Sitting of 28 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London United Tramways Bill; Tottenham Improvement Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Great Western Railway Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads (re-committed) Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now considered.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill, as amended, accordingly considered. An Amendment made: Bill to be read the third time.
Belfast Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]. Committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill. Ordered, That, in the case of the Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No.5) Bill, Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee have leave to proceed with the Bill on Monday next, provided that no Petitions shall have been deposited against the Bill.—(Mr.Caldwell.)
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh and District Water, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order,under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating

1441
to Edinburgh and District Water," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.
Glasgow and South Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow and South Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer), ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Glasgow and South Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow and South Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer)," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.
Perth Corporation Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Perth Corporation, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Perth Corporation," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.
Trafford Park Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Hamilton Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment[Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill Lords]; Buxton Urban District Council
1442
Bill [Lords]; Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Amendments to, Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords], with out Amendment.
PETITIONS.
  JURORS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from London; Kent; and, Surrey; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Dishforth; High Littleton; and Peniel Hangoid; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petitions for alteration of Law; from Beckenham; and Shipley; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Cambridge, altering certain Polling Districts in the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Summary of the Recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee, 1900, on the Reserve of the Guns, Stores, etc., required for the Army, showing also to what extent these recommendations have been carried out [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3239 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-sixth Annual Report of the Registrar-General, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 285.]
  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT, CHANGES IN WAGES, ETC.).
  Copy Presented, of Report on Changes in Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour in the United Kingdom, 1903, with Comparative Statistics for 1894–1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Chamber of London. Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1903 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 286.]
  Caledonian Canal. Copy of Ninety-ninth Report of the Commissioners [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 287.]
  Lunacy. Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 30th June 1904 [by Act].

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
  Return ordered, "of all Contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured
  1444
  articles [by the several Government Departments in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1904, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with contractors or agents who obtain the articles from abroad (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 342, of Session 1903)."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)

  INSPECTION OF MEAT.
  Return ordered, "showing, as regards each of the following local authorities, viz., the Councils of the City of London, the Metropolitan Boroughs, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Bolton, Birkenhead, Bradford, Blackpool, Hull, Nottingham, Derby, and Portsmouth, (1) the number of Sanitary Inspectors, Inspectors of Nuisances, or other officers appointed to act as Inspectors of Meat; (2) what special qualifications, if any, these officers possess for the discharge of the duties of Inspectors of Meat; (3) the amounts received by the Council during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1904, on account of fines and costs in connection with prosecutions relating to unsound or diseased meat; and (4) the law costs paid by the Council during that year in respect of any proceedings at quarter sessions or in the High Court arising out of the decisions of justices in connection with such prosecutions."—(Mr. Field.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Accidents caused by Leakage of Gas into Telegraph Inspection Chambers.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident in Regent Street on Thursday, the 21st instant, occasioned through gas escaping into a telegraph inspection chamber and coming into contact with leakage in an electric wire; and will he state whether any explosions arising through leakage of a similar character have been reported by the police during the last two years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am informed by the police that, so far as they are aware, there

  1445
  were within the metropolitan police district during the two years ended the 30th June last, twenty-one explosions of a character similar to that mentioned in the Question. The explosions resulted in injury to eleven persons and in the death of two horses. It does not appear to be a matter as to which I have any power.

  Closing of Vauxhall Bridge—Obstruction to Traffic.
  MR. FISON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police have made any complaints in reference to the obstruction caused to traffic by the lengthened closing of Vauxhall Bridge; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) No complaints on this subject have come to my knowledge; but, in view of the length of time during which the bridge has been closed, I have made inquiries, and am informed that the undertaking (which has not merely consisted in building a new bridge, but has involved preliminary operations of considerable magnitude and difficulty) has been actively proceeded with from the beginning. I learn, further, that the time specified in the contract for the completion of the superstructure of the new bridge is the 31st day of December, 1905, with a provision for heavy penalties against the contractor in the event of delay beyond that date.

  International Arrangement relative to the Traité des Blanches.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the international arrangements made at the Paris Conference in 1902 relative to the traité des blanches have been duly ratified; and, if they are now in force, what are the principal provisions.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) An international agreement, to which His Majesty's Government is a party, was signed at Paris on 18th May last. The deposit of ratifications has not vet taken place, and the agreement will not come into force until six months after their deposit.

  British Pilots employed by the Suez Canal Company.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the percentage of pilots of British nationality employed by the Suez Canal Company as compared with the percentage of British ships passing through the canal.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) There is no information on the subject in the possession of His Majesty's Government, but the necessary inquiries will be made.

  Increase of Pay for Stokers and Enginemen of House of Commons' Staff.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that an increase of 2s. a week was given on 8th April, 1899, to all men of the general staff of the House of Commons with less than 30s. a week wages and that the mechanics have had no advance during the last forty years, and that on the 25th March, 1903, the Office of Works Board promised to consider the question of the hours of duty and increased pay, in response to a petition of stokers and enginemen, he will now say what decision, if any, has been arrived at.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The object kept in view is to approximate the pay to that given in outside employment. That of the stokers was advanced last April, and cases calling for attention will be brought under review yearly. No mechanic possessing a trade knowledge is paid less than 30s. a week, and the rates paid for unskilled labour are equal to those current outside. The hours of duty have been reduced so far as possible in recent years. It must be remembered, in considering the question of hours, that service in the Houses of Parliament carries advantages as to sick pay and holidays and continuity of employment, which are not found in the ordinary labour market.

  Fraudulent Trustees—Proposed Establishment of a Public Trustee.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the increasing frequency of

  1447
  cases of breach of trust and the fraudulent application of trust funds, and to the suffering thereby entailed; and, if so, will he take any steps for the prevention of this class of crime by furthering the legislation proposed to Parliament for many years past for the establishment of a public trustee and executor, or in enforcing the adoption of The Judicial Trustees Act, 1896.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) My attention has been called to the frequency of cases of this description. The matter has been under consideration, but I am not able at present to make any statement as to possible legislation of the nature suggested in the Question.

  Stornoway Mail Delays.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that the mail steamer from Kyle was late in her arrival at Stornoway on 120 occasions between the 1st January last and the 16th June, and that the delay exceeded half-an-hour on twenty-three occasions, will he state how the contractor accounts for the delay; and whether any of the penalties attaching thereto have been enforced.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The train by which the mails are conveyed to Kyle is generally a few minutes late in arrival at that place, with the result that the Stornoway steamer is frequently unable to leave Kyle at the appointed time. The delays which have occurred on the voyage have been chiefly due to stormy weather and adverse winds, and when the weather has been favourable, time has frequently been gained. The steamship contractor has furnished an explanation whenever the authorised time allowed for the voyage has been exceeded, and his explanations have been accepted. There has been no case for the imposition of a penalty.

  Postal Savings Bank, Withdrawals by Telegraph.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph for each month during the present year; and how the figures compare with the corresponding months of last year.
  1448
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The figures asked for are as follows:—
  Number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank.

  Month.

  1903.

  1904.

  January

  16,338

  13,922

  February

  14,228

  13,706

  March

  16,793

  17,668

  April

  19,416

  17,246

  May

  18,101

  18,205

  June

  18,381

  17,567

  Extension of Trunk Telephone System in the South of Ireland.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping respecting the necessity for an extension of the trunk telephone system to such important centres in the South of Ireland as Fermoy, Youghal, Clonmel, Tralee, and Killarney; and, if so, whether he will be able at an early date to extend the telephone system to the places named.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have received a copy of the resolution of the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping as to the extension of the telephone trunk wire system in the South of Ireland. That question is now under consideration. At present there does not seem to be sufficient demand for telephonic facilities at Youghal and Fermoy to justify an extension to those towns; but I shall be glad to receive the names of persons who are willing to become subscribers to Post Office exchanges. A canvass is being made in Killarney and the surrounding district with a view to the establishment of an exchange and to its connection with the trunk wire system, if sufficient support is forthcoming. The National Telephone Company have exchanges at Clonmel and Tralee. The company are also considering the question of opening exchanges at Cahir and Carrick-on-Suir, and I am in correspondence with them as to the possibility

  1449
  of connecting these exchanges with the trunk wire system.

  Post Office Wages—Adoption of Wages Proposed by the Bradford Committee.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Postmaster-General when does he propose to put into operation the terms and conditions of wages of Post Office employees recommended in the Report made by the Bradford Committee.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Report of the Bradford Committee is under my consideration. I hope to have an opportunity for making a general statement of the manner in which it will be dealt with on the Vote for Post Office Telegraphs.

  Extra Remuneration for Mates and Engineers of the Fleet Coaling Service.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to give a definite Answer with regard to the extra remuneration claimed by the mates and engineers of the Fleet coaling service vessels C21 and C22.
  (Answered by Mr. Prettyman.) It has been decided to grant the mates and engineers of coaling vessels C21 and C22 extra remuneration of sixpence a day.

  Customs Statistics and Ships' Files.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the practice of the specification branch of the Statistical Department of the Customs to systematically leave a percentage of the ships' files unchecked, thereby affecting the accuracy of Trade Returns; if so, whether this practice has prevailed for a considerable time; and, if so, if he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to providing the public with information on trade matters which shall not be open to dispute.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) It has been the practice for the last twenty years to leave a small percentage of the ships' export files unchecked. It is not deemed necessary to check every file, and the number checked is considered sufficient to ensure the substantial ac
  1450
  curacy of the Trade Returns. It is not proposed to alter the present practice.

  Indian Irrigation Works.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether it has yet been decided to proceed with any of the irrigation works recommended in the Report of the Irrigation Commission; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Provision has been made by the Government of India in their forecast of capital outlay on irrigation works for 1904–5, for expenditure on some of the schemes recommended in the Report of the Irrigation Commission. Other schemes will be taken up as funds are available.

  Publication of Report on Police in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state when the Report on the Police of India will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 19th May last. † I have not yet received the proposals of the Government of India on the Report.

  Value of Boots, Shoes, and Hosiery Imported into India.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the value of boots and shoes and hosiery imported into India since the last Budget statement, and the countries of origin, which is omitted from the published accounts 1904–5.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The annual Trade Returns for 1903–4 have not yet been received and the monthly Returns do not show the imports of hosiery separately, and do not give the countries of origin in respect of the imports of boots and shoes. From the 1st April, 1903, to the end of May, 1904, the total value of boots and shoes imported into India was £235,944.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 350.

  Redress for Murder of Captain Warneford.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the murder of Captain Warneford recently at Aden; and whether, seeing that the steps taken by General Maitland to arrest the murderer have failed, he will consider the desirability, in the interests of British prestige, of ordering the infliction of some punishment on the tribe to which the murderer belonged.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I received on the 9th March, with great regret for the loss of a very valuable officer, a telegram from the Resident at Aden stating that Captain Warneford had been shot at Am Rija on the previous day by a police sowar in our service. I subsequently received a full report on the circumstances, including the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry which was ordered to be held. The murderer escaped, and fled into tribal territory beyond the reach of our police. All the neighbouring sheikhs were written to and warned not to give asylum to the murderer, but he has not yet been discovered. Efforts continue to be made to secure his arrest. As regards punishment of the murderer's tribe it must be pointed out that the man was a police sowar in our employ.

  Alleged Wrongful Dismissal of S. J. Carmichael from Mountjoy Prison.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Samuel J. Carmichael, ex-warder of Mountjoy Prison, was dismissed from the service for an alleged assault on a prisoner, which was afterwards admitted to be the action of a warder called Bell; and whether, in view of the fact that Chief Warder Hennessy swore in his evidence that he was informed by a prisoner who witnessed the assault that Bell committed it, he will direct a further inquiry to be held in the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Carmichael was dismissed as a result of a
  1452
  sworn inquiry held by one of the visiting justices, and of a further sworn inquiry held by the Inspector of Prisons. The charge of assault on a prisoner was fully and clearly established against him. It was not admitted that the assault had been committed by Warder Bell, and no statement, such as alleged, was made by the chief warder. It is not proposed to re-open the case.

  Epizootic Lymphangitis in Army Horses.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that there is no known method of detecting occult cases of epizootic lymphangitis while the animals are alive, he will take steps, wherever an outbreak has occurred, to prevent such cases being transferred from one station to another, thereby increasing the number of centres of infection; whether, in view of the fact that no less than 64·40 per cent. of Army horses have had to be slaughtered, while 27·38 per cent, are still under treatment, and only 8·12 per cent. have recovered (and of these apparently recovered cases there is always a liability of the disease recurring, even after a considerable period), he will consider the desirability of slaughtering all clinically infected animals, as being the most likely method of stamping out the disease and reducing the risk of infecting civilian studs; and whether he can state what was the average period of treatment of the 254 slaughtered, the thirty cured, and the 108 uncured cases respectively, and at what stations outbreaks have occurred in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The replies to the first two parts of the Question are in the affirmative. It must, however, be pointed out that the figures 64·40 per cent. refer to the proportion of horses slaughtered to horses infected and not to Army horses generally. The average period of treatment of the 254 slaughtered was twelve days; of the thirty-two cured cannot be stated definitely, but none were considered cured until they had been under observation for six months; and of the 108 uncured cases cannot be stated as they

  1453
  are still under observation.The list of stations at which outbreaks have

  Station.

  Number Admitted.

  Cured

  Remaining.

  Destroyed.

  Waterford

  6

  2

  —

  4

  Kilkenny

  4

  1

  —

  3

  Aldershot

  61

  11

  —

  50

  Curragh

  6

  —

  —

  6

  Brighton

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Manchester

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Sheffield

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Newcastle-on-Tyne

  20

  4

  9

  7

  Woolwich

  231

  14

  86

  131

  Bradford

  21

  —

  4

  17

  Ipswich

  4

  —

  2

  2

  Colchester

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Bulford

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Trowbridge

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Shorncliffe

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Newbridge

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Leeds

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Dover

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Clogheen

  6

  —

  —

  6

  Deepcut

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Fermoy

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Limerick

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Chelsea

  3

  —

  1

  2

  Birmingham

  2

  —

  —

  2

  St. John's Wood

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Bandon

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Chatham

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Dorchester

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Glen Imaal

  4

  —

  —

  4

  Christchurch

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  394

  32

  108

  254

  Volunteer Camps—Orderly Tents and Improved Accommodation for Staff Sergeants.
  MR. TILLETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to securing better discipline, sergeant-majors and sergeant-instructors of Volunteers having book returns and forms of an official nature to compile whilst in camp, can be provided with better accommodation than that allotted to privates of their corps, eight persons to a tent; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing a tent for use as orderly room whilst in camp.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Foster.) The point has been considered,
  1454
  occurred, and the statistics for each station are as follows:— but it is held that the proportion of tents allowed is ample for a camp which is not of long duration. It may be pointed out that by putting nine men in a tent, which is not unusual, accommodation could be gained up to one tent per company.

  Construction of Screened Rifle Ranges.
  MR. TILLETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the scientific precautions now available in the construction of screened ranges, he will sanction the provision of such rifle ranges, 200 or 300 yards in length, near large centres of population, and without regard to the contour of the land occupied by the range.

  1455
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster). After exhaustive experiments at the School of Musketry, Hythe, it has been decided that no further protected ranges are to be constructed, either for Regular or Auxiliary Forces, as the scientific precautions now available in the construction of these ranges in the vicinity of habitations do not secure absolute safety which could only be attained by a most expensive system of tunnelling. There is also involved the question of nuisance created by the noise of continual firing, which might become the subject of

  Corps.

  Total number of rank and file serving at Home on 1st October, 1899.

  Number with five years service and upwards.

  Number with two years service and under five.

  Foot Guards

  6,178

  1,076

  1,731

  Infantry of the Line

  52,972

  14,806

  10,444

  Total

  59,150

  15,882

  12,175

  The Government and the Standard Bank of South Africa—Progress of Negotiations.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Standard Bank of South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I presume that the hon. Member refers to the claims of the bank in regard to the specie commandeered by the Government of the late South African Republic; if so, the answer is that there has been a considerable correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Standard Bank on behalf of itself and other South African banks. In the result of that correspondence, while sincerely regretting the loss sustained by the banks, I have seen no reason to alter the view taken by my predecessor, that the banks cannot claim for their commandeered property a compensation which His Majesty's Government have been obliged to refuse to other large companies who suffered losses.
  1456
  an injunction in the case of a range near a large centre of population.

  Infantry Soldiers in Great Britain.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total number of infantry soldiers in Great Britain on 1st October, 1899, and of these how many were five years service and over, and how many over two years service and under five.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The figures are as follows—

  Regulations under the Transvaal Labour Immigration Ordinance.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Regulations which have been made under the powers contained in the Transvaal Labour Immigration Ordinance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I will lay the official copy of Regulations with some other Papers within the next few days.

  Law as to Contraband Goods.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a Memorandum defining the position under international law of non-contraband goods in a ship carrying contraband goods, when the former belong neither to the owners of the ship nor to the owners of the contraband goods.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) It does not seem desirable that any official Memorandum should be issued dealing in

  1457
  the abstract with questions of law which may become the subject of judical decision.

  Belligerent Ships Coaling at British Ports.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury are His Majesty's Government aware that the Russian Volunteer Fleet ship "Dmitri Donskoi" was allowed to take on board at Port Said 500 tons of coal, upon her captain giving an undertaking upon his honour that his ship on leaving Port Said would proceed at once and by the direct route to the port of Cadiz; that on leaving Port Said, instead of proceeding to Cadiz, in accordance with her captain's undertaking, the "Dmitri Donskoi" remained in the offing between Port Said and Damietta for three days, during which her captain stopped and examined the papers of six merchant vessels about to enter the Suez Canal; and that, a few days later, he continued the same practice off Alexandria; and, in view of these facts, what steps do His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to secure that belligerent ships of war shall not be supplied at British ports with coal to be used for conducting the operations of war.
  (Answered by Mr. A.J. Balfour.) The Russian vessel in question, which was not one of the Volunteer Fleet but a man-of-war, after being supplied with 500 tons of coal at Port Said, on the declaration made by her captain that she intended to proceed direct to Cadiz en route for Cronstadt, proceeded to sea, and during the next three days stopped and examined the papers of six merchant vessels, two of them British. In the view of His Majesty's Government any ship which uses the coal supplied to her for purposes other than that for which it was obtained should not in the future be accorded coaling facilities.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Dockyard Employees and the Press.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state on whose authority and for what reason have notices been posted
    1458
    in offices and workshops connected with the dockyard at Portsmouth, warning the operatives against giving information with reference to dockyard or naval officers to the Press on pain of instant dismissal.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): Two posters to this effect were inadvertently exhibited at Portsmouth for a short time. This occurred through a misunderstanding, and they were removed as soon as the error was noticed.

    Boys in the Navy—Caning Conditions.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether boys or youths who enlist for the Navy are previously informed of the conditions under which they enter the service, and the birchings and canings authorised under the King's Naval Regulations for trivial offences.
    MR. PRETYMAN: No such special warning is given or considered necessary, as all boys are aware of their liability to this form of punishment, which is not limited to those who enter the Navy.

    Volunteer Force—Norfolk Commission's Recommendations.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission with regard to the organisation of the Volunteer Force for effective service.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): No steps have yet been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The question of the organisation of the Volunteers must be dealt with concurrently with that of the rest of the Army.

    War Store Scandals in South Africa.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Transvaal Press commented strongly on the remarks made by the Chief Justice of the Transvaal with reference to the War Office goods sold by Colonel Morgan for £300, which were resold for £1,800, of which a third, or a sum of £600, was paid to Colonel

    1459
    Morgan's brother; whether Colonel Morgan has instituted proceedings against English newspapers at the suggestion, direct or indirect, of the War Office; if so, why were not proceedings taken against the Transvaal Press, and what steps has the War Office taken to ascertain the value of these goods sold by Colonel Morgan; and whether, having regard to the position held by Colonel Morgan as director of supplies for the Army during the war, steps will be taken by the War Office for the investigation of this matter.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already informed the hon. Member that the War Office will not take any action in this matter, until the case brought by Colonel Morgan has been decided in Court, and I have nothing to add to this statement. In the meanwhile I am not in a position to reply to the further Questions put by the hon. Member.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was it not at the instigation of the War Office that these proceedings were taken by Colonel Morgan?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Not in any way.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Having regard to the allegation that these stores were misappropriated, will not an independent inquiry be held by the War Office authorities?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not propose to form any opinion until the case has been decided in Court.

    Desertions of Recruits.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total number of desertions amongst the 42,216 recruits enlisted this year.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The total number of desertions amongst the recruits who enlisted during the twelve months ending the 1st June, 1904, cannot be obtained without referring to every unit in the Army. I cannot, therefore, undertake to supply the hon. Member with the information.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can we have it later?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It will appear in the Annual Return.
    MR. PIRIE: Are not these returns made monthly?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Not the Returns of desertions.

    The Reserve.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the number of Reservists at present available for Cavalry, Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, Foot Guards, Army Service Corps, Ordnance Corps, and Medical Staff.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The strength on 1st July was—

    Cavalry

    5,831

    Royal Artillery

    8,816

    Royal Engineers

    2,942

    Foot Guards

    6,137

    Infantry

    45,310

    Army Service Corps

    3,037

    Army Ordnance Corps

    127

    Royal Army Medical Corps

    1,235

    Total

    73,435

    Indian Garrison—Re-engagements of Soldiers.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number and percentage of soldiers stationed in India, who were entitled to prolong their service, have re-engaged during the first six months of 1904; what number similarly re-engaged in India in 1903; and how many in the first six months of that year.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The information asked for cannot be given without great delay, as the Returns from which it could be compiled are at present in the hands of the contractors for binding. The number, however, of three-years men eligible to extend, and the percentage of those who have extended, on the strength of the Army in India, on

    1461
    the 1st June and 1st July respectively, can be given, and is as follows:—

    I Numbers eligible to extended

    II. Numbers extended.

    III. Percentage of those in Column I. Who have extended as in Column II.

    1st June

    5,799

    2,325

    40·09

    1st July

    6,170

    2,596

    42·07

    The Crown Agents and Company Directorships.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state on what grounds he has declined to sanction the retention by Sir Ernest Blake, as one of the Crown Agents, of a directorship in a public company which he had held for a considerable time.
    THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I may be allowed to repeat what I said in the debate on the Colonial Vote that Sir Ernest Blake accepted the directorship in accordance with precedent, and his association with the company had been absolutely honourable and worthy and had really inured to the benefit of the public service. Since I have held my present office, I have had constantly to consider the position and the duties of the Crown Agents, which in some respects are different from, but in others very similar to, those of ordinary public servants of the Crown. In this matter of holding directorships, after much consideration I was unable to draw any clear or satisfactory distinction between the case of Civil servants and that of the Crown Agents. It therefore appeared to me that the rule which prohibited British Civil servants from becoming directors of public companies should embrace the case of the Crown Agents, and that, as Sir Ernest Blake had placed himself unreservedly in my hands, I had not seen any sufficient reason for postponing the bringing into operation of the rule in question.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the same rule and dismiss himself from the directorships he holds?
    MR. LYTTELTON: Since the question has been asked, I may say that since I have been in office I have accepted no Percentage remuneration, and I have performed no services in respect to public companies with which I am connected.

