Sitting of 16 May 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Marylebone Chapels (Saint James, Westmoreland Street) Bill [Lords]; Minehead Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords]; West Riding Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Land Drainage Provisional Order (Owston and West Butterwick, in county of Lincoln (Parts of Lindsey) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local

  1361
  Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Heading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill: Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [Lords]: Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [Lords], As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]; Harrogate Waterworks Tram-road Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [Lords]; Llanelly Harbour Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords]: Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [Lords]; Shipley Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; mouth Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15). Bill to confirm a Provisional I Order of the Local Government Board
  1362
  relating to Cardiff, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Cardiff," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to — Metro politan Police Provisional Order Bill without Amendment.
  Whitby Gas Bill; Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill, with Amendments.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Lindal in Furness; Milnathort; Partick; Kirkby Muxloe; Westarhan; New Bury; Farn-worth (four); Rinley; Derby; West Bromwich; Kincardine; Edinburgh (two); Warrington; North Shields; Glasgow (five); North Berwick; Cornsay; Esk; Beamish; Blackhill; Hamsteels; Langley Park; Bathgate; Sheffield (two); Wroughton Road; Lewes; Glastonbury; Liverpool; Cornsay Colliery; Langley Moor; Waterhouses; Beith; Hammersmith; Oxford; Bath; Bearpark; Gourock; Inverness; East Somerset; Holsworthy; Bainbridge; Stanwiek; Northampton; Gowerton; Caersalem Newydd; Wannarewydd; Gurnos; Ynysmendw; Ystalyfera; Brynamman; Rotherham (two); Newcastle on Tyne; Hamilton; Marley Hill; Galashiels; Holloway; Alva; ficcles; Alloa; Milnathort; Southend; Newport; Wellington; Mere; Birstall; Reading; Thetford; Falmouth; Penryn; Paisley; Todmodcn; Fraserburgh; Thornhill; Kirkpatrick Fleming (two); Kettering; Tiverton; Cranbourne; Dundee (four); Penrith; Malmesbury; Chippenham; Rye; Egremont; Sawtry; Caythorpe; Locharbriggs: Kinloch Laggan; Treboeth; Landore; Aberdeen; Canning Town: Burnley; Paisley; and Parkgate; to lie upon the table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th June, 1903; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 117.]
  Copy presented, of Report of the Eastern Mail Service Committee, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1903. Volume II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-first Report of the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Medway Conservancy. Copy of Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Conservators for the year ending 25th March, 1904 [by Act].
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the Proceedings of Parish Councils in regard to Allotments and Common Pasture under Section 26 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; and (2) the Proceedings of County Councils in regard to representations by Parish Councils for Orders under The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease compulsorily for Allotments since the date of the list Return on the 15th day of July last (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 257, of Session 1903)."—
ORAL ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Water Suppy of Erbusaig School
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the sanitary inspector for Ross and Cromarty reports that the water supply of Erbusaig School is unsatisfactory: and will he consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to have this defect remedied.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I have made inquiries on the point raised by the lion. Member, and am informed by the Local Government Board that the water supply for Erbusaig School is at present ample.

    Construction of Harbour at Avoch, Rossshire—Government Grant.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state what sum it is proposed to grant in aid of the construction of a harbour at Avoch. Ross-shire.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed that the Harbour Trustees have applied to the Treasury for a grant, and I am unable at present to give the hon. Member any further information.

    Publication of Report of Fishery Board for Scotland.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state when the Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland will be in the hands of Members.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland (Part I.) is in the hands of the printers, and will, I understand, be circulated in the course of the next few days.

    Refusal to Read Burial Service by Vicar of Little Canfield, Essex.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Rev. W. H. Hills, the rector of Little Canfield, Essex, recently refused to read the appointed burial service of the Church of England on the

    1365
    burial of Mrs. Morton, a parishioner, on the ground that, although a church-woman, she was not a communicant, he at the same time expressing his willingness to read an alternative service, and that, in consequence of such refusal the gravedigger refused to dig the grave and the services of a gravedigger of another parish had to be secured, and the service had to be read by a Nonconformist minister; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)I have made inquiries into this rise. It does not appear that in is one in which I have any jurisdiction, and I understand that the matter is before the Bishop of the diocese. In these circumstances I do not propose to discuss the facts of the ease or how far they are exactly represented by the term- of the Question.

    Proposal of the Standing Committee of the Baronetage.
    SIR JOHN DORINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the proposal made to him in a letter from the Standing Council of the Baronetage, dated 3rd February last, that a special body or Commission should be appointed to inquire into and report on the questions respecting which he had asked for information, and any other questions connected therewith; and if so, will he state what action he proposes to rake in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have duly considered the proposal to which my hon. friend refers, out I doubt whether the question at issue calls for the appointment of a commission of inquiry such as is suggested. I am not in a position to state the advice which I shall have to give His Majesty the King as to the possibility of providing a remedy for the alleged wrongful assumption of baronetcies. I can only say that I have not yet seen any suitable proposal for an effectual remedy, and it may be feared that the remedy, if any, is by legislation.

    Insanitary Condition of the River Ray
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the insanitary condition of the River Ray, a stream running between the town of Swindon and the Thames; and whether he will bring pressure to bear on the authorities concerned to undertake the duty of cleansing the stream, which does not come within the scope of the Thames Conservators' powers.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been drawn to this subject. I have no power to require the local authorities to undertake the cleansing of the stream, but I am communicating with them on the subject.

    Nursing of Sick Poor in Workhouses—Recommendations of Committee.
    SIR HARRY SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board has decided to issue a general Order consequent upon the recommendation contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee upon the nursing of the sick poor in workhouses; if so, when such order will be issued and before such issue, for what Parliamentary period will the order be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons for its consideration.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This matter is receiving my attention with a view to the issue of an Order as early as practicable. It will not be necessary, however, that the Order should be land upon the Table of the House prior to its issue.

    Postal Facilities at Leamyglissane and Cummeen.
    MR. MURPHY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of improving the postal delivery at Leamyglissane near Gneeveguilla, county Kerry, and making it a daily delivery; and also of improving the delivery at Cummeen, near Kiliamey, so as to make it the same as the delivery on the adjoining townlands.

