advantages of a kind which we at this moment do not possess. Then again there is another advantage we have. Such has been our reputation for financial prudence, such has been our reputation for straightforwardness in the payment of debts, and in making income and expenditure balance, that we have always been able to borrow more cheaply than other nations. That has been a great advantage, and that reputation which enables us to borrow money more cheaply than other nations is one which we shall do well to try and keep with us. Consols are not now at 111 as they were three or four years ago, and the rate of interest is not that to which we have been accustomed, and if we wish to keep the sources of revenue on which our position depends, and to get back to that position which has done us so much good in days gone by, we must keep that reputation. Then there is another danger that alarms me considerably. I am not a pessimist. I am not one of those people who say that our trade is running away from us. I know the stuff our people are made of too well to believe that we shall fail to adapt ourselves to the position when the pinch comes, but I do say that the commerce which is the source of revenue on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer builds is going to be exposed to a strain of competition such as it has never had up to the present time. For the past two years the United States exports of manufactured goods have increased by 40 per cent. to markets, which were our peculiar markets, such as Russia and Japan, and when we look at the cause and the circumstances we see there is not likely to be any change in that respect.
We have got a most formidable rival. This is not the place to discuss these matters, but it must be recognised that American manufacturers are showing intelligence in technical training and scientific education, and are adapting themselves to new means of production which are not availed of in this country. Not only in time-saving appliances, but in the way they are worked, is America proving herself a formidable rival to us. Let us look at the way in which the situation presents itself to her own writers. I will quote from a recent
654
writer in the North American Review, Mr. C. R. Flint, who writes on the new position which has developed between America and this country within the last few years. He writes—
"Europe needs us much more than we need her. The table of exports and imports shows this very plainly. Last year Europe bought of us 1,111 million dollars worth of goods. During the same period we bought of Europe only 439 millions. This gives us as against Europe alone a balance of trade amounting to 672,000,000 dollars. They bought from us more than two and a half as much as we bought from them. For every dollar invested by us in European productions they invested over 2½ dollars in American productions. Ten years ago, in 1890, we exported to Europe only 682,000,000 dollars, while we imported 474,000,000 dollars. In these few years, therefore, our exports have almost doubled, while our imports have decreased by 35 millions."
If we wish to know how that pinches, let us turn to the figures of the steel trade, for example, and see the position of our steel producers in this country as compared with a few years ago in the markets of the world. It is not only America that is to be feared, but Germany is also attacking us in another fashion. Germany is taking away our chemical trade, once so prosperous on the Tyne. It is, as is shown in an interesting special article in The Times the other day, breaking into our indigo trade, which means so much to many of our manufacturers, and it is breaking into our dye and colour trade, and is competing with us almost to the extent of wiping those trades out, and it is also competing with us in electrical engineering. My right hon. friend said to-night that he was not prepared to economise in the matter of education. Neither am I. I think we will have to spend considerable sums on education if we are to keep our position, and one of the things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind is that in his Estimates for the future he will probably be required to expend five millions more on education if our commerce is to be put on as good a position as that of Germany. We used to be first in the production of steel and iron. We have now sunk to the third place. In the last six months we have ceased to produce in the way we used to produce. I have here an article from one of the technical journals, with which I will not trouble the House, but

655
I will read two sentences which sum up the situation—
"The foregoing figures show very conclusively that the increased growth of production in Germany during the last decade was nearly four times as much as that in England, whilst that of America was nearly six times greater. In 1890 Britain exported 4,001,430 tons, but in 1899 only 3,717,180 tons, whereas the value of American exports increased from 25,542,000 dollars in 1890, to 105,690,000 dollars in 1899. England thus shows a decrease of nearly one-fourteenth, whilst America quadrupled her exports. The American exports of iron and steel to England in 1890 amounted to 222,776 tons."
Now, Sir, in that condition of things it is perfectly plain that any Chancellor of the Exchequer framing a financial scheme cannot count on having a sinking fund of twelve and a half millions to be applied to these purposes. We shall have to incur large expenditure in the matter of education, if we are to enable our people to hold their own against the resources supplied by a poorer Government in Germany, and by millionaires in America, to universities and colleges, to give the people that impetus which is at present not possible in this country. We shall have to remember that our chances for the future depend on three things: We have got to preserve our free trade basis; we have got to preserve our reputation for solvency and our power to borrow cheaply; and we have got to train the minds of our people so that they may be able to hold their own against the competition which is coming forward at such an alarming rate. Again I say I am no pessimist. I believe that our people have it in them to hold their own. The trade of this country still continues to increase, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has still got sources of revenue, but he cannot count on having the increase in the future which he has had in the past. But, at all events, I feel that a much more resolute effort should have been made in the Budget to meet the present state of things. Of course we can only do that just now by raising more revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer challenges us to say that the income tax ought to be higher. I say that it ought to be higher. It ought to be as high as it was at the time of the Crimean War, and we ought to have more evidence of a resolute disposition on his part, having behind him
656
Liberal representatives from Wales, England, and Scotland, to repeal the Agricultural Bating Act. I am quite sure the present agricultural community value that Act so lightly that the tenant farmers and small occupiers would part with it to-morrow without concern, and they would feel that they were taking one step towards putting the finances of the country on something like a practical basis.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: And repeal the Scotch Act also?
MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the equivalent grant. At the time that money came we were in a position in which we so often are. We got money at the wrong time. As a matter of fact, we are able to absorb for the purposes of education all the money we can get, but money has been given to Scotland under the utmost clumsy and awkward system which at present exists—namely, by equivalent grants, a large portion of which has been wasted by throwing it into the payment of rates. This system of equivalent grants is one of the most wasteful and indefensible that has ever disfigured the finance of this country. But it is not only in the matter of the Agricultural Rating Act that retrenchment should be carried out. A great deal can be done in getting rid of extravagant expenditure, and certainly we are justified in that policy by reason of the position with which we are face to face. I wish these things were taken more to heart. I think, however, the country is getting more interested in economy; I think I see the awakening of the spirit of economy in this House. I am sure it will be welcomed, and by no one as much as the rght hon. Gentleman himself, but I hope that he, in his turn, will not accept the maxim, vestigia nulla retrorsum. That principle has never been applied in finance. It is in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to use the great weight of his authority to promote that spirit of which I have spoken and to show an example. I often wish his counsels prevailed more among his colleagues than they do. What we want above all things at the present time is a settled principle in these matters, and no one would be more ready to lay down such a principle than the right hon.

657
Gentleman if he could act on his own counsel and authority. What we want above everything else is a policy which shall point to economy, to a realisation of the true condition of the country, and of how precarious is our commercial hold on our sources of revenue. We want a firm principle with which to be able to look proudly towards the future, and to feel that we are doing for those who come after us what our forefathers did for us. At the beginning of this century the burden on the nation was heavier than the burden we have to face to-day, but our forefathers bore it without complaint, and the vast Debt which was raised at that time left them under a load of taxation which they paid cheerfully. Are we to be the only generation to feel that we must look back upon the past with a feeling that we can do nothing comparable to what past generations did? Surely it will be our duty to do for the generations coming after us what previous generations did for us.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he had listened to the speeches from the other side of the House with some disappointment. The hon. Member for Haddingtonshire had given the House a most interesting essay, but he confessed he found very little in it with reference to the Budget before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton made a mild attack on certain features of the Budget, but although he stated his objections to certain expenditure, he made no suggestion to reduce it, and when he objected to the proposed taxation he did not propose to supply its place by other taxation.
He read the Amendment on the Paper with some satisfaction, because it appeared to him to indicate that the Opposition had at last awakened to the fact that the enormous increase in expenditure during the last seven years demanded the urgent attention of Parliament. He had seen with surprise the expenditure of this country grow in the last seven years from £95,000,000 to nearly £130,000,000 without any direct challenge on the part of the Opposition against the financial policy of the Government. It had been explained to him as a novice that this abstention on the part of Gentlemen opposite was less due to a
658
conviction that the expenditure deserved their approbation than to a belief that any criticism would be bad electioneering, and he asked himself how far their political fortunes would have to fall before they would pluck up courage to criticise a method of public finance so much at variance with all their traditions. Even now, when the forces which the right hon. Gentleman claimed to have some part in leading to the attack had taken the field, each section apparently declined to march except against that portion of the Government's financial position which they viewed with particular hostility. The Welsh Members had to be warmed by coal, the gentlemen from the Midlands had to be cajoled by the tax on sugar, and the old Cobdenites had to be granted a dole in the shape of a cursory allusion to the ever growing burden of swollen expenditure. With regard to the Bill immediately before the House, the maintenance of our good credit and the sound administration of our finances were subjects beyond the pale of mere party recrimination, and deserved more attention than they had recently received. What was the present financial position of this country? That was the essential point regarding which every Member must make up his mind. What would be the probable aspect of the normal Budget at the close of the war? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated with courageous frankness that the real difficulty, the menace to our financial equilibrium, was less war expenditure than current expenditure; but he had so much the habit of stating truths which were a direct apparent condemnation of the policy which he represented that sufficient attention had not been given to this note of warning. In making an estimate of the future Budget, he would suppose that the war would come to an end in six months, and that the total war expenditure of the current year would not exceed the Chancellor's estimate. He would also assume that the extraordinary military Budget could be closed at the end of the present year without throwing charges on the ordinary military Budget. He thought hon. Members would admit that that was taking a somewhat optimistic view. In the third place, he would assume that the

659
civil and military administration of South Africa could be paid for by South African resources, and that no subvention from British funds Would be required for the proper protection of our loyalist fellow-subjects Proceeding on that basis our expenditure in 1902–3 would approximately amount to £130,000,000 or £131,000,000, and the ordinary revenue, including the war taxes voted last year, but excluding the taxes now under discussion, would amount to about £132,000,000. The war taxes of the present year, which were estimated to give an additional £11,000,000, would be required if we desired to constitute any sinking fund to pay off the accumulated war liability. We had, therefore, arrived at this unsatisfactory financial position—that there was a permanent income tax of 1s., together with the increased duties on beer and spirits, and there was a strong probability of an income tax of 1s. 2d. for at least four or five years, together with this year's additional taxation on coal and sugar. It appeared to him that the fact that we had arrived at this state of finance was a condemnation of the system which had been followed, and it should be borne in mind that any increase of military or civil expenditure must necessitate a further increase of taxation over and above the present level. It might be possible for party loyalty to attempt to excuse this position, but it would be difficult to justify it, and hon. Members on this side of the House would do better for the nation and their party if they endeavoured to find means to remedy it. The time of the House could be more profitably applied to the restriction of expenditure than to theoretical discussions regarding the merits of this or that form of taxation, The alternative to both the coal tax and the sugar tax was the reduction of expenditure so that both taxes would be unnecessary.
The argument used somewhat generally in the press, and especially in The Times, that criticism directed against expenditure was beside the point, because the war must be brought to an end, did not affect his contention. He protested against the increase in the permanent peace expenditure in the country, and he was alarmed at the frenzied haste with which the demands of
660
this and that department were satisfied without reference to the general financial position of the country. History contained no instance of any result being achieved in military organisation except by means of scrupulous and rigid economy. The Duke of Wellington stood out as an administrator among his contemporaries. Mr. Gladstone said that he was a more rigid economist than Sir Robert Peel. The hon. Member for Oldham might have claimed to speak for economy on behalf of a more illustrious relative than even his distinguished father. He might have told the House that the history of the battle of Blenheim was written on the back of a carefully revised washing bill. He hoped the Secretary for War would be guided by those precedents of economy. The Secretary for War asked them to abandon generalities and come to close quarters with the military expenditure of the country. But it was impossible to do so in a Second Beading debate, and in Committee of Supply those who thought expenditure excessive could not probe it to the bottom. For nearly 200 years past the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been the most powerful and influential member of the Cabinet. In the present Chancellor of the Exchequer the advocates of economy had a representative with excellent intentions, but it was written large and clear on the Budgets of the last two or three years that he had been overborne, and finding little support in the Cabinet and the House he had consented to Estimates and Votes which he would have gladly seen reduced. He himself believed the House could do a great deal in the direction of economy, and that if evidence was shewn that there was behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer a vigorous and solid body of opinion in favour of economy, the right hon. Gentleman's views would prevail more in the future than in the past. Then, he believed Treasury control could be considerably improved. Its absence of sympathy with the various departments of the Government was so offensive (if he might use the word with deference) that they had succeeded in setting everyone, even the Scotch, against the cause of economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should look closely into this,

661
and see if he could not make Treasury control over the various spending departments more effective. The unpopularity of the Treasury was largely due to the fact that its criticisms were based on insufficient knowledge and that it made more fuss over a trivial error than a serious mistake of substance and large amount. Discussions in Committee of Supply, though useful in ventilating grievances, did little to improve the administration of finance. The Estimates of the spending departments should be subjected at intervals of three or four years to the examination of a Select Committee of the House, who could call for witnesses and documents and go thoroughly into the matter by way of question and answer. Such a reform would not tend to diminish the control the House Commons exercised over the Estimates. It would replace nothing now done, but would be supplementary to it. The difference between the present system and that he suggested was that the Committee of the whole House would then discuss the Estimates, of a particular spending department with full knowledge of details and the advantage of having the Report of the Select Committee before them. In that way it would be possible to increase largely the influences which assisted the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his fight for economy, and if that were done he did not see that any real diminution of the authority of the House would result. Finally, he appealed to hon. Members to remember that the greatness and authority of this country had not been built up solely by military or naval force. Our commerce, which had been such a powerful factor in our progress, had developed really because it had not been restricted by regulations of which our statesmen were the first to see the danger, and because it had not been weighed down by the oppressive taxes which their financial requirements obliged foreign countries to impose. The last twenty years had seen a great expansion of our national and imperial possessions; they had witnessed the awakening of Greater Britain, but this expansion of our national feeling, with which he was in cordial sympathy, carried with it inherent dangers which could be guarded against only by
662
severe self-discipline and ceaseless vigilance. He appealed to the right hon. Gentlemen who had the control of the fortunes of this country at the dawn of the new century not to forget in their pride and joy at the consolidation and expansion of the world-wide Empire those principles of wisdom and prudence which had been the foundation of our island strength.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has delivered an interesting speech, but he has dealt more with the affairs of futurity than with the actualities of the moment. He has sketched out what the Budget would be or ought to be in 1902; but for my part, the Budget of 1901 is sufficient and more than sufficient for the present. The hon. Gentleman's proposals in the matter of economy were, if he will excuse me saying so, of the most cheeseparing description. With regard to the Army, he suggested only that we should make certain minor changes which would have the effect of saving a few pounds, and he instanced, as the sort of economy to which he asked the House to agree when we are spending £60,000,000 on the Army and the Navy, the example of the great Duke of Marl-borough, who wrote his account of the Battle of Blenheim on a washing bill. No doubt the Government have a good many washing bills, and a quantity of dirty linen to be washed, but even if they used all their washing bills, and nothing but washing bills, on which to inscribe their accounts, the economy effected would be absolutely nothing. The hon. Gentleman told us he looked for economy in the normal peace expenditure of the country. I do not know what he means, nor has he told us what that economy is to be. I do not want economy in the normal peace expenditure. The country is not so anxious that the Budget should be reduced as that the money collected for taxation should be spent in a proper and useful manner. I want the normal peace expenditure to go up considerably, particularly in regard to education, and so on. The hon. Gentleman concluded by telling us how his great schemes of finance were to be carried out. The House, he says, must do a great deal. I have heard that statement I should think quite 500 times, but I never yet knew it

663
to have any effect in the House of Commons. The next suggestion of the hon. Member was that the Treasury are ignorant people, and that they must be more intelligent. That also is a somewhat vague generality. He added that he thought it desirable that the Treasury should enter into verbal discussion with the spending departments. We had from the Secretary of State for War the other day an account of certain verbal communications between Lord Randolph Churchill and himself, when Under Secretary, and I cannot say that the friend of economy in the person of Lord Randolph Churchill succeeded in effecting any economy through those verbal communications. The next point of the hon. Member was that all discussions in Committee of Supply should be done away with, and that a "Cutting-down Committee," composed of Members of the House, should be appointed every three or four years, with power to call for persons and documents. In connection with the French Chamber there is a Committee which can call for persons and documents, and there it has been proved that the system leads rather to more than to less expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has been a distinguished light in Egypt, and with all respect I would say that his plan of finance is more fitted for that part of the world than for this free and self-governing country.
But my object in rising was to state my own position, and, I believe, that of other hon. Members on this side of the House, with regard to this Amendmen. I object to the Bill. Objections are sometimes taken which can be remedied in Committee, but in this case my objections are so fundamental that they cannot be so remedied. We cannot in Committee of Ways and Means substitute one tax for another.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Oh, yes.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I am glad to hear my right hon. friend say so, because I have occasionally tried it, but have never been allowed to do so. In any case, you cannot increase taxation, and, as part of the complaint against the Bill is that it does not sufficiently tax the present generation, but throws the expenditure on the war upon futurity by a series of post obits, we could not amend it
664
in that respect in Committee. It is only right and proper, therefore, that we should attack the Bill on Second Reading, and, if possible, secure its rejection. There are two ways of proceeding in such a case. The first is to put down an Amendment, something like that of my right hon, friend, stating reasons why the Bill should be thrown out. The second is to meet the Bill with a simple "Nay," or its equivalent—a motion that it be read this day six months—without any reasons except those adduced in debate. My right hon. friend has chosen the first of those two methods. I do not complain of the reasons he has given; I think others might have been alleged, but as far as they go, I entirely agree with those put forward in the Amendment. But the right hon. Gentleman has not been satisfied with that. He has favoured us with a preamble. That preamble is—
"that this House, while ready to make adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire."
I am entirely unable to agree to that preamble, and shall be unable to follow my right hon. friend into the lobby. Why has he put in this preamble? It is absolutely unnecessary. The Amendment would have read very well without it. Generally speaking, Bills read very well without preambles, and the modern habit is to do without them as far as possible. The right hon. Gentleman says we are ready to vote adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire. Does he mean to say that we are not ready to vote for anything else? We are ready to vote adequate provision for everything, including armaments. We are ready to vote more money for education, for the giving of old-age pensions, and for a great many other things, just as well as for the Army and the Navy. We do not consider that the happiness and the well-being of the inhabitants of the Empire are dependent entirely or mainly upon having a great army and a great navy. We think they are dependent upon good education, upon looking after the lot of the poor and aged people, upon doing our best by peaceful means to gain a prominent position—a superior position, if possible—in the markets of the world. Therefore I ask, why armaments? Why should the right hon.