    Recruitment of Chinese Coolies.
    MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in some districts in China the proclamations inviting the enlistment of labourers for the South African mines contained no reference to some terms of the contract restricting the liberty of the labourers; and whether, seeing that the distance of the port of embarkation from the place of enlistment would render it difficult for the labourers to refuse to embark when the real terms of the contract were explained, he will take steps to ensure that all labourers enlisted by these methods shall be given the option of returning to China forthwith at the expense of the importer.
    MR. LYTTELTON: My attention has been called to advertisements which were issued by the importers before the convention with China was finally settled, and I presume that it is to these that the hon. and gallant Member refers. He will perceive, however, on reference to Sections 2 and 3 and Sub-section 5 of Section 15 of the Regulations published in Cd. 2026 that effective safeguards have been provided to prevent any such hardship as is contemplated in the second part of his Question.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he referred to the statements made by Mr. Arnold-Forster that these labourers were recruited without knowing the conditions. That had not been contradicted.
    MR. LYTTELTONreplied that he was afraid he would require more verification of the statements than a typewritten letter purporting to come from Mr. Arnold-Forster, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton did not think fit to read.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONobserved that he had given the right hon. Gentleman the dates of the

    1463
    newspapers in which the advertisements appeared, and had received a promise that inquiry would be made. Was not the result of the inquiry yet known?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not yet received the information.

    Chinese Coolies for the Transvaal—Depots in China.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many depots are being built in China for the reception of indentured labourers for Transvaal mines under the agreement with the Chinese Government; and from what source are the costs being provided.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. Tientsin and Ching-wang-toa have been notified as ports of embarkation under the convention, and depots will be provided at these ports. With regard to the second part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question on 31st May.†
    MR. WHITLEY: But are not these depots under the control of the Foreign Office who are building depots at these places with the unpronounceable names?
    MR. LYTTELTON: Neither the Foreign Office nor the Colonial Office.
    MR. WHITLEY: Are they being built at all?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I believe they are being built by those who represent the Chinese Government.

    The Mission to Tibet.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the latest information as to the position of the military expedition to Tibet; whether he will state what is the approximate cost of the expedition up to the present date; and whether, having regard to the issues involved in the expedition, the Government still adhere to their decision to charge the whole cost of the hostilities upon the Indian revenue.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 434.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The latest information I have received states that Khamba-La was found unoccupied, and that General Macdonald hoped to secure the passage of the Sangpo River, forty-five miles from Lhasa, on the 24th July. As to the cost, I have nothing to add to the information I gave the hon. Member on the 31st May, that the total estimated cost of the Mission to the 31st March last was £308,500, and that the cost since then is estimated at a little over £50,000 a month.† There is no intention to modify the decision as to the incidence of the cost.

    Assam Tea Plantations—Vernacular Education for Labourers' Children.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any communication from the Government of India in regard to the suggestion transmitted by him last March to provide proper facilities for the vernacular education of the children of labourers employed on tea and other plantations in Assam; and can he state if the suggestion has been acted upon.
    MR. BRODRICK: I transmitted my hon. friend's Question to the Government of India in April last, but have not yet had any communication in reply. I will inquire when one may be expected.

    Action of the Dutch in Achin—Protection of Europeans in the Malay States.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that the Dutch in the thirty-second year of their war with Achin, killed at Likat on 20th June, 124 women and eighty-eight children; and whether, having regard to the effect produced in the Malay States under British protection, where the Europeans are to the Malays in the proportion of about one to a hundred, he will consider the advisability of making representations to the Dutch Government, with the view to the cessation of such measures.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 434.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): No such information has reached the Foreign Office, but in any case the matter is not one in which His Majesty's Government could properly interfere.

    Macedonian Gendarmerie.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say definitely whether any instructions have been sent to Hilmi Pasha from Constantinople directing that the European officers of gendarmerie in Macedonia shall not receive any complaints from the inhabitants; and, if so. when and by whose authority such instructions were issued; and whether His Majesty's Government have protested against such a breach of the understanding arrived at when the European officers were sent.
    EARL PERCY: The Grand Vizier informed Sir N. O'Conor on the 13th June that he was not aware of any instructions having been sent to Hilmi Pasha in the sense indicated. It is of course the right and duty of the gendarmerie officers to accept all petitions bearing directly upon the gendarmerie scheme; but they are clearly not competent nor have they the time to deal with petitions or complaints relating to matters which fall within the province of the Civil Assessors.
    MR. BRYCE: Is it true that the Government of Russia and Austria have lately increased the number of their officers in the gendarmerie?
    EARL PERCY: I do not think there has been any increase.
    MR. BRYCE: As this Answer was given on the 13th June, has it not been possible to make subsequent inquiries to ascertain whether or not the orders were issued?
    EARL PERCY: I think we may take it that they were not issued. At all events there has been no attempt to carry them out.

    State-Aided Agriculture in Foreign Countries.
    MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any intention of obtaining from His Majesty's Representatives abroad Reports on the organisation and work of departments of agriculture, and the assistance rendered by the State in the interests of agriculture in foreign countries, and of presenting such Reports to Parliament, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, Commercial No. 3 (1894), which continued Commercial No. 24 (1889), which supplemented Commercial No. 9 (1884).
    EARL PERCY: The matter will be considered in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, but it seems doubtful whether such Reports repay the labour involved.
    MR. A. K. LOYD: Might not the labour be very much reduced by confining the instructions to matters of interest that may have arisen since the last Report? Will the noble Lord consider that?
    EARL PERCY: Yes, I will consider it.

    Colonel Fairholme's Reports on Macedonia.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will publish the reports received from Colonel Fairholme, Chief British Officer of Gendarmerie; and when the next Blue-book on Macedonia will be presented.
    EARL PERCY: A Blue-book on Macedonia will be laid as soon as possible. The reports of Colonel Fairholme contain matter which is largely of a confidential character, and I cannot without further consideration make any definite promise with regard to their publication.

    Ilaves for Macedonia.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say whether Ilavés have recently been embodied for service in

    1467
    Macedonia; and whether such action is contrary to the promises made by the Porte to the Powers; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government have taken in the matter.
    EARL PERCY: No, Sir; we have received no such information.

    Transvaal War Contribution.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the Transvaal Estimates for the year ending 30th June, 1905, contain no provision for the first instalment of the war contribution which was due in January last; and whether he has made any protest against so long a postponement.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF TILE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative and the Answer to the second is in the negative.
    MR. WHITLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman really propose to allow another twelve months to elapse, and to make no protest?

    Reduction of National Debt.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the whole amount of the reduction of the National Debt affected through the redemption of the Land Tax and composition of Stamp Duty respectively.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of the National Debt redeemed up to the 31st March last by the operation of redemption of Land Tax was, £33,032,898; and by the composition of Stamp Duty £2,156;845, making a total of £35,189,743.

    Plain British Spirit.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the quantities of maize, foreign barley, and beet molasses used in distilleries in the United Kingdom during last financial year for the manufacture of plain British spirits; if he will consider the advisability of imposing an
    1468
    imp ort duty on those commodities with a view to encouraging the cultivation of cereals in the United Kingdom, and also with a view to lessening the production of cheap patent alcohol which is extracted from these foreign importations and condemned by the medical profession as unfit for consumption.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The official records of materials used in distilleries in the United Kingdom for the manufacture of plain British spirits do not distinguish under separate heads any of the articles mentioned in the first part of the Question. The suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question is inconsistent with the existing financial system of the country.
    MR. KILBRIDE:Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the quantities imported?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentleman can get the information as to quantities from the Board of Trade Returns.

    Sulphuric Acid in Patent Spirit.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if sulphuric acid is used in the manufacture of patent spirit in the United Kingdom; and, if so, will he state the quantities used for this purpose during the last financial year.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Sulphuric acid is used only in the inversion of molasses where that material is employed in the manufacture of patent spirit. No official account is taken or kept of the quantity used.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that whisky distilled through the medium of sulphuric acid is fit for human consumption?

    Production of the British Distilleries.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the respective total production, during the year 1901, 1902, and 1903, of the distilleries of England, Scotland, and Ireland, classifying the distilleries of each country under the headings of distilleries

    1469
    using pot stills only; distilleries using patent stills only; and distilleries using both pot and patent stills.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be happy to give the figures asked for by the hon. Member if he will put down an unstarred Question.

    Licensing Bill—Compensation for Goodwill.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether steps will be taken to introduce, in another place, an Amendment to the Licensing Bill securing to the licensee compensation for goodwill in event of quarter sessions refusing the renewal of a licence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERSDOUGLAS,): As the hon. Member is aware, the Government have made special provision as to the interest of the licence-holder in any compensation paid in respect of the non-renewal of a licence. The hon. Member appears to desire a further definition of the elements which are to be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation, but that is a matter for the consideration of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the provisions of the Bill and the Government see no necessity for any Amendment.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: But is there a provision in the Bill giving compensation, for goodwill.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: It must be an element in the question the Commissioners have to consider.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General?
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,): I have expressed no such opinion.

    Departmental Committee on the System of Levying Harbour and Dock Dues.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether,
    1470
    on the Departmental Committee which he is about to appoint to inquire into the net tonnage basis for the levying of harbour and dock dues, he is prepared to appoint a representative of the crews whose living and working spaces may be affected by the decisions of the Committee.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir.

    British Forestry.
    MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any progress has been made in carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on British Forestry; and, if so, will he state generally under which of the heads mentioned in the summary of conclusions at pages 9 and 10 of the Committee's Report.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The recommendations of the Departmental Committee on British Forestry have received the earnest consideration of my noble friend. A sum of money has been included in the Board's Estimates for the coming year, from which it is proposed to make grants to two collegiate institutions for the establishment of lectureships in forestry. Arrangements also have been made by the Office of Woods for courses of instruction to be given in the Forest of Dean for the training of young woodmen. The Board are now engaged in considering the preliminary arrangements for repeating the statistical inquiry recommended by the Committee, which will, they hope, be carried out next year after an interval of ten years. They have published a leaflet on the relation of Woods to Domestic Water Supply and have specially brought it to the notice of local authorities; and they have in hard a Return as to the afforestation of catchment areas. My hon. friend will find further details as to the action taken in regard to forestry education in an article contained in the April number of he Journal of the Board of Agriculture, a copy of which I shall be pleased to send him.

    Motor-Car Speed Regulations at Blackrock.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Blackrock Urban District Council have passed a resolution expressing its disapproval of the speed allowed to motor-cars when driving through the streets and on the high roads of the district; and whether he will make inquiries into this complaint and consult with the authorities respecting the precautions to be taken to protect the public.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The district council has been in correspondence in this matter with the Chief Commissioner of Dublin Metropolitan Police, who pointed out that the legal limit of speed, namely, 20 miles an hour, prescribed by the Motor Car Act of 1903, has not been exceeded. Section 9 of the Act empowers the Local Government Board, on the application of the local authority, to make regulations limiting the rate of speed to ten miles a hour. It rests with the local authority to determine whether it should make the necessary application in this respect to the Local Government Board.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: How many casualties are necessary to induce the Government to take some really effective steps to regulate the speed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It does not rest with the Government. It is for the local authorities to make application to the Local Government Board if they wish the special limit reduced. If cars are driven recklessly or negligently the police can take action even though the limit of speed be not exceeded.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will applications be favourably considered?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Let them make it.

    Mahon's Estate, County Galway.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
    1472
    Lieutenant of Ireland what was the price per Irish acre paid by the Congested Districts Board for Mahon's property at Ballydonlan, county Galway; and if he can state the price the tenants will have to pay per Irish acre.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Congested Districts Board has not purchased this property.

    Drainage of Owenmore River.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Owenmore River takes its rise in and flows for a considerable distance through a scheduled congested district in the county of Sligo, the Congested Districts Board will make a contribution to the council of that county towards any scheme it may deem practicable for the drainage of that river.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question will be considered by the Board at its next meeting. There are no funds, however, at its disposal for the purpose at present.

    Irish Poultry Rearing Industry— Railway Rates.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 7th July a case of poultry weighing about 100 lbs. was sent from Rathkeale Co - operative Society, Limited, to Glasgow, for which the railway company charged 13s.; and, considering that the charge amounted to almost half the price of the contents of the case, he will take steps to have a special rate made for the carriage of such articles with a view to encouraging poultry rearing in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department has no information on the subject. But if the facts are represented by the society to the Department, the matter will be investigated.

    Commitment of a Catholic Child to a Protestant Industrial School.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that

    1473
    at the Rosscarbery Petty Sessions, held on the 22nd June, an application was made by the Dean of Ross to commit a child named Callaghan to a Protestant institution under the Industrial Schools Act; whether he is aware that the child has been for seven years deserted by his father, who is a Protestant and is separated from his wife, who is a Catholic; that an uncle of the child, who is a Catholic, has for seven years maintained the child; and that the sergeant of police swore that the little boy was always well fed and well clothed by the uncle; and, if so, whether, in view of the latter's character and his willingness to keep the child, steps will be taken to discharge the child from this Protestant industrial school to which he has been committed.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an application heard at the Rosscarbery Petty Sessions, held on 22nd June, to commit a boy named Callaghan to a Protestant industrial school, and to the fact that one of the magistrates was a son of Dean Reeves, on whose behalf the application was made; if so, will he say how many magistrates were present and what was their religious denomination; is he aware that the hearing of the application was adjourned to 20th July; that at the adjourned hearing four magistrates who were not present on the first occasion were not allowed to adjudicate by the chairman, Mr. Harrell, R.M., and that these magistrates left the Court as a protest against the chairman's ruling; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to quash the decision arrived at in the absence of these magistrates.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Application to commit this child to a Protestant industrial school was made on the 22nd June. I am informed that the child had been left during the past seven years by its father, who is a Protestant, with the child's maternal uncle, who is a Catholic. The police stated that the boy had been well fed and clothed by the latter. Eight magistrates were present at the hearing of the application; six of them were Protestants and two
    1474
    Catholics. The case, which was almost concluded on this day, was adjourned to 20th July to enable police inquiries to be made. At the adjourned hearing, four justices, who were not present on the 22nd June, were in attendance, and as the magistrates who presided on the 22nd June decided that the case should not be commenced de novo, the former could not adjudicate. These four justices then left the Court. One of the magistrates who adjudicated was son of Dean Reeves, whose curate applied for the committal of the child. On the 20th July the child was committed to a Protestant industrial school. He is stated in the committal order to be a Protestant. No application for the boy's discharge has been made. The order of committal is in legal form. If the Bench have acted improperly them conduct and decision are open to review, and no duty is imposed upon the Executive of taking steps for the purpose of reviewing the decision of the magistrates.

    National Gallery of Ireland.
    MR. FLAVIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the vacancy on the Board of Governors and Guardians of the National Gallery of Ireland, caused by the death of Lord Powerscourt, has yet been filled up.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The vacancy has not yet been filled.

    Dublin Castle Telegraph Office—Appointment of Constable Woulfe.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why Constable Woulfe, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, was appointed to the telegraph office, Dublin Castle, over the heads of other members of the force who had obtained first and second-class certificates; and whether, in view of the police orders that no such appointment will be given to any person having only a third-class certificate, he will inquire why Woulfe was selected for the position.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The constable was the senior eligible man of those recommended as fit for the appointment.

    1475
    There is no police order limiting the selection to men having first or second-class certificates.

    Trinity College Estate Commission.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Trinity College Estate Commission will hold its first sitting to inquire into the position of the tenants holding direct under Trinity College, as also the lessees and the grantees; and whether, for the convenience of the interested parties, especially the tenants, sittings of the Commission will be held at suitable times and in convenient districts, so as to allow the tenants who so wish to appear before the Commission.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The notice issued by the Commissioners and published in the Dublin Press of Monday last deals with the matters referred to in this Question. The Commission will hold a public sitting at 11 a.m. on Wednesday. August 3rd, in the Chancery Court, Four Courts, Dublin, when the grantees and lessees and under-tenants of the college estates will be heard in person, or by their counsel, solicitors, or other representatives. Local sittings will subsequently be held between August 10th and August 20th, in the counties of Armagh, Donegal, Fermanagh, Kerry, and Limerick, of which further notice will be given by the Commissioners.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate that notice?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.
    MR. KILBRIDE: And see that it appears in the local Press?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I will consider that.

    Irish Department of Agriculture—Super-intendent of the Statistical Section.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the position of superintendent of the statistical section of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, now vacant for eight months, has yet been filled up; and, if not, whether, in the event of its being
    1476
    considered necessary to fill this position at all, it is intended to appoint to it an Irishman.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The appointment to the vacant office has not yet been completed, and I am unable to make any announcement in the matter at present.

    Portumna Railway.
    MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the present derelict state of the Portumna Railway is owing to the loss of a security for £32,420, through the negligence of a Department of the Government, and that this loss has been the cause of the difficulties that have befallen the railway, including a loss to the Treasury of their loan on mortgage of £12,000 and interest; and, if so, whether the Government will take the necessary steps for renewing the permanent way, and get the line reopened for traffic for the benefit of the district at an early date; or failing the above, whether he will cause a full investigation into the circumstances referred to.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Public Works Loan Commissioners have no knowledge of the loss of any security affecting this railway. But even if such a loss had occurred it would not have caused the difficulties that have arisen. The Commissioners advanced a sum of £12,000 towards the construction of the line in 1867. They took possession of it in 1878 as first mortgagees, and remained in possession until 1883. The gross receipts for the three years prior to 1878 averaged less than £2 per mile per week. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company, by whom the line was worked, lost about £1,500 a year on the transaction. It does not appear that the traffic conditions would be more favourable if the line were re-opened.
    MR. THORNTON: Was not the railway allowed to become derelict through the negligence of the Government in 1885.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Government do not accept any responsibility in this matter, although, of course, they very much regret the state of affairs.

    Lisnagade Disturbance.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 13th July, a man named Samuel Ewarts, accompanied by his wife and four children, were driving home from Scarva when, coming to Lisnagade School, a number of persons stopped the car and used abusive language to the occupants; whether, in view of the fact that Ewarts was struck on the head several times and that one of his children was struck, he can say why District Inspector Bell, who witnessed the assault, made no arrests; and, as the offenders are known to the Crown, will he order a prosecution.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Samuel Ewarts alleges that on the occasion referred to he was struck on the head and neck, and that his child was struck on the legs by a man namedHyland. None of the police who were present saw him struck by anybody, and have difficulty in believing that he could have been struck by Hyland without their knowledge. None of the adult persons who were with Ewarts corroborate his story, and no injury has been inflicted on either him or his child. It is not a case for police action, but Ewarts can himself prosecute if so advised.

    Irish Trade with Great Britain.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the repeal of the Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 72, by The Statute Law Revision Act, 1873, he will explain how the Treasury Warrant, declaring the trade between Great Britain and Ireland to be a coasting trade, issued under the authority of the Act of 1823, is still in force; and under what authority does the Treasury Continue to treat Irish trade on the basis of a coasting trade only.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury Warrant declaring the trade between Great Britain and Ireland to be
    1478
    a coasting trade was issued in pursuance of the Act 4 George IV. Cap. 72, in November, 1823, when the Act was still much regret the state of affairs. The present authority for treating the trade between Great Britain and Ireland as a coasting trade is contained in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, 39 & 40 Vict., Cap. 36, Section 140.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that there is a considerable discrepancy owing to this system of keeping the figures?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    Commercial Gambling.
    CAPTAIN DONE LAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that certain Liverpool banks have been financing gambling transactions with the object of facilitating leading operators to create fictitious values in Liverpool, to the detriment of legitimate importers and other commercial interests of Liverpool; and whether he will make inquiries into this subject with a view of devising some remedy in this country, such as has already been adopted by the American banks with the object of preventing similar gambling operations in the United States.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Board of Trade have no information substantiating the first branch of the Question, and I have received information, which I believe to be trustworthy, to the effect that the hon. Member who put down the Question is mistaken as to the facts. As regards the second part of the Question, I have before stated that, at all events, an important branch of this subject is being investigated by the Commission on Food Supplies.

    Military Protection against Invasion.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Committee of Imperial Defence has been able yet to arrive at a definite calculation of the numbers of the land forces necessary for the protection of the Great Britain

    1479
    and Ireland against the possibility of invasion, and of the numbers it is necessay to have available at home for the strengthening of the land forces in India, Canada, Australasia, South Africa, or elsewhere in the Empire in a time of stress; and if there is any objection to stating what these numbers are before the House is asked to sanction the proposals of the Secretary of State for War for the reduction of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It seems to me that the problem put by my hon. friend is not really capable of definite numerical solution. The number of troops required to defend our shores must evidently depend, and depends very largely, upon the character of those troops.

    Imperial Service Medal.
    MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Imperial Service medal is recommended on behalf of Civil servants in the lower grades who, having given long and faithful service, still retain their appointments; or whether it is reserved for those who have completed their service.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By the statutes of the Order, it is on retirement that this honour is given.

    RUSSIAN SEIZURES OF BRITISH SHIPS.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said yesterday that he would make a statement to-day with regard to the vessels that have been interfered with by the Russian ships.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have very little to add to what I think is now common property. The House will remember that the "Malacca," a P. and O. steamship, was on 13th July seized by one of the Volunteer Fleet which had recently issued from the Black Sea. We took the strongest possible exception to that course, on the ground that no ship of war could issue from the Black Sea, and that in our judgment the members of the Volunteer Fleet, if they issued from
    1480
    the Black Sea, and then took belligerent action, either had no right to issue or no right to take that action. The Russian Government have met us in this matter, I will not say upon the general principle, but as regards the particular incident. The "Malacca" could not be stopped before she left Port Said; but she went to Algiers, and she has now been released. The Russian Government, at the same time, gave us assurances that if the Volunteer Fleet made further captures before intimation could reach them, pending the discussion of general principles, action should not be taken, and that those captures should be regarded as not having taken place. In accordance with that pledge the "Ardova" and "Formosa" were released yesterday. We have received assurances that the Volunteer ships are to be withdrawn from the Red Sea; and I have little doubt that there will be no further desire on the part of the Russian Government to employ them as cruisers. So far, therefore, as these ships go, the controversy has passed out of the acute stage. I will not say that the Governments of His Majesty and of Russia have come to an agreement upon the general principle; but I think we need not anticipate that any practical violation of the view which we very strongly hold is likely to take place. There are, I am sorry to say, other questions not connected with this incident at all which must cause some discussion between the Governments, which, like all discussions between Governments, may be legitimate cause of anxiety. We hold that it is not proper that, on the authority of a captain of a cruiser, goods alleged to be contraband of war should be taken from a merchant ship without trial. The proper course, according to international practice, is that any ship reasonably suspected of carrying contraband of war should be taken by the belligerent into one of its own ports, and that trial should there take place before a Prize Court, by which the case would be determined. Evidently if it is left to a captain of a cruiser to decide on his own initiative and authority as to whether the particular articles carried by the ship do or do not belong to the category of contraband of war, what is not merely the practice of nations, but what is a necessary foundation of

    1481
    equitable relations between belligerents and neutrals, would be cut down to the root.
    An even more serious case has arisen, if, as our information leads us to fear a ship called the "Knight Commander" was sunk by cruisers of the Vladivostok squadron on the ground that she carried contraband of war, her crew having been, in the meanwhile removed. In our view that is entirely contrary to the accepted practice of civilised nations in the case of war; and we have earnestly pressed our view on the Russian Government. We are under the strong impression that when the case is brought, as it has been brought by us, before the Russian Government they will give such orders as will prevent the recurrence of unfortunate incidents of this character. I feel confident that that will be the case. I do not know that there is anything else I need say upon the international aspect of the question. But perhaps the House will allow me to say, upon a matter in which we are directly concerned, that I cannot help thinking there is some misapprehension—I will not say in this House, but outside this House—as to the duties incumbent on neutrals. I have so far merely stated what we believe to be the duties and obligations of belligerents. Those duties we mean to the best of our abilities to see carried into effect. The belligerent of to-day may be the neutral of to-morrow; and the neutral of to-day may be the belligerent of to-morrow; and there are duties incumbent upon neutrals which must be borne in mind by shipowners of this country. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of a captain of a neutral ship to stop, when summoned to stop by a cruiser of a belligerent; and for the captain to allow at once, and without difficulty, his papers to be examined. That is an obligation on neutrals which we have systemically, consistently, and sternly enforced when we have been in the position of a belligerent, and it would not become us to indulge in any attempt to minimise that obligation on neutrals.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has stated, with regard to the captures of the "Formosa" and "Ardova," that the Russian Government had agreed
    1482
    to consider those captures as not having been made. Does that leave open the matter of compensation to be adjusted hereafter?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes. Undoubtedly damage has been done, and of course the claims of the owners of those ships for compensation remain untouched.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: In the event of any question arising between the two countries likely to lead to hostilities, will the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter to the Hague Tribunal?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is a hypothetical Question which the hon. Gentleman will hardly expect me to answer. He will not suspect His Majesty's Government of any desire to plunge recklessly into hostilities. I should be travelling beyond my function to say what cases are or are not of a character to be submitted to the Hague Tribunal until such cases actually arise.