    1367
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.)Inquiries are being made on the question of improving the postal service at Leamy-glissane, near Gneeveguilla, and also at Cummeen, near Killarney. The result shall be communicated to the hon. Member in due course.

    Extension of Trunk Telephone System to Tralee.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received resolutions from the Kerry County Council and Tralee Urban Council, asking to extend the trunk telephone system to Tralee: and whether, as Tralee is one of the most important business towns in the South of Ireland, he will consider those applications.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have received the resolutions referred to by the hon. Member, and local inquiry is at present being made as to the amount I performed by the officer selected of support likely to be given if an extension of the trunk system to county Kerry were carried out. Tralee is in the same local exchange area as Killarney, and the best means of serving the area would be by a trunk line between Mallow and Killarney. It would rest with the National Telephone Company, who have an exchange at Tralee to connect that exchange with the trunk exchange at Killarney. The cost of the trunk line between Mallow and Killarney would he considerable, and I shall be glad of any information as to those from whom I may hope to receive support.

    Delays in London and Brighton Telephone Service.
    MR. LODER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the constant delays in transmitting telephone messages between London and Brighton; and whether he will take steps to arrange for a more efficient service.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The telephone traffic between London and Brighton is subject, occasionally, to delay owing to some exceptional difficulties in the maintenance of the lines as well as to the amount of the traffic Steps are
    1368
    being taken to provide additional lines, which will, I hope, prevent these delays.

    Cork Post Office—Qualifications of Officer selected as Clerk.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state, in view of the recent indoor revision at Cork, what are the postal qualifications of the officer selected for the position of clerk, and whether, seeing that this position of clerk is redundant, and provided to meet the annual and sick leaves of the other clerks and assistant superintendents in the sorting office, he will state how often the officer selected has performed superior duties in the sorting office, how often has he performed sorting clerk's and telegraphist's duties there; and whether he is aware that these duties are being performed for the greater part of the year by most of the officers who have been passed over, while they have never been performed by the officer selected.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The officer in question is fully qualified for the postal duties which he has to perform, and was the best qualified of the eligible candidates. I fully considered the claims and qualifications of all the officers standing above him on the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists. The superior duties to which the hon. Member refers are, it is presumed, those performed by the senior sorting clerks and telegraphists who act as substitutes for clerks absent on leave. The officer promoted did not perform these duties, though he was fully competent to do so, having been detached for others of a more important and responsible character. He has performed the ordinary duties of a sorting clerk and telegraphist for about six years. I do not think any useful object would be gained by discussing in this House the details of the duties which he has hitherto performed or the precise nature of his qualifications.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to see that the officer promoted to the position of clerk (new appointment), sanctioned under the indoor revision at Cork, fulfils the terms of his appointment and takes up the duty of the redundant

    1369
    clerk—viz., relieving other clerks and assistant superintendents on sick and annual leave; and, seeing that he is now the junior officer of his class, he will not be allowed to retain the duties of postmaster's writing clerk, as this duty can be provided for by senior officers on the class of clerks.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is true that an additional appointment was created because an officer of the rank of clerk was required to act as substitute for officers of higher rank absent on leave or from other causes. But it would not be in accordance with the ordinary rule of the service to select the junior clerk to act as substitute on the higher class. A senior clerk would be selected, and the junior clerk will be employed on any duties for which he may be best qualified The officer selected to act as postmaster's writing clerk will be the one best qualified for the duties to be performed.

    10th March, 1894.

    1st February, 1904.

    Great Britian.

    Germany.

    Great Britian.

    Germany.

    Battleships

    3

    6

    13

    Cruisers

    5

    2

    22

    7

    Sloops

    2

    0

    2

    0

    Gunboats.

    2

    0

    0

    1

    Destroyers

    36

    1†

    31

    6

    German Battleship Building Programme.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the German Navy Bill of 12th June, 1900, provided for laying down two battleships in 1904, two in 1905, and two in 1905; and, if so, can he say whether this programme is being carried out according to its provisions, or whether the building of these battleships has been accelerated.
    {Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The German programme of 1900 allowed for two battleships each year from 1901 to 1909 inclusive. Up to the present this
    †Divisional Boat of about 3u0 tons.

    The British and German Navies.
    MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what were the numbers of battleships, cruisers, sloops, gunboats, and destroyers building in Great Britain on 10th March, 1894, when the Liberal Government announced their new programme of seven battleships, six cruisers, and two sloops, and what were the numbers of the various classes of the aforesaid ships building on 1st February, 1904, when the present Government announced their programme of two battleships, four cruisers, and fourteen destroyers; and can he state the numbers of the various classes of the aforesaid ships building in Germany on or about the said dates of the 10th March, 1894 and the 2nd February, 1904.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The numbers of battleships, cruisers, etc. building in Great Britain and Germany on the dates named were as follows:—
    programme has been adhered to, and has not been accelerated in any way.

    Railway Carriage on Grain, Potatoes etc, in Scotland.
    MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what reply has been obtained from the railway companies to the representations of the Board that were based on a memorial from the County Council of Perth, on the inequalities of the rates for grain, potatoes, etc., between stations in Scotland, and on the high charges for the carriage of fruit from Blairgowrie to England as compared with the cost of

    1371
    carrying fruit to the same towns from the Continent.
    (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) On receipt of the memorial to which the hon. Member refers, detailed inquiry was instituted and an interim report was sent to the county council for their observations in January. 1903. The inquiry has since been continued, but it was found practically impossible to confine it to the actual cases against which complaint was made, and a Departmental Committee has now been appointed to investigate generally the alleged preferential treatment of foreign and colonial as compared with British produce. The specific complaints made by the Perthshire County Council will be brought before that Committee.

    Position of Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Instruction to the Income - Tax Committee, which covers the system of repayment of overpaid income-tax, and as such overpayments in surveyors' offices are regulated by the clerical staff under the supervision of the surveyor, he will, under the circumstances, further instruct the Committee to inquire into the position of surveyors' clerks, in order that provision may be made for their establishment as permanent civil servants, or such other steps taken as will guarantee them security in their profession, and a prospect of maintenance as they become unfit for further service.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)No such question could possibly come within the scope of the present inquiry.