665
Gentleman drag in armaments? Does he conceive that this is an implication that while we would grant money for everything else we would not make adequate provision for the Army and the Navy? According to the old proverb, he who excuses himself accuses himself, and I am bound to tell my right hon. friend that I regard this as gratuitous incense heaped up on the altar of the god of war. I am not going to burn that incense. I do not consider that this is precisely the time for expressing any such opinion. This is a Finance Bill, and the strictures of my right hon. friend are upon the mode in which the money is to be raised. What in the name of goodness has that to do with armaments? The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that some of us are not disposed to follow him because we do not believe that he is actuated by fair motives. Who ever said so? I have never said so in my life. There is a great difference between that and considering, when we have words of this sort interpolated into an Amendment, what are the opinions of the gentleman who proposes the Amendment. For that course of action I have the authority of my leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. In July last Sir Wilfrid Lawson proposed a reduction of the salary of the Colonial Secretary—something for which I should have thought anybody would vote blindly. The Leader of the Opposition said he should vote neither for nor against it, and one of the reasons he gave was that he was influenced by the general views of Sir Wilfrid Lawson. In the same way, having to estimate these words in the Amendment, I am influenced by the general opinions of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to a matter which does affect this expenditure. I am a great admirer of my right hon. friend. I admire his eloquence, of which we have had a specimen this evening. I admire him as a Radical. Hon. Members who are new to the House do not know what a Radical he is. I have heard Members complain of his Radicalism. I have sat on these benches with my right hon. friend, but I was a mild and temperate Radical in comparison with him. I followed him because I respected him so much, but I really trembled at the
666
lengths to which he would drag me. If he is not so Radical at present it is not that he is less Radical in his mind, but that he is cribbed, cabined, and confined by the position that he holds on that bench, and possibly by some of the colleagues around him. I admire him also as a Nonconformist. He has always boldly stuck to his guns. He has been opposed to all State endowments of religion, and he has fought gallantly not only for the liberty but for the equality of religions in this country. I agree with him in all that. I might say that I share his Nonconformist conscience. But what is the present position of my right hon. friend with regard to the expenditure of which he complains? He is one of the high priests of the Birmingham Imperialism. He approved and still approves of the war. He has stated in the country that we ought not to negotiate or to do anything of that sort.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I have not said that.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I think his words were that there ought not to be a patched-up peace, but that we ought to fight the matter out to a finish. I assume that if he approves of that policy in the present he would approve of it also in the future. Such a policy involves enormous armaments, and if you have armaments you must pay for them. Therefore, it seems to me that with the policy of my right hon. friend any real economies would be practically impossible. We entirely disagree as to the meaning of the word "adequate"; he applies one sense to it, I apply another. My hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire has an Amendment on the Paper protesting against the war. That is his preamble. If he had asked me, I should have said that I agree with every word of it, but I think it is inopportune to bring the matter forward as an Amendment on this occasion. Would my right hon. friend vote for that Amendment, or would he refuse to vote for it, on account of the preamble?
MR. ASQUITH: It is more than a preamble.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, it is an enlarged preamble. If my right hon.

667
friend would refuse to vote for that Amendment on account of the sentiments expressed therein, why should he complain—I do not suppose he does—if I refuse to vote for his Amendment on account of the preamble? It is perfectly true that there are differences on this side of the House. I am glad there are, because it shows that we on this side of the House think, and that we are not sheep blindly following any bell-wether or running anywhere as driven by the dogs behind us. Last week we had an object lesson of the patriotism of hon. Gentlemen opposite in connection with the army reorganisation scheme. Nearly everybody opposed the scheme. Hon. Gentlemen, one after another, jumped up and complained of it, but when it came to voting they went like sheep into the lobby and recorded their votes in favour of a scheme which they considered as bad as it possibly could be. We on this side of this House do not do that sort of thing. We understand patriotism very differently. If we differ from our leaders we give effect to our difference in the lobby.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: We do not differ.
MR. LABOUCHERE: My hon. friend says we do not differ, but I have known even him to differ. But it shows that we are a vital, thinking, independent party, and we vote according to our convictions, whereas we have this instance of hon. Gentlemen opposite—
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Not me.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman says "Not me"; he means "Not I."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Member said:—"We had these hon. Gentlemen"; I said "Not me," which was a proper expression.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I give the hon. Member every possible credit for not having voted against his convictions, but I would have given him more credit if he had voted in accordance with his convictions. But I think that, while we have these differences, we ought to
668
take advantage of every opportunity upon which we can act unitedly. We do not differ in regard to the particular Bill before the House, and we are ready to vote against it when the question is put from the Chair. We do not fear even the consequences which would ensue upon the Bill being thrown out, namely, that Ministers would go out of office. My right hon. friend seemed rather to deprecate that idea, and to suggest that this Amendment was not really opposition, but a piece of gentle advice which the Government might well take in the matter of finance. He seemed to think that a Minister should bring in his Budget, and, if the Opposition disagreed with it, say, "Yes, apparently you are right; I will take back my Budget, and bring in another until it pleases you." That is rather an odd argument to come from a right hon. Gentleman who was a Member of a Government which went out on the cordite Vote; it is precisely the reverse of the course they followed.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: We did not go out on that Vote.
MR. LABOUCHERE: But while we do not differ with regard to the Bill, we do differ with regard to this Amendment. Take, for instance, our fellow-workers in Ireland. They are not going to vote for this Amendment. I believe several Radicals intend to adopt a similar attitude. Those Irish Members and Radicals may be right or they may be wrong, but it does not alter the fact. The result will be the same so far as the division on the Bill is concerned. The only distinction is that by the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward this Amendment and asking us to vote for it we are divided, whereas a clean vote against the Bill, without any Amendment of this sort, would have united us. That, therefore, would have been the better course. As I have said, I shall not vote for the Amendment, because I object to the preamble. But even if I approved of the preamble I should not vote for the Amendment, because I am anxious that unity shall prevail on this side of the House, and, if I knew that a certain number of gentlemen were not going to vote for the Amendment, I should say

669
that the better division was the larger division, or the one which united us most, and therefore should vote simply "Nay" against the Bill. I am glad that that opportunity will come at the end of the debate, and all Members, whether English or Irish, Imperialist or pro-Boer, will be able to go into the same lobby, actuated by the same feeling, that the sooner the Government is turned out of its present position the better it will be for the country.
MR. COHEN: I am surprised that, for I think the first time, in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, we have not received that explanation which we always expect and usually receive of the motives which have actuated him in bringing forward his proposal. Some explanation is certainly needed, because I think most Members of the House must have some difficulty in understanding the Amendment as it stands. That difficulty will not be diminished by our knowledge of the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment begins by asking the House to record its opinion that the proposals of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not exhibit that regard for economy which the condition of the country imperatively demands. I submit that, looked at from the business point of view, the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect economy from the financial proposals of this or of any Government.

I quite understand from what my right hon. friend said that he looks upon all these financial proposals as coming here with the authority of the Cabinet. Perhaps that is so, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not from the financial proposals of a Government that you can expect economy. So soon as the House of Commons votes and the nation requires money to be expended, it really is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to submit proposals which will provide the money voted by the House, and which is required by the country, It seems to me that a great deal of cant is sometimes spoken here in the name of economy, and my hon. friend the Member for Exeter has spoken of it as a platitude to talk about the safety of the Empire.
670
It seems to me that it is cant to talk about economy. If you want economy, practically the only way to get it is to reduce your expenditure in those departments where the money is expended—I mean the expenditure upon education, upon the Army and the Navy. Will any hon. Member of this House say that they themselves advocate a reduction of expenditure in any of these directions? If they will say so here, as some hon. Members do, will they say it also to their constituents? The hon. Member for North Monmouthshire, in speaking upon the income-tax resolution, challenged us to go to our constituencies and there advocate the expenditure we have voted for here in this House. I accept that challenge, and I say that before my constituents I have always held out that the expenditure of the country must grow—I do not mean the war expenditure but the normal expenditure. This expenditure is growing and must grow, because of the requirements of education, and because of the necessity for the increased normal expenditure in regard to our defensive forces. It is not only this country which has recognised that necessity for a growing expenditure. I have before me the figures which were given to the Statistical Society by Lord Avebury, in which it is shown that during the last twenty-five years the expenditure of France in this respect has grown from £83,000,000 to £140,000,000; the United States from £64,000,000 to £110,000,000; Russia from £74,000,000 to £149,000,000; and Italy from £44,000,000 to £70,000,000. I will not trouble the House with the figures of all the European Powers, but I do say that it is nothing but cant to talk of economy when you are not yourselves willing to reduce the expenditure which requires this taxation to be imposed.
There is only one other point to which I should like to refer. I look with a little anxiety as to the way the floating debt of this country is going abroad. I make no complaint of the increase in the income-tax, which we all recognise as necessary, and the income-tax payers have always been a target against which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer perpetually fire. I quite recognise that in times of war the income-tax is a tax to which recourse ought

671

immediately to be had. What we complain of, if we complain at all, is not that the income-tax is raised now, but that it is never lowered in times of peace and plenty. I will not dwell upon that, because I wish to call attention to the growing unfunded debt of the country. There is a very interesting Return which has just been presented to Parliament, on the motion of the Member for Exeter, and it shows that the unfunded debt of the country has grown to the unprecedented total of £75,000,000 sterling. Of this amount, £30,000,000 is for the war loan, which is not redeemable until the year 1910. Of the remainder, there are £14,000,000 redeemable in 1905, and £10,000,000 in 1903. I hope both these amounts will be paid off out of the mines and the indemnity to be obtained from the Transvaal. That leaves £21,000,000 sterling in Treasury Bills in the hands of the public, and principally in the hands of the foreign public. That is an element of danger to the money market of England and the world, and it is not advantageous to the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, in his Budget speech of 1894, dwelt upon the importance of keeping the unfunded debt of this country in the hands of the English public. I think the strength of English finance consists in the debt being held by the British public, so that you never need fear a forced realisation by foreigners at a time which would be very inconvenient to your own money market, and which probably might bring disaster to the commercial and industrial classes of the country. I have only to say in conclusion that I think the country has recognised that this Budget is not only, as the Member for West Monmouthshire said, an honest and straightforward one, but it is also a just and equitable Budget. It has distributed the burden of taxation justly upon all classes, and I believe that the vote which will be given upon this Bill will reflect thoroughly and completely the verdict and judgment of the nation on my right hon. friend's financial proposals.
MR. ASHTON: In the remarks I have to make I shall confine my attention to the question of the ordinary revenue and expenditure! of the country more than to the war
672
expenditure. As to the war expenditure, I will merely say that it is to me, and, I believe, to a very large number of those who sit on this side of the House, a source of very great disappointment that we are not laying upon our own shoulders a larger share of the cost of the war rather than placing it on the shoulders of posterity. I think it must be well known to all the Members of the House that, looking to history, this is not the way war expenditure has been dealt with in previous generations. Allusion has been made to-night to what we did at the time of the Crimean War. I think I am right in saying that the taxpayers then paid something like half of the whole expenditure. If we go further back—if we go back to the really great wars of the beginning of the century—we find a still more satisfactory state of things. We see the patriotism of the people of that time urging them to far greater sacrifices than did the patriotism of the people at the time of the Crimean War. From 1806 to 1815, when not only was the stress of war far greater than it is to-day, but when the prosperity of the people was less than it is to-day, and when the commerce of the country, unlike that of to-day, was interfered with in all directions, the people of the country took upon their shoulders to pay the whole cost with the exception of the interest on the debt. It would seem that the sacrifices the people are willing to make have become less and less. In the beginning of the century the whole of the war expenditure was borne by the people, at the middle of the century half was borne, and now, taking the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has shown that we are only putting something like one-third of the expenditure on the shoulders of the people at the present time. I confess that I cannot follow the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do say this, and the figures cannot be manipulated, that last year we raised extra war expenditure of about £12,000,000, and this year that £12,000,000 will go almost entirely towards the ordinary expenditure of the country apart from the war. We are raising this year £11,000,000 more for extra expenditure, and we are raising the rest of the war expenditure entirely in the form of debt. We propose to take

673
power to raise the sum of £60,000,000 by the creation of debt, and we propose to raise only £11,000,000 by the further taxation of the country. In other words, I make out that we are only paying this year one-seventh of the whole of the cost of the war by means of extra taxation of the country. I think that is a very lamentable state of affairs; I do not think that I put it too low when I call it cowardly finance. I think it is cowardly to posterity. I do not think that anyone will contend that posterity will gain pecuniarily by the war which has taken place. We have not done our duty as a nation during this century by paying off the debt with which the country was burdened at the beginning of the century. We have had a century of unexampled prosperity—prosperity which is not very likely to recur again, now that we have the competition of foreign countries in every quarter of the globe. I think myself that with a hundred years of great prosperity we might have done something more than pay off £200,000,000. Now we are proposing to hand on to posterity the remainder of the debt unpaid and our obligations besides. I am afraid that it is the very prosperity of the country which has tended to demoralise the people. Adversity, no doubt, is a hard taskmaster, but, at any rate, it teaches the virtues of self-sacrifice, and it is those virtues which are largely absent from the moral fibre not only of the Government, but of the people of this country at the present time.
Now, Sir, I propose to turn to the ordinary Budget. I cannot help feeling disappointed that, with such great opportunities as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had in dealing with these hundreds of millions in consequence of this lamentable war, he has not made greater use of those opportunities in the general adjustment of the taxation of this country. As has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton this evening, the Government does not seem to have done anything to check the extravagance of the past six or seven years. They seem to have drifted in finance as they have unfortunately drifted in other ways. They have made no attempt to stem the tide of extravagance in the expenditure
674
of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton gave some interesting figures of the extent of that extravagance. I think he put it very low, for, as far as I can make out front the figures one can get at, the increase in the ordinary expenditure from 1895 up to the present time has been no less than 30 per cent. I am glad to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels keenly that that is a serious state of things. It is a serious state of things which, if continued on these lines, will bring even this great and prosperous country to the verge of bankruptcy. I regret especially that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt with the question of local taxation and grants in aid from the Imperial exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, and I entirely agree with him, that looking to the vast increase in the ordinary expenditure of the country, it is essential, or, at any rate, it is advisable that the framework of the taxation should be enlarged. But before extending the framework of taxation I think the first thing we ought to do is to get back to the national exchequer the vast sums of money going away in relief of local taxation. In order to enlarge the frame work the Chancellor of the Exchequer has only put on the sugar duty and the coal tax, for we can hardly call the increase of the income tax an enlargement of the framework. I for one do not complain of the sugar tax. I feel very strongly that at the time of a war like this which has undoubtedly been a popular war, although I wish it had not been so, popular, it is only right that all classes in the country should be called upon to pay something towards the extra taxation that is necessary for the war. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, when times of peace return again, instead of abolishing the sugar tax he should leave it at a low rate, so that we should have always the means of increasing it in case of distress. He should also leave the tea duty at a low point, so that in case of distress it could be increased—
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and, forty Members being found present—
MR. ASHTON: I wish to say a word about the coal tax. There is a great deal to be said in favour of the coal tax if by that means you can prevent the export of coal from the country. There is also something to be said, on the other hand, for the contention that the tax should be put on all kinds of coal, whether it is consumed at home or sent abroad, but there is nothing to be said, in my opinion, for the miserable compromise adopted by the Government in putting 1s. duty on exported coal. In the first place, it will not have the effect of preventing the export of coal, and, looking at it from the other point of view, it is unfair to put a tax on one half of the industry and leave the other half untouched. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the income tax by 2d. I think, and many of my hon. friends around me will agree, that it would only have been fair that the wealthier people should have been asked to pay a larger share of the taxation which is necessary. Fourpence would have been a very much fairer increase. We are told that this tax is to be part of the permanent framework of the taxation of the country. Well, if it is to be maintained as part of the permanent framework of taxation, all will admit that the time has come when something should be done to free brain capital from paying at the same rate as money capital. We have done something by letting off the small incomes, but have practically done nothing for alleviating the position of those whose incomes come from brain work. I am aware that it is a difficult subject, but I do not think that it is beyond the wit of men to tackle it.
I desire to say a few words in regard to the question of payments to the Local Taxation Account and grants-in-aid, on which subject I feel very strongly indeed. One of the first things which in my opinion we ought to do, considering the growing expenditure of the country, is to get rid of those vast payments that have annually been made towards the local taxation of the country. I am not going for one moment to pretend that if this is done there ought not to be an equivalent for them given to the ratepayers. It is, of course, known to everybody that this system of doles to local authorities is a very vicious
676
system. In the first place it is a constant dead weight round the neck of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However intent he may be on increasing the yield of his taxes, he has always to consider that a proportion of it is going to be taken out of his pocket and given to those who do not deserve it because they have not earned it. Then, these contributions undoubtedly lead to a great deal of local extravagance, and a grave wrong is thus done both to the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the country. These gifts from the Imperials exchequer to the local exchequers of county and district councils are looked upon as windfalls. I will give one illustration which came under my own observation. A local authority came to me and asked me to assist them in carrying out a local improvement by a gift of land. I replied that I was willing to give the land, but it seemed to me to be a costly improvement, and not worth the expense to the ratepayers. The answer was, "Oh, we are not going to pay for the whole of it, the county is to give us so much towards the cost." So long as these local authorities get the windfalls from the Exchequer they do not consider economy in any way. They do not seem to admit that either as taxpayers or as ratepayers the amount of this extravagant expenditure is really being drawn out of their own pockets. There is another serious point in connection with these contributions to the local authorities. Though the ratepayers and the taxpayers are, in the main, the same, there is no doubt that in transferring part of the obligations of the ratepayers to the taxpayers you are removing obligations from the property owners to the working classes of the country. I do not know whether the House is aware of the extent to which grants-in-aid have grown during the last fifty or sixty years. At the present moment they have reached a total sum of over fourteen millions; but in 1842 they amounted to only £600,000.
If any tax could be found which could be handed over to the local authorities in lieu of grants in aid it must fulfil certain conditions. In the first place it must be collected from the ratepayers. The ratepayers must feet the responsibility for it. In the next

677
place it must be collected without extra cost to the occupiers of tenancies; and lastly, it ought to be distributed fairly over the local area. The house duty seems in many ways to be a tax which might very well be handed over by the Imperial Exchequer to the local authorities. At present the house duty is a graduated tax on all houses over £15 rent, and the total yield is only £1,700,000. That would go a very short distance towards the relief of local taxation. But I suggest that instead of being graduated, a tax of 8d. in the £1 should be imposed on all houses over £15 a year valuation; and that it should be extended to Ireland, which at present escapes the house duty. I believe that by that means £4,000,000 might be obtained from the house tax a year, instead of £1,700,000. Next I would turn my attention to licences. Of course, a number of licences are handed over to the local authorities at present; but what I wish especially to allude to is the licences for fully licenced public-houses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that we have got to the end of the beer duty. I think that is very likely the case, but a large field still remains open in dealing with this question of public-house licences. At present the duties are levied on licensed houses at different rates. Houses that are valued at from £15 to £20 annually pay a duty which is equivalent to 40 or 50 per cent. of their annual value; but when you get to houses of £600 or £700 annual value, the duty levied only amounts to between 10 and 15 per cent. Now, that is a very unfair method of taxation. The taxation of this country has progressed with the idea that the wealthier people are, the more taxation they are able to bear; but, on the contrary, in dealing with licensed houses we proceed on the theory that the poorer the house the larger the share of the duty it ought to bear. It would not be extravagant to say that the larger and wealthier houses should contribute according to their rateable value, and that the duty should be raised to the same level as that on the poorer houses, namely, 40 or 50 per cent. I go further, and maintain that it would be justifiable to raise the duty to over 40 or 50 per cent. The result of a house being licensed is that the value of the property is increased four or five times. That is a
678
low figure. Again, the public-houses are rated at a lower rate than other houses compared with the annual value to the owner. I do not think it would be an extravagant thing to say that the nation or the ratepayers should get a larger proportion than it does at present of the increased value due to the monopoly granted to these houses. If we were to do that, we should see that this duty was, at any rate, paid to a larger extent than at present by the owners, and not by the occupiers. I go further, and say that the occupiers should be allowed to deduct at any rate a large part of the duty from the rent they paid the landlord. I am not going beyond the mark in saying that if you raised the duty on the more costly houses, instead of getting £1,700,000 a year from licences, you would obtain something approaching £5,000,000 without doing any harm to anybody, and only doing justice to the ratepayers.
For my part, I think that the time has arrived when the Agricultural Rating Act should be allowed to come to an end. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us to-day, in a very interesting speech, that it is nonsense to say that the money from the Agricultural Rating Act goes into the pockets of the landowners, but obviously that it goes into the pockets of the farmers, to relieve the farmers who are supposed to be suffering from agricultural depression. Very well, if we were to act practically on this question, we have to recognise the fact laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we cannot get that money back out of the pockets of the farmers, now that it has been given to them. What I would suggest is to let this Act expire, and give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the £1,500,000 a year; and resort for an equivalent to an expedient for which Liberals have voted in the past—namely, that we should divide the rates between the owners and the occupiers. If that were done the farmers, would get the same advantage as now, and we should relieve a great many who deserve relief quite as much as those who were relieved five years ago—namely, the agricultural labourers and village shopkeepers. I do not think that anyone would say that Lord Goschen is a revolutionist, but it will be in the recollection of the House that in the