    Irish Estimates.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can arrange that an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Estimate for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have every hope of being able to make an arrangement which will enable the Queen's College Vote to be discussed. I rather think negotiations have been going on which point to that favourable result.
    MR. LONSDALE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the understanding with the Chief Unionist Whip that a full Parliamentary day shall be given for the discussion of the Chief Secretary's salary, and whether he is aware that Irish Unionist Members desire to discuss Constable Anderson's case, and the charges for extra police, subjects which cannot be adequately debated if less than a full sitting is given to them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have every confidence that time will be given to discuss the Anderson case, which I know interests hon. Gentlemen very deeply.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has it not been the practice for many years to take into account the wishes of the Opposition in selecting Votes for discussion in Committee of Supply, and may I ask why, in this case, the wishes of the Opposition have been over-ridden, and the desires and convenience of supporters of the Government alone considered.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. Member has quite accurately stated the practice. Of course, the object of putting down Supply is that an opportunity should he given of criticising the executive action of the Government, and the natural critics of the Government are chiefly drawn from the other side. But we are occasionally fortunate enough to have upon our own side hon. Gentlemen who desire to call attention to special parts of our policy, and they, of course, deserve consideration as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask when we may expect the revised Estimate for the Irish Development Grant. It is now nearly the end of the session. Is it again the stone wall of the Treasury?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I hope it will be circulated to-morrow or the next day.

    The Indian Budget.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the military expedition to Tibet and other questions of importance to India awaiting discussion, he will arrange for the debate on the Indian Budget to be taken before the concluding days of this session.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: May I at the same time ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to take the Indian Budget; and if he can arrange to appoint for the debate a date in the first week of August.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not possible to fix a day for the discussion of the Indian Budget. I can hold out little or no hope
    1484
    that it will be taken in the first week of August.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that it shall not be taken on the last day of the session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give even that promise.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to a mysterious Treasury Bill which must be passed this session. I think the House would like to know the nature of the Bill, and if it is likely to give rise to discussion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that on Tuesday he proposed to submit a Resolution on which to found a Bill to enable the Government to make provision for raising money for capital expenditure on works which had been passed in recent sessions, and to meet their obligations under the Cunard Agreement, which was sanctioned last session. In moving the Resolution he would explain the exact method by which the money was to be raised. Hitherto it had been done by means of terminable annuities which were taken up on behalf of the Savings Bank, but he was sorry to say that the money available to be invested by the Savings Bank was not sufficient to meet the need. He would therefore have to ask the House to make provision for borrowing in another form.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESinquired if one Resolution would suffice both for the £10,000,000 required for capital expenditure on works and for the Cunard Agreement.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that this was not new loan expenditure, as it had already been approved by Parliament. The circumstances of the time having prevented his raising the money in the way it had hitherto been done, he had to ask the House for power to raise it in a different form, but not, so far as the Loan Acts were concerned, for authority to borrow more than the

  1485
  House had already sanctioned. If two separate Committees were required he should propose to proceed with the one immediately after the conclusion of the other.

  REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Third Report, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill have precedence over the Business of Supply this day.—(Mr. J. J. Balfour.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That Three additional days be allotted to the Business of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question "That the Bill be now read time."
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to move as an Amend-
  1486
  ment that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. The circumstances certainly justify the course we are now adopting. We have a very good precedent in this course in 1894, when Sir J. Lubbock moved the rejection of the Finance Bill of that year and the Unionist Party voted solid in the attempt to destroy a scheme which subsequent experience has proved to be fraught with great benefit to the community. If circumstances then were strongly in favour of that course, I hold that they are ten times stronger now. For instance, in the present case force has been applied to the passing of the Bill. Therefore I say the circumstances are much graver now than they were in 1894, especially in view of the contrast between the situation in which we find ourselves now with regard to national finance and the situation which obtained at the beginning of the decade. But my primary objection to the Bill is that it lays an undue strain on the resources of the taxpayers. It fails in what I consider is the primary duty of statesmanship at this moment—the duty of retrenchment and circumspection in our finance.
  In the ten years of uninterrupted Unionist domination the finance of the country has reached breaking point. Every lover of his country must view the situation with alarm. We are aware that for a while retrenchment was not a popular idea; it had become a by-word fit only to be used by those who held antiquated notions of our Imperial destinies. Now, however, there has arisen a change for the better. Retrenchment, economy, and circumspection in finance are again viewed with favour as cardinal elements of national and Imperial statesmanship. But it would be as well for one moment to see how our finances stand now as compared to those of 1894–5. In the latter year the total expenditure chargeable against revenue was £93,918,000, a sum which the greatest statesman of that generation declared to almost represent finality in our expenditure. This year it is £142,380,000. The expenditure has been increased by £50,000,000, equal to 24s. per head of the entire population, or an increase upon each family of five persons of no less than £6. Some of the taxation provided for in this Bill was put on while the war was

  1487
  in progress. The war is over, but the taxes still remain. The increase of taxation, too, has gone on all round. The expenditure on the Army ten years ago was £17,900,000, this year it is £29,450,000, an increase of £11,550,000. The net cost of the Navy ten years ago was £17,545,000. It has now reached the stupendous total of £36,889,000, or an increase of £19,344,000 in ten years. The military services of the Crown cost, ten years ago, £35,445,000,; now they have reached the appalling figure out of revenue alone to be provided this year of £66,289,000, or an increase of £30,844,000. It is well that the country should be reminded of these figures. We often hear high-sounding phrases with regard to our Imperial destinies, and we are apt to have great financial issues clouded by what are called Imperial methods. Let us be Imperial on both sides of the account.
  I have said that the figures I have quoted are sufficiently astounding. But they make no allowance for Supplementary Estimates. The whole truth is not revealed by these figures. There is a system going on, insidious, silent, constant, automatic, of increasing the cost of the armed services of the Crown, and it does not appear in the Estimates. The system can only be found out by examining the various columns of figures affecting the National Debt. There is, for example, the automatic increase under the Naval Works Act, so that instead of the Navy costing £37,000,000 a year, it will in a few years time by the system of automatic increase amount to no less a sum than £54,000,000 a year. The time has clearly come for the House to record its protest in favour of retrenchment. I find also that in respect of the garrison in South Africa and its equipment for huts and other accessories, an expenditure of £5,500,000 is being incurred for a new area which has been acquired amid much waving of flags. It is not a new area for British expansion; it is only an area for British expenditure. How is it all to end? Is this peaceful little island to be turned into, as is apparently the opinion of some Members opposite, an arsenal or an armed camp? If this is part of the Imperial scheme, how does it look in figures? In order to defend the population of these shores and our Colonies, how much does the Empire
  1488
  contribute. Roughly, the outlay is £43,000,000 a year for naval defence; and the Colonies, including India, contributed, according to the Naval Estimates for this year, £431,000. The contribution from the Colonies is equal to 1 per cent. I say, in view of these figures, that you are standing upon an apex from which you are bound to totter and fall. In these circumstances, can any one doubt that there is need for economy, watchfulness, prudence—prudence in our walk and conversation among the nations of the world—an avoidance of bluster, and the maintenance of a quiet demeanour? It is only by practising these humble virtues that the country will be able to tread the road of Imperial safety.
  I say that the true need of the day is I not for armament, but for a better educational equipment of the citizen. We spend £14,606,000 on education and £66,289,000 on the military forces. When I contrast these figures I cannot help thinking of the saying of Carlyle—
  "Alas! so will it be till communities and individuals discover, not without surprise, that fashioning the souls of the generation by knowledge can rank on a level with blowing their bodies to pieces with gunpowder."
  What is the proposal of this Bill? Instead of finding a reduction of expenditure, demanded of a prudent Government, I discover in the financial arrangements of the year, set and determined devices to avoid a deficit. I do not desire to deal in detail with these matters, but I would like to call attention to the way in which the unclaimed dividends have been seized by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop a hole in his finance. The right hon. Gentleman has taken money that should have been a credit to capital and turned it into a credit to revenue. He has unquestionably allocated too small a fixed amount for the Debt charge of the year. He has fixed it at £27,000,000. That is not enough. Then there is the question of the Transvaal and the ware contribution. The right hon. Member for Croydon said last year—
  "We confidently hope to obtain from the Transvaal this year—and it will be obtained immediately—a sum of £4,000,000 out of the guaranteed loan, and in the course of the three following years a further sum of £30,000,000 by way of contribution towards the expenses of the country."

  1489
  Where is the £10,000,000? It was underwritten, but there is money from neither the Transvaal nor the underwriters. The Transvaal has its financial Budget, and in that Budget for the year ending June, 1905, no provision is made for paying to this country even the debt of £10,000,000 which was due in January, 1904. My contention is that in these circumstances it is utterly improper finance to treat that contribution as if it were paid. But it is a way the Government have of doing things whenever the Transvaal comes in. You are to treat the opinion of a country which is not self-governing as if it were self-governing, and you are to treat a debt which is not paid as if it were paid, and finance accordingly.
  The National Debt itself is an illustration of the very argument which I have been using as to the need for a large allowance being annually made for the automatic reduction of the Debt. The war added £159,000,000 to the National Debt, and not a penny of that has yet been covered. According to the last published figures the Debt stands at £794,000,000, and it is a serious consideration that it is necessary to go back thirty years to find a parallel to such a scale of debt. Not since 1870 have we had a Debt of more than £793,000,000. Prior to the war the Debt stood at £638,000,000; it now stands at £794,000,000, and we have lost thirty years of sound finance. What was it that gave us our endurance—and this is the Imperial side of the question—in the wearisome conflict with that little Power in South Africa? It was not our preparedness for the conflict, or our wisdom under arms, but the strength of our finance which had been buttressed by the wisdom of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer for a long period of years. There were two sources to which we owed the strengthening of our hands in that conflict. The first was the splendid line of Chancellors of the Exchequer. beginning with Sir Stafford Northcote, who established the new Sinking Fund, and who loyally adhered to it year after year, thereby reducing the indebtedness of the country and enabling it to undertake the sudden spasm of a necessary increase. The second was my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, who had the resource and skill to tap a
  1490
  new and splendid source of revenue. These were the two strengtheners of Empire, who, without using or appropriating to themselves high-sounding names, silently worked; the first lightening the overwhelming burdens of the country, and the other broadening and deepening the foundations of the great fabric of our national credit. These are the men who ought to be honoured.
  Sir, my complaint against this Budget is in both directions: first, that it is not adequately loyal to the principles of the reduction of the National Debt in the sense which I have described and, secondly, and more important, that it totally fails to tap any fresh source of revenue. Many such sources of revenue have been referred to. Three have been mentioned in these discussions. The first is a graduated income-tax. What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer done with regard to that? He has appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the questions of evasion and over-payment, but the question of graduation is excluded from the sphere of its operations. I never heard of such a proposal. It is touching the merest fringe of the subject. Everything connected with a graduated income-tax would becognate with the questions of evasion and over-payment, and yet that question is expressly excluded. "It is impossible," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Very well. That was the word which Napoleon called a beast of a word. It was the word used with regard to the death duties. The whole scheme was impossible it would never work. Estimable men in this House predicted that less revenue would be derived from the death duties in consequence of the Bill than before. Consequently, I am not alarmed when a Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with a question by whisking it out of the way and saying "Impossible." It has also been urged in these discussions that there is a constant leakage from the finances of the country through subventions to local authorities. How can it be stopped? You cannot suddenly withdraw these subventions, but you can provide local authorities with a power of tapping, in lieu of Imperial institutions, a new source of revenue within the ambit of their own jurisdiction. The third point which has been mentioned in these discussions is the question of

  1491
  high licence duties. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say to me, "I will not have these things, because I do not believe in them." I put this point to him. We are familiar with the ideas of urgency, Imperial safety, and commercial stability, which have been strongly pressed upon us from important quarters. If the right hon. Gentleman will not tap new sources of revenue in which he does not believe, why in the name of common honesty does he not tap new sources of revenue in which he does believe? I can understand plain men in the ranks of his own Party, or part of that Party, saying, "We are feeling these burdens; we believe in the danger to the Empire; we think that that danger is most urgent; we believe that £15,000,000 could be got by a 10 per cent. duty upon imported manufactured articles, and we agree that we ought to surround and protect the pioneer if he is attacked." Holding those views, they would not, I think, consider that this is an honest Budget. It appears to me not to be a Budget in accordance with profession or with the faith that you have in financial affairs. Why this avoidance of resort? Why the minimum of courage in this Budget? It is because the ship is sailing as a free-trade merchantman in a very narrow strait, but it will emerge soon into the open waters, and hoist the black flag of protection, and provoke the hostility of every nation on earth. In this respect the Budget is unique. It has been the fine tradition of this country that in financial affairs when your opinions or faith change your policy must be altered. The Budget is unique not because it represents the failure of the Government in the matter of retrenchment, or to draw upon new sources of revenue, nor even in the fact that it strains to breaking point the resources of the people, but because it is not in accordance with the faith of those who introduce it. My last word upon the subject, compelled by a sense of duty, is this: I believe there is no national danger greater than that of a Government charged with the revenue and expenditure of the Empire, which fails in the first and highest duty of statesmanship, viz., to be true to its own financial faith. I beg to move.
  MR. WHITLEY, in seconding the Motion, said that all who took an interest in the financial affairs of the country were entitled in the present condition of
  1492
  affairs carefully to examine the Bill to which the House were asked to give a Third Reading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not complain if his attitude was closely scrutinised. It was at any rate to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman that he had had the courage to avow his principles; he had sailed under no false flag, and knowing what his principles were the House were bound to ask what manner of Budget he had produced as his first attempt. The hon. and learned Member for Hawick Burghs had called attention to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had met his deficit by drawing upon funds which properly belonged to capital account. To meet a deficit of £10 000,000 the right hon. Gentleman had only found £4,500,000 from revenue sources, and he had covered the balance by abstracting money which properly belonged to the capital side of the account. They could not look upon that as satisfactory finance. The country should be taught that it would have to find this money, and to meet a deficit by taking money which ought to go to the reduction of debt was not straightforward. He could not congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the soundness of his balance-sheet.
  They were forced to look at the nature of the taxes proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was raising rather less than half his revenue by new taxes, and upon this question he thought he was justified in taking for comparison two years, the current year and the preceding year. Taking the two years which had elapsed since the war, what did they find? That when taxes were put on they were imposed upon direct and indirect taxation in equal proportions; but when they had to be taken off, the proportion taken off was four to one in favour of the rich. Last year it was the income tax-payer who was first relieved, and the amount taken off direct taxation was four times the amount taken off the shoulders of the indirect taxpayer. That was one of the reasons why they had so stoutly fought the proposals of this Bill. They should leave money when they could in the pockets of those who most needed it, where it would fructify in the trade of the country and lead to increased employment in factories and workshops and greater comfort in the homes of the

  1493
  people. There was one new tax upon which the Chancellor prided himself to no small extent in the early stages of his Budget — he alluded to the tax upon stripped tobacco. That was not now so I great a matter of pride, because there never was a tax which had been so hopelessly riddled by argument and left without a leg to stand upon as that unfortunate tax. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, by withdrawing one-half of the tax, the unsoundness of his proposal, and he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not had the courage to "go the whole hog" and remove the other half as well after he had found out his mistake. He had no personal interest in the tobacco trade, and his constituency was not interested, but he thought this tax illustrated the fallacy which existed in the protectionist mind. He was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had made this mistake, because it was an error which was common in countries with high tariffs and drawbacks. In the tin-plate trade there was more money paid in drawbacks than for tin-plate goods, and that, would happen in any country that adopted the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. By this tax on tobacco they were enabling certain persons to make profits at the public expense, and they introduced all the attendant evils to such a system.
  The next point he wished to refer to was how this Budget had affected what he might call our heritage in South Africa. They had had many promises and prophecies. It was scarcely more than twelve months ago since the distinguished relative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the House a glowing account of how much money they were going to receive from that land of promise in South Africa. He confessed that he had read with no little indignation a recent speech made by Lord Milner in which he spoke of the crocodile tears which some persons had shed over the finances of the Transvaal. In introducing the Estimates for the current year in the Transvaal Legislative Council, Lord Milner pointed the finger of scorn at the Budget of this country, and asked, "What right have you in the mother country, when you have an assured deficit yourselves of £5,500,000, to shed
  1494
  crocodile tears over our finances when we have no deficit at all?" But how was it that there was no deficit in the Transvaal? Because of the laxness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, who had permitted Lord Milner to place burden after burden on this country which ought properly to be paid by the taxpayers of the Transvaal. He had endeavoured to make out a little account upon this subject. In the first place there was this £30,000,000, the first instalment of which was due last January. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had just stated that not only had he not received that instalment, but no provision had been made for the next twelve months, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had made no protest whatever to Lord Milner. He did not know how long he proposed to remain quiescent in this matter. Then there was £1,250,000 on account of railways which remained unpaid, and, as far as he could ascertain by Questions, no attempt had been made to get that claim settled. There was also spent on capital account £3,500,000 on barracks in South Africa. That was spent out of money borrowed for a term of thirty years under the Military Works Act. How were they going to stand with relation to the Transvaal when it got self-government, in respect to the millions we had sunk there? We were piling up debt while they were I using the property. It was a curious thing to spend out of capital account, on a thirty years term, money of this kind, in a country to which we had the avowed intention of speedily giving self-government. Under capital account, we had I placed on the shoulders of the people of this country £35,600,000, which ought, according not only to prophecies but promises, to fall on the Colony. In addition to that we were paying £3,100,000 for the military force in that country.
  The only plea put forward in defence of this kind of finance was that it was no good pressing for these payments, because they could not be paid. Was that really the case? He did not believe that the Chancellor could even attempt to prove it was the case. The so-called 10 per cent. profit tax on the Transvaal mines was one of the promises of the right hon. Gentleman

  1495
  the Member for West Birmingham. It was really working out at something less than 3½ per cent. on the profit—something less than half the amount the gold mines had gained from the reduction in the cost of dynamite through the change of Government after the war. The owners of the gold mines were actually saving money on the taxation paid under Mr. Kruger's Government, and at the same time they were pleading that they could not pay their debts. If this 10 per cent. had been fully paid last year the amount obtained would have been £350,000, but the Treasury only received £117,000. He found the gold mines had been permitted—and he supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have given his approval—to value their lives at only fourteen and a half years. He noticed that when the chairmen of the companies were speaking to the shareholders they talked about thirty years as the life of the gold mines; but when it came to paying taxes to the Treasury, fourteen and a half years had been permitted on the part of the Government to be the calculated term. Presumably the mining companies in their own accounts made proper provision for depreciation, yet they were not taxed on the profits appearing in the balance-sheets, but on considerably less than half those sums, so that the plea of the poverty of the Transvaal was one which was no answer. It was, after all, a comparative question. Were they less able than the taxpayers of this country to meet the payment of these large sums of money? Those who knew the condition of trade in this country during the last few years would agree that a burden of £35,000,000 of capital and £3,000,000 of annual expenditure was one which the people of this country could not bear without great distress. He sincerely hoped that we should not see another Budget like the present in this generation. The last ten years had seen some strange finance in financial circles, but he did not think there had been anything more strange or more unsound than the present Budget. It was a kind of warning flag to the people of this country as to what they might expect if they gave credence to what were called the new theories of
  finance.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SPEARsaid although he should certainly vote against the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, he readily admitted that the greatly increased expenditure of this country must give rise to anxiety in the minds of men, or, at any rate, of business men. Therefore he thought it very desirable that the discussion should arise. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs emphasised the necessity for economy, but he himself could not help remembering that if the many projects which had been brought forward on the Opposition side, including payment of Members, had been carried into effect, they would have entailed upon the taxpayers a very considerable additional burden. Believing that the maintenance of the Army and Navy in a state of efficiency would contribute to peace, he strongly felt that money spent wisely and well on those forces was a necessary and desirable national insurance. Much of the increased expenditure had arisen in providing better pay, clothing, and food for the soldiers, and with that expenditure he was in hearty accord. As an opponent of conscription, he had always said that unless this country treated soldiers better in the future than in the past, it could not expect to maintain the Army in a state of efficiency. He believed the increased cost of the Navy had Leen money wisely spent, because it was absolutely necessary that the Navy should be sufficiently strong to protect our food supply in time of war. In connection with the unpleasant incidents that had just occurred between this country and Russia, and hoping as he did that not a stone would be left unturned in aiming at a just and peaceable settlement, he recognised in what an unfortunate position this country would be if it had not an Army and Navy sufficiently strong to protect the dignity and just rights of the country. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Border Burghs that there had been considerable dislocation of