    Re-organisation of Indian Army-Lord Kitchener's Memorandum.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table a copy of Lord Kitchener's recent Memorandum concerning the organisation of the Army in India, and particularly that portion relating to the duty of every European to serve in the Volunteer force.
    1372
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I will lay a copy of the Memorandum on the Table.

    Estimated Increased Annual Cost of Indian Police Service.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will be in a position to state, at an early date, the estimated increased annual cost of the Indian police service involved in the adoption of the recommendation of the Police Commission now under the consideration of the Council of India.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As I have already stated on more than one occasion in reply to Questions in this House, lam unable to make any statement in regard to the measures to be taken upon the recommendations of the Police Commission until I receive the opinion upon them of the Government of India, under whose' consideration (and not that of the Council of India) they now are. I have urged expedition in dealing with the Report of the Commission, but I cannot say when I shall receive the views of the Government of India upon it.

    Teachers as Secretaries to School Attendance Committees.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any rule of the Irish National Board preventing a teacher from acting as secretary to a school attendance committee: and, if so, what is that rule; and will he explain why a teacher is debarred from the discharge of purely secretarial work of this kind.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Under Rule 180' (a) "Teachers of national schools are not permitted to carry on, or engage in, any business or occupation that will impair their usefulness as teachers." It has been decided that the position of secretary to a school attendance committee comes within the rule.

    Clerks in Irish County Surveyor's and County Secretary's Offices.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, where county

    1373
    councils in Ireland made new permanent appointments such as clerks in the county surveyor's and county secretary's offices under Section 83 (6) of the Local Government Act of 1898, such officers become entitled to superannuation after certain service; and, if so, will he state the minimum period they are rehired to serve before they become pensionable officers; and whether such officers can be dismissed at any time during their service by county councils without assigning any cause and without the sanction of the Local Government Board.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Section 83 (11) applies the provisions of the Union Officers' Superannuation Acts to officers of county councils (other than the county surveyor). Under these enactments a county council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, grant a pension not exceeding two-thirds of his salary and emoluments to a clerk n the county surveyor's or in the secretary's office on his ceasing to hold office, provided (a) he has devoted his whole time to the service of the county, and (b) that he becomes incapacitated for service on the ground of old age or permanent infirmity of mind or body. An officer can only be pensioned on ground of old age if he has attained the age of sixty years, and has served as a county officer for twenty years at the least. The clerks referred to are not entitled as of right to receive pensions, and they can be appointed and removed without the sanction of the Local Government Board.

    Irish Land Commission
    MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Mr. George Bolster, of Glenmount, Kanturk, county Cork, is a member of the Land Commission operating in Cork County, and that he deals with the land cases coming from a district in which he has personal interests, he will state if this is in accordance with the regulations and practice of the Land Commissioners.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Mr. Bolster is at present working as a Lay
    1374
    Assistant Commissioner in the districts of Bandon, Clonakilty, and Dunmanway, Mr. Bolster reports that he has no personal interests in the districts in which he is working. He has acted as a Lay Assistant Commissioner for over eight years, and the Land Commissioners have every confidence in his impartiality.

    Extra Police Charges remitted in Galway.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under what circumstances the sum of £756 13s. 3d. was remitted for extra police charges in the case of the county of Galway; and how this case can be distinguished from the county of Armagh.
    (Answers by Mr. Wyndham.) I have already, namely, on the 24th and 24th March and 18th April,† explained to my hon. friend the reasons which led to the remission of this and certain other sums, and I also explained the circumstances which differentiated the charge in the case of Galway and the other counties enumerated from the case of Armagh.

    Poisoning of Fish in River Lee by Outflow from Royal Gunpowder Factory.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a communication from the Lee Conservancy Board to the effect that from 10 to 12 lbs. of fish have been found dead in the River Lee; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take to prevent the poisoning of fish in that river by acid and other refuse that escapes from the cordite and gun cotton works at Waltham Abbey.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A communication to that effect has been received from the Lee Conservancy Board. As the result of a previous communication from the same board as to the nature of the effluents from the Royal Gunpowder Factory the matter was, in December, 1903, referred to the Local Government Board who forwarded a report of their inspector on the subject. The works based upon the recommendations contained in that report will be completed in two or three
    †See (4) Deletes, cxxxii, 610 and 823, cxxxiii., 304.

    1375
    weeks, when all cause for complaint will be removed.

    The Crown Agents.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many firms were invited by the Crown Agents to tender for the supply of each of the following articles on the latest occasion within the last three years on which an order for considerable quantities of such articles was given by the Crown Agents, namely:—railway rails, steel sleepers, steel bridges, locomotives, railway trucks, railway carriages, electric cranes, steam cranes, corrugated iron, iron pipes, cement, telegraph wire, electric cables, telegraph insulators, machinery for electric lighting, engine coal, rifles, cartridges, and harness.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The preparation of the answer to this Question will take some time. If the hon. Member will move for the information in the form of a Return I shall be prepared to give it.

    Salaries and Commission of Crown Agents.
    MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what are the salaries paid respectively to the Crown Agents, and what is done with any surplus out of the commission after paying salaries and office expenses; and what are the scales of commission charges for services in raising loans, and for services in connection with sending out material such as rails or railway materials.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The salaries at present paid to the three Crown Agents are £2,300, £1.450, and £1,200 respectively; any surplus arising out of the receipts from commissions, etc., is carried to a reserve fund, the income of which is applicable to meeting the charges for the pensions of themselves and their staff and the deficits which in some years occur in their office fund accounts. The hon. Member will find full particulars as to the authorised scales of commission for different services in the enclosure to the
    1376
    circular despatch which I have recently addressed to the Colonial Governments who employ them, and which has been laid before Parliament in Cd. 1914.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    British and Foreign Battleship Construction.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what were the total number of battleships built and building in 1900 and in 1904, according to official returns for Great Britain and for France and Germany combined; and how many battleships there are now in commission away from European waters belonging to Great Britain and to France and Germany.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The total number of battleships built and building for Great Britain in the years named was as follows:—1900, seventy (including twenty-three second and third-class); 1904, sixty-five (including six second and third-class). The total number for France and Germany combined was as follows:—1900 fifty-seven; 1904, seventy-four. There are now in commission away from European waters, five battleships belonging to Great Britain, and one belonging to France.