679
year 1872, Mr. Goschen, as he then was, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, or at any rate in office, and he brought forward a proposition in this House that the rates in the country should be divided between the owners and occupiers. I do not think, therefore, that we need call that a very revolutionary doctrine. I would further point out to the House that in 1886 Mr. Thorold Rogers brought forward a resolution in favour of the division of the rates between owners and occupiers, and that it was carried in the House of Commons. I have endeavoured to supply the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a local Budget that ought to assist him in forming a new basis of the system of taxation. I have made a present to him of £10,500,000 by the changes to which I most respectfully call his attention. It is perfectly true that a little of that would come off the house duty and licences—say to the extent of £3,500,000, but I am making him a present, at any rate, of £7,000,000. I wish the right hon. Gentleman were here, for I am perfectly sure that I would see his mouth watering on the prospect. I apologise to the House for having detained hon Members so long, but I have long felt strongly the importance of getting rid of the Imperial contributions to local taxation and so relieving in that way the Imperial Exchequer. We have lost the control of our own revenue, and I am sure the suggestions I have made would do something to restore that control to the House.
MR. RENSHAW: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, to whom the House always pays the attention he deserves, from the admirable manner in which he touches the various subjects on which he addresses it, was a most interesting one. And I am quite sure that those who heard it felt the weight of the arguments which he invited the House to consider and give their votes upon. In the course of that speech the right hon. Gentleman divided the recent periods of finance into three-epochs. The epoch from 1890 to 1893 he spoke of as comparatively blessed, that from 1893 to 1896 as somewhat
680
less blessed, and then he referred to the condition of affairs in 1900 as being very much worse than in either of the two other epochs. But a great difference has taken place in connection with the finances of the country since 1893–6, and I think the House will agree that that was owing to the passing of the Death Duties Act. That was an enormous change in the method by which revenue was collected in this country. It was a revenue which was easily got and it has been just as easily spent, and the lesson we ought to learn from that, in regard to economy, is that, if the population of this country do not feel the burden of taxation, it is in vain for the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member, however great his weight and authority in the House and the country, to suggest economy in the national finances.
MR. M'KENNAYou promised to spend it on old age pensions.
MR. RENSHAW: The death duties Act was not passed by this present Government, but by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman will agree with me that if money is lightly come by it is very easily spent. The outstanding feature of the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and that which recommends it to the general approval of the people of this country—is that it seeks to widen the basis of taxation, to make the people feel that they must pay the cost of every engagement into which they enter.
I think, Sir, that the attack of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to-night was made with blank cartridge. I do not know who has drawn the shot out of the gun he was firing, but I am perfectly certain it was blank cartridge. He has preached economy to us. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he was the only economist left in the House, I believe there are still a large number of us in the House who are deeply interested in the subject, and who are most anxious to see retrenchment in regard to the general expendi-

681
ture of the country. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton came to deal with the question as to where the retrenchment was to take place, he was somewhat vague. It cannot take place in regard to the Navy. That he admits. He then dealt with the question of education, but in regard to that I believe the party opposite are all in favour of a large expenditure on national education, although they question the wisdom of some of the present expenditure. So do many of us on this side of the House. I doubt the wisdom of educating children under five years of age. I see from the Report of the Department that children under three years of age are being educated. I think that the cost of the education of children under five years of age is what the nation might very well be spared. Then I think the education of people twice over—of grown men and women—is a national expense we might spare ourselves; and if the right hon. Gentleman will urge that view upon the House he would find support on this side of the House. Then comes the question of the Army. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that the country is in favour of making our Army strong enough for the necessities of military defence, and I believe with him that we look to the present Government to carry out substantial reforms in regard to War Office administration. At the last General Election I believe the people were far more deeply stirred in regard to that question than as to reform of the Army itself. The right hon. Gentleman says that the feeling of the country is growing that we do not get our money's worth, that there is a frittering away and wasting of the money of the nation in the support of our military system. I believe that not only on that but on this side of the House the Government will find that in securing military reforms and substantial and effective reforms in the War Office they will be backed up by the feeling of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman, dealing with the question of the new taxation created by the Budget, passed lightly over the subject of the income tax. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House dealt with that question to some extent, and he suggested that it
682
was an unfortunate feature that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made the income tax higher than 1s. 2d. He said it had only been increased 2d. in consequence of the war. But I should like to remind the hon. Member and the House that last year there was an augmentation of 4d., and that 1s. 2d. in the £ is a very large tax upon the comparatively small class from which it is collected. For a long time in this country the income tax was regarded as a war tax. It was put on originally in 1799, and reached 2s. in 1806, but in 1815 it ceased to be levied altogether for a long period. In 1842 it was again re-imposed by Sir Robert Peel, and from that date to this a comparatively small class of the community have been called upon to pay a very substantial share of the Imperial charges of the country, and I venture to say that they have done it ungrudgingly. Mr. Gladstone held a tempting bait out to the income-tax payer in 1873, when he made an election speech in which he proposed the definite repeal of the income tax. The country did not respond, however, and the tax has since been levied from year to year. For my part I think it would be a most unfortunate thing if the income tax came to be regarded as the only tax which was to be resorted to in the future whenever the national finances demanded additional taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in my opinion, very wisely added to the various methods by which the revenue of this country can be raised. He has put a tax on sugar, and as far as I can understand neither the House nor the country take serious objection to it. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No, no.] Hon. Members say "No, no," therefore I understand that there is a comparatively small section in this House which takes exception to the imposition of the sugar duty. Do the great body of the community express that view? I do not think so for a moment. I believe that the British public appreciate the necessity for additional taxation, and are proud to pay their share of the expense of the war. The right hon. Gentleman at all events took no serious objection to the question of the sugar duty, but he did take exception to the new duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to levy on export coal.

683
I would ask the House for a moment to consider the exceptional grounds on which he argues that this new taxation is an undesirable one. He says that we have no right to levy an export duty unless upon a monopoly. I am not prepared to accept that theory. The necessities of the country override all questions as to whether or not we are theoretically right in creating new charges in respect of the taxation of the country. With regard to the new duty on coal, the gentlemen who have been most loud in their denunciation of it have been the wealthy colliery proprietors who regard it as an undue imposition on their particular industry, but by their own action during the last eighteen months they have levied upon the general trade of the country a very serious charge. I noticed the other evening that figures with reference to the profits of the colliery proprietors were bandied about from one side to the other, but I am quite sure that they are represented very much by the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated. However, for the purposes of my argument, I am willing to accept even a smaller sum. As far as four-fifths of it was concerned it was a charge upon the households and the industrial commerce of the country. Out of what was the higher price paid if it was not paid for largely by the commercial classes? And what was it which has brought the iron and steel trade of this country into the position in which it is? The high price of coal has demoralised the iron and steel trade. I do not believe a bit in the bogey of American coal competition. American coal can be produced cheaper, I believe, at the pit's mouth than British coal, but I doubt if anybody reads through the reports made by the consuls in 1898 will believe that in European ports American coal is likely to be a serious competitor of British coal. In the Blue Book published by the Board of Trade, 1900, the price of coal in America at the pit's mouth in 1886 was 6s. 4d., and of British coal 4s. 10d. For the year 1898 the price in Great Britain was 6s. 4d., and in America 4s. 5d. That is a serious change, and some official explanation has been given of it. I notice in the Report on Mines and
684
Quarries last year, Mr. Foster gives as a reason—
"The difference between the two great coal producing countries of the world in respect to the use of labour-saving appliances is very marked indeed; whilst the United States owe 23 per cent. of their total output of coal to the use of coal-cutting machinery, only a little more than 1½ per cent. was so obtained in this country, for we learn from my colleague, Mr. Gerrard, that the total amount of coal cut by machinery in 1899 was only 3½ million tons."
And I notice in the same Report it is stated officially that the difference in the use of coal mining by machinery and working in the ordinary way in the State of Illinois was 7d. a ton. When this question of coal production is discussed, it is not unnatural that the question should be asked why it is the production per miner in this country averages 291 tons, whilst in America it averages 490. Is not that due to the widespread use of coal producing machinery? I am satisfied that the general body of people in this country are favourable to this tax, which is put upon the general trade with the country. It is desirable, at all events, that something should be done to prevent the continual extension of the exportation of coal, and this 1s. per ton may do something in that direction. I hope for my part if it does not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go a little further I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently. I approve of the Budget as a whole. I think it is a wise and prudent one to meet the large and growing expenditure of the country, and I believe the people were never better able to bear the burden than they are at the present time.
MR. MCCRAE: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, I think, rather an unfair charge against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, when he said that the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to mislead the House and the country, by the figures he presented to the House. I will, so far as I can, meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his own ground, and deal with the figures in the way in which he has dealt with them, and analyse the financial position of the nation at the present time. All who listened to his Budget speech must have

685
been impressed by the lucidity and ability with which the right hon. Gentleman presented his case to the House, but the gravity of the financial position is such that no argument, however specious, can palliate, no statement, however brilliant, can deny. But the gravity of the financial position is much more serious than even the case presented to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. Sixty years ago, on the 18th of May, 1841, Sir Robert Peel gave utterance to these words—
"I view with unaffected sympathy the position of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been remarked that a good man struggling with adversity is a sight worthy of the gods; and certainly the right hon. Gentleman, both with respect to the goodness of the man and the extent of the adversity, presents at the present moment that spectacle. Can there be a more lamentable picture than that of a Chancellor of the Exchequer seated on an empty chest by the pool of a bottomless deficiency fishing for a budget?"
That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now doing. History repeats itself. That is the position to-day, with this difference, that our difficulties are a hundredfold greater, and our financial embarrassments much more alarming. The right hon. Gentleman admits the gravity of the situation, and I think to-day he presented a travesty of the case when he said the main feature of this year's Budget was a war expenditure. No doubt the war expenditure is large, but from a financial point of view the growth of the normal expenditure is much more alarming; and here I differ from some hon. Gentlemen who are lavish with their praise of the right hon. Gentleman's courage and candour. His courage I deny, and candour ceases to be a virtue when it becomes inevitable, when the skeleton at the feast can no longer be hidden from the eyes of the guests. I think the right hon. Gentleman should have taken a much bolder course. We must remember that we were on the downward grade, financially, before the war began; we deplore the heavy responsibilities which the war has occasioned, and that it has obscured the vision and deadened the conscience of the nation to the full import of this alarming increase in ordinary expenditure. That increase has been borne philosophically by the taxpayer because
686
he believed it was a temporary burden; but if expenditure increases in the same ratio as during the last five years the revenue will only be able to keep pace with it by very large additions being made to taxation, apart altogether from war debt and interest.
A large increase of expenditure under a Conservative and Unionist Government is nothing new. During the administration of Lord Beaconsfield, from 1874 to 1880, the expenditure increased by £10,000,000, or £2,000,000 per annum. During the next administration, which was Mr. Gladstone's, it increased by £1,000,000 per annum. During Lord Salisbury's administration, from 1886 to 1891, the expenditure seemed to be normal, but that was only by the sinking fund being reduced in 1887 by £2,000,000, and in 1889 by a further million per annum. The next administration was Lord Rosebery's, and under that the expenditure increased by £1,000,000 per annum. Indeed one could tell the political complexion of the Government in power by a study of the national accounts. A Conservative Government is somewhat of a luxury, and the present Government is no exception to what is apparently an economic law. The increase is not altogether due to the war. During the first four years of the present Government the expenditure increased by £19,000,000, and what is the position now? In 1895–96, the last financial year during which a Liberal Government was only in power a portion of the time, the expenditure, exclusive of the local taxation account, was £97,500,000; now it is £127,000,000, showing an increase of £29,000,000. If we add to that the three millions and a quarter increase in local taxation expenditure and the two millions suspended from the contributions to the sinking fund to the National Debt, the increase amounts to £35,358,000, or an increase of nearly £6,000,000 per annum. Was that expenditure necessary? Since when has it been necessary? In 1897 the right hon. Gentleman, speaking at Sheffield with regard to Army expenditure, said—
"I wonder whether the Commander-in-Chief himself and his great military coadjutors would really tell the country that they obtained at the present moment an adequate return for the 18 millions a year spent on the Army."

687
That £18,000,000 is now increased to £30,000,000, exclusive of war charges. Is he now convinced that for the larger sum he gets an adequate return? At Bristol, in the May of 1900, the right hon. Gentleman said—
"He dared say when the war was over that they would have a demand for a great increase in our Regular Army. He disbelieved in the necessity of any such increase."
I think, therefore, we may say the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of those who is opposed to the spirit of militarism, and not in favour of an aggressive policy. With regard to the expenditure on the Navy, I do not think any charge can be made against the Liberal party that when they were in power they neglected the Navy. What is the policy of the Government? What is the objective? A different standard is now being adopted; it is no longer considered sufficient that the Navy should equal the navies of two European Powers; now it has to equal four, and I have no doubt some will say it will not be sufficient until our Navy equals the navies of the whole world. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich said we ought to be prepared to meet the whole world in arms. If we could finance the country as economically as the noble Lord finances some of the voluntary schools we hear of, it might be done. Russia and France spent on their navies last year £21,000,000, Britain is prepared to spend £33,000,000. It is fallacious to suppose that the mere spending of money is a guarantee of efficiency. The same spirit of extravagance is apparent through the whole expenditure. The Army Estimates have increased from £18,000,000 to £30,000,000; the salaries of the law officers of the Crown have increased during the same period from £19,000 to £30,000 a year. In the collection of income and land tax the right hon. Gentleman is losing at the present time £50,000 a year by insufficient collection. If these taxes were collected in England in the same way as they are in Scotland the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain another £50,000 a year. The collection at 31st January in Scotland amounts to 67 per cent., and in England it is only 32 per cent. In Scotland at 28th February 93 per cent. has been collected against 53
688
percent., leaving outstanding in England at that date fourteen millions sterling. I was much struck by a speech of an hon. Member with regard to the subventions to local authorities; there is nothing so fruitful of extravagance as these grants-in-aid of local taxation. In the Report of the Royal Commission which has just sat to consider the question of local taxation Sir Edward Hamilton says—
"Under the old system the millions appropriated to local purposes were annually controlled and supervised by the House of Commons. The amount—and a still larger amount—which went to meet local requirements under the new system was once for all surrendered."
The House has no control over the expenditure, and it is iniquitous in this way that it is unjust to the working class taxpayer, who pays £1 to the Imperial Exchequer, and whose local rates are relieved to the extent of 5s. What we want is a divorce between local taxation and Imperial taxation, and it could be effected by providing some other source of revenue to be levied directly by the local authorities and relieving the Imperial Exchequer of payments to local taxation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he take a courageous course with regard to economy in public expenditure? There is always an alternative for the head of a great Department of State whose views have no effect with his colleagues, but the right hon. Gentleman has not taken advantage of that alternative; he passed the Agricultural Rates Act and the Tithes Act instead. The large expenditure of the country makes it imperative that there should be greater economy. It will take the Chancellor of the Exchequer all his time to provide for his own debts without backing the bills of the Colonial Secretary. The ordinary expenditure, apart from the war, had increased enormously, and before the war the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not paying his way. The right hon. Gentleman admitted it when he resorted to these doubtful expedients in 1899, because he then said—
"If I do not reduce the amount applicable for the debt by two millions, I shall require to impose taxation, to increase direct as well as indirect taxation."
He started with a surplus of £4,000,000, and he had the advantage of the increase of the death duties, which amount to

689
£7,000,000 per annum, and the position to-day was this enormous deficit. There never was a time of greater need for economy, and we on this side welcome the expressions of the hon. Member for Exeter and others on that side who spoke in favour of economy.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton had said little about war expenditure. I have always held that this war might have been avoided, and I therefore can speak freely. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that compared with the issues involved the war expenditure was a trifle. That is not the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman ought to approach this question of expenditure. The total expenditure for the war is £147,650,000; of that £142,800,000 is attributed to debt, and £4,850,000 to interest. What provision is being made for the liquidation of that amount by those responsible for the war? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this evening that £45,271,000 had been paid off from all sources. That is not a third part of the debt, but I object to the right hon. Gentleman taking credit for either the suspension of the Sinking Fund or the realised surplus as moneys coming out of taxation. Of this £45,000,000 which was paid off over £9,000,000 came from the contribution from the suspension of the Sinking Fund and over £9,000,000 from realised surpluses, but the £18,500,000 should have gone to decrease capital expenditure. I agree with the hon. Member for Mayo when he said it was only accumulating debt in another form. The National Debt is larger by £18,500,000, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to take credit for a transaction of that kind. Out of taxation we have only provided £26,974,000, of which £4,850,000 is for interest which must be paid, so that the Government has only provided out of taxation £21,899,000, or a seventh part of the debt, to meet the expenditure of the war in South Africa. It is a species of financial legerdemain unworthy of the nation. The ordinary expenditure, comparing the Estimates with Estimates of last year, shows an increase of £11,300,000. The additional taxation imposed in the
690
present year amounts to £11,000,000 so that nothing additional has been provided for war expenditure, and allowing the Treasury Estimates of increased revenue to be correct, that shows a deficit apart from extra taxation of £9,269,000, and the balance between that and the £11,300,000 shows a provision of only two-thirds of the interest for the year payable on account of the war, but we apply nothing in liquidation of the war debt. Is that good finance? Is that wholesale borrowing consistent with the pledges given to this House by the right hon. Gentleman himself? What did he say in December, 1900, three months after the country was told the war was over—
"I have said throughout I would not make the borrowing for the war a permanent burden on the country."
That is what he is doing now. If he was anxious to keep his pledges he ought to have ear-marked the loan and provided for it on the annuity principle, but he borrowed £60,000,000 on Consols, which will not be distinguishable from the National Debt. When the war was at an end was the former contribution to the Sinking Fund to be increased in respect of these additional sixty millions? I do not hesitate to say that the Government are shifting the responsibility and avoiding their just liabilities. It is the old story of leaving the debt to their successors to pay.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said some time ago that if the ordinary expenditure increased as it was doing, we should require to find new and productive sources of revenue. We have had duties proposed on coal and sugar; the one cannot be said to be productive, and the other is by no means new. When the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to find new sources of taxation, why does he not increase the licence duties? Even in Edinburgh as much as £10,000 and £12,000 have been paid for the transfer of a licence. That is an unearned increment that certainly ought to be taxed. He has lost a great opportunity. If he had faced the situation he might have taken advantage of the crisis to deal with taxation of land values, an increase of licence duties, and other financial reforms deemed too heroic for calmer times. The right hon. Gentleman has many sound financial opinions,