  1497
  expenditure consequent on the South African War, and that that had been one of the chief causes of the increase in expenditure; but he ventured to say that the war was rendered inevitable by the Majuba settlement, which though made in the best interests, proved disastrous. It could not be urged that all the responsibility for that expenditure rested upon the Ministerial side of the House. Turning to the Navy, he said it was perfectly monstrous that the Colonies, which depended upon the throughly efficient Navy of this country, should not contribute towards it more than £431,000 per annum. He could not help thinking that if the matter were represented to the Colonies they would readily see the reasonableness of making a larger contribution.
  He admitted all the arguments that had been brought forward in favour of economy, and he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Exeter that there should be a Committee to review the expenditure a capital one. He hoped the Government would take good care that the expenditure on large salaries did not increase. He thought it was wrong that the Law Officers of the Crown, notwithstanding their great ability, should be paid partly by salary and partly by fees. It was not a businesslike way of proceeding.
  MR. SPEAKER: This would be more material on the Votes for the salaries of these hon. Gentlemen when it comes before the House.
  MR. SPEARsaid he had no desire to go further into that matter. Connected as he was with many public bodies, he must say that he never heard more unbusiness like discussions in his life. First, there was the discussion on the coal tax, and even though the Board of Trade Returns showed that that industry had derived more benefit from the war than any other, the proposals of the Government received the strongest opposition from all the Members on the other side of the House. Again, hon. Members opposite were opposed to the imposition of additional taxes on spirits and cigarettes, and a considerable amount of time was wasted over the income-tax. He did not want to increase the income-tax
  1498
  or any other tax, but he held that when national responsibilities had to be met, all classes of the people should bear their fair share. Hon. Members opposite were very anxious to save the rich coal-owners from their legitimate contributions to the revenue of the country, to save cigarette smokers and spirit drinkers, and at the same time proposed to increase taxation on the industrial industry by moving an Amendment to the Bill under discussion discontinuing the Agricultural Rating Act. Hon. Members opposite had not shown a discriminating sense of justice in appropriating the taxation of the country on different classes of the people. It had been said that the contributions to the national burdens should be made according to the paying powers of different classes of the people. With that he agreed; but when hon. Members opposite proposed to increase the burdens on the agricultural community, he confessed he was very much surprised. Recent Returns showed that the income of agriculturists had, during the last thirty years, declined £70,000,000, and that the agriculturists of the country had not received a penny of interest on their capital during the last twenty years. [OPPOSITION ironical laughter.] Oh, yes. He had had experience as an agriculturist, both as a landlord and tenant, and he did not hesitate to say that the average British agriculturists had not received a penny of interest on their capital. They had, perhaps, been able to make bread and cheese for themselves from their labour, but no more. He wished to protest against the efforts of hon. Members opposite to impose fresh taxation on the agricultural community through the Budget. He insisted that the repeal of the Agricultural Rating Act would be to place additional taxation on the agricultural community, because so considerable had been the natural increase of the rates that the farmers were paying to-day as much in rates as they were paying before the Agricultural Rating Act was passed.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDsaid he would like to express his obligation, and that of a great many Members of the House and of people outside the House, to his hon. and learned friend the Member for

  1499
  the Hawick Burghs for his powerful indictment of the unwarrantable extravagance which unfortunately at present prevailed in high places. The debates on the Budget had been very interesting, but in some respects very humiliating. It had been a humiliating spectacle that so many Members of the House had had, day after day, to defend various businesses from attack, not by foreign competitors or foreign Governments, but by our own Government. Certain sections of the tobacco trade, the coal trade, and, of industries employing sugar as a raw material, had been thus attacked. In the case of the coal tax, he held that the export duty on coal had just the same effect as if every foreign country had discriminated against us, and against us alone, to the extent of that duty. And the measure of their indignation at such treatment ought to be the measure of their condemnation of the continuance of the coal tax. Then, there were the new tobacco duties. In the course of the debate on that subject it was stated again and again that the extra duty of 3d. a pound on strips would in effect very likely involve some firms in absolute ruin; and he presumed that half the amount, which had been substituted for the original 3d., would be likely to half ruin some firms. They prided themselves in that House on being fair. At least they tried to be, although they might not always succeed. But he could not bring himself to consider a tax a fair one which could be shown to be likely to have as its effect the half ruining of some individuals connected with a particular trade. At any rate, the new tobacco tax had demonstrated very effectually the utter futility of any Chancellor of the Exchequer attempting to hold the balance with absolute fairness between different branches of a great trade. That was the main reason why he objected to the complicated and delicate machinery of some of our industries being upset and interfered with by Chancellors of the Exchequer. He was sorry the arguments against the continuance of the war taxes on tea and sugar had been of no avail. The taxes on coal and on sugar had had the effect in their respective trades of diminishing employment. The increased
  1500
  duties on sugar and tea had also had the undoubted effect of increasing the cost of living. So that they found themselves face to face with these unhappy circumstances, that many of the workers were earning less at the same time that they were made to spend more. It was not easy to exaggerate the importance of the proposal to have all duties removed from alcohol used for manufacturing purposes, especially from the point of view of the employment of our people. By the continuance of those taxes it was quite clear that we were playing into the hands of foreigners, and not only admitting foreign goods into our market on equal terms with our own, but by placing embargoes on our own goods we were virtually giving a preference in our own markets to foreign goods. He maintained that it was high time to put a stop to such folly. This was a case of preference turned topsy-turvy, and he was strongly opposed to it.
  MR. FENWICKsaid that the hon. Member for Tavistock stated, very truly, that they complained very bitterly of the coal tax; but the hon. Gentleman approved of it as a fair tax, because he said it was levied on those who made a large amount of profit during the war. It was pretty evident, however, that the hon. Gentleman had not followed the course of the debates on that tax, and that he had thoroughly failed to appreciate the argument which those of them who represented constituencies affected by the tax had attempted to bring to the notice of the House. There was no doubt that coal-owners who produced for the home market during a time of inflated prices made a very considerable profit. But the Government, in proposing the tax, did not touch the man who produced for the home market. It was the producer for the foreign market who was affected. He was the man who made the least profit in the coal trade, because he had to regulate his price in competition with foreign producers. No coal was imported into this country; and the producer for the home market had a monopoly, and was able to charge what prices he pleased, and he got them too. But men who produced for the foreign

  1501
  market—and 80 per cent. of the coal produced in Northumberland was sent abroad—made the least profit of all engaged in the coal trade during the three years 1900, 1901, and 1902. Yet it was on that branch of the industry that the tax was imposed. He could not help feeling amused at the observations of the hon. Member for Tavistock. The hon. Member said that the best way to maintain peace was to be prepared for war. He himself had often heard that statement; but it seemed to him that it rested on a fallacy. He believed, with the late Lord Randolph Churchill, that the possession of a very sharp sword produced an irresistible temptation to test its efficiency in a practical way. When a nation or a trades union felt that it was in a state of warlike efficiency, there was a tendency to become arrogant and arbitrary in dealing with its opponents, and to desire to provoke hostilities.
  He only desired to eater his protest against this Budget because he believed that it dealt very unfairly with the working classes. The working classes of this country were not indisposed to bear their fair share of the burden required to maintain this vast Empire; but he did not believe that the Government had distributed that burden anything like fairly or equally over the citizens of the whole Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, in a speech delivered to his constituents in November last, said that the total amount of taxation, direct and indirect, imposed for the purposes of the war was £38,250,000. When the first remission was possible last year, how was taxation remitted? Four-fifths of the remission was on direct taxation and one-fifth on indirect taxation. Further, in the present Budget indirect taxation was increased to the tune of £2,550,000; and those who were given the least remission had now to bear the greater burden of the war. His hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill said that it, was two years ago since the war was over; but on the authority of the Government it was four years; yet the working classes were still called upon to pay this enormous taxation on the food on which they supported themselves and their families. He often wondered whether hon. and right hon.
  1502
  Gentlemen ever endeavoured to ascertain what this huge expenditure meant to the working classes. It had been computed on very high authority that the national expenditure, including the interest on the National Debt, and the expenditure on the Army, Navy, and Civil Service, was equal to a charge on the wage-earners of the country of no less than two hours per day; or twelve hours per week of six working days. That was a very serious matter; and if it were not that the Government managed to conceal it by the method in which it was levied, they would not be able to continue to draw this huge burden from the working classes. This burden was very unequally distributed; and it was because of that that he wished to enter his protest against the exorbitant figure at which the national expenditure stood. He did not believe that they would ever be able to economise so long as the present Government remained in office. The Government appealed in 1895, and not unsuccessfully, to the working classes of this country for support for a programme which they themselves declared to be one of wholesale social reform. They got a second verdict in 1900 under false pretences; they exploited the patriotism of the country for the maintenance of their own Party; and he, therefore, as representing a large industrial community, protested against the extravagance which had been shown by the Government in all their public affairs. They had subsidised special classes and special interests; and the working classes, to whom they were indebted for their majority on two occasions, were left absolutely unprovided for. Only this year they were promised in the King's Speech a measure to extend the Workmen's Compensation Act to other industries; but not one single step had been taken in that direction. Even the Bill was not introduced. Therefore, on behalf of those whom the Government had plundered, whose interests they had raided, he entered his most emphatic protest against this Budget.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he was glad to hear the vigorous protest against extravagance which had just been made by the hon. Member. Whatever the tendency of the Government might be, he did not think that extravagance

  1503
  would have reached its present pitch if speeches such as that to which the House had just listened had been delivered earlier and more frequently. He hoped the new leaf which had now been turned over would remain open for a long time; and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would continue to resist the absurd extravagance which prevailed. He believed that if the working classes felt the burden of taxation to be excessive there was only one remedy, namely, the reduction of expenditure. He did not see how any readjustment of taxation as between direct and indirect taxation could be made with any general advantage to the financial position in such a way as to give relief to indirect taxation. It was admitted, on all sides, that the income-tax payer, who was the first to be called upon to contribute to war expenditure, should have that tax reduced during peace time to a level which would allow of the increase that would be necessary in time of war. He believed no authority would hold that an income-tax of 1s. in the £ was a proper level for a peace tax. Therefore, ingenuity must be exercised, and an effort must be made to get the income-tax down to a level which would allow for a reserve in time of war. With reference to expenditure, he had observed with regret that the Government had not taken any steps pursuant on the Report of the Select Committee appointed to examine what method could be devised to increase the control over expenditure by this House. No one would contend that the present system was satisfactory. The Committee went into the matter very thoroughly. Their Report might be on sound lines or it might not. Personally, he believed they were the most practical lines that could be devised; but even if the Government did not accept the recommendations of the Committee, that was no reason or excuse for neglecting the whole subject. The Committee dealt with an admitted grievance; and if the Government could not accept what the Committee proposed they should put forward counter-proposals. At any rate, the question should not be left in its present unsatisfactory and dangerous position. The Government should not be satisfied with the present level of our financial achievements. Too
  1504
  much attention was directed to getting Estimates through the House, to preparing taxation that would just pass through the House; without really examining whether the financial position so established was sound in the interest of the nation.
  He submitted that the present financial condition was totally unsatisfactory. He would not refer again to the laxity of control over expenditure: that was said to be a detail of administration; he regarded it as a matter of the gravest importance to the nation. One result of the state of affairs was that the credit of the country had fallen to a very undesirable level. Not only had Consols fallen in greater ratio than foreign securities, but the whole character of the market had changed. On all sides in the City he heard that the amount of our floating debt was excessive and that our gold reserve, if not short, was in such a condition as to deserve the careful attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only had Consols fallen, but the position in the market had greatly altered. Consols, which were once a high-class investment, had now come to be a kind of financial barometer; they were the favourite medium of speculators and foreign brokers. That was a most unsatisfactory position. The most sensitive market in the whole list was the Consol market, and if a great crisis arose in what condition should we find our finances? Would our financial strength survive a severe strain such as would occur in case of war? He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to this policy of financial expedients. These expedients were not worthy of the best traditions of this nation. They heard from the right hon. Gentleman that the old borrowing resource of the Treasury, namely, the resource of the Post Office Savings Bank, had run dry, and a new appeal would have to be made to credit. To have to make an appeal to credit in a time of profound peace was altogether wrong. We ought to pay our way, and the net balance of indebtedness at the end of the year in times of peace ought to be less than it was at the beginning by £5,000,000. This was a low figure for the reduction of our indebtedness in a normal year. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in both

  1505
  hands; there were only two systems of finance, the lax system and the severe, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the severe course, and put the finances of the country on a sound basis.
  MR. LOUGHsaid at no time had the Budget been brought in at so late a period of the session. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had a very trying time throughout the long debates that had ensued upon it, and he would like to congratulate him on the good temper he had displayed in the conduct of those debates. Those discussions had been spread over three and a half months, and if the House looked back to the first of them, they would recollect the right hon. Gentleman received many congratulations upon his plans. On that occasion he was the only faithful friend the right hon. Gentleman had. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that his proposals contained principles which the House would be loth to sanction, and that if the House should sanction them, a storm of indignation would arise in the country. Those evil forebodings had been fulfilled. There had been trouble in the House, and the proposals had gone through, but the right hon. Gentleman had had to throw half his cargo overboard. But though the proposals had passed in the House, in the country there was a very strong feeling against the Budget. The reason of the long discussions was that the financial state of the country was most uncertain, and the people were unwilling to tolerate this large expenditure; they had expected some relief, instead of which they had the same Budget as that of last year with additions of a very worrying character made to some of the taxes. He did not agree that the right hon. Gentleman's Budget was a free-trade Budget; he held it was very far from being a free-trade Budget. One would have expected some expression of regret at such a Budget having to be brought in, for it provided for a high and inflated expenditure. There was not a word of regret that the expenditure should be so high, but rather a prophecy that it would be higher next year, and not only that, but the Budget contained a heavy tax on the food of the people, which the free-fooders
  1506
  opposite ought to have opposed. Then there was the tobacco tax, which was generally admitted to be an objectionable tax, but was justified by the statement that all the tobacco taxes were protectionist. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have provided for this high expenditure without any tax on food. It was that which so far removed this Budget from the ideal of a free-trade Budget.
  But the really important matter to be dealt with was the broad issue raised by the hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs. The country was face to face with a serious financial crisis. Every day brought forth some fresh illustration of its severity. The Bill of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that day given notice arose directly out of the financial situation and the bad provision the Treasury had been able to make for the requirements of the nation. Money for Works Bills could no longer be borrowed upon the same easy terms as formerly was the case, and no doubt the House would be forced to assent to whatever new principles the Government might suggest at so late a period of the session. The general financial situation had not been at all too seriously regarded. With the Supplementary Estimate to be introduced on Tuesday next, and the capital loan expenditure, the total for the year would be not £143,000,000, but £154,000,000 or £155,000,000, while if to that were added the contributions from Imperial funds to local taxation, the expenditure for the year would be £162,000,000 or £163,000,000. That was a most serious situation demanding strict and immediate attention. In 1859 Disraeli declared that no country could go on raising £70,000,000 a year in time of peace with impunity—that England could not, and if England could not, no country could. The nation at large was not able now to bear heavier burdens than then, because new demands of an extraordinary character had arisen. Thirty-five years ago the total rates amounted to £35,000,000, in 1902 the amount was £105,000,000. That, added to the figures he had already given, brought the total up to £270,000,000 roughly, and the effect of such a huge expenditure was being felt in every part of our financial system. No relief was to

  1507
  be expected in the direction of the restriction of municipal borrowing. New borrowing forces were being set up under the Licensing Bill, and new duties involving expenditure and borrowing were constantly being thrown upon municipal bodies. If the people were brought face to face with the alternatives of not providing themselves with the necessaries for healthful existence, such as water supply and so forth, or of cutting down Imperial expenditure, he firmly believed that an overwhelming mandate would be given in favour of the latter alternative.
  The Liberal Party were not yet sufficiently strongly pledged to the policy of cutting down expenditure. They would probably get all right before serious responsibilities were cast upon them, but he thought they might have made a more emphatic protest against the growth of expenditure than they had done. It was true that on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the Leader of the Opposition moved an Amendment in favour of restricting the growth of expenditure, but that was not enough. Not only must the growth be stopped, but the expenditure must be reduced. After every other great war there had been a reduction of expenditure. Since the South African War not only had the expenditure not been reduced, but it had been actually increased. He thought the recommendations of the recent Select Committee ought to have received more attention at the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The situation was so serious that Parliament ought to catch at any straw that promised a reduction of expenditure. In the Report of the Committee there appeared an interesting table with regard to the growth of expenditure. Deducting expenditure under the Consolidated Fund and for debt, which could not be reduced, it showed that in the years 1884, 1894, 1904, the expenditure increased from £50,500,000 to £63,000,000 and £118,000,000 respectively. Of the £13,000,000 increase in the first decennial period £8,500,000 was for education, while of the £55,000,000 increase in the second period no less than £47,000,000 was for Army and Navy expenditure. That contrast revealed very graphically the course which the nation had been taking. A further striking contrast was
  1508
  afforded by the fact that in 1884 only £40,000 of borrowed money was spent, whereas in 1904 the amount was no less than £9,500,000. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well promise that some attempt would be made to restrict these borrowings for the service of the year. This system of borrowing was spreading from the Army and Navy into the Civil Service. It was no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer lecturing municipalities upon this subject. In India they paid for these things out of the tax of the year, and all Indian military works were paid for out of the taxation of the year. He wished the Government to set up a pure and sound system of national expenditure, and then they could call upon local bodies to imitate them.
  His right hon. friend had said a great deal about a reduction of military expenditure, and he had also hinted that the naval expenditure must be restricted, but he did not refer to the Civil Service Estimates, and he hinted that there might be a great increase in the Education Vote. He was not in favour of increasing expenditure upon education, because he was not satisfied that they were getting value for their money, and there was a good deal of extravagance in this system of equivalent grants. The Civil Service expenditure required close examination, but the greatest scandal was in the expenditure upon the Army and Navy. The whole treatment of Army and military matters by the Government was a reproach not only to the Government but also to the House of Commons. About a week before the session commenced the Secretary for War delivered a speech in Liverpool in which he said that the man would be crazy who expected to see a reduction in military expenditure. Only a week ago they were told that the result of the new military scheme would be to considerably reduce the Army Estimates. They had heard something about an additional charge of £3,500,000 for barrack accommodation, and therefore he could not see the least prospect of any economy in military expenditure. This country could not continue to find the large sums which were being demanded by the Government. The naval expenditure should be largely decreased. When

  1509
  the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was Chancellor of the Exchequer he declined to purchase the Chilian battleships, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to purchase them, and thus added £2,000,000 to the Navy Estimates. That was an absolute reversal of the policy of his immediate predecessor. The situation was getting very serious, for the people could not continue bearing these heavy burdens. Everyone could see the check which had been given to commercial enterprises, and surely it would be better to decrease expenditure. The constituencies were beginning to realise the situation. The successful candidate at the Oswestry election, after the declaration of the poll, said that the people had risen up against the Government because they objected entirely to the way in which the interests of the people had been sacrificed to the selfish interests of the few.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to repeat the serious warnings he had given from time to time as to the present financial situation of the country. Similar warnings had recently been made from so many quarters of the House that he had begun to think that hon. Members were taking financial reform seriously. The hon. Member opposite had drawn a dismal picture of the financial state of the country, but his statement upon that point was entirely unfounded. He believed this country never was in such a condition of prosperity, and never so well able to bear heavy taxation with so little effort, as it was at the present time. He disagreed with the contention of the hon. Member for Exeter, who suggested that our financial credit was low. This country at the present moment could borrow at a lower rate than any other country in the world. Our credit was not only as good but relatively better than ever it was. [Cries of "No, no!"] He contended that it was. He had gone carefully into the matter, and he considered that British credit was better than that of any other country. He agreed that extravagances had been indulged in and mistakes committed, but he hoped that with the new feeling towards economy and the better
  1510
  management of accounts, some effect would be produced upon those who sat upon the Treasury Bench.
  There was one important matter he desired to allude to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Savings Bank would no longer enable him to obtain money for his Naval and Military Works Bill although he wished to draw another £10,000,000 for that purpose. The Savings Bank had been the great reserve of successive Governments during the last twenty or thirty years, and it was looked upon as a sort of family arrangement under which borrowings could be carried on with the greatest facility. The condition of the Savings Bank really suggested something far more serious as to the credit of this country than the price of Consols or anything else. For three years the Savings Bank had been shown to be insolvent, and it had not sufficient money to meet its liabilities. That did not concern the depositors because they had the Consolidated Fund behind them. At the present time the amount of money available in the Savings Bank was not such as to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry on the financing of the Government. Although he regretted the diminution in the balances of the Savings Bank from the point of view of a financial economist, perhaps he ought to rejoice that one of the temptations to extravagance had been cut off and in the future borrowing would be more difficult. His advice was that it would be much better to postpone, if not the whole, at any rate a considerable portion of this £10,000,000 loan until better times.
  MR. LOUGH: But the money has been spent.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not think the money had been spent, but that was another matter. This was an extra £10,000,000 and it had not been provided yet, and therefore it had not and could not have been spent. The financial condition of the country was still sound. That was true. There had been much that was unsound in the management of our finance. Our accounts had been systematically falsified. Nobody could tell front the most intimate study, unless

  1511
  he had personal knowledge, what even the finance accounts, admirable as they were, meant. The whole of our system wanted overhauling. We should recur to that financial Magna Charta — the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866—which regulated the whole of our financial proceedings, but which, from 1866 to the present day, had been departed from by successive Governments who were all equally guilty, and this House with them, he was bound to say. There were now left scarcely any of the securities which that Act provided. He hoped we were approaching the term of financial extravagance and irregularities. But it would require, in order to inaugurate a better system, a combination of circumstances and statesmen, which, perhaps, even now we might not have. We should have a determined Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would rather resign than put on an unnecessary tax. We should want a determined Prime Minister, who would stand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the struggle for economy. We should want, above all, a House of Commons, determined to do its duty, and not afraid to vote, as he intended to vote now, against this £10,000,000 of irregular debt when it was brought before the House. A determined House of Commons would be enough. He hoped they would inaugurate a system of reform which would put our financial system where it should be, and where the credit, the capacities, and the resources of the country demanded that it should be.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he recognised that by supporting the proposal for the rejection of the Finance Bill he was taking a serious responsibility. His hon. and learned friend who moved the rejection of the Bill quoted a precedent in the case of the Budget brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. An interesting point in connection with that precedent was that in the discussion on the Bill one of the foremost opponents was the hon. Member for South Islington who was now not only in favour of the death duties, but actually desired that they should be increased. That at all events would not be a precedent for
  1512
  the action of the Opposition in this case, for he did not think they would ever be converted to the opinion that this was a good Budget, and that it ought to be allowed to pass. He felt also that they had been justified in the action they had taken in regard to this Bill at every stage. They were justified on two grounds. In the first place the only way in which they could reduce the expenditure of the country was, in his opinion, by reducing Supply. The present Government did not enjoy the confidence of the country, and therefore he was not prepared to vote supplies to them to keep them in office.
  The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said he thought the financial position of the country was good and its credit high. Whatever might be the credit of this country as compared with that of other nations it was unfortunately clear that we were in a worse position than we were a few years ago. If we had to go to war at the present moment we should not be in so good a position as we were some years ago. Our credit, tested by the price if Consols, had fallen from 110 to 88; we had a Debt of £760,000,000 to provide for; and we had a Sinking Fund totally inadequate for the purpose. We had also £30,000,000 of addditional ordinary expenditure as compared with what we had at that time, so that while our position might not relatively to that of other countries be very bad, as a matter of fact, as compared with the period before the war, it was very bad indeed. It was perfectly true that other Governments before the present one had been extravagant. For some years past there had not been a really economical Government in office, but what distinguished this Government from others was that they had increased expenditure at a higher rate than any of their predecessors. He looked to the influence of public opinion as the only chance we had of reducing it. The taxes put on during the last few years were mostly talked about as war taxation. But a, very small proportion of the £33,000,000 put on at the time of the war had been remitted. The amount of the remission was something like £8,000,000, so that £25,000,000 was still being imposed for the purposes of