    Battleship Life Limits.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the accepted life of a battleship being twenty-five years, it is the case that in 1907 five first and second-class battleships, appearing in the Admiralty Return of fleets just issued, will have exceeded this life limit; and whether, to replace such ships in the said year, it would be necessary to lay down five ships in the year.
    MR. PRETYMAN: No rule is laid down as to the accepted life of a battleship; but in the Return of Fleets just issued there are six battleships, viz., one first-class, four second, and one third, which will have either attained or exceeded twenty-five years life (from date

    1377
    of launching) in 1907. The point raised in the last part of my hon. friend's Question was fully considered in settling the shipbuilding programme of the present year.

    North of Scotland Fisheries-Prevention of Illegal Trawling.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that H.M.S. "Jackal," which has hitherto been engaged in protecting the interests of the line fishermen from the depredations of illegal trawling off the coasts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, recently made three cruises for the purposes of scientific research in connection with the International North Sea Investigations, will he state what Admiralty vessel was detailed to perform the sea police duties of the "Jackal" during her two months absence.
    MR. PRETYMAN: The "Jackal" was detailed for scientific research at the request of the Scotch Fishery Board, and as part of her fishery duties. No relief ship has, therefore, been detailed.

    Mortality among the Natives in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of natives employed in the mines of the Transvaal generally and of the Rand in particular, or the number employed either in the Transvaal or on the Rand, who died in the year 1903; and, if not, if he will say on what data the death rates per 1,000 have been calculated.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTXELTON,): The data on which are calculated the death rate per 1,000 which I quoted in the House on Wednesday last are given at page 389 of Cd. 1897 and page 58 of Cd. 2025 just issued. The two sets of figures do not relate to exactly the same areas, but the data given in the Blue-books show that the deaths for January to July, 1903, on mines in Johannesburg, Krugersdorp, Boksburg, Germiston, and Springs were 2,514, and that for August to December on these mines including these districts
    1378
    and also Klerksdorp, Heildelberg, and Vereeniging the deaths were 2,319.

    Mine Doctors' Report on Disease among Natives on the Rand.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will present to this House the Report of the Committee of Mine Doctors who recently reported to the Transvaal Commissioner of Native Affairs on the causes of disease among natives on the Rand.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not been informed of any Report of the Committee of Mine Doctors later than that of 6th June, 1903, published in Cd. 1897.

    Chinese Labour in the Transvaal-Commissariat Arrangements.
    MR. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies can he state if arrangements will be made within the compounds in South Africa for the sale to the families of the Chinese labourers of provisions and the necessaries of life at prices commensurate with the wages to be paid.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer the hon. Member to Lord Milner's assurance on the subject printed in Cd. 1986 at page 3.

    The Tibetan Mission—Advance on Lhasa.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I Deg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government will wait to give final sanction to the advance on Lhasa till the Chinese Amban has arrived at Gyangtse and the Report of his dealings with our Commissioners has been published.
    MR. FLYNN: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the despatch dated 6th November, 1903, sent to the Viceroy of India, the contemplated armed expedition to Lhasa will be delayed until this House has had an opportunity of deciding on the propriety of taking such action.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): As I stated in this House on the

    1379
    12th inst., the advance on Lhasa has been l actually sanctioned, unless, within a period to be fixed by the Government of India, the Chinese Amban arrives at Gyangtse accompanied by a competent Tibetan negotiator. If this condition is not fulfilled, the advance will take place without any further sanction.
    MR. FLYNN: Have the Government dropped the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister and adopted Lord Curzon's forward policy?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. TREVELYAN: Who are the Government of India to give sanction in Lord Curzon's absence?
    MR. BRODRICK: The next senior Governor, Lord Ampthill, is administering the Government Curzon's absence.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the period referred to been yet fixed?
    MR. BRODRICK: It is for the Government of India to decide the period, and His Majesty's Government has not yet been informed of their decision.

    Strength of the Tibetan Expedition.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the effective righting strength of the expedition now at Gyangtse, with the number of guns, rifles, and ammunition; for how long is it provisioned; whether supplies are available in the country; what is the length of the communications, the strength of the forces on them; and what is the nearest British force available should the expedition need relief.
    MR. BRODRICK: The lion. Member asks a series of Questions calculated to elicit information which I think he will realise it would not be in the public interest to give. General Macdonald informed us on the 14th inst. that the Mission is safe at Gyangste. His Majesty's Government have sanctioned the dispatch of any reinforcements which the Indian Government may consider necessary for the safety of the Mission and its communications

    Date of Advance to Lhasa—Chinese Suzerainty in Tibet.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the period fixed before which the Tibetan Expedition will proceed to Lhasa; where is the Chinese Amban to whom notice is to be given; how is it proposed to communicate with him: and what is the character of the Chinese suzeraintv in Tibet.
    MR. BRODRICK: As I have already stated, I have not yet been informed by the Government of India of the date they will name in the communication to be sent to the Chinese Amban for the advance of the Mission, in the event of the Tibetan Government failing to send competent negotiators to Gyangtse. The Chinese Amban is not reported to have left Lhasa. The communication will, I presume, be sent to him there in the same manner as previous letters to him. The character of the Chinese suzerainty in Tibet is shown in Prince Ching's Note of the 5th December, 1902, explaining the instructions sent by the Chinese Government to the Amban at Lhasa. It is printed at page 147 of the Tibet Blue-book.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Was the Chinese Government communicated with before the ultimatum was sent?
    MR. BRODRICK: The information was given jointly to the Chinese Government and the Amban.