691
but the fatal influence of his environment prevents him carrying them to logical conclusions. He declared himself a free trader, yet imposed an export coal duty. He denounced the inequity of making war expenditure a permanent burden on the country, yet borrowed £60,000,000, and hung up £50,000,000 more for a more convenient season; he warned the country against the dire results of increased expenditure, yet supported the Agricultural Rates Act and the Tithes Act. Whatever gibes may be thrown at the squabbles and altercations in the Liberal party, they have never wavered in their allegiance to the principles of sound finance; but once more it will be their misfortune to succeed to a mortgaged estate. One result at least will follow, that the Unionist party will not for many years again be returned to power.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not think that the oldest Member of this House will be able to recollect so extraordinary and humiliating a spectacle as has been presented by this debate to-night. This is supposed to be a great parliamentary occasion, one of those occasions when great issues are at stake, when there is a conflict of parties, and when the House is deeply moved. We are to-night discussing an extraordinary Budget—a Budget without parallel in the history of this country, a Budget dealing not with millions, but hundreds of millions of public money, a Budget which raises the ordinary expenditure of this country to a higher point than it has ever stood at before, a Budget which raises the Army and naval expenditure to the huge total of £60,000,000, a Budget which imposes new and oppressive taxation on the people, and lays a burden on one of the staple articles of food of the poorer classes, a Budget based upon a war of which no man can see the end, which up to the present has cost this country £150,000,000 of public money; and in this unparalleled crisis in the nation's history, when notice of a vote of want of confidence in the Government has been officially given by the Opposition, there would seem to be all the elements of a great discussion. But the debate opened this afternoon with absolute apathy and listlessness. I have seen more interest expressed on a Wednesday afternoon when the House was discussing the pro-
692
posals of some private Members. I ask myself what does it mean? Is it that the policy of the Government, the policy underlying this Budget, commands the almost unanimous support of all sections of the House. Nothing of the kind. There never was, I believe, a Government in office which has excited a more bitter and deep-seated opposition among the different sections of the House, and there never was a Government whose policy was more bitterly resented and abhorred by many sections of this House. Then what is the reason for the unparalleled scene which was witnessed when the debate was inaugurated this afternoon? The explanation, to my mind, is very simple. It is, in the first place, that the right hon. Gentleman who has been put forward by the official Opposition to move this Amendment is a man who is morally as responsible for the policy underlying and necessitating this Budget as any man on the Ministerial benches. The explanation is that the right hon. Gentleman has been committed on behalf of the official Opposition to move an Amendment which, from beginning to end, is a mere dishonest platitude; an Amendment which neither approves nor condemns a signal vital issue in this controversy, and which is most carefully and skilfully drawn so as not to commit the mover of the Amendment or any of its supporters to any principle or policy whatever.
I desire, in the very few moments I propose to occupy, to get away if I can from all this make-belief, and to deal with what seem to me to be the real issues at stake. So far as the Irish Members on this side are concerned, we object to this Budget root and branch. On the first occasion when the subject of this Budget came before the House I briefly intimated the reasons which animated Irish Members in opposing it. They oppose it, first, on the ground that they believe, on the authority of the Royal Commission, that Ireland is called upon to pay more than her fair share of all this expenditure. That is a subject which it would be quite in order for me to discuss, I apprehend, on this occasion, but I recognise that it is not a convenient opportunity for the discussion, and the Government have announced that they will give us after

693
Whitsuntide a special day for the consideration of this grave question. I pass from it, then, merely mentioning it as the first ground of objection that the Irish Members have to this Budget The second ground is the character of the taxation. I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, in which, making a great grievance of the coal duty, he spoke lightly of the imposition of the duty on sugar. As the representatives of a poor nation, which pays in indirect taxation far more than the proportion paid in Great Britain, we protest against the imposition of the sugar duty—a duty which, small though it may appear in its incidence upon any particular individual family, is yet one which will be felt almost entirely by the poorer classes, and which will bring suffering and hardship into every poor little cabin through the West and South of Ireland. We object also to this Budget because of the cause which underlies it. The cause which underlies this Budget is, of course, the military expenditure necessitated by the war. I will pass lightly over this point—because I always endeavour to avoid repeating myself, and I have already spoken upon this point—but this much I must be allowed to say once more. The Irish Nationalist Members on the question of this war sympathise heartily and wholly with the Boers. These men, fighting in their mountain fastnesses against overwhelming odds, seem to us in the light of a people fighting for the greatest cause to which brave men ever consecrated their swords and their lives; they are fighting for their liberties and their homes. I remember at an early stage of this Transvaal controversy, shortly, I think, after the war commenced, that the Secretary for the Colonies made some allusion to the God of battles. Well, Sir, in this controversy England has had almost everything upon her side. She has had the numbers, and she has had the money; who will say she has had the God of battles? I believe that on the side of England this has been the most disgraceful war in her history. It has been a war promoted by greed, and carried on with untold cruelty. A more shameful record than the Return published the other day of the number of Boer homesteads burned down by your troops is not to be found, I believe, in the his-
694
tory of any civilised country in the world. It has been for you an inglorious war, with your 250,000 men in the field pitted against, as we are told, some 10,000 or 12,000 Boers in scattered parties at present in the field. And, above all—I say above all, because it is what, after all, will probably awaken the conscience of the country more than anything else—it has been a ruinously costly war. Passing over these grounds thus shortly, I say that the Irish Nationalist Members in this House protest against this Budget on these three grounds: because it calls upon Ireland to pay more than her fair share of the taxation; because of the character of the taxation, which presses most hardly upon the poorer classes; and because the whole reason of this Budget is this disgraceful and inglorious war, to which, if we had our way, we would not permit our country to contribute one farthing. The House is really, I admit, most fair and tolerant in listening to views which probably to the majority of Members are not very palatable, but I have felt it my duty, without unduly delaying the House by repetition, to emphasise once more these grounds upon which we object to the Budget. Hon. Members will probably think that our position has been so clear up to the present that this repetition was scarcely necessary. However, I have endeavoured to make this statement short.
It may be said, and fairly said, perhaps, that it was unnecessary for me to speak at all. The real reason I have risen is, not that I believe either the House or the country has any doubt or misunderstanding as to our attitude on this war, but in order that we may make our position perfectly clear and intelligible with reference to this precious. Amendment. I desire to ask respectfully what does this Amendment mean? I confess that before the debate commenced I was considerably puzzled as to the meaning of this Amendment, and, having listened patiently to the speech of the proposer, I am more puzzled now than before. The preamble declares—"That this House, while ready to make adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire," and so forth. Now, I want to ask what does that phrase mean? The right hon. Gentleman who moved

695
the Amendment spoke, forsooth, of what he was pleased to call the peace expenditure. That is the phrase he gave to what is going to be the normal expenditure of this country—expenditure consisting in part of £60,000,000 a year for the Army and the Navy. That is the expenditure termed by the right hon. Gentleman a peace expenditure. May I use the phrase without offence—What a hypocritical argument! Of all the men in this House the right hon. Gentleman has the least right to stand up here as the champion of economy. He does not complain, indeed, of the increased expenditure on the Navy. He does, in a faint, half-hearted way, complain of the increased expenditure on the Army. I ask this House to recollect that that increase in the military expenditure has not been accomplished by one stroke. It has been gradual during the last few years, year after year. When did the right hon. Gentleman rise in his place in the past to protest even by word or vote against this increase of expenditure? No, the right hon. Gentleman made no such effort on the side of economy; but when this enormous military expenditure was being piled up it was left to the Irish Members on these benches, alone and unaided, to make arguments in favour of economy in the public Departments. The right hon. Gentleman posed to-night as the champion of economy—a pretty champion, forsooth! The apostle of Liberal Imperialism masquerading as an economist! The increases in the military expenditure of this country, with which the right hon. Gentleman found fault, are the direct and necessary result of the policy of Imperialism, which he has preached up and down all through England. The right hon. Gentleman, I am bound to say, although he endeavoured to pose as the champion of economy, did not carry his economical views very far. He does not disagree with the increased expenditure on the Navy. He was not very definite or clear as to how he would reduce the increased expenditure on the Army made necessary by the policy which he has enthusiastically adopted. But he did say something on the amount spent on education. I ask again, what does this Amendment mean? I expected to receive from the
696
right hon. Gentleman some light and leading upon this matter, which would enable men who take an independent view of these things to make up their mind whether to vote for the Amendment or not. Does this Amendment mean approval of the war policy? It says—"While ready to make adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire." For my part, I would have thought that that committed us to approval of the war, no matter from whose lips the statement came, but when the statement comes from the lips of a man who has openly and enthusiastically supported the policy of the war, I have no alternative but to come to the conclusion that this Amendment does mean an approval of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman is the representative par excellence on this side of the House of that policy. Indeed, it would not be going too far to say that he was elected to this Parliament as a supporter of the Government on the really vital issue at the Election. When a right hon. Gentleman with this past history asks me to vote in favour of a declaration that this House is ready to make adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire, I take that to be an invitation to vote in favour of the policy of this war. In my opinion, any man who votes for the Amendment will be voting in favour of the policy of the war. ["No."] Does anyone question this? ["Yes."] I am glad to hear that. One or two Gentlemen above the gangway say that voting for this Amendment does not pledge them to the war. Very well. Does this Amendment mean a condemnation of the war?
AN HON. MEMBER: It has nothing to do with the war.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Very well. There is one great vital issue at stake in this Budget, and an Amendment is proposed on behalf of the Opposition which does not commit anyone either to approval of the war or to condemnation of it! What, then, I ask, does it mean? Why, Sir, it means nothing at all. It is a facing-both-ways Amendment; it is a silly and, it seems to me, rather a contemptible evasion of the real issues at

697
stake. If I might be allowed respectfully to say one word further, I would say that until the Opposition in this House make up their minds to stand by some policy, no matter how mistaken, or to stand by some principle, no matter how hum-drum, they cannot expect to command that respect in the country which must be the forerunner of popular support. Therefore, for the reasons which I have given I denounce this Amendment as a sham and a make-believe, put forward here by a man who—if he stands for anything—stands for all those principles of the present Government which are most abhorrent, as I believe, to the true democratic instinct of the people of Great Britain as well as of Ireland. Of course, I do not know what the rank and file of the Opposition will do upon this Amendment, but so far as the Irish Members are concerned the House may take it for granted that they will not be a party to this sham. This debate must of necessity, from the manner in which it was introduced, and from the character of the Amendment, be a dismal mockery and a hollow farce. The Irish Nationalist Members of this House have had to endure with patience many accusations of wasting the time of Parliament. After all, there is this to be said for us, that when we have been accused of wasting the time of Parliament we have been debating, perhaps, at too great length, with a reiteration which would be avoided by men of greater oratorical skill, subjects which, humble as they may seem to the large intelligence of Imperialist Members of this House, are subjects intimately affecting the lives and the happiness of the poorest of our population at home. That is to be said in extenuation for us if we do in this foreign Parliament occupy too much of your time. What is to be said of the occupation of three valuable nights of Parliament time in the discussion of a ridiculous Amendment like this, which is based upon no principle, and which, upon the admission of hon. Members above the gangway, does not commit anybody to anything? Let this debate come to an end. I regard this day and Thursday being spent in the discussion of this Amendment as a pure waste of time. If there is to be a discussion on this Budget, let it be taken upon a plain and honest issue, and do not occupy three valuable days of Parliament time
698
time in the discussion of a mere platitude such as has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. So far as we are concerned on these benches, when the Second Reading of this Bill comes to be put from the Chair, we will, by our votes in the division lobby, show our disapproval of all the great issues underlying the Budget, but on this inconclusive and dishonest Amendment we shall refuse to vote, because we regard it as a foolish and contemptible attempt to sit upon two stools, an attempt to evade every real, honest issue in this controversy, and we shall refuse, once and for all, to make ourselves parties to a sham.
MR. GILBERT PARKER: It is an agreeable surprise for me to be able for once to agree with the hon. Member for Waterford. I have so many times disagreed from him in the course of the debates in this House that an agreement with him upon the occasion of my first addressing this House is as pleasant as I hope it will be profitable to myself. The hon. Member for Waterford has dissented entirely from the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. I find no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Member for Waterford, for I found the same confusion in my mind when I came to study that Amendment. That confusion was increased by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered, and by other speeches which were made on the opposite side of the House, and also, if I may say so, by one or two delivered on this side of the House. I find it exceedingly difficult to be able to dissociate what may be called extraordinary expenditure and expenditure on the Army and Navy from normal expenditure. It would seem sometimes to the new Members in this House, as was suggested by an hon. Member opposite, that we are approaching great public matters in the spirit of a parish council. But the policy which should animate us should not be that of a parish council. I have gained the impression from the speeches which have been delivered that the expenditure which has so largely and so disastrously increased has been a thing which has not had a legitimate origin, and has not

699
proceeded along perfectly legitimate lines. I myself am of the opinion that the expenditure is proceeding along perfectly legitimate lines. The speech made by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire and other hon. Members gave one the feeling that the spirit of pessimism was abroad in the land, and especially possessed the Liberal party. It is a curious thing, after all, that in the expenditure which has taken place, and in the speeches which have been delivered, so little reference has been made to all those expenditures which affect the Empire at large.
The Amendment which has been moved, and the speech which has been made upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, seem to occupy this ground only, that the normal expenditure is dissociated entirely from what may be called the general expenditure. Is it not within the knowledge of every Member of this House that every step that is taken for the opening up of new markets means an increase of the normal expenditure? Is it not the case that as our trade increases our expenditure must also increase in all the departments of the State in this country? We have been told that during the last twenty years our trade has declined. That is not true, for our trade taken in the bulk has not declined. The Member for Haddingtonshire informed us, in a very pessimistic speech, that the United States and Germany were dispossessing us of our trade. That may be true in part, but it is not true altogether. It is a fact which every Member of this House must be aware of that the United States during the last fifteen or twenty years has largely increased its manufactures and has decreased its purchases from this country. It is likewise a fact that Germany has competed with us successfully in the markets of the world. We have, however, to face this remarkable fact, that no matter what our predisposition concerning the trade of the world may be the total trade of the world thirty years ago was represented by an enormous sum to which England contributed 51 per cent. We have to face the fact that during the years that have passed since then England has, on the whole, maintained her position.
700
She has lost, perhaps, in individual markets, but she has gained upon the whole. The proportion of her gains and her position in the world's trade to-day is exactly the same as it was thirty years ago. Thirty years ago Germany first awoke to her possibilities as a manufacturing country, and at that time the United States was borrowing; heavily from us. I dissent from the proposition of an hon. Gentleman opposite that the ability to borrow at a low rate of interest is a sign of the prosperity of any country. The United States was borrowing from this country largely during thirty and forty years, and this went on so extensively that our securities in the United States represented an extraordinary amount. Those securities we do not now possess, for they have vanished from our purview, and, as to the money which they represented, we do not know where it is. But the United States borrowed with a purpose. She borrowed to invest the money in profitable manufactures rather than to manufacture herself and expend her own capital at the time. But since then the United States has taken back those securities which we owned, and Germany has also taken a high position as a great competitor with us. What is the position now? I dissent entirely from the view that, at the present time, England is in the position of a declining country. Our carrying trade to-day in the world' is exactly what it was in proportion to the world's carrying trade thirty years ago. If that is the case it seems to me that it is somewhat premature for pessimists in this House or out of it to preach only the decline and fall of the British Empire. The normal expenditure to which I have referred may be found to have increased in certain directions which are closely associated with the Empire.
I find it difficult to understand why, when hon. Members upon the opposite side of the House are criticising the Budget, our expenditure in certain departments of the public service intimately associated with our commercial development is entirely omitted from consideration. For instance, in 1881 the expenditure on the Post Office was £3,500,000. In 1901 it was £9,329,000. The expenditure on telegraphs in 1881

701
was £1,250,000; in 1901 it was over £4,000,000. On the Civil Service in 1881 the expenditure was £17,000,000, and in 1901 it was £23,000,000. May I ask if these services and these departments of the State are not closely identified with the development of commerce? Is it not the case that, as you extend your markets, you increase your normal expenditure? The United States began to take fewer of our exports and shut us out from the advantages of her market. Germany began to possess herself of certain ports and advantages, and she found her way into South America and the United States, and cut us out there by supplying our former customers in Asia Minor and Egypt with goods which we could not supply them with, because of the backwardness of our inventions, and the want of enterprise on the part of our manufacturers. It was then, by virtue of the extension of our colonies and our markets, that our ships and our carrying trade turned to the newer ports and the newer markets, where certain proportions of our Army are now occupied in preserving order. I take it to be an axiom almost that you cannot conduct any business organisation without a perfect command of the system, and without a careful consideration of all those elements which are necessary for the development of that business or commercial organisation. The time has come in this country when we have found it necessary to consider a larger scheme of army organisation. We have steadily increased our expenditure, but at the same time we have gained continuously, and by a proportionate and equable ratio, advantages of trade and of commerce which we should not have otherwise done if we had not kept pace with the necessities of the situation. My position in this matter is that we shall presently have to consider very carefully what our attitude will be towards those organisations, those nationalities, those colonies, which represent to us one-fourth of our trade at the present time. One-fourth of our trade represents an exceedingly large sum. We sometimes hear from hon. Members opposite criticisms upon the expenditure on our Navy for the defence of the colonies.
To-night the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred rather vaguely to the fact that there might come a time when
702
we should have to consider very carefully the question of this country not paying all the expenses attached to the defence of the trade of this country. But this country does not pay all the expense of our trade. This country must realise, and does realise, that it has cost us during the last hundred years £30,000,000 for the actual defence of those portions of our Empire which are known as our colonies. But what is this £30,000,000 set against? It is set against £5,283,000,000, that represents the trade of the colonies of this Empire with this country during the last thirty years, and we in this country have paid about £30,000,000 in defence of those colonies. As the trade of this country declines through the competition which threatens it, to what source of revenue shall we turn? I hope I shall not be considered one of those Jingo Imperialists who stand solely upon the basis of sentiment. We have had our dangerous hours with our colonies, and we never had a more dangerous hour than in the year 1857, when the Liberal party in this country was disposed to let these colonies go. Another time more dangerous still occurred at a later moment in the history of Australia, when the Liberal party was prepared to allow Australia to find its way into an independence, which at this moment would have been a disastrous thing for this Empire. I do not wish to put undue weight upon that sentimental bond which sent to us during the present war an extraordinary number of colonists to support this country in waging the war in South Africa. It is, however, a notable fact that, in proportion to her population, Canada sent the same ratio of troops as that of England. Australia sent to South Africa twenty men in every thousand in her population, which proportion is, I think, four times as large as the number which England sent herself of her civilian population. I do not wish to lay stress upon that fact, because I believe that the future of this Empire does not depend alone upon a sentimental bond. The colonies realise more clearly than any hon. Members of this House are aware that the ultimate natural union is a union which has for its basis mutual consideration, and mutual benefit, backed by a natural affinity. That natural affinity exists, and draws

703
the colonies towards England, but when you consider that at present Canada is attempting once more to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with the United States, and when you realise that that reciprocity treaty will withdraw from us, if it is accomplished, that trade which, during the last three years, has increased to an extraordinary extent—to the extent of £4,000,000 in three years, or 20 per cent. of what it was, and really an increase of 33⅓ per cent.—I take it to be an exceedingly serious matter. It has been the trade of the colonies which has in the course of the loss of certain markets to this country preserved for us our position in the whole volume of the trade of the world, and if we are to preserve that status which it has been the pride of commercial England to occupy, we shall have to consider very carefully, I think, these great commercial questions which are bound up with this very Budget and this very Finance Bill which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before us.
I repeat my belief and opinion that the increase of the normal expenditure—which amounts within the last twenty years altogether, in the four Departments of the Government which I have named, to nearly £15,000,000—covers, I take it, that very deficit which an hon. Member opposite was so keen to lay before us. This means that if the deficit would have been £9,000,000 we might have saved it naturally out of the expenditure on these Departments by disregarding the natural laws of commerce. We might have saved the £15,000,000 in this way but would that have met the case? I do not think it would. I take it that in a private enterprise if you increase the volume of your business or the commercial output you must increase the expenditure upon it. That, I believe, is the law which governs not only private institutions but all Departments of the State as well, and also all great commercial organisations. I have been unable to agree with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have been unable, for good reasons, to identify myself with the extravagant propositions of the Member for Oldham. I find myself unable to obey the firman of the new Sultan of a parsimonious democracy, but I do fine myself able to put on record my faith, if not my unflinching faith, in the judgment
704
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I suppose that every hon. Member of this House eventually becomes educated to the fact that every great scheme in human affairs and every invention has its fallible points. I suppose I shall become accustomed to find that even Chancellors of the Exchequer and Cabinet Ministers may be fallible. It is within even my capacity to do this, but I do feel as strongly as the hon. Member for Waterford that most of the objections which have been raised to this Finance Bill are exceedingly belated. I feel that most of the objections which have been raised have not been really raised in the most perfect good faith—I mean perfect good faith if it is to be founded on a clear and hopeful idea of the actual state of the commercial affairs of this country, and a clear and hopeful idea of what the commerce of this country means, not only to England itself but to the Empire. I feel as strongly upon this question as any hon. Member can feel who, as it were, has no ties in this House, but who comes here with an independent feeling, and is yet linked to the Conservative party. I believe to-day that the true Liberals and Radicals are to be found in the Conservative party. I do not find that the principles which animated the great Liberal party, which at one time was so necessary to the development of this country, any longer animate them in any concentration of purpose or clear idea of policy. Therefore, I maintain that if there is a movement which may be considered to be in sympathy with the advancement of this country and the advancement of the Empire, it is to be found in the party to which I belong, rather than in the party opposite, which presents a front which has been decimated by criticism, which has not the advantage of being united in any sense, or of being centred upon any one great vital principle except that devious, vague and uncertain challenge, "You are expensive, you are extravagant," disregarding the fact that the expense and the extravagance of which they accuse this party they themselves have had a share in. During the last thirty years, where they have not had a share in that growth, it seems to me, from my slight reading and observation, to have been because