  1513
  peace expenditure. The present Government came into office with a surplus of of £4,500,000. They had imposed £21,000,000 additional taxation. Owing to the financial policy of the last few years the country was now groaning under additional taxation for peace purposes of £10,000,000 direct and £14,500,000 indirect taxation, an amount which represented £6 per family par annum in this country. Surely it was enough to injure the trade of the country and to prejudice the position of the consumer when that enormous amount of taxation had to be maintained from year to year. It was far easier to increase expenditure than to reduce it—to add millions to the expenditure than to economise. He was bound to say that there did not really seem to be any express desire on the part of the present Government to go to the root of the matter, and to frame their Estimates of expenditure in such a way as to lead to some genuine economy.
  The two great items of expenditure were the Army and the Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out no hope that there would be any reduction in Navy expenditure. He himself, for one, was not afraid to say that he believed there was an opening for economy in the Navy Estimates as well as in those of the Army. The standard of our Navy was a matter of proportion, and the purchase of the Chilian war vessels and the serious diminution which had taken place in Russian naval strength during the war with Japan affected that proportion in a manner which ought to be favourable to economy. As to the Army, we had the hope held out in April of a reduction in our military expenditure. What had happened? The Secretary for War in his speech the other day pointed out twenty-five evils and plague spots in our Army system. The chief plague spot of the Army system was the great expenditure connected with it. The upshot of his speech was that there would be a comparatively small amount of diminution of expenditure unless the particular scheme which the right hon. Gentle man urged, and which aprarently the Government had not assented to, for the abolition of the Militia was carried through. But even if that were set aside, the whole economy would amount to £500,000 a year on this
  1514
  enormously swollen Army expenditure. His hon. and learned friend who moved the Amendment pointed to the very significant fact that the comparatively small saving would be more than swallowed up by the Army Votes. The Secretary for War had himself admitted that for armaments, clothing, stores, etc., in the following two years there would be required £1,800,000 and £2,300,000 respectively, making in all an addition to the Army Estimates of no less than £4,000,000 a year. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a great disappointment to the House and the country, because the general opinion, both inside and outside the House, was that we were spending far more on the Army than we ought to do, and that the expenditure should be reduced and greater efficiency at the same time obtained. The result, of course, of all this expenditure was the present Budget, with its various items of taxation—the extra 2d. on tea and the extra 1d. on income-tax. The proportion between direct and indirect taxation before and since the war had been discussed; but his complaint was that when it came to a question of remission of taxation direct taxation was much more largely reduced than indirect. One of the chief objections felt to this particular Bill was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not raising revenue by revenue taxes, but by taxes producing little revenue and introducing something in the nature of protection to particular industries.
  He wished to say a word as to the financial position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be placed with regard to the tobacco duty. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to get £550,000 from these extra duties, £50,000 of which would come from cigars and cigarettes. It was quite obvious in regard to the price of these articles that the onsumer would have to pay a larger sum both for home and foreign cigarettes. When it came to the question of stripped tobacco, there again the position was a somewhat unfortunate one. The right hon. Gentleman expected to get £500,000 from the extra tax on strips, but he had already given up the half of his proposed tax for the benefit of the importers. It was quite evident

  1515
  from the tobacco Returns showing the proportion between stripped and unstripped tobacco that the right hon. Gentleman would be fortunate if he received half the sum that he had originally estimated to secure front the duty. The last Returns showed that the proportion between unstripped and stripped tobacco was as thirty to seventy, but with the imposition of the duty the proportion would be entirely reversed: and it did not seem to him that the right hon. Gentleman could get £300,000 out of the duty this year, of which he had already given back £200,000. Not only was the tobacco tax tending to disturb the trade of the country but it was an object-lesson in regard to some familiar proposals having a flavour of protection about them. Here was a tax put on primarily as a revenue tax, but the result was that the revenue would disappear. That was always the way with these protective duties; the more successful they were the less revenue they yielded. It was not, he confessed, easy to understand the fiscal and financial position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the character of his proposals were in the nature of a free-trade Budget. He did not think it was altogether so; but, supposing it was a free-trade Budget, he contended that it was a duty of the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the position of the country, to produce a Budget which would press less hardly on the consumer while conferring the greatest benefit on the trade of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said—
  "That it was not beyond the possibilities of civilisation to raise fresh revenues without injury to any class, without undue friction or undue disturbance to trade or of commerce."
  The right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham went further and said—
  "It was still possible that a scientific taxation might be developed which would secure all the money the country required without anybody being the worse or the wiser for it."
  That might be so; he did not dispute that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have some scheme in his mind by which the industries of the country would be fairly increased; but it was the duty of the right
  1516
  hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister not to postpone the revelation of their new fiscal scheme indefinitely, but to produce it at once, if they believed that they were going to do good to the trading interest and to the taxpayer, and have it discussed across the floor of the House. If they would not adopt that obvious course, then the Government should go to the country, and ask for the mandate that they said they needed before the new fiscal scheme was submitted. A free-trade Budget ought to be introduced by a free-trade Minister.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that he could hardly think that anyone who looked at the condition of the House would imagine that hon. Members were engaged in a discussion whose object was to defeat the chief Government Bill of the session. He could not say that the speeches delivered by the Opposition that afternoon were cheerful, and still less did he admit that they had any connection, exclusively, with the subject of the Motion. Everyone knew that the financial condition of the country must cause serious consideration not only to the critics of the Government but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The situation which his right hon. friend had to deal with was a serious one, and no one would grudge his right hon. friend the tribute which had been paid to him by the hon. Member for West Islington in congratulating him on the way in which he had fulfilled his task. There was every reason for a lack of cheerfulness being shown by those who attacked the Government. This despairing Motion came at the end of one of the most unsuccessful Parliamentary sessions that the Opposition had ever enjoyed. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oswestry."] During the last recess no prophecy was more consistently put forward in the speeches delivered by Opposition speakers in November, December, and January than that the Government would be forced to flounder in a financial morass in consequence of the late war; that they would have to extricate themselves by plunging into the new fiscal policy which had been so much deprecated; that there would be great fear that the Government would "rush" a decision by the country.

  1517
  Now, however, the Government was blamed for not submitting their fiscal policy at once to the decision of the constituencies. He thought the concluding words of the hon. Member for Poplar rather reflected that view. In the opinion of the Opposition the time had now come when the constituencies might be trusted to give a proper verdict on the fiscal question. He submitted that his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout the discussions on the Bill had preserved entirely the position which the Government originally took up. It might be urged, as had been urged by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, that another solution for the financial necessities of the country might be found, but the position of the Government was that until they obtained a verdict from the country in that direction they would proceed on the old recognised lines.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood the Government to say that they had this great remedy for the trade and finance of the country. If they had, they ought to go to the country at once.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the hon. Gentleman would hardly have said that a few months ago. The Government were not bound to consult the constituencies at the psychological moment chosen by the Opposition. A short time ago, if the Government had proposed to go to the country they would have been accused of rushing the constituencies. He wished to ask the House to consider whether the extremely lugubrious tones of hon. Members opposite as to the financial position and credit of the country were justified by the facts? It had been pointed out by his hon. friend that although the credit of the country had stood higher, it had never been as low as the highest point reached by the credit of other countries. The hon. Member for Poplar said that was a serious matter that Consols should have fallen from 110 to 88. It was a serious matter; but Consols were never at 110 since the interest was decreased.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid that 2¾ per cent. Consols were at 114 and 2½ per cent. Consols at 110.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that there was, of course, no doubt that Consols had seriously fallen. As to the increase of the National Debt, with a national income and wealth at least double those of 1870, the Debt to-day only stood at the same figure as in 1870. That surely was not a very damaging fact. What affected the price of Consols was the enormous increase of local expenditure and borrowings. Between 1880 and 1902 the increase in local borrowings had been £206,000,000 or 130 per cent. Undoubtedly that had a very serious effect in depreciating certain classes of gilt-edged securities. He should, however, be the last person in the House to deny that the great increase in Army and Navy expenditure was a serious factor. He even put that factor higher than many hon. Members opposite, because they believed that this expenditure could be reduced at a stroke of a magician's wand. He had no such belief. He thought more seriously of the matter, because he saw more difficulties than hon. Gentlemen. The increase in the Navy expenditure had been enormous, but it had been approved by three successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. The Government had adopted the standard and policy of maintaining a Navy slightly superior to any two foreign navies. That was the standard, and that was the policy; and if there were to be a reduction, that standard would have to be given up. If he would point the moral, he would say, "Look at what had recently occurred in the Far East." One thing the war in the Far East had made clear—that a very slight preponderance of force on the part of the Japanese had enabled them practically to clear the sea. The slight preponderance of force which had been thought necessary for the British Navy had, therefore, received additional justification.
  As to the Army, he had said more frequently than any one else that the demands which had been made on behalf of the Army would lead to a reaction when the war in South Africa was over. But while that was going on, there was no Minister who had to resist so many demands for increased expenditure as the Minister for War. They had since the outbreak of the war increased the charge for the Army by £10,000,000, and they had raised 60,000 additional troops. One

  1519
  of the chief critics of expenditure during the earlier years of the Government was now responsible for the War Office, and the speeches which that Minister now made showed that in his hope an efficient result might be attained with a considerable decrease in expenditure. Hon. Members would excuse him discussing that point until the full figures were before the House, but he thought it would be found that, speaking generally, a decrease of expenditure in the War Department must be carried out in connection with a decreased force. Whether that decrease was to be effected by reducing the number of troops for service abroad—a plan which he hoped would not be carried out—or by reducing the troops for the defence of these shores he would not discuss; but though many critics had urged reduced Army expenditure, no one had yet supplied a scheme by which that reduction could be effected.
  There was one point on which the Government had a right to claim consideration from the House of Commons in regard to this naval and military expenditure. He had himself felt very strongly the absolute necessity of co-ordinating the work of the War Office and the Admiralty. Their Estimates up to very recent years had been to a large extent separate. The old Defence Committee established in 1895 did great service in co-ordinating some of the work of those two Departments and in examining closely the Estimates which were to be submitted; but that was not sufficient; and immediately at the close of the war, in concert with the First Lord of the Admiralty, he brought before the new Prime Minister the absolute necessity of forming some body under his own presidency which would succeed in bringing those Estimates side by side and in considering them in relation to the schemes which had to be framed for the protection of our possessions in all parts of the world. This was not the time for him to enter further into the matter, but he did not look to the labours of the Defence Committee beyond anything else to secure the end they all had in view of obtaining national defence at a cost considerably below the present. Far better than any loud professions by hon. Members who
  1520
  had not themselves been responsible for recommending expenditure or for administering these services would be a consensus on the part of the House to make the most of an organisation which, containing all the best expert advisers under the immediate supervision of responsible members of the Government, could be held accountable for the schemes submitted and the Estimates submitted in support of them. He was by no means certain that when right hon. Gentlemen opposite replaced them they would not hold that the institution of the Defence Committee had been not merely from the Imperial but from the economical standpoint one of the best titles the present Government had to the confidence of the country.
  He was afraid that he must call attention to the fact that the greatest Treasury economists had often proved to be the least trustworthy curators of national finance. No man in the recollection of hon. Members had tried harder to reduce the Naval and Military Estimates than the late Mr. Gladstone, and he thought no man in the last century found himself ultimately responsible for heavier charges in consequence. Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Crimean War, and the appalling losses and the appalling want of preparedness which characterised that war, a great deal of which had grown up when he was a member of the Cabinet, caused the prodigious expenditure which took place in that war. When they remembered that in the late war they had at times to maintain nearly 250,000 men in the field and that in the Crimea there were never more than 52,000, and when they considered the relative cost of the two campaigns, he thought they would realise how far things had advanced since those days. Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister from 1880 to 1885 and Chancellor of the Exchequer for part of the time, and everybody knew that that Government came in with a determination to reduce expenditure, especially on the Navy and the Army. There were not many in the House now who were Members in 1880, but those who were would recollect that from that moment, beginning with the withdrawal of our troops from South Africa at a very critical moment, every step which the

  1521
  Government could take was taken to reduce expenditure. The result was that we gradually floundered into spending an enormous sum. £9,000,000 was spent in a campaign in Egypt in order to lose that province in the Sudan which the present Government in 1898 spent £1,000,000 to regain; and there was a vote of credit for £11,000,000 in consequence of complications with Russia in 1885 which it was the strong belief of most who were then present in the House would never have been required if our forces had been kept in a more efficient condition. He trusted that, whatever were the results of this debate and of the next general election, Members opposite would have regard to the history of the past before they hastily established an economy which might cost very much more in the future.
  There was one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Hawick which he regretted to hear. He called attention to the insufficient share which the Colonies took in the upkeep of the Navy. He regretted these calculations, which were not only irritating to the Colonies, but—[Cries of "Oh," and "Hear, hear!"] Well, we had the control of the Fleet, and a good many Colonies might not need the Fleet. Those who did—he would not say all of them—had subscribed something to the Fleet, and other Colonies subscribed very largely for their own defence. A speech like that of the hon. and learned Member remained on record, and he was afraid that, if there were any idea of his holding high administrative office in the next Government, that might cause, and would cause, some apprehension on the part of the Colonies. Hon. Members opposite could not have it both ways. The Government were as anxious as they were that all parts of the Empire should share in the burden; it must be recollected, however, that those who paid the piper as a rule called the tune, and they could not expect that the Colonies, whose foreign affairs were administered for them by that House, would contribute in equal shares with those who had the control of the administration.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Why did you ask them to?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that at the Colonial Conference a great deal passed between the responsible Ministers of the Colonies and the right hon. Gentlemen who was then Colonial Secretary, and there never had been any indisposition, so far as he knew, on the part of the Colonies to bear a fair share of the expenditure. He did not think that this was the moment, after the exertions made in the war, for us to call the Colonies to account on a matter on which he believed they had every desire fairly to meet us.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that he never used the term "sufficient" or "insufficient." He merely referred to the way in which the relative facts stood, and the moral he drew from them was that there should be greater circumspection in our finance. He could not subscribe to the doctrine that the mention of facts absolutely germane to the subject under debate could be injurious either to this country or to the Colonies.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that he accepted the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but he thought that some expressions he had used and the way in which they were taken might have been received in the Sense he had indicated. Was there not something hollow about the whole of these attempts to reduce Supply to the Government by rejecting the Finance Bill? The debates had shown the most extraordinary tendency on the part of the Opposition to attack not only the taxes to which they objected, but those on which they would themselves rely if they came into power. They had voted, or some of them had voted, against the coal tax, the tax on cigarettes, and the tax on spirits; and his hon. friend the Member for Tavistock was justified in observing that their operations with regard to this taxation did not show a discriminating sense of justice. There was no part of the conduct of the Opposition on which he congratulated them so little as on their taking a division, not against the items of which they disapproved, but against the whole of the finance of the year. His right hon. friend had made the best of the resources at his disposal. It undoubtedly was the proper work of that House to review not only our naval and military but our

  1523
  Civil Service expenditure. But in voting against the whole finance of the year, in refusing supplies to the Government, he ventured to think that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they should be placed at an early period on the Government Benches, would find they had given a vote which would be most embarrassing to them in their future policy, and that they had practically given pledges which they would find it very difficult to carry out.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had twitted the Opposition upon the want of success which had attended their attacks upon the present Administration, but he thought that when it was remembered that the Government had an almost automatic majority of 100. the Members of which were drawn more closely together as each successive by-election showed how completely they had lost the confidence of the country, and what an overwhelming defeat awaited them when they ventured to take the plunge, the fact required, very little further explanation. That was the obvious reason for their action, though whether that action was altogether consonant with consistency and self-respect he would leave the House to judge. The statement of the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division that for many years past no agriculturist had received a penny interest upon his capital was an amazing assertion. Farming, if properly conducted, under fair conditions of security and rent, and with sufficient capital, was never on a more satisfactory basis, and agriculture, although it did not like being further taxed for education and other purposes, was, nevertheless, in as good a position to bear its fair share of taxation as any other industry.
  MR. SPEARpointed out that according to reliable statistics the income of the agricultural community to-day was £7,000,000 a year less than it was thirty years ago. How in the face of that it could be contended that the industry was prosperous he was at a loss to understand.
  MR. TOMKINSONasked how it was that farmers in many parts of the country were willing to pay rents of £2 per acre?
  1524
  They knew their business, and they would not take farms at such a rental unless it paid them to do so. He knew that in various parts of the country agriculture was decidedly prosperous, and had never been on a better basis. The hon. Member had placed the whole burden of responsibility for the increased taxation upon the war. But the war was over, and their complaint was that the war taxation continued. The present rate of expenditure was most disquieting. From the figures given by the hon. Member for West Islington it appeared that eliminating the item of Service of Debt in the decennial period 1883–93 the increase of expenditure was 5 per cent., the real expenditure being in 1883, £60,000,000; in 1893, £63,000,000; in 1903 it was £113,000,000, or an increase of nearly 90 per cent. But if Post Office expenditure—which was not out-of-pocket expenditure—was also eliminated, the expenditure would be seen to have increased from £50,000,000 in 1883 to £98,000,000 in 1903, or an increase in out-of-pocket expenditure of practically 100 per cent. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had taken a roseate view of the condition of the credit of the country. No doubt the country had been, and was, extraordinarily prosperous, but the fact could not be gainsaid that whereas in 1897 2½ per cent. Consols stood at 110, they were now at 88½.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member was doubtless aware that at the time he mentioned the price was largely fictitious in consequence of large purchases by the Government.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid he did not admit it to be fictitious because the Government were investing in the sinking fund, for that was, and ought to be, the normal state of things. This constant exploitation of the credit of the country was a very serious thing, as he had ventured to point out in the debates on the recent Irish Land Purchase Bill. They could not always be making raids upon the credit of the country without seriously injuring our national credit. When they so loaded the market that Government securities dropped from 110 to 88 it was not pleasant to contemplate at what rate they would

  1525
  have to issue fresh stock in case they had to find £100,000,000 for another war. He believed that this extra tax on tea was wholly unjustifiable, and it was injurious to British interests from first to last. If there was one article to which a remission of taxation was due it was tea. A tax was increased 50 per cent, for the purpose of the war, and therefore tea was entitled to a remission as soon as any other tax instead of being further raised to 100 per cent. Everyone would sympathise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the conditions under which he took office, but in his opinion this Budget would be remembered as one of the most unfortunate in its conception and unsuccessful in its results of the long line of balance sheets that had been laid before the House of Commons.
  MR. COGHILL(Stoke-upon-Trent, expressed entire disagreement with the observation of the hon. Member for Islington as to the expenditure on the Navy being too great. Probably there were items of that expenditure which had not been made as wisely as they might have been, but as to the sum total, he did not think a penny too much had been spent. With reference to the Army Votes, he was still waiting to see the Army Corps proposed by the present Secretary of State for India. The House voted for them last year, and he was still waiting to see them. The Civil Service Estimates showed wholesale extravagance all round. He was surprised to hear what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick said about the income-tax. He remembered that in the autumn the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them there would be a reduction of 3d. in the amount of that tax; but now an addition of 1d. had been made. He was not surprised, however, because when the Government made a free gift of £12,000,000 sterling to one portion of the United Kingdom they must impose a considerable strain upon the resources of the country. He protested against the wasteful way in which £5,000,000 of Irish Land Stock was raised by its issue in the month of March at 86. The Government should have waited until a month or two later before making the issue, for the stock had stood at a premium of £5 or £6 pounds ever since March. The Government issued
  1526
  £5,000,000 of Irish Land Stock at 86 in March and lost £250,000 on the transaction. Why did they not wait until May, when a higher price could have been obtained? If money were wasted in that way there seemed to be no limit to the expenditure of the Government. He thought the Secretary of State for India was a little hard in his criticism of the Opposition that afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have forgotten entirely that, on the income-tax, if they had not received the support of the Opposition, the Government would have been turned out of office. If more Irish Land Stock were issued he hoped that the issue would be made at a price nearer to the present market rate. Until he saw a more resolute and determined attempt on the part of the Government to check extravagance and promote economy he certainly would not vote for the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that under the present arrangement the House had not opportunities of making a sufficiently close examination into the national expenditure in every department. In order that the House might obtain proper control over the national expenditure, it was obviously desirable that the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure of 1902 should be given effect to without delay. That Committee reported that it was desirable to appoint a Committee of the House to make each year a close examination into one class of Estimates, so that every four years each class of Estimates would receive an infinitely more careful examination than they had hitherto received, and a Report thereon was to be submitted to the House. The same Committee also recommended that one day should be devoted to the consideration of the accounts of the Public Accounts Committee. It was obviously most desirable that that recommendation should be given effect to without further delay. He sympathised with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman came into office in the course of a year for which he was not responsible —a year in which the expenditure was under-estimated by £3,000,000, and the revenue over-estimated by £2,750,000. That left him with a very considerable

  1527
  deficit. The House had never had a satisfactory explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to why he had appropriated the £3,000,000 repaid by the Transvaal, and taken £1,000,000 of unclaimed dividends These sums were not revenue in any sense of the word, and they should not have been so regarded.
  In considering the finances of the country they had to take into account local as well as Imperial expenditure. Imperial and local expenditure amounted to the enormous total of £274,000,000. Was it any wonder that our trade and commerce were languishing under this ever-increasing burden of taxation and expenditure? His hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill told the House that our ordinary normal expenditure had gone up £50,000,000 in ten years. That alone had a detrimental effect on the trade of the country. Of that sum £40,000,000 had gone on national armaments. If that money had been spent on better food and clothing for the people it would have made an enormous difference in many of the standard trades of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had succeeded to a very difficult position. At the beginning of 1903–4 he had a working capital in the shape of Exchequer balances of nearly £10,000,000, while at the beginning of 1904–5 he had only a little over £4,000,000. The condition of our finances was unsound. We ought to have more working capital, and we ought to have greater Exchequer balances so that if there was a sudden demand for £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 we should not have to go into the money market to borrow. The House was at present considering a Budget in a time of peace. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had uttered weighty words of warning, to the House and the country, on the question of the increasing national expenditure. Speaking on 19th April last, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I have looked back to the year 1881–2, twenty-three years ago, and I find that, in that year the total expenditure of the country was £85,500,000. For the seven years following it increased at the rate of £500,000 a year; for the seven years again following that, it increased at the rate of £2,250,000 a year, and or the nine years ending this year it has
  1528
  increased at the rate of £4,250,000. I say such an increase cannot go on. If it goes on, in my belief it will impose a burden of taxation that this country will not stand. It has already imposed upon us £23,500,000 of taxation primarily imposed for war purposes, but maintained in time of peace and added to this year by my right hon. friend to the extent of another £4,000,000."
  What they had to complain of was that there was no evidence before them that the Government had realised the seriousness of this enormous growth of national expenditure. The Government had failed to take into consideration the fact that while last year's Budget was £9,000,000 greater in time of peace than the preceding Year's Budget, this Year, owing to there having been a deficit that £9,000,000 was increased to £12,000,000. Yet this year, another year in time of peace, a Budget was introduced giving only a reduction of £1,500,000, leaving an increase of £10,500,000 as compared with two years ago and exclusive of the £4,500,000 last year for war purposes.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was face to face with this deficit. How had he chosen to raise it? When taxes were put on they were added equally in the matter of direct and indirect taxes. Indeed, in 1902 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, told them with regard to the income-tax that he made it 1s. 3d. in order to balance direct and indirect taxation. Last year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position to remit £10,500,000 of taxation, he took four-fifths off the direct taxpayer and only one-fifth off the indirect taxpayer. He had asked before and he now repeated the question—If justice was done last year when taxation was remitted by taking four-fifths off the direct and one - fifth off the indirect taxpayer, did it not follow that justice could only be done this year by putting only one-fifth on the indirect and four-fifths on the direct taxpayer. If that was not so, then an injustice was done last year. Surely the same proportion between direct and indirect taxation ought to have been imposed this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that £27,500,000 of extra taxation imposed during the last four or five years, primarily for war purposes, were continued in time of peace. And now the duty on tea was to be increased