    Smoke Nuisance—Foreign Legislation.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will consent to instruct His Majesty's representatives in France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and the United States of America to furnish Reports on the laws in force IL those countries respectively, and for the United States in a few typical States for the regulation, restriction, or prevention of the emission of smoke from factories and other business premises and from private dwelling houses, with such extracts from those laws as may be needed to explain their operation.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): Yes, Sir. I understand that the object of the right hon. Gentleman will be met, as regards the United States, by Reports on the laws in force in the States of Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

    Chinese War Indemnity.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state whether the annual instalments of over £300,000 receivable in respect of the Chinese war indemnity will, after the private claims of British subjects have been satisfied, be applied to the reduction of debt according to the terms of the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1902.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The instalment receivable from China at the end of next month is expected to suffice for; paying off the balance of the private claims. The remaining instalment will be applicable to the discharge of the British Government claim and of certain claims in respect of damage to the Northern Railways, which were included in the Government claim. It has not yet been settled in what manner the railway claims are to be liquidated. Pending settlement on that matter, it would be premature to propose to Parliament to decide as to the ultimate application of the receipts.

    Eastern Mail Service Committee's Report.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now lay upon the Table the Report of the Eastern Mail Service Committee, and what opportunity will be given for discussion upon it.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I have this day laid the Report on the Table. The opportunity for discussion upon it will arise when the Estimates for the Post Office Packet Services are brought forward.

    The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897—Proposed Amendment.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Home Office have yet concluded the inquiries referred to by the Home Secretary last session, preliminary to the introduction of a Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897; and when the Government propose to introduce a Bill for the purpose of amending and extending the said Act.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I cannot add anything to the answers which I have recently given on this subject, except, perhaps, that I understand that the Departmental Committee is making good progress with its Report.

    Gambling Prosecutions.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of prosecutions which have been instituted for each year within the last ten years against persons for keeping premises which have been used for purposes of gambling; will he also state how many of these prosecutions were instituted against persons of foreign origin.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The annual volumes of Criminal Statistics show the total number of prosecutions for "betting and gaming," but the nature of the various offences included under this head is not distinguished nor are the nationalities of the defendants given, and I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member; the precise details which he desires.

    Scientific Results of Vivisection.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can state what scientific results have been derived from the vivisection of dogs and other animals during the past year.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I think the hon. Member is asking rather too much if he expects me to compress into the form of an answer to a Question the

    1383
    scientific results of a year's experimental research. I would refer him to the periodical transactions of learned societies, to various essays, and to other scattered publications, both past and future, for no doubt some of last year's results have not yet been published. I cannot give the hon. Member the information he desires.

    Vehicular Traffic Regulations in the Metropolis.
    MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the view expressed in his letter of 3rd July, 1903, to certain owners of vehicles, that, if the driver of a vehicle could see in front and on each side of him, within the range of an are of 180 degrees, that would be considered as reasonably complying with the requirements of the London County Council's by-law on the subject, has been communicated to the Chief Commissioner of Police; and, if not, will he cause such an instruction to be issued for the guidance of the police authorities.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I presume the hon. Member has in mind the proceedings taken against Messrs. Carter, Paterson & Co. in the Guildhall Court last week. I have no special information as to the facts of that case, or the grounds of the decision of the Court, but I may say that it was not intended by the London County Council in proposing the by-law to require a wider view of traffic than that contained within an are of 180 degrees. The case in question was a City one, and I am in communication with the Commissioner of City Police on the subject.

    Teachers on Education Authorities.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, if he is aware that teachers in public elementary schools have been elected members of a county, borough, or urban district council having the administration of the Education Act of 1902 within its area; and, if so, does he propose to take any action in the matter.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I am not aware of any such cases.

    London County Council Education Committee and the Press.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to to the Board of Education, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Education Committee of the London County Council has resolved that at the sittings of that committee the public and the pre-s shall be excluded; whether it be the practice of educational committees in the provinces to so hold their sittings in private; whether the Education Board have sanctioned that decision of the Education Committee of the London County Council; and, if not, whether he will make representations to the committee of the views of the Board of Education.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am aware that the London County Council have resolved that the public and the Press shall be excluded from the meetings of their Education Committee. The publicity of the meetings of education committees is a matter of procedure which every local authority regulates for itself. The Board of Education have reason to believe that the education committees in the provinces usually held their sittings in public, but the procedure of local authorities in the conduct of their business is not a subject for sanction or representation by the Board.

    St James's Park Paths.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the state of the asphalted paths in St. James's Park, more especially to that on the bridge which spans the ornamental water; and whether he will take steps to have them repaired.
    LORD BALCARRES: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative: the paths in question will be repaired in the autumn, that being the season when the work can be carried out with the least inconvenience to the public.

    Cahirciveen Estuary—Buoys.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now

    1385
    in a position to state what is the authority competent to undertake the placing of buoys and perches in the estuary of the Cahirciveen river, county Kerry; and whether immediate steps will be taken to carry out the work.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR RELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Congested Districts Board has been advised that it is a lighthouse authority under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The Board has informed the county council that it will undertake the erection of buoys or perches at the entrance to the river, provided the county authorities are prepared to contribute the sum of £50 towards the cost, and provided the Commissioners of Irish Lights approve of the erection of the buoys. The Board awaits a reply from the county council before taking further action.
    MR. JOYCE: Why is it that the Irish Lights Commissioners themselves did not put down the buoys and beacons?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of argument.
    MR. JOYCE: No.
    MR. FLYNN: Why has it taken the Board four years to find out that it is the authority?
    MR. JOYCE: Why do not the Irish Lights Commissioners do the work?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Granard Workhouse Master.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu- I tenant of Ireland if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the report which led to the dismissal of the workhouse master at Granard, whom the Local Government Board had appointed; if not, will he give the name of the person who made the reports, and state the reasons for the workhouse master's dismissal.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The late master was required to resign on the ground of incapacity to properly maintain
    1386
    discipline in the workhouse. The Board's decision was based on information supplied by the inspector. The report made by the inspector is a confidential document and, as such, cannot be laid on the Table of the House.