705
they have not desired to share fully in the proper, natural and inevitable development of the Empire. I, therefore, cannot agree with the Amendment, but am glad to support the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer in his Finance Bill. I hope that all Members of the House—yes, the Liberal as well as the Unionist party—will share as intensely as I and all true Imperialists do—not the Jingo Imperialists, but the Imperialists who have behind them the best conceptions of the commercial needs of this Empire—the rightful ambition of every true citizen of this land, namely, that our colonies, which will ultimately be our fiscal salvation, may not merely have our consideration—because we cannot approach them now as subordinate provinces of this Empire—but will be treated in all matters of a closer commercial union as if they were, as they are, nations by themselves, who could to-day, if they wished to do so, end the association as easily as they might have ended it forty years ago at the will of the Liberal party, and this country would find it most difficult to prevent them. But the colonies are united in the feeling of patriotism and devotion towards this country, and when difficulty arises they will take their stand upon the principle of mutual consideration, benefit, fairplay, and fair concession, either as to expenditure upon the Navy or as to the support of measures which go for the defence of this Empire.
MR. BRYCE: Although I am unable to agree with a great deal which has fallen from the hon. Member who has just spoken, it gives me, and I am sure every Member of the House, pleasure to welcome to our debates a Member who has shown that he is able to win high distinction in other fields. But I must at once enter a protest against the suggestion that the Liberal party was the party which ever expressed a desire to part with the colonies. I must remind the hon. Member that the famous phrase about "these wretched colonies" was spoken not by a Liberal Minister, but by Lord Beaconsfield. I do not intend to deal in detail with the various points of the Budget, which require again the marshalling of the figures which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has so admirably dealt with. There are many Members of the House who have a more minute knowledge of
706
these financial details than I could possibly pretend to. I desire to endeavour to lay before the House a few general aspects of the financial position in which we are placed, and which seem to me to be the main issue raised by the Amendment. I understand this Amendment as asking us to review the finance of the last few years, and to say whether it leaves the country in a position from which we can regard the future with anything but disquiet.
In the first place, let me say a few words with regard to the methods by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to raise the funds necessary to meet the expenditure of the present year. I assent entirely to the view that the masses of the people must pay their share of the war expenditure. We have placed the destinies of the country, the issues of peace and war, in the hands of the majority of the voters of the country, and they ought to bear their share—not more than their share, but certainly their share—of the expenditure which is the result of a policy which they have sanctioned by their votes. I think that this is all the more necessary in a country like ours, where the safeguard against war which exists in continental countries is absent. I hope it always will be absent; I hope we shall never have conscription in this country. But hon. Members will recollect that in a country where there is conscription there is a security which does not equally exist in this country against the Government embarking upon war. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that the results of war should be brought home to every individual voter by the taxes he has to pay. In the Middle Ages they resorted to the rough-and-ready method of a poll tax. The poll tax was sometimes followed by an insurrection, and the insurrection had the effect of making the rulers of the country realise where they were leading the country to. In our more refined days we are obliged to resort to indirect taxation, and we must choose a form of indirect taxation which, if possible, will enable the body of the people to realise that expenses are incurred of which they must bear their own share. I quite agree that we must bring home to the people the responsibility which they have as citizens. We must make them realise that we are at war, and we must

707
make them estimate what we are going to get by the war. One of the great objections to the policy which the Government have followed of raising a very large part of the expenditure of the war by loan is that it fails to bring home to the country the real gravity of the position in which we stand and a sense of the amount of the expenditure in which we are involved. Altogether apart from other arguments which have been dwelt upon by my hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh, I feel strongly that it is desirable that the country should be made to realise from the moment war begins how serious is the responsibility it has incurred, and that can best be done by paying a very large proportion of the expenditure out of current revenue.
I will say a word upon two of the taxes which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to impose. The first is the sugar tax. It is not for me, nor is this the time, to compare the merits of the tax upon sugar with several other taxes which have been suggested. Personally, I prefer a tax upon beer, or the tax advocated by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire upon licences, or an increase of the tax upon tobacco. Either one of these would have many reasons to recommend it in preference to the sugar tax, because, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer passes it very lightly by, I think he must feel that it is a little hard upon the classes of the community which are least able to make their voices heard and their influence felt—I mean the very poor and the women—that this tax should fall with special weight upon them. But there are two other objections to the tax. It is a tax upon food and a tax upon raw material. For the last thirty years we have done our best to reduce all taxes upon food, but we are now abandoning that principle. Therefore, although I admit that it has become necessary to impose some tax of this kind, I think it is a pity that this particular tax has been selected. Now I will say a few words about the coal tax and its general effect, but I must make one observation in reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spoke as if he felt easy as to our command of the Mediterranean market. I do not share his confidence. I believe the Mediterranean market is one of those threatened, and I
708
believe it is especially threatened by the competition of the United States. Already there are powerful syndicates in the United States which, we understand, are preparing to ship coal to the Mediterranean, and taking this opportunity of competing there with us. Although we have an advantage in proximity of the markets, they have an advantage in cheap carriage from the mines from the Atlantic slope, and an advantage from easy mining, because many of their mines are not deep and the coal costs far less in raising. They are anxious at this moment to develop this export trade, and they are willing to take considerable trouble and run considerable risks in order to compete with us in European markets and other foreign ports. Therefore I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is far too sanguine on the subject. There is another remark on the coal trade to which reference must be made—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, and also by the hon. Member for Gloucester—and that is the effect the coal tax is likely to have on British shipping. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that coal is by far the largest article in point of quantity carried in British bottoms. He knows that it pays by far the largest part of our freights, and that the coal freights are larger than those of all other commodities taken together. It is clear that it must be a very important article in the general profit of shipping, and that it affects the shipping trade in a very particular way. An immense number of vessels are built for the coal trade and employed entirely in that trade. If the export coal trade receives a check by this duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing, those ships will have to be worked without profit or laid up, in which case a considerable amount of labour will be thrown out of employment and a great deal of capital will remain unused. If, on the other hand, they continue to be worked, there will be a serious shock and disturbance given to the freights of other commodities, because vessels which go out with coal bring home other articles from abroad; very frequently they are able to bring home cargoes at a lower freight in consequence of the freight obtained in taking out coal. That reacts on the manufactures of this

709
country. Therefore you will disturb the whole trade of the country by disturbing the shipping trade, and you will particularly disturb the possibility of making calculations in the shipping trade as to the expectation of getting a continuation of freight or a return freight. If a ship-owner knows that he will not get a coal freight it will be quite clear that his whole calculations will be disturbed. You add this to the other difficulties which operate to disturb the shipping trade, which is an unusually complicated one. When we remember how large a part of the whole capital of the country is embarked in the shipping trade, how it affects everybody else, and how sensitive the trade is, we must conclude that it was unfortunate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try this tax, apart from the effects upon the coal trade, on account of the effect it will have in disturbing other industries. It has always been a maxim of financial policy that we ought to disturb the natural operations of trade as little as possible, and that is a strong argument against the measure taken on this occasion.
I pass from that to say a few words on general finance. The expenses of the war are put down at £153,000,000, but we all know that that figure is likely to be exceeded. The war may last a great deal longer than the War Office or the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect, and we do not know—I do not think they would claim at this moment that they do know—what the expenditure will be afterwards. I say, then, that very probably we shall not be rid of the expenses of the war for a smaller sum than £200,000,000. I do not think that is an extravagant calculation judging from the way our hopes have already been deceived during the course of the last eighteen months. Something has been said as to the relation which this Amendment bears to the war. I do not propose to discuss the war here. I have often expressed my opinion about it in the House, and I am perfectly willing to do so again. There is not a word in the Amendment which expresses approval of the war, either directly or by implication. If there was a word expressing, even by implication, approval of the war. I should not vote for it, because I have often said I look upon the war
710
as having been absolutely unnecessary and entirely deplorable. And having said that, and shown what I think of the construction and meaning of this Amendment, I have no more to say upon that subject. Another point to which we are brought in the present position is this. We have the suspension of the Sinking Fund, that is to say, we are not exactly adding to our debt, but we are stopping the process by which it was being reduced. That is a serious fact. During twenty-five years of economy we paid off more than during the whole of the reign of her late Majesty.
So much for the special expenditure which the war has caused. Now let me say a word about the ordinary expenditure. In 1895 it was £94,500,000, and now, according to the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer' sown figures, it is £123,000,000—that is an increase of thirty per cent. in six years. I do not believe that any equal increase to that in the normal expenditure—I speak entirely irrespective of party—has been produced during any other period in our history. It is, at any rate, certainly something to which we have absolutely no parallel during the late reign or during the memory of any man living. This expenditure has been mainly incurred on the Army and Navy. We have productive and non-productive expenditure. This is non-productive expenditure, or the greater part of it. There has been £12,000,000 increase in the Army, and £12,500,000 in the Navy. The total expenditure on the Army and Navy together is now £60,000,000. When we come to the expenditure on the Post Office, upon the telegraph service, and upon education, we have one of two things, either we have greater facilities, as, for instance, by improved postal service, or else we have, as in the case of education, an expenditure which is, or ought to be, eminently reproductive in increasing the productive power of the people by their improved intelligence and skill. Therefore these are expenditures we need not grudge. I agree that we ought to scrutinise the education expenditure. I agree that we do not get full our value for it, but, at any rate, it is reproductive; but the expenditure upon the Army and Navy cannot be claimed to have any similar benefit to the country. The most we can say is that it is an insurance, and

711
I entirely admit that a country like this, living largely off its commerce, should safeguard its vast mercantile marine. I approve of spending a large sum on insurance, but that does not prevent us from inquiring whether we are paying too high a premium. As regards the Navy, we are all perfectly well agreed that we must have a navy adequate to the defence of the country. That is an old and tried proposition. No one in the House will disagree with that, but it does not follow that we ought to give naval experts everything they ask for, and I am astonished at some of the demands made for the Navy. I think the House ought to remember that one result of our constant increase in naval expenditure has been to increase the naval expenditure of other Powers, and, therefore, we are simply pitting ourselves against other Powers in this matter.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
MR. BRYCE: Everyone admits that that has been the result. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read the debates going on in the French Chamber he will see that the increase of our Navy is constantly cited there as a reason why their Navy should be increased. That is one reason why we should scrutinise more than we have done this naval expenditure, but when I come to the Army I have no confidence at all. We have not had reasons given us by the War Office to show that the increase in our Army expenditure is called for. I am inclined to think that the expenditure on the Army is very largely the result of lax administration, and that we might attain quite as good results at probably several millions less than we spend annually on the Army now. We must remember that both naval and military expenditure is very largely a question of policy. It is foreign and colonial policy that determines our expenditure. If our foreign and colonial policy is aggressive, provocative, unwise, and shortsighted, we are perfectly certain to have to pay a much larger sum for military and naval armaments than we would have otherwise to devote to these purposes. When I am asked how to retrench military and naval expenditure, I say we ought to
712
have a better foreign and colonial policy than the present and previous Conservative Governments have given us. When the present Government came into power in 1895 the Prime Minister acknowledged that we were on the best relations with every foreign Power, and he went out of his way to pay a tribute to our good relations with foreign Powers as left by the outgoing Government. A year ago, when he addressed a speech to the Primrose League, he said we were obliged to admit that we had incurred the hatred and exposed ourselves to the rivalry and danger of the Continental Powers. There is in that statement quite enough to bear out the comment on the policy which I have ventured to make.
There is one other observation I should like to make about expenditure and efficiency. Large expenditure is not necessarily associated with greater efficiency. I think economy means a great deal more in administration than merely saving up the money which economy represents. The easiest way, some people think, to appear to be doing something is to vote money, and when they have voted money they lay the pleasing unction to their souls that they have done all that is necessary. You may go so far as to say that lavish expenditure means lax administration. The surest way to get value for our money is the fear of criticism, and to be obliged to show that you are getting the most out of every shilling you spend, and I believe the extravagant practices of late years have very much reduced the efficiency of the public service. The hon. Member for Gloucester in his interesting speech to-night quoted the Duke of Wellington as being a remarkable instance of a great military man who set the highest value on economy, and always insisted that it ought to be strictly applied to military matters. I will give another high authority—Frederick the Great. I suppose we all remember that there has been no Government in Europe which has devoted for the last 200 years such constant care and attention to its military establishment as the Government of Prussia, and the watchword and the principle of the Government of Prussia since the days of Frederick the Great has been "Economy." I believe the extraordinary

713
efficiency which the Prussian army has reached has been very largely due to strict and close attention to detail and the determination to get value for every thaler spent, which was steadily enforced by all the German generals and officers. I believe we could succeed in very largely reducing every branch of our expenditure, but, above all, our military expenditure, if we applied scrutiny like that which Prussia applies to our expenditure. I am sure that those who have followed the debates on the Estimates must have felt that the examination we give to them is far too slight, and very far from being sufficiently close and searching. I believe there never was a Government which even in the smaller matters, such as the case of the law officers, gave greater evidence of inattention to detail, by which true economy must be secured, than the present Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only in his speech this year, but in the Budget speech last year, called our attention in a forcible way to the dangerous position in which we stand. He made speeches such as ought to be heard from the guardian of the public purse. He said we ought to beware while it was yet time. I confess that after these exhortations I was a little surprised that he did not suggest to-night that there was any saving we could make or any way to redeem our growing expenditure, except by obtaining contributions towards the cost of our Navy from the colonies. I should have liked some other suggestion, at any rate, as regards a contribution from the colonies. I am sure such a contribution would be welcomed, and we should all be very glad to have it. I do not think there is the slightest difference of opinion in the House as to the desirability of getting a contribution from the colonies. We should be very glad to get it as an evidence of their interest in the mother country, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that it is not an easy matter. He must know that there are other questions which must arise in relation to the application of the money, should such a contribution be made, and with the strongest possible wish that such a contribution should come, it is not a thing we can count upon this year or next.
I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the appeals he made
714
last year and this year to us, must desire more control over the purse. He must wish that we should respond to the appeals he has made, and it is with the desire of responding to those appeals that I ask the House to consider the position to which we have come. There would be no danger in the position if our resources were increasing in the same proportion as our expenditure. The reason why there is danger is because our resources do not increase in the same proportion. True, we are increasing in population, and I suppose we are increasing in wealth, but we are increasing both in population and in wealth on a very much lower scale than that at which our expenditure has increased. Our population has risen from 37,000,000 to 40,000,000, and our wealth has risen certainly at no very rapid rate, but our expenditure has risen 30 per cent. in six years. Our exports are not increasing. It is extremely difficult when one looks at the Returns to determine exactly how you are to measure the growth of exports; but this may be said, that if they are increasing it is at a slight rate, and by far the greatest increase is that in coal. Coal is an article of a special kind, and we cannot regard an increase chiefly supported by coal as an increase of the same healthful and hopeful kind as the increase which took place in our manufacturing productions thirty years ago. So far we agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been pointed out by my hon. friend the Member for Haddington that we have been having during the last six years a period of exceptionally good trade, that has given increased revenue, but we cannot expect it to be continued. We know that these periods of prosperity are followed by periods of depression. They generally follow at a period of seven, eight, nine or ten years, and therefore we can fairly conclude that we are approaching the end of the period of prosperous trade which we have been lately enjoying, and that the productivity of the revenue during the next ten years will probably be very far below what it is at present. There is also another serious consideration, and that is the foreign competition, from which we have most to fear as regards our exports. America and Germany are increasing their exports far more rapidly than we are doing. There

715
is another source from which danger appears to come, and that is the cheap labour of the East. There are some large classes of British products in which we have immense Eastern markets. Factories are being erected in India and Japan, where there is cheap labour.
There is another aspect from which we should regard the future. The calls upon the revenue are likely to increase, or, at any rate, not diminish. If we could hope that we had come to an end of the further demands on the revenue, we might look at the cost up to the present time with comparative complacency; but over and above that natural increase of expenditure which always goes on in this country, owing to the greater demands made on the Government, and owing to the rise in the price of educated labour, there are a large number of other demands looming in the future which we shall be called upon to meet. I shall only give the House one or two of these to suggest how serious it may be. We are going to do something for technical and secondary education. That means a larger expenditure. You never embark upon things of that kind without finding that you have to pay more for them, and although it may be good expenditure, the money has to be raised some way. You have got the question of old-age pensions. It has been thrown into the background for the moment by the preoccupation of our minds by the war; but when that preoccupation is at an end you may be certain that the question will be revived. You cannot throw down a question of that kind before the people of this country and expect them to forget it. I feel quite sure that Ministers will be obliged to take up and face the question before many years are past. Where are you to find the money to do it? The money which has been spent on the war would have gone a long way to provide the funds required for that purpose. When that question was started there were many economists who expected that the Secretary for the Colonies would deal with it. They will regret that he did not continue to devote his energies to that question instead of turning them to the Colonial Office. There is another question with respect to which there is likely to be a demand for money—the question of
716
Irish land purchase. I do not express any opinion on the merits of that question, for which I have never voted, but it is a demand perfectly sure to be renewed and pressed with constant insistence. The present attitude of the Government towards it does not give us any security that they will not, one day or other, themselves comply with it. Though it may not demand a large sum, the possibility of it will depend on your credit, and the more you borrow the more you will impair that credit upon which we shall have to rely if we undertake the operation. Far larger and more important are the calls likely to be made on this country from those external sources of expenditure which are always growing with the expansion of the Empire in various parts of the world. I would ask the House to look round at what has happened in the last ten years. Whether you look at South Africa, and the expense which is being incurred there, or at China, and the expense that will have to be incurred there some day if Wei-hai-wei is to be of any use to us, you will find in every direction expansion of the Empire. All this means larger and larger calls for expenditure upon this country. Now I think we may say there has been no country in the modern world which has undertaken such enormous tasks as we are always ready to undertake. We take pardonable pride in the growth and greatness of the Empire, but I doubt whether we realise the responsibility which the growth and greatness of Empire bring with them. The mere fact that it is a wonderful and extraordinary phenomenon indicates that it is a phenomenon which cannot maintain itself in its present position without the exercise of the highest qualities of prudence, wisdom, and foresight. The more extraordinary it is the higher are the qualities that are required to keep it in existence. We occupy a small island, and we live by industry and commerce. In the last thirty years we have seen the growth of rivals less and less friendly to us, and making our position more and more doubtful than it was thirty or forty years ago. He is the worst enemy of the country who would tell us to go on trusting blindly in our luck or in our stars. The country has enjoyed in recent years a period of unexampled prosperity.