  1529
  to 8d. per lb., which, it was admitted, would press very heavily on poor people, as did also the sugar duty. There was no question that at the present moment, having regard to the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman had failed to properly relieve the working classes from the burden of taxation imposed on them during the continuance of the war, out of the enormous surplus which he had last year. Some people contended that the working classes were not heavily taxed. But the ordinary working man who paid 7s. 6d. a week for house rent had included 2s. 6d. per week Local Rates or £6 10s. a Year; that was 10 per cent. on his wage of 25s. per week. If, in addition to that, he had to pay 10 per cent. in Imperial taxation, that made 20 per cent. on the whole of the wages he earned; that was an income tax of 4s. on the £. These figures could not be questioned, and could any one say that that was a fair burden to put on the working man as compared with other members of the community?
  The recent growth of expenditure had been chiefly on the Naval and Military Departments. He was amazed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the speech the other day of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. The present Secretary for War said that a huge amount of expenditure on the Army was absolutely wasted, and that we got no benefit from it. He could only say that the speech of the present Secretary of War was an absolute reply to the speech of the Secretary of State for India in regard to Army expenditure and Army efficiency. The country had a very strong view as to the condition of the Army; and there was a very uneasy feeling that the ex-Secretary of State for War was not giving the loyal co-operation to the present Secretary of State for War which the latter ought to receive. They were always told that a man was killed by worry and not by work; and the present Secretary of State for War was evidently being killed politically more by worry than by work. The Secretary of State for India ought to put patriotism before personal reputation and give the present Secretary for War his loyal cooperation. This was a serious matter.
  1530
  He believed it was absolutely true that the reorganisation and reforming of the Army was being hindered; and that the expenditure on the Army could not be reduced because of the conflict of opinion between one school of military reform and another. The country had a right to expect that if the ex-Secretary of State for War had made mistakes he should willingly admit the fact, so that the nation should not lose so heavily by the expenditure which he had incurred.
  Then, as regarded the Navy expenditure, they had never been able to draw from the Government any reply to the contention repeatedly put forward that they ought to learn lessons from what was taking place in the Far East. They could see that battleships, costing £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, could be sent to the bottom in a few minutes. Had not the Admiralty seriously considered whether it would not be better to put their money, instead of into battleships, into smaller vessels heavily armed? The expenditure on the naval and military forces, including naval and military works, was perfectly appalling. It was £76,250,000, which was more more than double what it was ten years ago. The increase in the last, ten years was 120 per cent., whereas the increase in Germany was only 30 per cent., in France 25 per cent., and in Italy 6 per cent. That was surely greater than it need be, even if we got value for our money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had said that nobody outside the War Office believed that we got value for our money.
  The Secretary of State for India took exception to the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for the Hawick Burghs on the question of colonial contribution to Imperial defence. Why should not the matter be fairly considered? Why should not the facts in regard to it be fully stated? What were the facts in regard to Canada? Whereas, every man, woman, and child in this country had a burden of £1 12s. 6d. for naval and military defence, the 5,000,000 of people in Canada enjoyed the benefit of that expenditure equally with the people of this country, and made no contribution at all to this huge revenue beyond bearing the cost of their local Militia. Further,

  1531
  they taxed the £10,000,000 sterling worth of goods imported from this country to the extent of £2,000,000 sterling; whereas this country admitted £23,000,000 sterling worth of goods absolutely free. Talk about fiscal preference! What about Canada? Canada got a fiscal grant in the matter of Imperial defence of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 sterling per annum. Australia, New Zealand, and the other great Colonies only made an aggregate contribution of £400,000 to Imperial defence. He hoped that those who went in for preferential tariffs would adjust a relative contribution towards Imperial defence as between the Colonies and the mother country, giving the Colonies a voice in the spending of the money by representation on some general council of Imperial Defence.
  Again, the House had a right to hear a definite statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the time when this country was to get the first instalment of £10,000,000 sterling from the Transvaal. A bargain was made by the ex-Colonial Secretary in South Africa, under which the Transvaal was to get £35,000,000 for the development of the country, this country getting £30,000,000, which was an infinitesimal contribution towards the £230,000,000 which the war cost. They were told £10,000,000 had been underwritten; but, up to the present moment, not a single penny had been paid, although the £35,000,000 for the development of the Transvaal had been contributed on the guarantee of this country. At the present moment there was an enormous expenditure in providing, barracks in South Africa; and the taxpayers of this country were being bled to the tune of £3,000,000 sterling for the cost of garrisons in South Africa. Yet no contribution was received from the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, or Cape Colony. Did the Government from first to last make any serious attempt to obtain a contribution towards the cost of the war from Natal or Cape Colony? The war was undertaken to repel the invasion of these colonies; and they benefited through the war. Many towns and several classes of the community made enormous fortunes during the war; the invasion of the colonies was repelled at a cost of
  1532
  £230,000,000; and he ventured to submit that there were sections of the community in those colonies who were better able to bear a share of the cost of the war than the overburdened taxpayers of this country. They had never yet had any definite statement as to whether the Government ever thought of asking Natal and Cape Colony to contribute to the war.
  They were anxious that the national credit should not be reduced; and, therefore, it was absolutely essential that national expenditure should be reduced. The funded and unfunded debt amounted to £794,000,000; the local debt to £412,000,000; the Transvaal loan to £35,000,000; and there was a possible financial responsibility in connection with the Irish Land Act of £100,000,000—a total financial responsibility of £1,350,000,000. Was it any wonder that the development and prosperity of trade was hindered with such a huge incubus upon it? They ought to have a proper financial balance-sheet, dealing not only with Imperial expenditure but also with local expenditure. They ought to know where they were. By all means let the revenue-producing assets be valued also. They had valuable assets in the Post Office and the Suez Canal shares; and one-half of the local debt had been expended in revenue producing works. The nation would not tolerate the huge expenditure now going on if the working classes only realised how much they were paying. How many working men knew that out of every 1s. they paid for tobacoo, 10d, went to the Government, and that 8d. out of the price of every 1b. of tea went to the Government. After all, this question ought not to be a Party question. It was a question in which both sides of the House were equally interested. He only hoped that the advice of the Committee which reported in 1902 would be speedily given effect to by the Government if they remained in power, and that next year they might have a closer scrutiny of the expenditure of every Department of the State with a view to securing a substantial reduction.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the hon. Member who had

  1533
  just sat down had made a most interesting speech, but he was only concerned to say a few words on the last part of it, in which the hon. Gentleman called attention to the growth of the expenditure for the defence of the Empire. He himself did not think we heard nearly enough of this matter. It should become a matter of calm and deliberate consideration and should be brought forward in a manner that should not repel but attract the attention of all the citizens of the Empire at home and in the self-governing Colonies. So far as the Navy was concerned, we could not look forward to any reduction of expense, unless we could stop other nations building, or stop the progress of our sea trade. We must keep up a standard which would prevent war by discouraging the idea that our power on the seas could be contested, or, if we could not prevent war, such a standard as would enable us to give a good account of ourselves to our enemies. He admitted some reduction could be made on military expenditure, but he doubted whether it would be as great as some people supposed, because the moment the question of the Army was touched innumerable local anal professional interests were affected, which in that House blocked and thwarted reforms, At the same time he quite agreed that full value was not obtained for the money spent; that, however, was another question.
  This expenditure, he reminded the House, was to maintain an Empire which was really a triple Empire, the home Empire consisting of these islands; the Empire of dependencies, including India; and the Colonial Empire—an Empire of practically independent States self-governing like ourselves. We were trying to run this great Empire, excepting India, with the resources of these Islands, but that could not go on. In the past we had been a great deal too hesitating in not going to the Colonies and telling them they must face the fact of this expenditure if they wished the Empire to be preserved. No Minister had spoken so openly and so distinctly upon this question as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had done at the Colonial Conference, but he (Sir John)
  1534
  desired more Ministers to speak out in that way. When he remembered that Australia looked at Japan's great successes and then looked and saw shelter and the hope of peace for herself in Japanese help to our powerful Navy, he was also driven to recollect that the revenue of Australasia was greater than that of Japan, and yet she paid nothing. The whole of the Empire should combine for this purpose. It was the business of every responsible Minister of the Crown, from whatever Party he came, to bring this fact before our fellow-citizens across the seas. He believed in their common sense, but no man ever lived, young or middle-aged, who liked to be asked to pay for that which he had always had for nothing. When we remembered the great resources of our Own self-governing Colonies, their territories, their mineral wealth, their timber, and all their great potentialities of future greatness which was the heritage of the British people, made over freely to our kinsmen, and then regarded the events now taking place in the Pacific, and the sea trade of Australia on the one side and of Canada on the other, we were well entitled to say to these two self-governing colonies, "How are you going to face the future? Do you expect the mother country to discharge all your obligations anti to bear all your burdens? Do you think she can do it, and if she cannot what is going to happen to you?" That was the pacific and friendly spirit in which this question ought to be looked at, and he hoped it would be raised in that way. It was one of the greatest questions of the day, it had been neglected in the past and it ought to be faced now in a plain, friendly and businesslike spirit.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.

    FINANCE BILL.
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [28th July], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Which Amendment was—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."—
    MR. HELME, resuming the debate on the Finance Bill, said that although the opposition yielded to none in their desire to support the adequacy and efficiency of the Services they desired to enter a serious protest against the financial policy and administration of the Government. The national expenditure had now reached a figure that in times of peace had never been equalled, and by this formal vote the Opposition desired to emphatically express the opinion that the methods of the Government in superintending the Departments had not been adequate to the national requirements in point of economy combined with efficiency. It appeared now to be the fact that the House of Commons, although the custodian of the purse of the nation, had lost control over the country's expenditure, and that it had simply come to be a House to register the decrees of the Government. The constitutional power of the House had been cut short by the closure, which made the Opposition powerless to effect any improvement, and in the face of the big majority of the Government they could only take advantage of all opportunities to urge the adoption of their proposals. As to the general question of taxation, he would press upon the Government the consideration that the strain was too great, that the abstraction of such a sum as £143,000,000 for ordinary expenses of the nation in time of peace was too large, and that such an imposition was particularly oppressive on the poor. The increase on the tea duty affected the every-day life of the people, and the millions a year now paid more than were formerly necessary, on account of the sugar bounties abolition, had greatly increased the people's burdens and affected their comfort. The industrial population were crying out for consideration, and therefore it was only right that they should assert and re-assert, again and again, that this excessive taxation was sapping the foundation of the prosperity of the country and must be reduced. The
    1536
    purchasing power of the people was lessened by the huge amount of taxation now imposed, and so taken out of the pockets of the people, and hence it was that much of the demand for manufactures at home was considerably lessened. Employment, therefore, was more and more restricted, smaller amounts were paid as wages, and therefore the Opposition were justified in saying that the prospects of the Imperial Exchequer were not so rosy as they would like them to be. Expenditure depended on Policy and that was fixed by the Cabinet; thus, as the protests of the Opposition were unable to affect the Government's policy, there was a great responsibility resting upon the individual supporters of the Government. Those hon. Members had a very potent weapon in their hands, and if they used it they would affect the decisions of the Government in a manner which the Opposition could not hope to obtain. The people had made up their minds that a peace Budget should not be as large as the present one and would refuse to go on paying the £48,000,000 increase. The value of commodities had fallen during the part few years, and the country had not secured the advantages they were entitled to because of the altered value of those commodities as admitted by the present Secretary of State for War. The Opposition, therefore, demanded that the Government should carry oat a system of economy in all their branches.
    SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he was not often surprised at the things that were said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he confessed he was astonished at the statement of the hon. Member for Crewe, that agriculture was more or less prosperous. Some time ago an hon. friend of his let a farm rent free and tithe free to prevent the land from going out of cultivation, with the result that he paid about five shillings an acre for the privilege. He wished the hon. Member for Crewe and other hon. Gentlemen opposite would go down into that part of Essex which he represented and see for themselves the condition of agriculture there. They might go down on Bank Holiday. He would be glad to conduct them personally, and he thought they

    1537
    might be back in time for the division on the vote of censure. In the Valley of the Crouch they would see a great stretch of country which looked more like cocoa-nut matting than anything else, with docks growing as high as a horse's knees, gates off their hinges, and cottages more or less dilapidated. When land went out of cultivation the agricultural labourer went with it. It did not matter to him how cheap the 4lb. loaf might be if he had not money to pay for it. He did not say that as a protectionist or a "whole-hogger," for he did not profess to be the one or the other. He was glad the Member far Crewe had brought this matter within the purview of the House, and if he could be induced to visit Essex he would probably be found more frequently on the Ministerial side than he was at present.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERrecalled attention to the history of the Bill. When it was first introduced the House, mesmerised by the clear exposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, looked upon it as being framed on free-trade lines. But when they began to look into it they quickly discovered beneath the veneer of free trade the ugly features of protection. He regarded the Budget as extremely unsatisfactory. The increase of the tea duty was a pitiable device in the present economic circumstances of the nation. He said pitiable because any man who had regard for the great mass of the industrial population would be extremely loath to tax what had become almost a necessary of life. Tea was an article which ought to be touched last of all for the purpose of wising revenue, because such a tax pressed most hardly on the poorest classes. A good deal of nonsense had been talked about tea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the country was saturated with tea. He had no sympathy with such views. Knowing as he did the life of the poor, having lived and worked amongst them during many years, he knew that tea was one of the few comforts of the poor, and he regretted that anything had been done in the Budget to lesson the ability of the poor to enjoy that comfort. Hon. Members had stated that tea was injurious to the system, but he could say that of
    1538
    the many thousands of cases which had passed under his hands professionally, he had never known a death from tea-drinking. Tea was one of the least injurious of beverages. One hon. Member had said the constituents of tea were similar to the constituents of strychnine. That sort of comparison ought not to be made in a scientific sense, because the ultimate constituents of any article were no guide to the effect of the article. He had seen thousands of people grossly injured through being saturated with beer, but while the Government had been making tea less accessible, and incidentally placing tea producers in our Colonies at a serious disadvantage, they had been engaged in protecting the people who produced beer, which was the cause of serious injury to the population. Such action might be good for the Party, but he could not congratulate the Government upon their choice from the point of view of the public welfare.
    There was another reason why he regretted the increase of the tea duty. A certain Member of the House, who had made himself very prominent as the exponent of a new fiscal policy, had in his capacity of missionary made a proposal by which a reduction of the tea duty would make way for the introduction of other taxes, which world be injurious to the people. That being so, the present Government, in view of the pledges it had given, ought not to have tampered with the tea duty, which appeared to favour the policy of the Member for West Birmingham, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been the very last man to identify himself with such a course of procedure. He wished to protest in the first instance against the tea duty, which was injurious to the poorer classes and the colonial tea-grower, and generally to the welfare of the country.
    Then came the question of tobacco. In the financial history of the country every Chancellor of the Exchequer who had touched tobacco had burned his fingers, and the right hon. Gentleman had proved no exception to the rule. The tobacco duties brought in £12,000,000 to the Exchequer, and taxes which produced so much and represented so enormous a percentage on the actual value of the articles taxed required to be dealt with very

    1539
    cautiously indeed. The variations of the tobacco duties in the present Bill exhibited bad finance, and were strongly marked with the evil of protection. They were cruel, not only to the trade—and especially to the retail trade—but also to the consumer. Looking at the taxes as imposts upon luxuries, one could see how very unequally they effected different classes of smokers. In the case of cigars, an extra sixpence was put upon a box, value from 60s. to 100s., to the purchaser, and it was not a large increase to the class who smoked cigars. But on fifty shillings worth of cigarettes the extra duty would be three or four shillings, or four or five times the amount on cigars. Surely, in the name of justice, the tax in these cases ought to be relatively equal. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to stripped tobacco and cigarettes were suicidal imposts, because they tended to destroy themselves. Some 10,000,000 lbs. of cigarettes were consumed in the year, of which only 500,000 lbs. were foreign-made, and upon that one-twentieth an extra 1s. per lb. was to be placed. The result would affect two classes of imported cigarettes very unequally. Cheap cigarettes would practically be, kept out of the country altogether, and the dearer cigarettes would be affected unjustly. In fact, he was assured on high authority that the foreign cigarette trade would be killed. There was a certain quantity of foreign cigarettes, chiefly Egyptian, but some Russian, brought into this country. These cigarettes, which were of high quality, had to compete with cigarettes made in this country from the same tobacco, which would not have to pay the extra duty. The result would be that cigarettes made from Turkish tobacco, matured in Egypt, and made in this country, which were indistinguishable to the ordinary smoker from the foreign made cigarettes, would be given a great advantage. Moreover, these English cigarettes imitated the labels and boxes of their competitors so closely that, to the ordinary superficial observer, there was no difference whatever. That was unfair competition. The makers had asked that if they were to pay the extra duty a special stamp should be allowed to protect them from the spurious article, but
    1540
    the request had been refused, and the trade would be steadily squeezed out of existence.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the remedy for that was to put into force the Merchandise Marks Act, not to seek protection, as the hon. Member was doing.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that had been tried, but it was not sufficient to prevent the fraud upon the public. Thus the tax was obnoxious in itself, and would bring a diminishing amount to the revenue. The proposal would also have an important effect upon the market. The great tobacco business which manufactured probably three-fourths of the cigarettes consumed in this country had not yet largely increased its prices, but there were various indications that the price would go up. If the Imperial Tobacco Company, which made hundreds of millions of cigarettes every week, took advantage of the exclusion of the foreign article to raise its prices, an enormous profit would go to one firm, and a comparatively small amount to the Exchequer. If the price were raised 6d. per lb., the home manufacturers would make £225,000 a year extra profit, and the Exchequer would benefit by only £20,000. Any tax which made that possible was based upon a bad system of finance.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether the hon. Gentleman objected to home manufacturers making £225,000?
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he objected to home manufacturers being enabled by this House to make £225,000 at the expense of the public, while the Exchequer received only £20,000. That was the basis of his argument against the tax. Every tax was bad which interfered with trade, punished the public, and did not proportionately benefit the general revenue of the country. Again, with reference to strips, the right hon. Gentleman sat convicted by his own action. By relieving certain importers of the penalties of the clause he had given up £200,000 in connection with

    1541
    the stocks of that particular kind of tobacco, but by relieving the trade to that extent he had practically admitted that the tax was an unjust imposition upon the people who had been importing strips up to the date of the Budget speech. The tax would continue to affect the tobacco trade, because by reason of the imposition being greater than the cost of stripping, it would not be worth while importing strips in the future. Therefore this also was a suicidal tax, inasmuch as it would kill itself so far as the Exchequer was concerned, and instead of getting the same amount of money from the tax year by year, the right hon. Gentleman would get a diminishing amount, and for that reason the tax was an example of bad finance. Moreover, the tax would inflict a very grave injury upon the retail traders, of whom there were some 120,000 in the country. In consequence of the tax they had to pay to the manufacturers a slightly higher price for their cigarettes, but they were not able to charge any more to their customers.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I thought the hon. Gentleman said just now that the public were going to pay £225,000 more for their cigarettes, but he now says the extra cost will fall upon the retailer.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERregretted that he had not reduced his argument to the level of the comprehension of the hon. Baronet. [Cries of "Order," and "Withdraw."]
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmade a remark which did not reach the Press Gallery.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the hon. Baronet had interrupted him two or three times with frivolous remarks, and he thought, therefore, he was entitled to make that retort. The two arguments were not inconsistent. The hon. Baronet was confusing the profit of the manufacturer with the profit of the retailer, which was a totally different thing. The retailer could not protect himself, the manufacturer could. The retailer received his cigarettes in packets, and had to sell them at a certain price; the manufacturers made up the packets, and could, naturally, in various ways, recoup himself for the extra duty. In many cases the difference
    1542
    meant a loss of several shillings a week to the retailer, and in that respect the tax was a cruel one, inflicting injustice upon particular sections of the community. He regretted that the Budget of a year such as the present should be defaced by such defects. The Bill contained many points which were unworthy of the House of Commons, and of the present crisis in national taxation. It professed to go upon the old lines, but it introduced a form of protection naked and unashamed, which it was necessary for all free-traders to resist, even to a division upon the Third Reading. The Bill was an object-lesson in bad finance. The duties upon stripped tobacco and cigarettes would be of diminishing value to the revenue, and would probably introduce serious alterations in the profits of a particular trade. That was not the object of taxation. The object of taxation should be to get money for the Exchequer, at the same time adequately protecting the public. The taxes, instead of protecting the public, played into the hands of a huge tobacco monopoly, and on that account they were bad financially. They would be unprofitable to the Exchequer, burdensome to the consumer, favourable to the big manufacturer, and hurtful to the small trader. Any Finance Bill containing defects of this character all believers in honest trading were bound to resist to the very end.
    MR. ROBSONsaid he certainly could not allow the Third Reading of the Finance Bill to pass without drawing attention to one feature of it—by far the most prominent feature—viz., that for the first time in sixty years the country had now a Budget which deliberately destroyed a flourishing branch of international trade. This was not a mere question of passing finance. The country was here faced with the destruction of a branch of its international trade, deliberately undertaken, in the first instance, he dared say in ignorance, but certainly maintained with a full knowledge of the facts. That destruction of trade could no longer be said to be in doubt. They had heard it repeatedly from people engaged in the importation of stripped leaf that that importation had ceased entirely. What the Government were doing was not merely hampering or impeding that trade; for the moment,

    1543
    at all events, they had destroyed it. That was a very remarkable condition of things. There was no doubt also that, with the destruction of this branch of imports, there had been a destruction going on somewhere in the corresponding branch of the export trade, because the additional value which this stripping gave to the imported leaf was a value paid for by exports. That value this year would have been met by sending certain goods to America from whence this country obtained the stripped leaf. What those goods would have been they could not tell; but they did know that they would not now be sent, so that this country had a branch of import trade destroyed and also some unknown branch of export trade either hampered or limited. This was not a mere isolated circumstance. It was impossible to treat the destruction of any part of our international trade under existing circumstances without reference to the wider policy which was being advocated in connection with our fiscal relations. The House had not paid sufficient attention to the fact that the destruction of our international trade had now become an avowed object of policy on the part of a great Party in this kingdom. They had that idea cropping up in one suggestion after another, and they had it all summed up in the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham when he commended to England the ideal of what he called "a self-sufficient Empire," than which a more fatuous phrase was never laid before any people in substitution for economic doctrine. This country was not to import the tobacco leaf stripped; the people here were to strip it themselves. This was something more than what the Leader of the Opposition called a "whiff of protection"; at least, if this was a whiff of protection one wondered what on earth the tempest would be like. This country, he presumed, would then have no international trade left. It would instead of that have a most desperate form of Little-England commercialism—a trade confined entirely to its own shores. What was the branch of the home trade they had got? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that for the trade thus destroyed this country had got another trade,
    1544
    which he said he was assured by many manufacturers would be un-remunerative to this country. He wondered what the trailers of this country would think when they were told that scientific taxation involved the destruction of a remunerative branch of trade because it had the taint of the foreigner, and the substitution of an un-remunerative trade because it was a home industry.
    There were those in this country who believed that they were going to get in place of the foreign trade that this scientific taxation would destroy a great colonial trade. He had listened with much interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, because it was instructive from many points of view. He was alarmed at the right hon. Gentleman's cheerfulness, and he went on to explain his cheerfulness. The right hon. Gentleman said that Consols had only fallen from 110 to 88, that we had only added about £150,000,000 to the National Debt; and that while we had doubled our annual expenditure we had not doubled our National Debt. He confessed that he did not like the right hon. Gentleman's cheerfulness, but he then went on to attack the hon. Member for Hawick Burghs because he said the Colonies were not subscribing in due proportion to Imperial defence—a fact which no one who had ever attempted to deal candidly with our Imperial relations had refrained from mentioning. The Secretary of State for India said those references were intensely irritating to the Colonies. They were told the other day by another distinguished authority on the Government side that the object of fiscal union with our Colonies was not to terminate in some mere economic advantage, but that it was to go on to a more complete and harmonious Imperial union, which should embrace national defence as well as Imperial preference. So, apparently, while they were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the bond after which he was striving was a bond of Imperial defence, the moment a Member of the Opposition pointed out how defective that bond was at present, it became intensely irritating to the Colonies. It would not seem, then, that colonial trade was going to be a very