    Dundrum Estate, County Tipperary.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view to hastening and facilitating the sale of the Dundrum Estate of the Earl de Montalt, in county Tipperary, he will take steps to have the Chief Land Commission sit immediately in the town of Tipperary, or other convenient centre, to hear appeals from the Sub-Commission Court for the purpose of fixing fair rents, the applications for which in the estate referred to, as well as in others, have been in Court for nearly seven years.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Thirty-two fair rent appeals are pending from this estate. Twenty-seven of these appeared on the preliminary list already issued for hearing at Waterford, but the Tipperary cases were removed from the final list owing to complaints received from several parties as to the place of hearing. It has not been yet found possible to arrange for a sitting to dispose of the Tipperary cases. None of the appeals from this district are pending for seven years; the longest outstanding notices of appeal were lodged in July, 1900.

    Ballinasloe Asylum—Dr. Kirwan's Appointment.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-; tenant of Ireland if he will state what is the cause of the delay in sanctioning the appointment of Doctor Kirwan as resident medical superintendent to the Ballinasloe Asylum; whether Doctor Kirwan is duly qualified for the position; and whether the committee have expressed their dissatisfaction at the withholding of the sanction such a length of time.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The official file of papers containing the correspondence

    1387
    that has passed on the subject of this appointment is before me to-day. I must ask the hon. Member, as well as my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast. to postpone their Questions till Wednesday.
    The following is the Question of the hon. Member for South Belfast referred to—
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Ballinasloe District Asylum, held on the 9th instant, a letter was real from the Lord-Lieutenant asking to be informed why, in electing Dr. Kirwan to the vacant office of resident medical superintendent, they had passed over the senior assistant medical officer of the asylum; and if so, can he state whether information was refused to the Lord-Lieutenant; and, if so, what action, if any, does he intend to take in the matter.

    Lough Neagh Drainage.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the engineer appointed to report on the drainage of Lough Neagh has made his report; and if so, on what occasion, and in what manner, does he propose to make it public.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The engineer's report on the drainage of Lough Neagh will be ready in about four weeks. It will be communicated to the Treasury and to the Irish Government. The question whether further publicity should be given to the report, and, if so, the form the publication should take, will be considered when the report has been made.

    College of Science, Dublin—Appointment of Architect.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Board of Works, Ireland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, whether the Treasury, before making the appointment of archi-
    1388
    tect for the proposed new buildings of the College of Science, Dublin, consulted with those Departments; and, if so, did they, or either of them, suggest that an Irish architect should he employed.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not occupy the position of President of the Board of Works, a Department which is under the Treasury. I was, however, consulted on more than one occasion. Inter-departmental communications of this kind are confidential.

    Bicycle Thefts in Dublin.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases of theft of bicycles in Dublin have been reported to the police within the past twelve months; how many of such cases have occurred within the past month; in how many of all these cases have arrests been made and convictions obtained respectively; and what other steps have been taken to bring offenders to justice.
    MR. WYNDHAM: 209 thefts of bicycles were reported to the police during the past twelve months; of these seventy-eight were recovered. There were twenty-two thefts last month; in four cases the bicycles were recovered. Twenty-one persons were arrested; sixteen were convicted and five discharged. The police use every endeavour suggested by experience in such matters to bring offenders to justice.

    Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Return.
    MR. O'SHA.UGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the cause of delay in the publication of the Return dealing with Labourers' Cottages (Ireland), laid upon the Table of the House on the 28th ultimo.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Irish Government is not answerable for the printing of Parliamentay Papers. I am informed, however, that there has been no avoidable delay in this case, and that the Return will be circulated in a day or two.

    Re-instatement of Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURRHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to secure the re-instatement of evicted tenants like Mr. Daniel Shea on the Kenmare Estate, and Mr. Morty Buckley on the Morrogh Bernard Estate, and other similar cases where the farms are at present untenanted in the county of Kerry; whether the Commissioners will at once negotiate for a re-instatement of such tenants even if a general sale of the landlord's estate does not take place; and, in the event of such landlords obstructing re-instatement, do the Estates Commissioners possess or will he take steps to give them legislative powers to enforce their decision.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No application for the sale of the estates on which the two evicted holdings in question are situated has yet been made to the Estates Commissioners. Failing such application the Commissioners are empowered to arrange, where possible, for the accommodation of evicted tenants on other untenanted lands in the neighbourhood that may be acquired by them. The sale to an evicted tenant of his previous holding can best be effected as a part of a general arrangement for the sale of an estate.
    MR. MURPHY: I want to ask if, in the case of the farms of evicted tenants still untenanted, the Estates Commissioners will do anything to secure the re-instatement of the tenants? This matter is of great importance in the county of Kerry. Will the right to a Gentleman call upon the Estate commissioners to take action in the matter?
    MR. WYNDHAMreplied that the Estates Commissioners were fully alive to the importance of the matter and he had every confidence in them; no useful purpose was served by continually raising the question.

    Tredinnick Estate, County Roscommon.
    MR. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon. I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the owner of the estate of W. R. Tredinnick (county Roscommon) now in
    1390
    the Land Judge's Court, is negotiating a sale to the Congested Districts Board; whether the Congested Districts Board have entered into or completed any negotiations for purchase; whether, seeing that the estate is now in Court for twenty-three years, he will say if any steps have been taken by the Land Judge to carry out a sale of the property, or if he proposes to take any steps to expedite a sale.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Negotiations took place in 1900 between the Congested Districts Board and Captain Tredinnick, but were broken off by the latter. There are no proceedings pending in the Land Judge's Court in respect of the sale of the property.

    Belcoo Police Force.
    MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make further inquiries to ascertain if the increased Constabulary force now at Belcoo, or a further augmented force there, would be sufficient for the discharge of all the duties not only at Belcoo but at Letter Brcen and Carngreen stations, and thereby diminish the Constabulary expenses in those districts.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member's Question is based on a misapprehension. There are no extra police stationed in the county and consequently the employment of police at these stations entails no expense to the localities. It is not proposed to make any further change at present in the existing arrangements.