717
We have been lulled into confidence and ease, and we have come to believe that for us everything is possible. We have thought that "to-morrow shall be as this day and much more abundant." We have had during the past few years a further inducement to indulge in laxity of expenditure. The Government has enjoyed a large majority. The First Lord of the Treasury has himself frequently expressed his regret that he had so large a majority.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never complained of my own side; it was the other side I complained of.
MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman said it was less easy for him because he had so large a majority.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no; because I had so bad an Opposition.
MR. BRYCE: I think even the right hon. Gentleman will admit that when the Opposition is in so great a minority it is not an Opposition which can offer much effective resistance to the proposals of the Government. I think he will admit in his calmer moments that a Government which commands a very large majority is apt to enjoy a somewhat dangerous immunity from opposition. Under such circumstances the Government is enabled to carry measures with far less opposition and far less criticism than it would receive in normal times. We sometimes throw the blame of all this on democracy, and it is said that, with the large extension of the franchise, everybody leaves everything to the Government. I hope that is not so, but if it be so it only makes the responsibility of the Government all the greater. It is all the more necessary that the Government should undertake to form and guide public opinion. I regret that the Government has not chosen to give to the country, except through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that guidance and warning which these rapidly and dangerously increasing expenditures demand. I believe this Government has applied a less scrupulous test to the expenditure of the departments than any other Government. In consequence of the policy which we are now so hopelessly pur-
718
suing, the wealthy classes, who have acclaimed this expenditure, and some of whom, I am afraid, have expected to make their own profit out of these large and increasing expenditures, wilt be among the sufferers from the reaction which is certain to follow. I earnestly hope and trust that we shall not cease to make our views heard against the extravagance which has been increasing in our administration. Among other measures, we shall probably have larger and larger taxes upon great fortunes. It is necessary to protest on every occasion against the extravagance into which during the last ten or fifteen years we have been more and more betrayed, and to endeavour to recall the country to the sounder principles which guided it thirty or forty years ago. The true sources of the strength of this country are to be found, not in extension of territory, but in perfecting our resources, in reducing the burdens upon the taxpayers, in promoting the health and vigour of the people, and, above all, in developing their intelligence and productive capacity.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow at Two of the clock.

SUPPLY [17TH MAY].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [17TH MAY].
  CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS, 1901–2.

    CLASS II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,650, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,019, be granted to His Majesty, to complete

    719
    the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,962, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £91, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,107, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Debt Office."
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,938, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office."
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £4, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commissioners."
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £36,430, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., in England."
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £33,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray
    720
    the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    First four Resolutions agreed to.
    Fifth Resolution—
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would now be able to give him the answer he promised on Friday with reference to a certain salary which did not appear to tally with the terms on which the recipient was appointed.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that the officer concerned was appointed at the salary mentioned, and was to remain at that salary until a vacancy occurred in a higher office.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

  STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee appointed to inquire into the system of Subsidies to Steamship Companies under Foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade; that they do also report on similar bounties relating to sailing ships."—(Mr. Lawrence.)
  Objection taken.
  MR. LAWRENCEsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not press his objection, as the Motion was only to extend the reference to the Committee to sailing ships.
  MR. TULLYsaid he would object as long as hon. Members opposite objected to the Roman Catholic Disabilities Bill.
  Resolution deferred.
  Adjourned twenty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

NEW PEER.
Edgar, Lord Bishop of Newcastle, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords took the Oath.

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:—
Burgess Hill Water.
Dublin St. James' Gate Brewery Tramways.
Great Central Railway.
Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding 'Junction Railway and Dock.
London County Council (Spitalfields Market).
Tendring Hundred Water.
Also the certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—
Metropolitan Common Scheme (Ham) Provisional Order.
Military Lands Provisional Orders.
And also the certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.].
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) [H.L.].
Gas Orders Confirmation [H.L.].
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on 'Friday last discharged, and Bill
534
committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HARROGATE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee adjourned this day at half-past Eleven o'clock; and pray leave not to sit again till to-morrow, at Two o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, provided that proof be given before the Examiners of the deposit of the statement of the number of houses of the labouring classes proposed to be taken in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and at the office of the Central Authority.
Read, and agreed to.

COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
WISBECH WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
HARPENDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
BURY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported without Amendment.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS BILL [H.L.]

    WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC. BILL [H.L.]
    PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.].
    LEEDS CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BIRMINGHAM (CITY) TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a; an Amendment made; Bills passed, and sent to the Commons.
BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  FINCHLEY AND HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    CORK, BLACKROCK, AND PASSAGE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]. (ROUNDAY ORDER OPPOSED.)
    RUGBY WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
    LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    D. Wellington,

    E. Graham (D. Montrose),

    E. Manvers,

    L. Digby,

    L. Pirbright (chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet
    536
    on Tuesday, the 11th of June next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills, to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): Before the Third Reading is moved, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland a question as to the procedure in the case of these Confirmation Bills. Section 9 of the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1899, provides, in respect to an opposed. Order, that, before the expiration of seven days after the introduction of the Confirmation Bill in the House in which it originates, a petition may be presented against the Order, and that it shall be lawful for any Member to give notice that he intends to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee. If this is done, the Bill, instead of going in the ordinary course through all its stages, has to be read a second time, and then referred to a Joint Committee. The Bill now before the House, and the other Bill standing in the name of the noble Lord—the Ayr Harbour Order Confirmation. Bill—have passed the House of Commons, and now come up to your Lordships. They were read a first time on Friday last, and the noble Lord proposes to read them a third time to-day. It is quite clear, if it was intended by the Act that anyone should have an opportunity of opposing these Bills in the second House, that an interval of seven days would be required, and, of course, in this case; would not be given. I confess I have some doubt whether there is any intention of allowing opposition in the second House. It would be quite impossible of course to refer a Bill a second time to a Joint Committee. At the end of the clause there are those words—
"When such Confirmation Bill has been read a third time and passed in the first House of Parliament, the like proceedings shall, subject to Standing Orders, be taken in the second House of Parliament."
I admit that I am not quite sure what those words mean, and I should be glad

537
if my noble friend would tell me whether he has taken legal advice as to their interpretation. I apprehend, on the ground that it would be ridiculous to refer a Bill a second time to a second Joint Committee, that Parliament could hardly have meant to give an opportunity for opposition in the second House. The point is important, and I venture to ask this question, because these are the first Bills confirming Scottish Orders that have come before the House, and it is desirable that the question should be clear. I am inclined to think that in any case it would be well to allow an interval of seven days between the first and third readings of the Bill, so as to give any peer, even if there is no opposition, an opportunity, which I do not suppose would be often taken advantage of, of saying anything with regard to the Bill.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I think the conclusion which the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has arrived at is the right one, although I should certainly stand here to expound the law with great hesitation in the presence of so many noble Lords learned in legal matters. But, as the noble Lord supposed, I would not act in this matter without having taken advice. I did ask the Lord Advocate what his construction of the Act was, and he assured me that the construction which the noble Earl himself is inclined to put upon it is the right one—that the Act does not require a second interval of seven days in the second House of Parliament. For what it is worth, I have no hesitation in saying that the intention of Parliament when the Bill was passing was that there should be one interval of seven days, and that that should take place in the House in which the confirming Bill originated. I am not prepared to say that the matter is altogether free from doubt, but I think the proper interpretation of the subsection is that the provision for an interval of seven days is to apply only in the House in which the Bill originates. I hope, therefore, on this occasion the Bills will be allowed to proceed. The history of the words "subject to Standing Orders," which are in the last lines of the clause, is this. It was thought not right to regulate the procedure of either House of Parliament by Statute, and
538
these words were inserted to give each House power to regulate by Standing Orders the procedure on this class of Bill. If the noble Earl thinks that by Standing Order the House ought to provide for a longer interval in the second House than is provided by the Statute, I should not be inclined to oppose it, provided the interval is not made too long. But no such Standing Order has been passed, and as the promoters are anxious to get these Bills through their final stages as quickly as possible, I hope under the circumstances they will be allowed to proceed. As the noble Lord said, this is the first occasion on which any of these Bills have come before the House, and I think there is one point in respect to which the procedure might be amended. The Statute provides that seven days shall expire after the introduction of a Confirmation Bill before the next stage is taken. There is nothing, either in the Statute or in the Standing Orders, to provide that those seven days shall not be allowed to expire during a recess. If, therefore, the Scottish Office had chosen to take advantage of that, which, of course, they would not have thought of doing, they might have presented the Bill on the day the House adjourned for the recess, and there would be no power to accept a petition on the reassembling of Parliament. The noble Earl ought to take steps to prevent anything of that kind occurring.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The point which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has raised is a very important one. The Act of 1899, it is true, only applies to Scotland, but already a proposal is before Parliament to extend this procedure to Ireland. Therefore I think Parliament ought to consider very carefully the procedure which is adopted in this case. I do not propose to attempt to interpret the Act, but your Lordships have heard from the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland that there is a great deal of doubt regarding it. The question is, quite apart from the Act itself, what was really the intention of Parliament in this matter, and what is the proper procedure to adopt in a case of this sort. The Provisional Order, after being inquired into by the Commissioners, is returned to the Scottish Office. It is then em-

539
bodied in a Bill, and that Bill is laid before Parliament. In this case the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and lay there for seven days, no petition being presented against it. Then it came to your Lordships' House. It was read a first and second time and passed through Committee on Friday last, and ordered to be printed. It has not been printed because, of course, there has not been time, yet it is proposed to read it a third time to-day. Just see what is the result. In consequence of no opposition having been taken in the first House your Lordships are precluded from discussing the Bill at all. A person wishing to present a petition, if he allows the period of seven days in the first House to elapse, has no chance of presenting a petition in the second House. I admit that if he had petitioned in the first House, and the matter had been considered by a Joint Committee, it would be clearly improper that any proceedings should take place in the second House. The question is, Is it the intention of Parliament that in the first House only shall a petitioner have an opportunity of opposing? That is a matter for Parliament, and more especially, I think, for your Lordships to consider. I must say, having listened very carefully to the Bill as it went through its various stages, that I did not understand that there was to be no opportunity of opposing in the second House. It seems to me that if there has been no opposition in the first House, it is not a very hard thing to say that these Bills should lie for seven sitting days on the Table of the second House after being presented, and that if a petitioner has lost his opportunity in the first instance he should not be too late to take it in the second House.
Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed.

AYR HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read, and discharged.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC:) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order).
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 2602, Brazil (Porto Allegre).
  AFRICA, No. 2 (1901).
  Despatch from His Majesty's Special Commissioner in Uganda relating to travellers in the Protectorate.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 322, Bermuda: Report for 1900.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Report of the Governors for the year ending the 31st December, 1900; with Accounts.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of January, 1901.
  CENSUS (IRELAND), 1901.
  Preliminary Report; with Abstract of the Enumerator's Summaries (presented by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Margaret Lynch, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Margaret Lynch to be at large on condition that she enter the East End Refuge, Finchley.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
  Draft Order in Council altering the scale or rules and exemptions, set out in the Second Schedule to the Act, for the purpose of the levying of the light dues with respect to voyages made by the home trade sailing ships and steamers, and for yachts, which are laid up during the whole of any year ending the 31st March; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PETITIONS.
    SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
    Petitions in favour of; of persons signing (4); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC BETTING.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, since I drafted the motion standing in my name I have been informed by a high authority that in one respect it is not quite correctly worded. I am told that it is not absolutely true to say that there is an increase of public betting amongst all classes, because there is a decided decrease of it in the class to which your Lordships belong. I am very thankful to hear that this is so, because I cannot but feel that it makes this House a stronger body for taking up the whole question and dealing with the evil in other classes of society. I have ventured to place this motion before the House instead of the Bill which I had the privilege of introducing some little time ago, because I have deferred to the judgment of the right rev. prelates around me and other friends—men whose judgment I am glad to defer to in such a matter. I have done so for two reasons—firstly, because in any case there was very little hope of passing such a Bill during the present session; and, secondly, because I have thereby secured their support for this motion. Still I have to confess to a lingering hope that it may not be long before such a Bill as the one I ventured to introduce may be brought before the House for consideration. I think that the facts are in the main a matter of common knowledge.
  542
  From my observation and experience I entertain a strong feeling that the time has come when we ought to begin to try to do something. I was rather thankful to see that when the Bill was made public it alarmed the betting fraternity. I interpret this alarm as an evidence that they think some such legislation would be practicable, and I accept this alarm as a good omen. I may say, my Lords, that I have even received a threatening letter from a person of some prominence in the betting fraternity, not threatening personal violence, but of a much more important character, for it threatens the whole bench of bishops. The writer begs the Bishop of Hereford to bear in mind that these sporting gentlemen—that is to say, the betting trade—are as a rule very good Conservatives and loyal supporters of the Established Church. He goes on very emphatically to say that they are so "at present," but that if we are so misguided as to make any attack upon their trade we may endanger the Establishment. The writer adds: "Why cannot you as a bishop leave this to the Nonconformist conscience?" We are prepared to run the risk, because we believe the need for action is a very urgent one. The more we see of common life the more we feel that, and we are encouraged—I am greatly encouraged myself—to proceed in dealing with the question by the success of the Select Committee appointed on this subject in 1844, and the beneficent results of the Gambling Act of 1845 and the Betting Act of 1853. I think that the experience of the interval since that legislation was passed has made another such movement very desirable, and your. Lordships will render a great public service, if you take the matter up seriously. I will venture to read a sentence or two from the Report of the Committee of 1844—
  "Your committee think it desirable that the amusement of horseracing should be upheld because it is in accordance with the long-established national taste, because it seems to bring together for a common object vast bodies of people in different parts of the country, and to promote intercourse between different classes of society, and because, without the stimulus which racing affords, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that purity of blood and standard of excellence which have rendered the breed of English horses superior to that of any other country in the world."

  543
  On the whole, this seems to be a very reasonable defence of horse-racing. But the Committee went on to say—
  "The Committee would further consider these advantages more than problematical if they were to be unavoidably purchased by excessive gambling and by the vice and misery which it entails."
  I cannot but feel that experience has shown that in the interval there has been a great growth and spread of gambling, and of the vice and misery entailed thereby. Therefore, I am quite prepared to take my stand upon the recommendation of the Committee of 1844. The great spread of the betting trade is obviously very much facilitated—and it becomes a much more dangerous trade because it is so facilitated—by cheap printing, a cheap post office, and all the apparatus of the telegraph and telephone. I venture to hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel that this is a matter of some urgency. Without troubling the House at this stage with evidence, I would venture to quote the opinions of two or three judges. At the Warwick Assizes lately the judge said—
  "I am inclined to regard betting as the greatest curse of the country."
  Mr. Justice Darling the other day stated that—
  "if Parliament was in earnest it would prohibit the publication of betting odds."
  Mr. Justice Grantham expressed the opinion that—
  "gambling with bookmakers is the cause of more crime and misery than anything else in the land."
  And Mr. Justice Wills said—
  "When I first came on the Bench I used to think that drink was the most fruitful cause of crime, but it is now a question whether the unlimited facilities for illegitimate speculation on the part of the people are not a more prevalent cause of mischief and crime even than drink."
  The late Lord Chief Justice, Lord Russell of Killowen, said, in the year 1898, in giving his decision in a well-known case—
  "There is urgent need for legislation on the subject of the ambiguity of our betting laws. Legislation would perhaps be best preceded by a Commission of Inquiry."
  I am glad to notice, in the report which contains these remarks, that they were strongly concurred in by Mr. Justice
  544
  Hawkins, now Lord Brampton, who remarked—
  "I quite agree as to the pressing necessity for legislation."
  I will not detain your Lordships with more quotations, although I have a sheaf of opinions from official receivers and stipendiary magistrates in London and all over the country. There is a large amount of evidence which could be produced to show what an insidious danger the betting trade is. I had evidence only the other day showing that the evil is creeping even into the nurseries of upper class homes. On inquiry your Lordships might find that there are nurses in charge of children who, as a matter of habit, regularly put shillings on horses, and the result frequently is that the children are indoctrinated with the same betting ideas as the nurses or the grooms. Again and again, as an educator of boys and young men, I have found my labours thwarted by the tastes acquired for the degrading sporting literature which is spread broadcast throughout the land. I received a letter a few days ago from a working engineer in one of our northern works. He wrote—
  "I rejoice to see that you have introduced into the House of Lords a Bill to prevent incitement to gambling and betting. I sineerely hope your efforts will meet with success. I can assure you, as a working-man, that during the last twenty-five years of my life I have noticed to what a tremendous extent the gambling spirit prevails in the engineering workshops in this country."
  Then he goes on to describe the state of things in and around his own workshop—
  "The loafing bookmakers," he says, "who are too lazy to earn an honest living by working, have their rendezvous in the beershops of the town, and they hang about our works and employ men to ply their calling, even inside the works. To such an extent has this been carried that my fellow-workmen will even mortgage part of their wages from week to week and borrow at the rate of twopence per shilling per week in order to speculate on a probable winner."
  It is not surprising to find that an honest, serious-minded working man should desire to see this sort of thing stopped if it is possible. This is the kind of evidence which can be produced in abundance, and it is sufficient to show the urgency of the matter. It may be well that we should

  545
  pause for a moment to ask what objections there can be to taking steps for the cure of this great and spreading evil. Moderate legislation on this subject is not open to the same objections as legislation in restriction, say, of the drink traffic or of shop hours. There are many reasonable objections which have to be faced and considered when we are dealing with the mass of trades. But here, what have we? The betting and gambling trade is wholly noxious and parasitic. Even Mr. John Stuart Mill, that great advocate of individual liberty, would, I venture to think, have been with us in our attempts to deal with this evil. I notice, in his most instructive book on "Liberty," that he is careful to give arguments on either side, and we are reminded that society has a right to protect itself against injurious social acts. All the acts of the betting agent as he solicits and induces people to bet are, to the mind of most of us, injurious social acts; and Mr. Mill, discussing this question, says, in effect, that when a man incites to betting and gambling, when he offers inducements for his own personal gain or profit or advantage, he is carrying on a trade which it may fairly be contended is opposed to the public welfare. The Legislature, believing this to be the Case, is justified, Mr. Mill says, in taking care to keep the community as free as possible from the mischievous arts of such persons. I hope this view will commend itself to the House as a plain commonsense one.
  There is one point in regard to such social reform which is not sufficiently dwelt upon, and it is this, that in proportion as the people have a larger voice in the framing of the laws, it is possible to go further than when the Government was less popular in the direction of restrictive social legislation. If the House gives careful consideration to the matter and proposes reasonable legislation, I venture to think that it will be simply carrying out the views of the great mass of the people. Though we constantly feel some hesitation in going one step forward in matters of social reform which may affect some individuals, we never, so far as I have observed, see anyone venturing to stand up and propose the repeal of those social reforms which have made such great changes
  546
  in our life during the last fifty years. There is really nothing to fear from objections which may be brought forward against some legislation in this matter. I have no wish to interfere with any form of legitimate sport. I will go so far as to confess that I have a liking for it; but I desire to fix attention on this noxious and parasitic trade which has gathered round English sport and society, and which I desire to see, if possible, checked and eradicated. I have lately read a good many of the documents issued by the betting agents of the country, and I am surprised to find what a large amount of ability is being diverted to this trade. The amount of shrewd advice given in some of these circulars is very striking. Here is one piece of advice—
  "Do not be deceived by the glowing advertisements which appear in the daily papers from time to time offering to sell information for so many pounds or guineas per week. If the so-called tipsters knew something really good they would invest their own money in it. But that is what they very seldom do."
  When I read that I thought it was a document from the Anti-Gambling League. But I found it was from a well-known sporting agency, and the only weak point about it was that it concluded by inviting readers to deal with that agency. I cannot but feel that if these very able men had taken to some other business or profession they might have done far more good to themselves and to the country. Some of them seem able enough to have become distinguished lawyers or great diplomatists. But this propaganda ought to be stopped, and it is highly desirable to consider what can be done. If there is a place anywhere in England where such consideration can appropriately be given to the subject, surely it is this House, for, though there are persons outside who do not think much of our legislative enthusiasm, yet there is only one opinion, that no other House in the world contains so many sportsmen in the finest sense of the word. Such are just the right persons to deal with this subject. If something can be done to purify English sport a great social reform will have been effected. This noxious betting trade has battened on the amusement and patronage, and sometimes on the vices, of the upper