    1545
    adequate substitute for the international trade that this Ministry had set itself to destroy.
    With regard to the character of the substitute, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to the Tobacco Section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, saying he had received representations from manufacturers that stripping would still be unremunerative in this country. The manufacturers in Liverpool met this with a prompt and emphatic denial. They said they had been in communication with numerous manufacturers, and their experience was that the opinion that the new regulation would practically prohibit the use of imported strips after existing stocks were worked up, was universally held by manufacturers. "The Section," the reply went on, "has been unable to find a manufacturer of any importance holding views to the contrary, and would be glad to be put into communication with those who have made the representations you refer to." This letter had been entirely ignored by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought the House of Commons had the right to insist that some answer should be given. The letter contained a very unpleasant insinuation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not received representations for which he vouched. He sincerely believed that the right hon. Gentleman had received them, but they were entitled to have their names made public, or else to have a statement that the manufacturers dared not make their names public. It was not to be endured that men should advise these public burdens out of which they were seeking some private benefit in secret. They must now settle their standard of fiscal morals, and make up their mind what was meant by corruption. They must make up their minds that every manufacturer who had a private interest in a public burden should declare that interest when he advised the burden, or else hold his peace. They had a right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up this challenge from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. The manufacturers referred to did not include their old friend Mr. Gallaher, because the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce said that no manufacturer of importance would make such a statement to the Chancellor
    1546
    of the Exchequer, and so he was out of the question. They were now saddled with a burden of 3d. per lb. upon stripped leaf, and they wanted to know who had brought that tax about. No Chancellor of the Exchequer ever decided upon such a tax without some advice, and those who gave the right hon. Gentleman that advice ought to have given it only under the consciousness that they were performing a public duty, and not to serve any private ends. Up to the present the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ignored that challenge, although he was quick enough to demand some explanation in reference to Mr. Gallaher, when he (the speaker) made some remarks about that gentleman, and he had given him that explanation. Not only this, but he had repeated outside for Mr. Gallaher's benefit what he said in the House. This was the first case they had had of this kind for something like sixty years, and they were determined to have every precedent clearly established. If private manufacturers were to be allowed to go slinking around the corridors of the Treasury, recommending taxes out of which they were seeking to make private profit, then they ought to know it. Let them clearly understand that this was the new method, and one of the inevitable accompaniments of scientific taxation. This was the first step in fiscal and political corruption. It was the first and essential method of corruption, and, instead of seeing to shield them, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the first to take care that the names of all such persons were put boldly and clearly forward. The House was entitled to have a plain statement in answer to the letter from the Tobacco Trade Section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, in order that they might judge what the motives of those people were who succeeded in misleading the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and placing this great burden upon the trade and people of England.
    SIR FREDERICK WILLSrecognised with gratitude that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acceded, to a certain extent, to the propositions he had placed before the House on previous occasions. When the right hon. Gentleman proposed to levy the extra tax upon stripped tobacco, equal to about 50 per

    1547
    cent. of the value of the article, he entered his caveat, for it was a very extraordinary thing to place a tax representing a very large sum on the tobacco merchants, who only numbered some twenty firms. These manufacturers would be subject to a tax of between £300,000 and £400,000—nay, he might put it as high as £600,000. A penny a lb. meant £5 per hogshead, and 3d. a lb. worked out at about £600,000. In order that the merchants should be able to clear their stocks they required to get £600,000 more for the tobacco they held than was expected before. As a matter of fact the trade in stripped tobacco had absolutely ceased since these proposals were made. Naturally, no man would be so foolish as to think of buying stripped tobacco at the old price. It would pay him very much better to get leaf tobacco and strip it himself, which he could do for halfpenny a pound, or something less. There were many men in this country who only paid a farthing per pound for stripping. It would be absurd to suggest that people would rather pay threepence a pound extra for stripped tobacco than go to the trouble of getting it done themselves at a cost of a farthing or a halfpenny per pound. He sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his wish to get money. They all wanted to get money, but they wanted to get it honestly; and without imputing any unworthy motives to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would say that he did not understand this question. The right hon. Gentleman had met his appeal by reducing the duty in the shape of offering a rebate, not only to the merchants but to the manufacturers, of one-half of the proposed charge. He had promised them a rebate of three halfpence per pound, but he contended that he ought to have gone the whole way. If he thought he had no right to tax to the extent of threepence, he had no right to tax to the extent of three halfpence.
    He was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen the wisdom of acting on the advice of his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who assured him that it was a very dangerous thing to tamper with the tobacco trade, which paid £12,000,000 a year to the revenue of this country. He had hoped
    1548
    that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken those words to heart. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had not only been Chancellor of the Exchequer for seven years but he had been President of the Board of Trade for four years before that, and he consequently spoke with a considerable amount of experience to which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly aspire. The right hon. Gentleman was placed in a most difficult position. He was asked at short notice to undertake the position, and acting on advice he had proposed to inflict a tax on the tobacco trade of something like £600,000 and to give a rebate of £300,000. The merchants were, of course, devoutly thankful for that concession. He did not know how they were getting along now on the subject, but when he saw them last they told him that the trade had got into an absolute state of stagnation. He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on their behalf— not of the manufacturers, because they could always take care of themselves. They had the opportunity of altering their prices, but his appeal was also made on behalf of the retailers, upon whom a great hardship would fall. There were certain articles that the retailers could not possibly raise in price, but which must be supplied to the public at fixed prices no matter what they had to pay to the manufacturers for them. He supposed the retailers paid income-tax the same as other people, and he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not get as much income-tax out of the retailers as he had done in the past because their profits would be so considerably diminished. He desired to repeat that if it was a wrong thing to victimise a trade to the extent of £600,000 it was equally wrong to do so to £300,000. They would naturally rather have the smaller figure, but the truth of the old maxim could not be denied that what was morally wrong could not be politically right.
    He was sorry to speak against any proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as a man with some conscience left he could not vote for this tax. He had been appealed to by hon. Members to give his opinion again on this subject on the ground of the position he occupied in the trade. There was no

    1549
    secret about his position; everyone knew he was one of the directors of the Imperial Tobacco Company. Once more he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision. They all made mistakes in this world, and the man who never made a mistake was the man who never made anything else. It would be very simple for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit that he had made a mistake; that the revenue would not gain by the proposal, and therefore he was prepared to announce a further alteration. At any rate he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to increase the rebate to the extent of a penny per pound; but the simplest thing would be to leave the tobacco duties exactly as they were in accordance with the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to disclaim having received such advice from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol.
    SIR FREDERICKWILLS said that in his speech after the Budget the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol congratulated the right hon. Gentlemen on the ability with which he had discharged a very difficult duty, but at the same time expressed his extreme regret that he intended to interfere with the taxation of tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had further pointed oat to the right hon. Gentleman that the tobacco trade was a very sensitive trade, and it was a very great mistake to interfere with a trade that yielded £12,000,000 a year to the revenue. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the experience of his predecessors, and therefore he was not to be blamed for his inexperience.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will my hon. friend allow me to read what my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol did say. He said—
    "I will not attempt to discuss the proposed changes in the tobacco duties. I sympathise with my right hon. friend in one of his proposals, that with regard to imposing greater taxation on the imported leaf without the stalk than is now imposed upon it, as compared with the tax on the imported leaf with the stalk. But I would like to give my right hon.
    1550
    friend a little warning with regard to the tobacco duties."
    Having expressed sympathy with my proposal, he gave me the warning to which my right hon. friend alluded.
    SIR FREDERICK WILLSsaid that was probably a more correct statement of what the right hon. Gentleman did say. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol did consider that it was an ingenious thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hit upon a different method of taxation, as between leaf and stripped tobacco, he went on to say that the tobacco trade was a very sensitive one, and it would be a very serious thing to interfere with a trade that yielded £12,000,000 a year to the revenue. It would have been very well had the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put on an extra fraction of a penny, but threepence was a big order. He would, in conclusion, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to follow on with the good work he had already begun, and take off the other half of the duty, or, failing that, to increase the rebate by one penny per lb.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would concur with him when he said that they were indebted to the hon. Baronet opposite for the practical knowledge, honesty, and good sense of the speeches he had made on the tobacco question. He hoped the repeated appeals of the hon. Baronet would have due weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This debate had had many interesting episodes, but he was inclined to think that the most interesting of all had been the warlike incursion of the Secretary of State for India. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman was speaking as the late Minister for War; but even so, he was at loss to understand his purpose. Was it in order to make an attack on his successor? Undoubtedly his speech was an attack or criticism, direct or indirect, on his successor, though it was also in part, no doubt, an attack on that side, whom the right hon. Gentleman might regard as possible successors of himself and his Party. The topic introduced in a moderate, accurate, and considerate speech by his hon. and learned friend the

    1551
    Member for Hawick Burghs—namely, the small proportionate contribution of the Colonies towards the cost of the Imperial Navy—had been discussed over and over again. Nemesis soon overtook him for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Yarmouth took the same view as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs. He was amazed at the language of the Secretary of State for India. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotton the part he himself had played in urging that very question officially on the Colonies? Had he forgotten the Colonial Conference, the Memorandum of Lord Selborne, and his own representations? Were not the Colonial Premiers reminded of the value of their commerce, and told that, while the Navy cost Great Britain 15s. 1d. per head of the population—it was £1 per head now—the contribution of the Colonies was only 4d. per head? There was a Paper laid before the Conference by the right hon. Gentleman himself, in which he made fantastic and amazing proposals that the Colonies should enter into a scheme of Imperial Army defence. Did that irritate the Colonies? Would the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues publish the reply of the Colonial Premiers, which had not hitherto been published. The Report of the Conference was mutilated, and gave them merely the wisdom of the present Secretary for India and of Lord Selborne. There was another document for which those two Ministers were responsible, which they on that side had till now refrained from mentioning from sheer shame. A Paper was laid before the Colonial Premiers pointing out to them how infinitesimally little the Colonies had contributed, not merely to the Navy, but towards the cost of the South African War, compared with the contributions of the United Kingdom. The statement in which the figures were worked out was made in a rude and offensive way. Yet now the right hon. Gentleman, forsooth, took upon himself to rebuke his hon. and learned friend.
    When his hon. and learned friend introduced the question of the Colonial contribution he was dealing with the subject of expenditure. On that point he would say that it had been made abundantly clear that our expenditure would have
    1552
    been very much larger if we had been living under a régime of what was called scientific taxation, which some hon. Gentlemen opposite advocated. In regard to naval construction, it had been made clear that, as compared with the three next naval Powers, which were all protectionist Powers, we had an advantage of 30 per cent. If we were a protectionist people the Navy Estimates amounting to £37,000,000 would have been £50,000,000 without producing larger results. Every £7 spent by us at present in ship construction produced a result for which £9 had to be expended in protectionist countries—that was to say, we had a free-trade advantage of 30 per cent. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the mystery which hung over the question of why this Bill had to be got through by 1st August? He could not understand the ground on which that allegation was made, and his belief was that it was a hallucination. The three great blots upon the Bill he considered were, first, that as regarded our capital position it marked a distinct step backwards; secondly, that it imposed an undue amount, not of indirect taxation, but of indirect taxation affecting articles consumed by the poor; thirdly, that it evaded and avoided non-taxed sources of revenue. One of these was the licence duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well have got £7,000,000 out of those duties. The right hon. Gentleman had never proved to the House that it could not be done. In another Bill now before the House, a new departure had been made in this matter which ultimately would enable a Chancellor of the Exchequer of the future to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now had not done, namely, to claim for the Exchequer the monoply value of all these licences. In the present state of our finance it was the duty of Parliament to recall the unfortunate doles which were given under the Agricultural Rating Act.
    The Secretary of State for India had expressed surprise that the Opposition had voted not merely against taxes of which they disapproved, but against taxes of which they approved. He pleaded guilty to the accusation. In the present Parliament he had not registered a single vote in favour of any

    1553
    proposal of the Government, and most certainly he had never voted for their having any money at all; and he did so simply on the ground that, in his judgment, they had no right to be where they were. They had no right to a single penny in Supply, or to a single tax to make good grants in Supply. He regarded them not as His Majesty's Ministers, still less as Ministers of the country, but as the Government and colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester. He had no confidence in their administrative capacity; he believed they had outstayed what little warrant they ever had, and every vote he gave would be designed to deprive them of the means of doing more mischief to the country.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: None of my friends on these Benches will have felt disposed to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman when he said he regarded them as the friends and colleagues of the Prime Minister, under whom they are proud to serve. The hon. Gentleman professes not to regard us as Ministers of the Crown. I do not know that that will greatly affect of our position or preclude our carrying on the useful work which we have to do. Anyone who has been present during the discussions must have felt that the interest of the day certainly was not in the debate, though some excellent speeches have been made, but in the division which will shortly come off. An hon. Gentle-man opposite has taken the somewhat unusual, and certainly the strong, course of moving the rejection of the Third Reading of the Bill which makes the whole financial provision for the year. In his opening sentences the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to justify that course by stating that in their discussions on this occasion there had been introduced an element of force. I make nothing in the way of a personal confession, but if there has been one Minister holding my position in recent times who has been reluctant to closure discussion, it has been necessarily myself in the circumstances in which I stood, and with the knowledge how suddenly I had come to that great position. I speak within the recollection of the House when I say that the course which I took was imposed upon me by the attitude of hon. Gentlemen during the
    1554
    progress of the discussion The discussion certainly on this Budget has been remarkable, not so much for anything that has been said in the course of it, as for the way in which interest in it has sprung up or diminished in consequence of changes in the prospects of other measures, and the allocation of time for these other measures. For the purpose of securing their wishes in regard to other Bills, the Budget has been made a tool and instrument by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not wish to dwell upon the events of the other night. The hon. Member for Poplar declined to discuss Clause 4 at half-past one in the morning because it raised an important question of principle, but consented to take a division upon it without any discussion at three o'clock on the next day.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he adhered to the view which he then held. He did not think that after a long sitting of twenty-six hours they were in a position to discuss the clause. He thought the blame, if blame there was, rested on the Government who made them sit up all night. [MINISTERIAL cries of our "Oh."]
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We not sat up all night on that occasion. My contention is that the hon. Gentleman only wished to discuss the clause in order to prevent business from going on. The discussion having been deferred until the next day, the hon. Gentleman's desire for discussion vanished in the twinkling of an eye, and he took one of those early divisions for which hon. Gentlemen have sought so busily. The hon. Gentleman's argument shows the amount of reality there has been in the discussions on the Budget. That is the measure of the importance which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really attach to the subject over which they have wasted so much time. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] I am not going at this last stage to travel again over all the details which occupied us so long in the earlier stages of the Bill. Indeed, the force of criticism on my proposals was, in nay opinion, destroyed by the universality of those criticisms directed which I took was imposed upon me by the not against these proposals only, but against every tax included in the Budget.

    1555
    The financial reputation of my predecessors has fared no better at the hands of these critics than my own. The proposals of my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol were declared to be ruinous and destructive to the trade and prosperity of the country, and even the relief my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon was able to offer last year has been the subject of equally bitter criticism, and has been equally denounced as grossly unjust. The fact of the matter is, that while hon. Gentlemen opposite are united in the determination that so long as they can live and fight no change shall be made in our fiscal system, they are equally united in declaring in detail that every existing tax is bad.
    Nothing has been more interesting during the course of these discussions than the development of their theory of free food. For many years the Party opposite were responsible for the finances of the country, yet their consciences, and the consciences of their leaders, were never stirred because taxes remained on articles of food. It was only when my right hon. friend proposed a shilling duty on corn that the real rigidity of the free food doctrine became apparent. And now we have learned in these debates that there is nothing sacred about corn, that it stands in no different category from other articles that are taxed. It is so difficult to deal with a united Party when they speak with half-a-dozen different voices. I have listened through the debates, and I have heard one hon. Member after another and one right hon. Gentleman after another declare that tea is as much a necessity for the people as bread, that sugar is as much a necessity for the children of the poor as bread, that it is equally bad to tax sugar and tea as to tax corn. Yes, but we do not stop even there. There are hon. Gentlemen who, on one subject, always speak their mind. They unite only in their views of the demerits of the present Government. The Government would not he here [OPPOSITION ironical cheers] but for the profound difference that has separated us from the Party opposite and in consequence of which we have secured the trust and confidence of the country [OPPOSITION ironical cheers] for a period unequalled in recent years. There were hon. Gentlemen opposite who, not
    1556
    confining their opposition to the tea and sugar duties, moved to reduce the income-tax on the merits of the tax itself. They moved to reduce even the whisky tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last said the whisky duty and the beer duty were as great an injury and wrong to the poor of this country as any other part of our taxation. The fact of the matter is they have committed themselves by their votes and speeches to a declaration that every indirect tax is bad, and it may be supposed that when their turn comes they will introduce a simple Budget by which the whole of the revenue will be collected by death duties and income-tax. I wish them joy of their taxation, but I do not think it will redound to the credit or stabilty of our fiscal system.
    I am not going to enter on the fiscal controversy. I take the existing financial system as it is, and I say that it depends on recourse to direct and indirect taxation alike—to those twin-sisters, as Mr. Gladstone called them, in a passage just recalled to the memory of the House—to whom I say every Chancellor of the Exchequer should pay his addresses alike. It is not only necessary to have recourse to indirect taxation but also just. After all, who profits by the expenditure which this country incurs? Are the interests at stake confined to one class or one section of the community? I will not dwell upon the great part of the civil administration which is more especially directed to securing better homes for the people, better conditions of work by inspection of workshops and factories, and so forth; I will not dwell upon the vast sums spent on education, the largest portion of which is mainly enjoyed by the poorer classes. If we turn even to the expenditure on the Army and Navy, is the poor man's home less precious than the rich man's? Would he suffer less if our shores were invaded? Who would be the first to feel any weakening of our power on the seas or any interruption of the food supply? Is it unfair or unjust to working men in a free country who have a share in the advantages of our Government to make their contribution to the common ex-expenditure of the State which is the home and the guardian of them all? If the appeal is made to both direct and

    1557
    indirect taxation I do not think a fairer distribution could have been framed in present circumstances than that which I have ventured to submit to the House. My position is described by the hon. Member for Poplar as scarcely fair to myself or the country. The hon. Gentleman described me as a protectionist. I will not bandy words with he hon. Member, who said he was a free-trader. The hon. Member has never bad free trade. He would never make trade free on the lines on which he is proceeding. He is not doing anything to render it freer than it is. I have never called myself a protectionist. I supported the corn tax proposed by my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol. I was content to renew the tobacco tax imposed by Mr. Gladstone. Both taxes have been described as protectionist. Is my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol a protectionist? Was Mr. Gladstone a protectionist in 1868? When the definition of protection is so wide as to include two such distinguished predecessors in the office I hold, I do not think it worth while to dispute whether protectionist is an accurate term to apply to myself or not. I was told that. I do not pretend to believe that our present financial system is in all respects the best we can obtain. We have not got free trade. The question is in what degree can we get free trade. Can we make trade freer and better than it now is? That is a question for the future, and one which the country will have to decide. We will have to decide whether the degree of interference which every Government has exercised upon our trade should be exercised in the way it is exercised now, or whether it could be better exercised in other ways. For the present my business is to propose a way of meeting the financial requirements of the present year not inconsistent with the system which has been so long in force. That is the system which the Government undertook to observe, and to that undertaking I have faithfully kept.
    I produced a Budget on the old lines, and I think one not open to more objection than any other Budget on the same lines. I am aware that some of the duties of my Budget excited spasmodic and for the moment,
    1558
    warm interest in the House; but I am not going to travel again over the whole case which I submitted in support of the changes I proposed. It was alleged by some hon. Gentlemen that the amount of money I shall obtain was not worth the disturbance which any alteration in the duties must cause. It is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, if we are to have such a Budget as will uphold our credit, that I should have a larger margin beyond the estimated income of the year than I can get from the income-tax and the tea duty. I do not believe I could have made a general increase in the whole of the tobacco duty without so lessening consumption as to destroy to a large extent the new revenue I looked for. I found a gap existing in the present scale, and I thought that by filling that gap I could obtain the money that is necessary for the revenue of the year, without hardship or injury. An hon. Gentleman has spoken of the new rate I proposed as being 50 per cent. of the value of the raw material. The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention that the present duties are from 600 to 700 per cent. of the price. The duties are now differential. They were only not differential before my proposal came in, as between whole leaf and stripped. What was it that made it right and proper to differentiate in all other cases and not between whole leaf and stripped? In the increase and the new rate;of duty I have had regard to the existing scale in manufactured tobacco. I have had regard to what I believe to be a fair average of the duty cost of tobaccos such as come into this country and I have then adjusted the duties on that basis. Hon. Gentlemen opposite make it a great cause for complaint that; in so doing I may have transferred or induced the transfer, to a greater or less extent, of a process of trade to this country which has hitherto been carried on abroad. That would condemn a great many other duties which do not trouble the consciences of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I venture to ask one question. The old rates of duties penalised a manufacturer who attempted to carry on that process here. They were admittedly unfair to him. Is the doctrine of free trade to be put so high that we are not to rectify our duties in a case of that kind? That we are to be so

    1559
    careful that we should not help our home manufacturers and our home workers? I shall by my proposal, I believe, raise the revenue required for the present year. I shall remove an anomaly which has long existed in our Customs duties, and, incidentally, I shall have been able to provide a means by which the House will be able in the matter of drawbacks to remedy an admitted wrong and injustice, and in the matter of moisture to carry out what was almost a promise of my predecessor.
    I turn now to the wider questoin raised in this discussion. The hon. Gentleman who opened the debate, in a speech of great force, complained that my financial methods were unsound for another reason. The hon. Gentleman said in the matter of the unclaimed dividends account I had been using capital to meet the current expenditure of the year. I remember that when the late Government — the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth belonged—were in some financial difficulties, they met the current charges on account of the Naval Defence Loan by throwing them on the Sinking Fund, instead of raising new taxation. In 1862 Mr. Gladstone, in his Budget speech, recounted the steps which he had taken in the previous three years to meet current expenditure out of extraordinary revenue. From balances he had withdrawn £4,000,000. By expediting the payment of the malt duties, that was, by securing in one year the revenue of another—he had got an additional £2,000,000. Then he had a repayment of £500,000, which he also used to meet current expenditure. Then Mr. Gladstone concluded by saying that the Government had exhausted their casual resources—that they remained no longer. I would not stand alone, therefore, if I had to plead guilty in the full sense to the charge which the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought against me. But I do not admit that that correctly describes the operation which the House is now sanctioning. The other day an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House referred to the Consols in the unclaimed dividend account, and said that t he interest upon them was paid regularly i to the Exchequer, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid violent hands
    1560
    upon it. If that were true, it would be part of the current revenue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not need to lay hands on it. But the Consols are an asset standing to the credit of a body whose total assets exceed its nominal liabilities and vastly exceed the claims which could in practice be brought against it. I propose to realise a million out of these assets and apply it, not to meeting the expenditure of the curren year, but to straightening our balance, with the bank. That is a very different transaction, and is perfectly sound in i self, and wise in the circumstances of the present time.
    A more serious complaint is that made as to the recent growth of expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is condemned because he has done nothing to reduce that expenditure this year. If I remember rightly what I have read in the "Life of Mr. Gladstone" by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, Mr. Gladstone during four or five years of office was engaged in ceaseless efforts to reduce expenditure, but was not able to reduce it at all in the first or second year. In four or five years he made an appreciable impression, though nothing like that which hon. Members appear to think can be effected by a wave of the Chancellor's hand. I have had barely as many months as Mr. Gladstone had years to carry out such a task. Let hon. Gentlemen give me four or five years; but even then I could not give a promise as to what might be accomplished. I do not think great advantage is derived from making general observations on expenditure. When made by my predecessors they have not led in their hands to any large reduction. But I do agree that the financial condition of the country demands—as it is receiving—the most serious attention, not only of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but of the whole Government. I do not, however, agree that we are on the verge of a catastrophe, or have any reason to be ashamed of our national credit compared with that of other nations. Of course, there has been a very considerable fall in Consols; but everyone knows that the very high price of Consols has been abnormal and artificial. I do not myself think it is a healthy state of things.