    Religious Nomenclature-"Catholic" or Roman Catholic.
    The following Question appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial forwarded to the Department of Agriculture by the Roman Catholic clerks in the Veterinary Branch of the Department, asking for an increment of salary, was suppressed by the chief clerk, who declined to forward the petition to the heads of the Department, and threatened that any attempt at a renewal of the application would be

    1391
    visited by dismissal; and, if so, whether he will state if the Department is willing to consider the alleged grievances of those officials.
    On being called on to put the Question the hon. Member protested that the clerks at the Table had again inserted the word "Roman" before "Catholic." He asked the Speaker if it had been done by his authority.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think it is well known to most hon. Members that the word "Roman" as such is not intended, and never is supposed to be, an offensive observation or description. The word is one that is used not for the purpose of creating, but of avoiding, any feelings of religious objection or animosity of any kind. It is not objected to in that sense, and as the use of the word "Catholic" is one which is claimed by other Churches as well, the insertion of "Roman" is merely intended to avoid any dispute or difference or ambiguity, and for no other purpose is it used. It is always the practice to indicate by the word "Roman" what Church is meant.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask, in view of the fact that the word "Roman" is regarded as offensive —[MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: How do you know?] Inasmuch as it is regarded as offensive by the Roman Catholic Members of this House—[ironical cheers]—by Catholic Members of this House, and inasmuch as it is never used by us whether in these circumstances you will consider the inserting of the word in these Questions, against our wishes, is inadvisable?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid if I adopted that suggestion it would only give rise to fresh disputes. I may point out to hon. Members that one of the hon. Members from Ireland, whose religion I do not know, had a Bill last year called the Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill, which he introduced under that title, and in which he speaks of Catholics throughout the whole Bill as "Roman Catholics."
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is an historic fact, and no one can dispute it,
    1392
    that the appellation is always regarded as offensive by the Catholics of Ireland.
    MR. SPEAKER: I should be personally extremely anxious to avoid giving offence to any denomination. I will consider the point.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to give notice that I will put this Question down for to-morrow (Tuesday), in its original form, in order to secure your ruling.

    Case of Michael Curtin.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what statement was made by the Coroner's jury in the city of Cork regarding the action of the resident magistrate, W. Flanagan, in refusing bail to Michael Curtin, of Mountcollins, in the county of Limerick, who was sent for trial to the Cork Assize charged with taking forcible possession of a dwelling-house from which he and his family were evicted, and who' died in Cork Prison.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The jury made no comment on the action of the resident magistrate. The Coroner made some observations.

    Banbridge Disturbances.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that a number of Roman Catholics who were attending a Roman Catholic concert in Banbridge on the 6th instant entered a number of private gardens, pulled up the flowers, threw them on the public road, and otherwise destroyed private property; and, if so, will he say whether any arrests have been made, and what action if any, does he intend taking in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is true that some flowers were plucked from the gardens of three houses on the date mentioned. No other injury to private property was committed. There la no evidence, whatever, to show that the damage was caused by Roman Catholics. No arrests have been made.
    MR. SLOAN: Did not the police receive complaints of the damage?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There was nothing to show by whom it were done.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the plucked flowers is being worn in the House at this moment?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Price asked for Land by Trinity College, Dublin.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a meeting was held at Ballylongford, North Kerry, on the 24th April, 1904, presided over by the Rev. P. Pierce; that at that meeting the question of the offer of Trinity College, Dublin, to sell their property at twenty-seven' years purchase was considered and rejected, owing to the price demanded by Trinity College; and, if so, what action he intends to take in the matter; and whether, seeing that the greater portion of this property is cutaway bog and mountain land, he can state the average price paid in the year's purchase by tenants in Kerry since 1886, and also what is the highest average price paid any one year from 1886 to 1892.
    MR. WYNDHAMI have no information on the first portion of the Question. If I may assume that it refers to the redemption of head-rents, no analogy can be drawn between such a redemption and the purchase of their holdings by occupying tenants. A different procedure applies to a transaction of a wholly different character. I stated on Thursday last that if the middleman does not agree to the price demanded for the redemption of the head-rent the provisions of the 64th Section of the Act of 1903 can be availed of to have the price determined by either the Land Judge or Judicial Commissioner, as the case may be. Such a case was recently referred to Mr. Justice Meredith, and after hearing fully the evidence, he fixed the redemption price for the College at twenty-six and one-tenth years purchase.
    MR. FLAVIN: But the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Trinity College is the direct landlord not the head landlord. Will the right hon.
    1394
    Gentleman inquire whether the College is not asking twenty-nine years purchase while for the past sixteen years the average price has been sixteen years purchase?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do anything with regard to the practice now obtaining in various parts of Ireland of demanding extravagant prices?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I really cannot enter on a debate as to whether the prices are extravagant. The Act of last year makes provision for dealing with matters of that kind. I can add nothing to my answer.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right Gentleman answer my Question?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman says he has given the only answer he can.
    MR. FLAVIN: But his answer was as to head landlords—not direct landlords. I will draw attention to this on the first opportunity.

    Borrisoleigh Band and the Police.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the local band at Borriso-Jeigh, North Tipperary, when performing along the public road are followed by policemen, who keep close to and hustle the bandsmen; and, if so, by whose orders is this course adopted; and, seeing that this little village is burthened with the cost of extra police, notwithstanding that the district is perfectly peaceable and free from crime, will he take steps to secure this village band from being so interfered with, and that the district may be relieved from the unnecessary burthen of four extra police on a population of only 600; and if he will state bow many persons there were convicted of agrarian offences during the past eighteen months.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The band referred to in the Question usually parades at night and its members and crowd of

    1395
    followers indulge in groaning when passing the houses of persons whose names it is unnecessary to mention. Two constables accompany the band on such occasions, but they carry out this duty unobtrusively and do not hustle the bandsmen, as alleged. The police force at Borrisoleigh has been augmented by three men, drawn from other stations in the county. Their employment involves no charge to local rates. There were convictions in respect of two agrarian offences during the past eighteen months.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: The band parados in daylight;—not at night time.

    Sanitary Accommodation in North of Ireland Trains.
    MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to complaints in the Press and otherwise, by the travelling public that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland run certain trains daily from Derry to Belfast, via Enniskillen and Clones, a distance of 140 miles, and from Derry to Dundalk, viâ Enniskillen and Clones, a distance of 120 miles, on which there is neither lavatory or sanitary accommodation in either first, second, or third-class carriages; and, if so, will he make representations to the railway company to secure a remedy for this state of affairs.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No complaints have been received by the Board of Trade in this matter, which is not one in which the Department has any statutory powers of intervention. I have, however, communicated the hon. Member's Question to the railway company and have received a reply of which I am sending him a copy.