  547
  classes; and therefore this House, which specially represents the upper classes, will do specially good work in taking it in hand. When I look at the greatness of the evil I am almost surprised that I am standing here to make such a humble and modest request—a request to inquire whether any effective legislation is possible to improve our betting and gambling laws. I feel convinced that if the House takes this matter seriously in hand and brings forward some good legislation it will earn the lasting gratitude of the people of this country. I conclude by moving the resolution standing in my name.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the increase of public betting among all classes, and whether any legislative measures are possible and expedient for checking the abuses occasioned thereby.—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, this subject is unquestionably one of great interest. The right rev. Prelate, in the latter part of his speech, sketched out what he thought might be objections to legislation on this subject, but your Lordships will do well not to mix up the hypothetical question of possible legislation with the actual question before the House, which is simply whether a Committee of Inquiry is desirable. There is a feeling that such an inquiry would involve something like an inquisitorial investigation into the habits and practices of individuals. I for one should object to any inquiry of that kind, but I do not think the words of the motion justify any such apprehension. I am of opinion that, short of the suppression of betting, a good deal may be accomplished by the suggested inquiry, which would be well worth doing. The ambiguity of the law with regard to this subject is now such, for instance, that judges and magistrates do not know exactly how to interpret it. Again, there is a divergence between the law in England and the law in Scotland, newspaper coupons being held to be illegal in Scotland and not illegal in England, at least they have not yet been declared illegal in England. To show the extent to which this coupon system is carried on, I may mention that when
  548
  it was adopted in the case of an obscure sporting newspaper in London the circulation of that paper went up to 100,000 a week, and I believe that if His Majesty's Postmaster General inquired into that particular case he would find that an extra staff had to be told off to carry the sacks of letters that poured in I think also that the inquiry would be useful in helping to form a just public opinion on the subject, and it might be helpful in enabling us to see whether there is reason for the concern which is expressed by many influential persons with regard to this matter. Not very long ago, in one of the great engineering firms at a place not far from London, the time-keeper—a man of long service—was appointed betting agent, and the head of the firm told him he must give up his agency or the firm would have to give him up. The reply of the man was that he could not afford to give up the betting business, and he would give up his situation if the firm liked. Why did the employer object to his timekeeper doing this? Because he considered it was detrimental to the interests of his business, and if it was detrimental to one business we may infer that the practice is detrimental to business as a whole. Last Saturday I happened to meet a gentleman who has made his mark, not only in his profession as a builder, but in municipal government, and I informed him that there was going to be a discussion in the House of Lords to-day on the subject of betting. He replied—
  "In the business it is a worse curse than drink. The practice greatly interferes with work, and the other day, when I went to see how a job was progressing, I found it much behind. I asked the foreman for an explanation, and, while admitting that it ought to have been finished, he said that since the man X had been sent to that job there had Been hindrances. He was always talking about the odds, and the men at dinner-time, instead of settling down quietly to their food, rushed about to find out the latest betting, and in the afternoon it was necessary that one of their number should leave work on some-excuse to get a newspaper to see the winners."
  Sometimes in workshops and factories foremen and forewomen act as betting agents, and encourage the younger people over whom they are supposed to exercise superintendence to make bets. It is well understood, I am informed,

  549
  that they get a commission from the bookmakers. The right rev. Prelate stated that he had good reason to know the harm which betting did in regard to education. I have heard that betting circulars are sent pretty freely to the public schools, but I have not been able to get one. I telegraphed to my boy at one of the public schools asking him if he could send me one, and he telegraphed in reply, "Many received, but none have been kept." I am glad he had the good sense to destroy them; but I know they are sent, as also are little racing calendars excellently bound, and other literature to make it easy for boys to take up betting. A boy, after rejecting ten or a dozen circulars, may decide to give it a trial, and we know what the result is. It is not only by circulars that betting is encouraged, but by advertisements. My attention was drawn the other day to an advertisement in a most respectable paper—a paper such as any person would like to have on his table, and which would give an appearance of decorum to the mass of newspapers there—inserted by a man named James Webster, of Middelburg, Holland. I remember reading a report of some criminal proceedings against an unfortunate bank clerk who had got into trouble through stealing bank notes, all of which were found in the Bank of England, everyone of them endorsed by the name of this very individual to whose advertisement I have referred. Again and again these advertisements are the cause of ruin, and; I contend that Parliament should attempt to reduce the temptations to which the youth of this country are subjected. We have an illustration of the unsatisfactory state of the law in the fact that very often when people are fined they treat the matter with contempt. Recently a man who was fined £5 for bookmaking wrote to the magistrate stating that it would be much better if he could send a cheque, and that it was very inconvenient for him to have to come to the court and pay the money. I concur with the right reverend Prelate as to the appropriateness of an inquiry into such a subject by this House, At any rate, no one could suggest that there was on the part of your Lordships anything like a puritanical desire to interfere with
  550
  amusement and sport. I have no doubt that a great many foolish things have been said from time to time in opposition to betting, but some equally if not more foolish things have been said in support of it. I will quote one sentence from an organ which supports the professional betting system—
  "The modern puritan is every whit as-mischievous and intolerant to-day as he was 250 years ago. He is unfitted for municipal work, and if the public knew his power for mischief under the cloak of hypocrisy he would go out of public life altogether."
  I apologise to your Lordships for reading; such canting rubbish. Turning to that guide, philosopher, and friend of the country, Punch, we find the following—
  "The true spoil of sport is betting,
  Although it suits the baser sort.
  What is sport to them is death to sport."
  It is to be hoped that if this inquiry is granted noble Lords will be willing to serve whose names are household words in connection with the turf. As a sport horse-racing should not be attacked in itself, but, if abuses creep in, it is only right that an attempt should be made to remedy them. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government has often said that he objects to anything which savours of puritanical legislation, but I sincerely hope that he will regard this motion favourably.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, as a very recent member of the House I should not venture to take part in the debate had I not, as a resident for thirteen years in the middle of a great working-class quarter of London, some experience of the evils of betting. Looking out of my window I have frequently seen a man standing in the street for an hour and a half in the middle of the day and receiving slips of paper for betting purposes from forty or fifty persons, including boys and girls. After watching this for some days it occurred to me that it would be well to take action. The result was that he was prosecuted and fined £5, but he merely laughed at the fine. He had £25 on him in shillings when arrested, out of which he paid the £5. But within twenty-four hours he was seen standing at another street corner carrying on the same-tirade. As an example of the victims of

  551
  this system of betting I may say that it is a common thing to have some poor lad come late at night and pale as death to tell how he has been ruined by betting. One lad who came to me told how he had been led to put money on horses, and how, after spending his own money, he had spent nine pounds entrusted to him as treasurer of a shop club. He is only a sample of boys who are ruined in the working class quarters by betting. I know of a respectable working man who appropriated £120 belonging to a thrift club on account of his probity having been broken down by gambling. It may be asked, what good will an inquiry do? An inquiry into this evil will at least do good in strengthening public opinion and the executive. Policemen are only human. They do their very best, but they cannot do as they would unless they are backed up by public opinion. The inquiry will also reveal the true weaknesses of the betting law. One is that the practice of selling tips on Sunday mornings to crowds at street corners is not illegal. No law at present touches that at all. The Act of 1876 says "any three or more persons," which, of course, does not reach the man standing alone in the street and taking bets; but the London County Council by a bye-law have provided for the individual bookmaker, and I think that bye-law should be made a general law. The third blot on the betting law is that the fine is too light. A fine of £5 is just as little as five pence to a book-maker, so enormous are the profits of the trade. I hope the Government will consent to the motion before the House.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not desire to lengthen the debate, for I have very little to say. It is a common saying that the vice of betting—for it certainly is a vice when practised by those who cannot afford it—has been going on always, and that you cannot stop it because it is rooted in human nature But the important fact is that betting is increasing, that it is not what it always was, but is a growing mischief. Some may say that it is useless to inquire into the evil, because it is of such a nature that it cannot be eradicated; but inquiry may at least result in some
  552
  way being found for preventing it from still further increasing.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, it is certainly from no want of sympathy with the feelings and views of the right rev. Prelates that I hesitate to follow with any great confidence the recommendations they have made. I do not suppose that any of us will differ from them in admitting the growth of betting, and that most of all it is prevalent among the working classes and young people who are not strong enough to resist the temptation. I do not think that that is a matter which it is necessary to labour, because I do not believe that anyone doubts it. Whether it is actually increasing still I do not know. The most rev. Prelate, if he will inquire into it, will find that the evil is very old indeed. But I cannot admit, without very considerable deduction, the argument that because an evil is a great one, therefore you ought to try to do something, even though you know you cannot succeed. It seems to me the weakness of this policy is that, as the matter now stands, it is likely you will not succeed; and if you do not succeed, such remedies as are proposed will produce great injustice and great social conflicts, and will only bring a hideous evil more before the world, and give encouragement for the imitation of it to those who do not practise it now. I would wish to know precisely what evils it is intended to strike against and what remedies it is intended to apply. I was much struck by an observation of the right rev. Prelate who introduced this question. He told us that one of the horrors of betting was that even nursery-maids put a shilling upon each succeeding race, and that consequently the circumstances and phrases of the betting-ring are inculcated in the children they bring up. Is that the kind of public betting you hope to stop? What machinery have you to enable you to stop nursery-maids from putting a shilling on a horse race? I imagine that if you were to contrive to pass legislation of this kind, every time a servant was dismissed he would pull his master or the other servants into the police-court with the allegation that they had been guilty of the crime of betting, and it would be exceedingly difficult,

  553
  when the crime was merely committed in the course of conversation, to disprove it. If you are going to follow up all conversation of this kind with this kind of control and supervision, does it not come to something very like espionage, and will that not seriously affect the comfort and happiness of vast numbers of members of society? And, remember, the people who will be constantly accused of betting will not be the people who ordinarily do so. This espionage will be encouraged and pushed on by any such legislation as this.
  Let us take another instance which came out in the course of debate. The noble Earl opposite told us of the terrible evils that were creeping into society because foremen and forewomen encouraged people who were sitting in the same room with them to bet. Do you seriously imagine that any legal machinery you could construct will stop that? And if it does not stop it, will it not produce, by the opportunities of annoyance and conspiracy which it will give, evils infinitely greater than those you desire to arrest? I feel that the difficulty is one that you would find, when you come to examine into it, very much more serious than it appears to those who are dealing with it so lightly. We have been told in the course of this debate that on Sunday morning large crowds will assemble round one man in order to give him tips.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: To receive tips.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Am I wrong in my technical terms? Very well, then, to pay him for tips. But if there be such a large popular feeling in favour of such a thing as that, do you think with the means at the disposal of your Executive that you will succeed in putting it down? It has been mentioned that the mere printing of the odds in newspapers sends up the circulation by hundreds of thousands. You must look at the operation of that upon the persons who have the conduct of newspapers. Do you suppose that they will submit quietly while that means of gain is being taken away? You may be quite certain that anything you may do or any Act you may pass will not stop newspapers from
  554
  giving information upon a thing which is a matter of public interest—namely, the state of the odds on various races. I cannot conceive a state of society in which that kind of censorship of the press would be tolerated. My Lords, I do not wish to dwell upon the matter. My sympathies are so entirely with those who wish to stop the general practice of betting that I do not wish to go very far into the arguments on the other side. But what I wish you to consider is that you are undertaking a business of enormous magnitude, that you are going against the feelings and desires of a vast mass of people; and I doubt very much whether the results of this crusade will be satisfactory to the minds of those who undertake it. I have tried to use very moderate language, because I am not prepared, if we go to a division, to vote against the right rev. Prelate, and I do not desire and do not wish to give the appearance of desiring to prevent information being given upon the subject. Therefore, if right rev. prelates think it right to press for the motion, I at all events will not resist them, though I must leave the responsibility entirely with them.
  I have another reason for wishing to leave the responsibility entirely with them. In recent debates I have heard of a suggestion which, I confess, filled me with much alarm. It has been said by two or three men of very considerable position in this House that when a Government appoints a Commission it is bound to carry out the decisions at which that Commission may arrive. As far as I could learn, there was only one exception to that doctrine—namely, that if the Commission should split in two and vote in precisely the opposite way, then liberty is given to the Government to select one of the two Reports. That throws a very different light on a Government's undertaking any parliamentary inquiry. I feel quite certain that, whatever the recommendations of this Committee may be, a very large number of Members of this House will not consider them practicable. I will not accept, therefore, in behalf of the Government, or in behalf of any future Government, any responsibility for this inquiry, or any intention of putting on the Statute-book the enactments which

  555
  it may recommend. But if such great authorities as the Episcopal Bench believe that such facts can be obtained, and that an inquiry into them should be held, I do not feel that I am justified in offering any impediment to the motion which the right rev. prelates have recommended to the House.
  On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill for dividing the diocese of Rochester on the ground that the diocese is now so large that it is hardly possible for the administration of it to be continued by one bishop. The Bill authorises a bishopric of Southwark, to be founded by Order in Council, when the endowment fund reaches the specified amount. The diocese is to consist of the rural deaneries of Greenwich, Lewisham, Woolwich, Battersea, Camberwell, Clapham, Kennington, Lambeth, Newington, Southwark, Barnes, Beddington, Godstone, Kingston, Reigate, and Streatham, and of such other parishes as may be transferred to the diocese in pursuance of this Act. The diocese of Rochester at present includes a population numbering, according to the last census, upwards of two millions of persons. The new diocese of Rochester will have a special character of its own, extending along the banks of the Thames for a considerable distance, and possessing a certain community of interest. In making the sub-division the machinery of the Act of 1878 is used with such modifications as are applicable to the particular character of the diocese which is to be sub-divided. The amount of the income required for the formation of the diocese of Southwark is to be rather higher than is inserted in the principal Act, and that is a safeguard that neither the new nor the old bishopric will be lowered in character and position. The money is to be obtained most largely from the contributions of those who are interested in the subject. The only change in other respects is that certain
  556
  parishes will be transferred from they diocese of Canterbury to the diocese of Rochester, and to that I have assented.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  EDUCATION OF SOLDIERS FOR CIVIL LIFE.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, in again venturing to call your Lordships' attention to the education of the soldier for civil life, I have to regret that the subject has not been taken up by some peer of position and influence. I regret it because I consider that this is a question of most vital importance in Army reorganisation, and one which goes absolutely to the root of our Army system. It is perhaps only natural that at the present time a reform of this kind should be overlooked, because it is not a sensational or pretentious reform, and because it no doubt involves a great deal of thought and trouble on the part of those who would have to carry it into execution, and also a certain amount of expense. On the last occasion when I brought this subject before the House, rather more than a year ago, † I stated that in my opinion the education of the soldier for civil life was practically the only alternative to conscription if the desire was to increase the Army. When I stated that, I thought I should be accused on all sides of absurd exaggeration, but I am happy to say that the Weekly Dispatch, one of the three or four papers that circulate among the working classes very largely, entirely agreed with me in that estimate of the importance of this reform. Last year I thought myself obliged to give your Lordships in some detail the evidence upon which I relied in putting forward my proposal. I am happy to say it will not be necessary for me to take that course to-night, because the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was then Secretary of State for War, endorsed in principle my contention. All he said was that it was not practicable. I need only repeat in the merest outline the arguments I used last year. I called attention, in the first place, to a great meeting of
  † See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. lxxix., page 1043.

  557
  officers which took place at Aldershot in 1899, and which came to the conclusion that it was of the greatest importance that the soldier should be educated for civil life during his time with the colours. At the same time, I drew attention to the Report and the evidence of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1895, presided over by Sir George Chesney. The reference was to consider the employment of retired sailors and soldiers. That Committee was composed mostly of service Members, and it reported strongly in favour of the principle of giving some sort of training in civil employment to soldiers; particularly, said the Report, was that instruction desirable in the winter months. They made that reservation on the evidence of Sir Charles Wilson, then Director of Military Education, who said that in his opinion it would be quite possible to induce soldiers to avail themselves of this instruction during the winter, but not during the summer. Again, I called attention to a very important matter in connection with this subject, namely, the opinion of the Charity Organisation Society. In the year 1891 that Society appointed a committee to inquire into the question of the homeless poor of London. In the course of that inquiry they found that there were seventy-seven old soldiers, but not a single old sailor, among the homeless poor who had been compelled to seek the shelter of the workhouse or the casual ward; and of these soldiers thirty-six had been discharged with characters marked "very good."
  Your Lordships are aware of the strenuous efforts that have been, and are still being made, without, I am afraid, any conspicuous success, to induce employers to give remunerative employment to old soldiers. I would draw the attention of the House to the answer which was given me by the noble Marquess last year. He said—
  "I have always thought it would be of the utmost value to the Army if, while soldiers are serving with the colours, we could give them instruction in the rudiments of a trade, and thereby render them better fitted for civil employment after they leave the colours."
  The noble Marquess made this important addition—
  "I may add that the views of almost every soldier of experience with whom I have dis-
  558
  cussed this have been such as those which the noble Lord (Lord Monkswell) quoted."
  The noble Marquess said he had made several experiments in a small way, with results that were not favourable. He took the Woolwich experiment as an illustration, because, as he very truly said, the experiment could be tried with the greatest facility at Woolwich. He recounted the failure there, which he attributed to the perversity of the soldier in objecting to attend classes for technical instruction. I asked the noble Marquess when these classes began, whether in the summer or the winter, and to my great surprise he was not able to answer my question, yet the period of the year at which they are held is of vital importance to these classes. If you begin them in the summer it is impossible to get soldiers to attend. This answer from the noble Marquess aroused my suspicion as to the amount of interest which the officials concerned had given to this matter, and I at once communicated with Dr. Garnett, the secretary to the Technical Education Board of the London County Council, who is well acquainted with Woolwich, and asked him to give me his report on the matter. As the report is a very important document I propose to read some quotations from it. Dr. Garnett says—
  "I have had an interview with the superintendent of the artificers' classes at Woolwich Dockyard. I believe these classes have been going on for some time, and they are designed to afford technical instruction to the members of the Royal Artillery in the various trades to which they belong, and which they practise as part of their military duty. The Red Book enclosed herewith gives some account of the special duties of the members of each trade, and a syllabus of the instruction provided in the classes in connection with several of the trades."
  Dr. Garnett goes on to explain the teaching, and then says—
  "It appears that in the early part of last year it was announced to one of the Middlesex regiments on parade that the men might volunteer to receive technical instruction in connection with these classes, and some twenty-eight men offered themselves. I believe that almost without exception these men were entirely ignorant of any trade, but they were nevertheless drafted in March of last year into the artificers' classes referred to in the hand-book. In the course of a month half of them had deserted, and by the end of three months there was only one man left. I believe he was a