    1561
    My hon. friend the Member for Exeter complained that the character of Consols has altered, and that they have become much more fluctuating than they used to be. But there are other things besides the action of Governments which have contributed to that result. One of the reasons why they have fluctuated so is because our credit was so good that gentlemen engaged in more speculative operations have covered those operations by dealings in Consols, which they know are always easily realised. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn pointed out that, in spite of all these jeremiads, our national credit was higher to-day than that of any other Power.
    I announced earlier in the day that the new resources of the Savings Banks are no longer sufficient to finance the new Military and Naval Works loans; that is, I think, a natural result of the high prices of securities and the low value of money a short time ago, and the fall in price of securities which has since taken place. When the small depositors could earn better interest in the Government Savings Banks than anywhere else, they naturally brought their money to those Banks. Now that they have opportunities of investing to better advantage elsewhere they naturally do so. In my opinion there is no cause for alarm in regard to our financial position, but there is every cause for circumspection, for careful examination of all new demands, and for prudence in the undertakings on which we embark. I have tried to impress on the House on earlier occasions that our financial reserves are no less important a part of our defensive system than our military and naval reserves, which are more visible but not more real. To maintain our financial reserves in a sound and healthy state, to have our taxes at such a point that in case of a great emergency we can easily raise a largely-increased revenue, is and must be the endeavour of every Minister of Finance in this or any country.
    The hon. Member for Poplar spoke as if economy and the cutting down of expenditure were exactly synonymous terms. I venture to say that that is a most dangerous statement, and I am sure the hon. Member did not mean what his words seemed to convey. It is not economy to cut down necessary expenditure, to deplete
    1562
    the military or naval reserves, or to leave ourselves in a position of unpreparedness for attack; that would result in far heavier expenditure when the crisis arises, and might result in disaster which no expenditure could reduce. If there is one lesson more than another which we may learn from recent years it is that one cannot rely on being able to make good in haste preparations which one has neglected to make at leisure. The expenditure on the two services is very high. The naval service shows the greatest increase; it has been directed to the maintenance of a standard hitherto approved of by both sides of the House, and from which I hope, in spite of the declarations made in the debate, neither side of the House will depart. The hon. Member for Poplar said that the purchase of the Chilian battleships ought to have resulted in a decrease in the Naval Estimates. Naturally the first result, however, was to throw an additional burden on them. But if he means that these ships must be counted in any calculation of our strength, so that the new programme of this year and next year must be affected by the fact of the purchase, of course that is so; that has already been done as regards the present year, and it will be done by my noble friend in regard to next year.
    As to the future of naval and military expenditure I have refrained from making any pledges. We have to reconcile the needs of economy with the needs of defence. We have to measure the burden to the backs which have to bear it. We cannot afford to risk the safety of the Empire or the security of our seaborne trade. A good deal has been said as to the contributions of the Colonies to our military and naval expenditure. I have never concealed my hope that in the years to come these great nations of our own flesh and blood will take a larger share in all that concerns the welfare of the Empire as a whole, and, whilst gaining additional influence in its councils, will bear a larger share in its expenses. Members of the present Government responsible for the various Departments concerned have in their conferences with the colonial representatives explained to them the situation, and invited their patriotic consideration of a question which concerns

    1563
    us all. But it is another thing to make our debates in the House of Commons a vehicle for criticism and reproach of the Colonies. The latter way is far less likely to secure their goodwill and their assistance than a direct appeal when we meet them to discuss our common affairs. Any contribution which they may make now or hereafter must be their free gift to the service of the Empire. We value it only as it is freely offered. We value what they give now not merely for the amount of relief which it may afford us, but for the sentiment which it shows on their part for the common interests and common ties which unite us. If in future these ties can be strengthened in any way it will not be the least of the many advantages we shall reap that the Empire may be a more united whole, feeling more keenly its common interest and its common duties to the flag that shelters us all.
    MR. McKENNAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had given a very interesting account of himself. It appeared he did not call himself a protectionist. He was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was a "whole-hogger"; but since Oswestry "whole-hoggers" were not quite as whole as they were. It was very difficult to follow all these fine shades; but they knew now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was content to take his stand under the banner of Mr. Gladstone. He had noticed that the present Government were willing to take their principles and policy from public opinion; they were prepared to submit everything to public opinion, except their own conduct. They knew what the judgment would be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed that there had been a warm but spasmodic interest in the tobacco tax. The interest was warm and persistent; and that it could only be expressed spasmodically was not their fault. The Government put the Budget down one day and removed it the next, although the Opposition would have been only too glad to continue the discussion from day to day in order to get an intelligible answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the reasons for his duty. Even at this last moment, the Chancellor of the Ex-
    1564
    chequer was unaware of the effect of his duty. The right hon. Gentleman still talked of differentiating manufactured tobacco from raw tobacco; and asked why stripped tobacco should not be noticed. It was true, as had been stated over and over again, that the duties on manufactured tobacco were protectionist duties. Mr. Gladstone found them there, and did not remove them entirely. But it was quite another matter to introduce new protectionist duties, as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did. He confessed that he shared the distrust of the business community in the financial capacity of the Government. That distrust was shown by the present price of Consols. There was no better test of the belief of the financial community in the stability of the present Government than the price of Consols. In his introductory Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the country was now apparently entering on a cycle of commercial depression. They all remembered that in 1895 prosperity was promised, not from the influence of the stars, but from the influence of the Tory Government. To-day, it was a cycle of depression for which in many respects this Government or any other Government could not be held responsible. But, nevertheless, it was very considerably due to the extravagant and wasteful expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. If Consols to-day stood at 88, it was because year after year the Government, instead of laying by treasure in the good years, made merry with their surpluses, and when the bad times came they were unable to make both ends meet. Last year the Sinking Fund was re-established, and yet the total indebtedness of the country was £4,000,000 more than at the beginning of the year. The right hon. Gentleman took credit to himself for having left the Sinking Fund standing; and yet, what was the result? According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would have paid off £1,000,000 out of £794,000,000 of debt. The failure of the Government to make any substantial provision for the payment of the Debt was the reason why Consols were down to 88. If any substantial effort had been made last year to re-purchase Consols, and if that

    1565
    effort had been continued, the business community would have greater confidence in the financial ability of the right hon. Gentleman. He greatly feared, however, for the right hon. Gentleman's sake, that his first experiment in controlling the financial resources of the country would
    mark him as a failure as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 288.)

    AYES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Allhusen,Augustus HenryEden

    FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    M'Iver,Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

    Arrol, Sir William

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Forster, Henry William

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Maxwell,Rt.Hn.SirH.E(Wigt'n

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Gordon,Maj.Evans-(T'yH'mlets

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Balfour,Rt.Hn Gerald,W.(Leeds

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Montagu, Hon.J.Scott(Hants.)

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Greene,SirE.W.(B'rySEdm'nds

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Gretton, John

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hain, Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Bigwood, James

    Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

    Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute

    Bill, Charles

    Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Bingham, Lord

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Harris,F.Leverton(Tynemouth

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Bond, Edward

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Brassey, Albert

    Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

    Peel,Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Percy, Earl

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Butcher, John George

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbyshire

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope,J.F. (Sheffield,Brightside

    Randles, John S.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

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

    Howard, J. (Middd., Tottenham

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)

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

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Keswick, William

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lawrence,Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

    Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

    Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Saunderson,Rt.Hn.Col.Edw. J.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lowe, Francis William

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

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Spear, John Ward

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Stroyan, John

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

    Talbot, Lord E. Chichester)

    Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G(Oxf'd Univ.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Wylie, Alexander

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Whiteley,H(Ashton und. Lyne)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Tuff, Charles

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Alexander Acland-Hood

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Perks, Robert William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Asher, Alexander

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Bell, Richard

    Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Benn, John Williams

    Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

    Rose, Charles Day

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Runciman, Walter

    Brigg, John

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Shackleton, David James

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Higham, John Sharpe

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Burns, John

    Johnson, James (Gateshead)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Burt, Thomas

    Joicey, Sir James

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Caldwell, James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Labouchere, Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Langley, Batty

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Tomkinson, James

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cremer, William Randal

    Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Tully, Jasper

    Crombie, John William

    Lough, Thomas

    Wallace, Robert

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Lundon, W.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Delany, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Mooney, John J.

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Elibank. Master of

    Moss, Samuel

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Ellice,Capt.E.C(S.Andrw'sBghs

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wilson,Henry J.(York, W.R.)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Murphy, John

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

    Evans,Sir FrancisH.(Maidstone

    Nolan, Col. P. John (Galway,N

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Herbert Gladstone and

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Mr. William M'Arthur.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    O'Shaughnessy, P.J.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Partington, Oswald

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    Adjourned at sixteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Friday last, that the right of the Earl of Cork and Orrery to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:— Leeds Corporation (Consolidation).
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Electric Lighting (London). The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Felixstowe Gas Bill; Radcliffe Tramways and Improvement Bill. Read 3a,
with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London and India Docks Company Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
South Shields Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; farther Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Pro
1430
visional Orders(No. 13)Bill. Committed The Commitees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill (Tynemouth Order and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Order opposed); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (Caerphilly Order opposed). 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., E. Malmesbury, V. Colville of Culross, L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (chairman), L. Glenesk, L. Armstrong; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday 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.
Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)), and reported from the Committee. [No. 166.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the above Bills be now read 2a. — (Lord Kenyon.)
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, before the House agrees to this Motion, I think it right to say a word or two upon it. The Local Government Board, through their own officials, have given me very courteous, frank, and, I believe, full information as to the necessity for the suspension of the Sessional Order in these cases. I believe that no fault can be laid to the charge either of the Local Government Board or of the promoters of the Orders to be confirmed on account of the delay which has taken place. There was considerable opposition to some of them in another place, and the delay arose mainly on that ground. With regard to the first three—Bills Nos. 9, 10, and 11—I am given to understand that they are now wholly unopposed, and it is therefore quite in accordance with precedent that the Sessional Order should be suspended and the Bills carried to a successful conclusion. With regard to the other Bill—No. 13— I understand that there is still some opposition to be dealt with; and the same applies to the Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill standing on the Paper to-day in the name of the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade. Under ordinary circumstances I should have felt it my duty to suggest to your Lordships that it was too late to enter on opposed business of this kind; but I am sure your Lordships would not wish to interpose a merely technical objection to the carrying through of Bills of this character if it can possibly be avoided. Therefore I have to say that in the special circumstances, and as there will be a good many noble Lords in London next week, I have secured a Select Committee to sit and adjudicate upon these Bills, so that we shall be able to deal with the opposition to the Orders in a proper and constitutional way. I make this explanation because six weeks have elapsed since the expiry of time for reading Provisional Order Confirmation Bills a second time, and I think the House might legitimately have objected to going on to opposed business at this late period of the session. In the special circumstances of the case, and in the hope that this will not be considered a precedent for dealing with opposed business of this kind at a similar period
1432
of another session, I would suggest to your Lordships that you should agree to the Motion to suspend the Sessional Order in these cases.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Report of the progress of the Ordnance Survey, to the 31st March, 1904.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3237. Spain (Barcelona); No. 3238. Guatemala; No. 3239. Italy (Central Italy).
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 421. Hong-Kong (Report for 1903).
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Twenty-sixth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland), 1903–4.
  ARMY.
  Summary of the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee, 1900, on the Reserves of Guns, Stores, etc., required for the Army; showing also to what extent these recommendations have been carried out.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Sixty-sixth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales (1903).

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS(IRELAND).
  Agricultural Statistics of Ireland; with detailed Report for the year 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON CORPORATION.
  Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for 1903.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE).
  Order made by the Council of the Borough of Cambridge altering certain polling districts in the borough.

  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual account of receipts and disbursements, for the year ended 31st December, 1903.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 165.)

  RUSSIAN SEIZURES OF BRITISH SHIPS.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I see my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, and I should like to ask him a Question of which I have given him general notice. I want to know if he can give the House any information with respect to the recent seizures of British ships by the Russians —either by the so-called Volunteer Fleet which came through the Dardanelles as private vessels under the merchant flag and subsequently hoisted the national flag and acted as warships, or by the regular men-of-war of the Russian navy. The first class includes the "Malacca," the "Formosa," and other ships; and the second class the "Knight Commander," which is reported to have been sunk by the Russians. I need not say more, in asking this Question, than that considerable anxiety has been occasioned by these seizures and this action by the Russian ships in the Red Sea and elsewhere, and that it will give great satisfaction to the country if the noble Marquess can give us information which will reassure us on this important point.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I gather that my noble friend has addressed this Question to me rather with the object of eliciting from me some statement of the facts and of the situation which at this moment confronts us, than with the expectation that I should enter into anything like a discussion of the complicated and difficult problems of international law which arise in connection with the incidents to which he has referred.
  EARL SPENCER: Hear, hear!
  THE MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: The later phase of this question may, I think, be considered to have commenced with the seizure of the Peninsular and Oriental steamship "Malacca, to which the noble Earl referred. That ship, having on board a miscellaneous cargo of about 4,000 tons, of which twenty-three tons consisted of munitions of war,the property of HisMajesty's Government, and destined for the dockyards at Hong-Kong and Singapore, was seized on the 13th of this month in the Red Sea. Her passengers and the crew were landed at Port Said, with the exception of the chief officer and two other persons. The ship was sent homewards flying the Russian flag and in charge of a Russian prize crew.
  We conceived it to be our duty to make a strong representation to the Russian Government in consequence of this occurrence. Our representation was based mainly upon the character and antecedents of the ship by which the seizure was made. That ship belonged to the Russian Volunteer Fleet. She had lately passed through the Dardanelles; and, in our view, it would have been impossible for her without a breach of the law of Europe to pass through these Straits if she had at the time been a ship of war. If on the other hand it were assumed that she was, at the time of her passage through the Straits, a peaceful vessel, it seemed to us intolerable that within a short space of time she should be transformed into a ship of war and should be found harrying neutral commerce in the waters of the Red Sea. We mentioned, as a subsidiary point in our protest, the fact that the munitions of war on board of her were the property of the Government, and therefore could not be regarded as contraband of war.
  My Lords, the result of our remonstrance was as follows. We received, in the first place, from the Russian Government an assurance that the "Malacca" would be released as soon as orders for her release could be conveyed to those on board. She had left Port Said before these orders could reach her, and she did not touch port again until she reached Algiers, at which place she arrived yesterday. I am glad to say she was released last night, and, I believe, at this moment flies the British flag. The second result of our representations

  1435
  was that orders were given by the Russian Government to prevent a recurrence of any similar captures by ships of the Volunteer Fleet; and it was also explained to us that, if any such captures should occur before the orders to prevent them could reach their destination, those captures would be regarded as non avenus and as the result of a misunderstanding. In compliance with that assurance the "Ardova" and "Formosa," two other steamers which had been seized, I believe by the same Russian vessel, were released yesterday. We have also been informed that these Volunteer ships are to be withdrawn from the Red Sea to some other destination, and we understand that it is not intended that they shall in the future be employed upon a similar service.
  I venture to hope that your Lordships will think that, so far as these particular incidents are concerned, the controversy may be considered as having passed out of the acute stage, if, indeed, it can be said to have ever entered that stage at all. But it will be obvious to your Lordships that there remain other and very serious questions which will have to engage the attention of His Majesty's Government—such questions, I mean, as the question of principle involved in the status of these Volunteer ships; such questions, again, as arise in connection with the effect of international engagements upon the navigation of the approaches to the Black Sea. All these questions, at any rate, can be examined without the impediment which would certainly have been occasioned had these ships still remained in the hands of their captors. Amongst other points for consideration, I may refer to cases in which mails have been interfered with by Russian cruisers, and cases in which, unless we are misinformed, the cargoes of captured vessels have been taken off them before they have been under the adjudication of a Prize Court.
  But, my Lords, in our view, infinitely the most serious of these outstanding cases is that of which the noble Earl spoke: the case, I mean of the "Knight Commander." The "Knight Commander"—a British vessel —was on her way from Hoboken to Japan with a miscellaneous cargo on board.
  1436
  The facts, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, are as follows. She was required to stop by ships belonging to the Vladivostok Squadron. She obeyed the orders. She was boarded by men from the Russian ships. Her captain and crew were taken off her after what appears to have been a very perfunctory examination. And when the crew had been taken on board the Russian ships, two shells were fired into the "Knight Commander," with the result that she sank immediately. The British crew were taken to Vladivostok, and the native crew were put on board another vessel which happened to be passing. Now, my Lords, unless we have been wholly misinformed in regard to the facts of the case, we can come to no other conclusion but that a serious breach of international law has been committed by the captors of the "Knight Commander." Upon no hypothesis of international law can we conceive that a neutral ship, even if it be assumed that her cargo included contraband of war, could be destroyed in this manner upon the mere fiat of the commanding officer of the capturing squadron and without reference to a properly-constituted Prize Court.
  My Lords, it follows that we have considered it our duty to lodge a strong protest against the conduct of those Russian ships, and we have accompanied that protest by a request that orders may be issued to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. We have also demanded the release of the British crew, which, as I said just now, was taken to Vladivostok. It only remains for me to say that we are confident that these representations will have the desired effect, and that the Russian Government will not hesitate to disavow the conduct of the persons by whom this outrage—for it was an outrage if the facts are as stated—was committed". I hope I may add that the manner in which the Russian Government has dealt with the representations which we have already felt it our duty to make with regard to the other cases justifies us in the hope that the representations which we have now made will not have been made in vain.
  The subject then dropped.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (ST. KILDA) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to think your Lordships will have no difficulty in agreeing to the Second Reading of this Bill. Though a very small measure, it is of some importance from the naturalists' point of view. Your Lordships will see from the Memorandum attached to the Bill, that by Section 9 of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, it was provided that the operation of that Act should not extend to the Island of St. Kilda, on the ground that a large number of birds which are protected at certain times of the year are necessary to the inhabitants of this remote island for food and other purposes. But there are two birds in the Island, the fork-tailed petrel and the St. Kilda wren, neither of which are of any use to the inhabitants for the purposes I have indicated. The St. Kilda wren is of very great interest to naturalists, because it and the red grouse are the only two birds which are exclusively found in the British Islands. I think it quite possible that the red grouse may be of more general interest to your Lordships than the St. Kilda wren. There is no immediate danger, I think, of the extinction of the red grouse; but the St. Kilda wren is found only in the Island of St. Kilda, and I believe I am right in saying that people passing wider the name of naturalists have for the last season, or, perhaps, longer, taken away every egg which was laid in the Island. Obviously, if this sort of thing is allowed to continue, it must be only a question of a short time before the St. Kilda wren is extinct. It can do no possible harm to have the bird preserved, and I believe that everyone who has any interest at all in natural history will be anxious to see that so interesting, if so small, a specimen should be preserved from extinction. That is the whole purpose of the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will agree to read it a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now Read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  1438
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD: My Lords, there are certain Amendments standing in my name on the Paper the effect of which is to leave out the words "or tract of coal." These words were inserted in Committee on the Motion of the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill, and I now understand that the noble Marquess is quite prepared, for reasons which he would prefer himself to state to your Lordships, to accept my Amendments to strike out these words.
  Amendments moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 3, line 27, to leave out the words 'or tract of coal'";
  "In Clause 5, page 3, line 38, to leave out the words 'or tract of coal'";
  "In Clause 6, page 3, line 42, to leave out the words 'or tract of coal'";
  "In Clause 9, page 6, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'any tract of coal never galed before the passing of this Act and'";
  "In Clause 10, page 6, line 21, to leave out from the word 'Act' to the end of paragraph (1)."—(The Earl of Chesterfield.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Earl has rightly stated the facts. I think I told your Lordships when I moved the Second Reading that this was an agreed Bill; that is to say, that all the parties interested had come to an agreement as to its provisions. I believe that to have been in the main true as regards the Bill as it was read a second time in this House. When the Bill was in Committee certain Amendments were, on my Motion, introduced into it, and among those Amendments were those which my noble friend opposite now proposes to strike out. I have been informed that, although the Bill as it came from the House of Commons was an agreed measure, to the Amendments to which the noble Earl has called attention a certain amount of exception has been taken; and as there was some kind

  1439
  of understanding that the Bill should be agreed throughout, I am willing, on behalf of the Government, to accept these Amendments.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  THE FINANCE BILL.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I understand that it is necessary that the Finance Bill should pass through all its stages to-morrow by half-past five in consequence of the arrangements of the other House of Parliament. In those circumstances I would venture to suggest that the House should meet for public business at three o'clock.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am surprised to hear from the noble Marquess that it is necessary that this Bill should pass through all its stages and receive the Royal Assent by half-past five tomorrow. The noble Marquess courteously informed me of this proposal yesterday, and I do not oppose it personally, as I prefer this arrangement to having to sit to-night, which I understood was the alternative. I do, however, protest against what I call the indignity shown to the House by the presentation of the Bill at such a late period of the session, and the forcing it through all its stages at one short sitting. I shall make that protest to-morrow, and, of course, I have no control over other speakers who, acting within their right, may occupy considerable time, and in that way the object of the noble Marquess may be defeated.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered To-morrow in order to its being suspended for that day's sitting.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.