  559
  joiner, who had some previous knowledge of his trade, and he kept up his attendances and did excellent work until recently, when he was sent to the front. Thus ended an experiment which appears to me, from an educational point of view, to have been attempted on about as unsound a basis as was possible."
  Now, my Lords, the first objection that Dr. Garnett takes to the scheme is that these men were offered, in consideration of attending these classes, no relaxation of their military duties. I agree with Dr. Garnett that some relaxation might and ought to be granted. As this is a controversial subject I will not press it, but if you have summer classes for technical instruction soldiers will not attend them unless there is some relaxation of their military duties. Therefore, in the first place, these classes were started at a time when it was absurd to hope for success. The second objection which Dr. Garnett takes is this—
  "The work done in the class, judging only by the hand-book, while forming undoubtedly a good foundation for the knowledge of any trade, has undoubtedly an extremely military bias, and one could easily imagine that the theory would be started that the War Department in inviting the men to undertake these classes was to subsequently make use of their knowledge for military purposes, and that the War Department was not influenced by a pure desire to benefit the men after the expiration of their term of service. If the specimens of the work carried out in the classes had been of a more domestic and less military nature, this argument could not be used in the same way."
  He gives a further objection, which is fatal to the whole scheme. He says—
  "Men having absolutely no technical knowledge, and recruited from the ranks of unskilled labour, appear to have been drafted into classes to work by the side of fairly skilled artisans, and although I have not been able to ascertain the details of the instruction provided it seems to me scarcely possible, in conjunction with such an institution as the classes in question, for teaching to have been organised on the extremely elementary lines required by those absolutely untrained soldiers."
  I have given the history of the experiment which was specially selected by the noble Marquess as showing that soldiers will not submit to technical instruction. I would ask the House whether an experiment begun at a time when it was well known that such an experiment ought not to have been made, conducted on lines running totally contrary to the prejudices of the soldier, and having no reference at all to the state of his know-
  560
  ledge and capacity, can be quoted as proof of anything else than an absolute-want of the elements of common-sense on the part of the officials who tried the experiment. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary whether all the other experiments were conducted on the same lines.
  My Lords, the Government's army reorganisation scheme is, I believe, in the opinion of nearly everybody outside the Government, a pretentious sham, and, for this reason, that you cannot get the men. On this point I would merely quote two things. In 1898 the noble Marquess who was then Secretary of State for War came down to the House and said he was unable to get the 25,000 men that he required for his Army scheme of that day, and on Friday last the present Secretary for War said that the normal number of recruits who would be required for his scheme was 45,000 a year, and that up to 1898—before the war—they had come in at the rate of 35,000 a year. When you are first setting up this scheme you will require more than 45,000 recruits; at any rate, for the first year or two. Nothing helps recruiting more than that recruits should know that when they return to civil life they will have a good prospect of employment. It is conceded that at the present time the prospect of employment for discharged soldiers is very bad indeed. We have a number of recruits from the skilled classes, but what inducement do we offer them to join the Army? On this point I would quote the opinion of the present Commander-in-Chief, who said, in effect, that the mechanic or artisan who goes into the Army does so under a most tremendous penalty—the penalty not only of losing money when he leaves, but of losing cast and of taking that enormous step down in the social scale which separates the skilled from the unskilled labourer. That is a grievous-degradation to subject any man to, and the object of my motion is that no man, if possible, shall be subjected to it. If we do not do something of this kind we shall never improve the class of recruits.
  The Army can never be a popular service under the present conditions to any but the humblest class or the most adventurous. No doubt one induce-

  561
  ment to recruiting is that life with the colours should be made as pleasant as possible; but there is another consideration which is of greater importance than that The popularity of the Army depends to some extent on the opinion which the Reservist, when he returns to his village, may have formed of the Army; it depends to a much greater extent on the opinion which the villagers form of the Reservist, when he comes back from the Army. If he is seen by his friends and neighbours to be a better man than when he joined, if he is more resourceful, more intelligent, more obliging, then his neighbours will think the Army is a good service; but if he returns more ignorant, more helpless, and more stupid than when he went, I do not think you can expect the Army to be very popular. I am well aware that what I am asking the Government to do is no easy task, but I say again, as I said last year, that conscription is the alternative, and that we live under the shadow of conscription. To the military mind the failure of voluntary recruiting is a blessing in disguise. What the Service thinks is that conscription is in itself a good thing, and we have heard it attempted to be said, on behalf of the Government, that although, of course, conscription for foreign service is totally out of the question, still we might have conscription for home service. I do not myself believe that that distinction can hold water. What we want is an Army that can go out of the country—a foreign Army. And, again, supposing you did try to make this distinction between home service and foreign service, I believe it would break down under the first serious strain, and that your conscripts, taken only for home defence, would be sent abroad, either by public opinion or by Act of Parliament. I believe there is no half-way house in conscription. If you have conscription at all it will be bound to be conscription for the Regular Army, and conscription for all purposes. Is it not worth while to try some such instruction as may qualify the soldier for employment on his discharge? Military exigencies are such that foreign service might prevent a man going through the proper course of instruction during his term with the colours, but if this was properly thought out, and a good scheme
  562
  proposed, there would not be many men thus affected. I know the Service as a body is not favourable to this reform, although many distinguished officers support it. The Broad Arrow the other day said that experience had shown the impracticability of carrying such a scheme without affecting the efficiency of the soldier while with the colours. I say that there is nothing to show that any reasonable amount of intelligence has been brought to bear with regard to any practical scheme for teaching the soldier. The one experiment I have mentioned shows what little care and what little forethought was lavished upon it. I know that what the officer says is this: that his duty is fulfilled if he makes the recruit into a good soldier. I think it is not for the soldier but for the State to define what is the duty of an officer, and it is as much the duty of an officer to attract recruits, as to make them into good soldiers when he gets them. Officers enter the Army as a profession, but the rank and file for the most part do not. It is only an episode in their lives, and for them it is of vital importance that they should keep in touch with civil life, and not, on leaving the Army, be compelled to take most ill-paid employment.
  Officers are never tired of telling us civilians that it is our duty to learn to drill, to learn to shoot, and to perform other military exercises that will fit us in case of need to become efficient soldiers. I think there ought to be some reciprocity in that doctrine. I think the officer should try to return his men into civil life as good civilians. I do not doubt for a single instant that the noble Marquess when he was Secretary for War was very sincere in his desire to carry the reform I have advocated into effect, but it does seem to me that he accepted somewhat too readily the official version of the failure of experiments of this kind. After all, officials are very much like other people. If an experiment in which they are concerned fails, they try, just like other people do, to shift the blame on to the shoulders of others, and I think the noble Marquess somewhat imperfectly realises the ingenuity and the persistency with which reform which is unpalatable is opposed. I believe this reform will be carried. I believe there is a great struggle

  563
  between the military element and the civil element. Voluntary recruiting will break down, and the military element will clamour for conscription. I hope the public will ask with equal persistence for education. There is a third course giving an increase of pay—by which you will attract recruits, but that does nothing whatever to diminish the grievous intellectual waste which is going on in our Army. This war has exploded the theory that to drill all intelligence, all initiative, out of a man makes him a good soldier. I object to this Army reform scheme because it is absolutely silent with regard to the one thing needful—the attraction of a better class of recruits. Whatever you think of my motion, I hope your Lordships will give very serious attention to this extremely important matter.
  Moved, That in the opinion of this House, no reorganisation of the Army will be satisfactory which does not, subject to the exigencies of military service, provide such instruction for the soldier as may qualify him for employment on his discharge."—(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, at this late period of the evening I am afraid it would not be wise for me to attempt to cover the whole of the subjects which the noble Lord has brought before the House, but with regard to the particular question of the technical education of the soldier I think I may venture to go somewhat into detail. With regard to the particular experiments conducted in 1899 at Woolwich and elsewhere, I am afraid I am not in a position to give the noble Lord any further information than the fact, which I regret very much, that the experiments were not successful. The question of the technical education of the soldier and of making him better fitted for earning his livelihood when he leaves the colours is one which all interested in the Army must feel deeply. I have always felt very strongly that when a soldier is with the colours your object should be to send him back to civil life a better man in every way than when he joined. But the difficulty
  564
  is to know what is to be done. There is a considerable difference between teaching a man a trade and affording him opportunities of practising a trade which he has already learned in some degree. In the mounted branches of the Army there is ample opportunity for the exercise of technical skill; but the difficulty of teaching a trade to the bulk of recruits, who are generally unskilled labourers, is enormous. Instruction in a trade to be of any use must be continuous and progressive. That is where the difficulty comes in in regard to teaching the soldier. I do not think even the noble Lord would suggest that we should make attendance at these classes compulsory, and I am certain that, so far as recruiting is concerned, you would not make the difficulty any lighter by compelling soldiers to attend these classes. At Woolwich Arsenal, where there is every facility and where there are skilled instructors, the results of the trials are extremely discouraging. One difficulty to which the noble Lord did not allude was with regard to trades unions. I am afraid in connection with this subject a difficulty with the trades unions is inevitable. Then there is the difficulty of giving technical instruction in certain trades to men who have not been apprenticed to those trades. Another difficulty is that of inspection. The noble Lord quoted from a report by Dr. Garnett with regard to the particular experiment at Woolwich. I do not know that Dr. Garnett has any right to impute motives. I do not know why he should assert that the classes were not meant to succeed.
  LORD MONKSWELL: He did not say that.
  LORD RAGLAN: I understood that was what he said. I would remind the House that the regimental officer is not the idler many people are apt to imagine. He has very little time to himself, and that time will be still more seriously curtailed in the future. He has not only to be a soldier and be able, to instruct men in shooting and drill, but he must be a bit of a tailor, baker, butcher, and grocer; and if he is in the mounted branches he has to be a veteri-

  565
  nary surgeon and a farrier, and to know something about saddlery. If the duty is imposed upon him of giving lessons to large classes in all sorts of technical education, I am afraid there will be very little time for him in which to study his real profession—that of a soldier. The noble Lord said this experiment was tried at a very unfavourable time. I acknowledge that the summer does not sound favourable at first blush, but it must be remembered that the furlough season comes in the winter. There is no privilege that the British soldier values more thoroughly than that of furlough, and any attempt at curtailing it would have a most disastrous effect upon recruiting. In mounted corps especially, but even in infantry corps, in many quarters there is even now considerable difficulty in carrying on the duties during the furlough season. Although you have a large number of men away the same amount of work goes on. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the very large number of men who are necessarily withdrawn from actual soldiering to do the cooking, cleaning, and so forth, I will give you an instance in point which occurred to myself last year. I was on Salisbury Plain in charge of two companies of engineers. A question arose as to a certain piece of work that was being carried on, and the officer commanding the Royal Engineers came to me and said I was to do so and so. I was unable because I could only provide, out of 170 men, a working party of 80. Therefore, as a regimental officer, I see great difficulties staring me in the face if these classes are started in the furlough season. At present, as your Lordships are aware, the British Army at home is merely engaged in preparing recruits for the Army abroad, but when the end of the war is reached and the whole question comes before the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief they will consider most carefully whether anything can be done with regard to imparting technical education to soldiers. I have little doubt that in India much can be done in this way, and that in certain parts of this country, especially where regiments or battalions are quartered by themselves, something can be done. But the
  566
  tendency in the future will, I hope, be to concentrate troops more largely in camps and to give them more actual instruction, more scouting, and more instruction in shooting. In that case I am afraid the time for technical education will be difficult to discover.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I regard the answer of the noble Lord the Under Secretary as fairly sympathetic, and I hope I may take it that he is in favour of this experiment, at all events in principle. [Lord RAGLAN nodded assent.] I was rather astonished to hear the noble Lord say that the Woolwich experiment was discouraging, as it was carried out under conditions which were bound to lead to failure. I beg to withdraw my motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  THE NEW PATTERN SERVICE RIFLE.
  EARL STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary for War whether the War Office would undertake to have the new pattern service rifle ready for trial at the Bisley Rifle Meeting in July, and also whether the present rifle could be altered without great expense. He understood that the Government had appointed a Departmental Committee to suggest certain alterations in the service rifle, and he had seen it stated in the press that the rifle was to be shortened. He had seen several of the German rifles—the Mannlicher, the Mauser, and the new German rifle. He thought the latter was a decided improvement on those we had been using. In the first place, it was loaded by a clip system and not by individual cartridges. There was a great improvement in the back-sight, and also in the fore-sight, and altogether it was a handier and lighter arm. He understood that a full trial would be given to these rifles by experts at the school of musketry. It was most important that they should have a full trial, but if they put them in the hands of the Volunteers they would have them tested by their best shots at the meeting of the National Rifle Association at Bisley next July. From what he had seen of the German rifle, as compared with the Lee

  567
  Metford, he thought the service arm could be altered and the present clumsy magazine removed.
  LORD RAGLAN: No new pattern rifle has been approved, and it is by no means certain to what extent, beyond minor alterations and the possible shortening of the rifle, especially for mounted troops, any new departure will be necessary. Experiments are being made, but I am afraid they will not come to a conclusion in time for the new rifle to be issued for Bisley. It is not desirable in the public interest to state at present the direction which the experiments are taking, and, pending their conclusion it is obviously not possible for the Department to estimate the probable cost of any alterations in the rifle which it may be desirable to make.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH said he was most anxious, not only that the troops should have the best rifle which it was possible to put in their hands, but also that they should, by the appliances attached to the rifle, and by training, be placed in the best possible position to use it. He hoped the proposal to shorten the rifle would not be adopted without the most careful consideration. It was extremely likely that by such an experiment more would be lost in the efficiency of the rifle than would be gained in easing the inconvenience of carrying it. It was probable that the new explosive for rifles, as for big guns, would be a nitrocellulose powder, and slower than the nitro-glycerine one now in use, and for a slower explosive a barrel as long as possible would be required. Another objection was the difficulty of obtaining good sighting arrangements for a rifle with a short barrel, on account of the consequent short radius between back and fore-sight. Those who had been accustomed to the successive rifles that had been in use among our troops would remember that the old Snider rifle was an exceedingly easy one to shoot with, not on account of its special accuracy, but because of the long barrel, which was about 36 inches, the radius between the sights being 33½ inches. In the Martini the barrel was 33½ inches, and the radius between the sights 24 inches; in the Lee-Metford the length was 30¼ inches,
  568
  and the radius 23¼ inches; while in the Martini-Enfield cavalry carbine the length was 21 inches, and the radius only 15½ inches. There were several ways of getting over the inconvenience to mounted men of carrying a long rifle. He had seen an ingenious jointed stock invented by Colonel Remington Wilson, which, though it might be supposed to be weak, showed, so far as he could judge, great elements of strength. Now that recoil had been done away with a skeleton stock might perhaps be used for cavalry, and carried detached from the rest of the weapon. The noble Earl had praised both sights of the new German rifle. He admitted the excellence of the fore-sight, but was doubtful about the back-sight. When aiming at a stationary object without wind the German back-sight was a very good one, but there was no possibility of getting any wind allowance on it. To get full value out of our rifle some system of sighting would have to be adopted so as to enable allowance to be made for wind.
  EARL STANHOPE*EARL STANHOPE said the German fore-sight did allow for wind variation.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHwas afraid he could not agree, though the fore-sight was so fitted as to admit of a little lateral shifting, by which defects in the zero of a rifle could easily be corrected. Continuing, the noble Lord said that not only could the magazine be improved, but also the breach action, by adopting something similar to that in the Mauser and the new German rifle. He thought the Mauser magazine and breech action had great advantages over ours. In the first place, it was a clip loader which enabled five cartridges to be loaded at one motion. It had the further advantage over other clip-loading magazine rifles that, being loaded with five cartridges from a clip and one or more having been fired, they could be replaced singly, without, as in the Mannlicher, waiting till the whole five had been fired and the clip ejected from the magazine. The Mauser breech action and magazine were also simpler, stronger, and easier to clean than the Lee-Enfield, and, an important consideration, weighed ten ounces less. He was very much inclined to think that the question of some slight increase in

  569
  the bore was worth consideration, more particularly as by that means the accuracy of the rifle, by rendering the bullet less susceptible to wind, would be improved and its striking effect greatly increased. The new German rifle was enlarged to eight in lieu of seven millimetres. He asked that these points and others should be carefully considered by the Government, and that they should not simply be satisfied with having a good weapon, but try and get a very much better one. They should improve the sights; he believed some form of aperture sight must eventually be adopted, and, by increasing their training, enable the soldier to obtain the full benefit of the good weapon which had been placed in his hands.

  THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
  LORD HERRIES: My Lords, I have to ask the Prime Minister whether, as it is understood the Joint Committee cannot be proceeded with, he is prepared to move for a Committee of the House of Lords to consider the terms of the Royal Declaration. I think it would be a pity if there was any delay in considering this important matter, and it is for that reason that I have ventured to place this question on the paper.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have to-night given notice that I will make a motion to-morrow to the effect indicated in the question. There is no necessity for any alteration of the terms which have already been adopted by the House. The only thing that is altered is that it will be for our House only, and not in conjunction with the House of Commons. The nomination of the Committee cannot take place till the Committee itself has been agreed to, and, of course, there will be some little delay in getting together the requisite consents to the nominations. As we rise tomorrow, there will be no chance of doing any work before the recess, but when we come back on the 10th of June I hope we shall be able to despatch this business without any further delay.

  INDIAN LIQUOR AND OPIUM SHOPS.
  LORD KINNAIRDasked the Under Secretary of State for India if the atten-
  570
  tion of the Secretary of State had been called to the repeated complaints of tea planters in Assam, Darjeeling, and other parts of Northern India with regard to the location of liquor shops and opium shops in the coolie villages attached to the plantations; if he had observed the statement of the Excise Commissioner of Assam in his report for the year 1899–1900 to the effect that the consumption of country spirit naturally tended to increase with the foreign population of tea garden and other coolies, which induced keen competition for shops on the part of rival liquor sellers; if he was aware that the planters themselves were now entering into competition with the liquor sellers, and that in Sylhet six licences had been taken up by tea planters last year; and, if so, would he put a stop to a practice which could only result in increased consumption of spirits, in contradiction to the policy of the Government of India as declared in their despatch to the Secretary of State, No. 29, 4th February, 1890. The question was, he said, one of considerable importance. Coolies were brought from long distances at great expense to the planters, and often from parts of the country where they had not been accustomed to take strong drink, and it had been found in many cases that their health largely suffered owing to the facilities of obtaining liquor. He did not approach the question so much from the temperance standpoint as from that of the injustice of the Government, who were all powerful as to opening or closing grog shops, increasing the number of centres of danger to the coolies simply for the purpose of raising additional revenue.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I will say just one or two words as to the coolies who come to these tea plantations to work. The noble Lord has implied that they come from parts of India where drink is unknown to them. I think the noble Lord's statement is incorrect. They are aboriginal tribes who come from the north-eastern frontier, and are addicted to a certain kind of drink which they themselves manufacture out of a herb. Indeed, long before British rule was known to

  571
  India they were drinking this production to a considerable extent. I may mention that in Assam and Darjeeling the local inhabitants hardly drink at all. In fact nearly the whole of the excise revenue is derived from the drinking habits of coolies. The noble Lord seems to be under the impression that the policy of selling shops to the tea planters or their managers is contrary to the policy that has been adopted under the despatch of the Government of India of 4th February, 1890. The system that exists at present is to fix in each locality the number of shops that are necessary to supply a certain quantity of spirits to the coolies. Whether the shops are sold to the planters or in the open market does not increase the number of them. The number is at a fixed limit, but the excise commissioners have sold in Assam during the past year eleven shops to the tea planters, who bought them with only one object, namely, to be able to control the coolies whom they employ, and prevent them from indulging excessively in drink. That, so far from being in contradiction to the policy of the Government of India, is directly in accordance with their policy. The noble Lord asks whether the Secretary for State has observed the statement of the Excise Commissioner of Assam in his report for the year 1899–1900, to the effect that the consumption of country spirit naturally tends to increase with the foreign population of tea garden and other coolies. I think that is a self-evident proposition. Of course, as more coolie emigrants arrive in any district more liquor will be consumed. At the same time, it does not follow that the individual coolie has greater opportunities for drinking. That this increase induces keen competition for shops on the part of rival liquor sellers is, I think, also evident. The more coolies there are employed, the more liquor is sold, and consequently the more valuable each of these shops become. But, as I have said, the number of shops does not increase. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have only to state that it is not the opinion of the Government of India or of my noble friend the Secretary of State that the policy adopted will result in an increased consumption of spirits; and in the opinion of the Secretary of State
  572
  the policy that is now enforced is in every way consistent with the policy laid down in the despatch referred to.

  MARRIAGES LEGALISATION BILL [H.L.]
    ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  TOOK THE OATH.
  The Lord Bishop of Chester took the Oath.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven of the clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.