    Irish Telegraph Service—Case of Mark Finnerty.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state why a boy named Mark Finnerty, of Croom, in the county of Limerick, who got ninth place in the examination last August for male learners in the General Post Office,
    1396
    and who obtained medical certificate, has not yet been called upon to fill one of the vacancies then existing.
    LORD STANLEY: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that an opportunity has occurred for admitting Finnerty as a learner in Dublin.

    Irish Telegraphs—Clones Limited Competition.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there were four applications to sit for a limited competition held at Clones in the autumn of 1903, at which one candidate tailed, and that the rejected candidate has since been given an appointment in place of the successful person; and, if so, will ho explain the reason for this departure from the usual practice of the Department.
    LORD STANLEY: There was no competition at Clones in 1903. For the February competition of 1904 three candidates were nominated and the successful candidate obtained his Civil Service certificate on the 9th instant, and will be called up for duty as a learner at once. A candidate who was at first refused permission to compete has, upon receipt of further favourable evidence as to his character, been admitted as a learner at Clones, but this will not necessarily entitle him to an established appointment there, and in any case will not prejudice in any way the position of the learner who was successful in the competition.

    Bank of Ireland—Advance to the Government during South African War.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Bank of Ireland advanced £1,000,000 to the Government during the South African War; and, if so, how was this advance made; whether it was advanced free of interest, and, if not, what rate of interest was paid by the Government for this advance, and for how long; and if this £1,000,000 was derived from the Exchequer balances or other funds standing to the credit of the Government at the Bank of Ireland.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As provided for by Section 2 of the Appropriation Act, 1900, the Bank of Ireland

    1397
    advanced a sum of £750,000 to the Treasury on the 20th September, 1900. That advance was repaid on the 20th December in the same year, on which day the bank made a further advance of £1,000,000, which was repaid by instal-merits between 11th February and 4th March, 1901. Both advances bore interest at the rate of 3½ per cent, per annum, regard being had in fixing this rate to the current rate at which the Government could temporarily borrow. I have no means of saying from what source the bank drew money for these advances.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Am I to understand that the Bank of Ireland, having public funds at its disposal to the amount of £1,250,000, for which it pays no interest at all, lent £1,000,000 of that to the British taxpayer and charged 3½ per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Commission or a Committee to inquire into the relations of the Bank of Ireland and the Government?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I informed the hon. and learned Member a few days ago that I thought the time for reconsidering the relations of the Government and the Bank of Ireland would come when the period for which those relations were fixed expired. I believe that will be in 1912. The relations between the two have been fixed by statute, the arrangement being made in view of all the circumstances of the case.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But will you consider the desirability of appointing a Committee?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is asking me to appoint a Committee to re-open a matter settled after full consideration, a matter to which there are two parties—
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: And a third, the taxpayer.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to re-open the matter.

    Certification of Deaths in the Highlands.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the
    1398
    fact that in some districts of Ross-shire half the deaths are uncertified and that similar conditions prevail in other Highland crofting counties, will he state whether he purposes to propose legislation to deal with the matter.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is not proposed at the present time to introduce any such legislation.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this state of affairs in the Highlands has been going on for many years?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Tuberculosis Inquiry.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will assent to the Motion, standing on this day's Paper, for a Select Committee to inquire into the question of compensation in respect of tuberculosis as it affects farmers as well as butchers, and not proceed further with the Motion for a Select Committee on the Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that two private Bills dealing with this subject have been referred to a Select Committee, and as long as that Order for the Select Committee remains on the Paper, I do not think it possible to accede to his request. I think he should negotiate with the gentlemen responsible for those Bills and possibly some agreement may be arrived at.
    MR. CHANNING: I will act on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

MONUMENT TO THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.
Committee to consider an Address to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected at the Public Charge in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late right hon. the Marquess of Salisbury; to-morrow.(Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)
MR. JOHN ELLIS: Is the Motion to be taken to-morrow?
MR. SPEAKER: The Committee is put down for to-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Attorney-General; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Solicitor-General.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
Reported without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 179.]
Bill to be taken into consideration tomorrow.

TANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Mr. Laurence Hardy.
Sir JAMES FERGUSSONfurther reported, That they had appointed Mr. John Edward Ellis to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in the place of Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  SOLICITORS BILL.
  "To apply Section 16 of The Solicitors Act, 1888, to Solicitors who are undischarged bankrupts," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 31st May, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have now arrived at a period in the work of the session, and I think it is the earliest period, when it is possible for us to take a general review of the financial policy of the Government as a whole. True, the Bill which is before us concerns itself with ways and means, with the raising of revenue, with the imposition or modification or relaxation of duties; but this House would be taking a somewhat narrow view of its functions and responsibilities if it allowed itself to be lost in the technicalities of taxation, and if, while dealing with all those matters which legitimately come before it on this Bill, it were to weigh one tax against another one, and one burden against another, and not direct a large share of its attention to the large question of the circumstances which necessitate the taxation which we are invited to impose. While I think this to be true in all years, I think it is especially true at the present moment, when the question which attracts attention in the country and excites alarm is not the question of one tax or another tax, but that of the unprecedently vast and growing expenditure which is incurred on behalf of the people of the country. There ought to be, there must be, surely one period in our financial business when this House can pronounce judgment upon the general financial situation

  1401
  in all its parts and aspects, and that period appears to me to be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I will not spend time in making excuses therefore, but will proceed to submit my Amendment, which invites a protest against the large and continuous increase of national expenditure in recent years.
  But first may I be allowed briefly to anticipate two stock replies that are always made when this complaint is put before the House? We shall be told, no doubt, as we have been told on previous occasions, that we have already assented to the Estimates of the year, or are in course of giving assent to them, and that it is too late, therefore, to raise objection. Well, putting aside the fact that objections are often taken to Votes, and especially to the governing Votes of the great spending services, such as the number of men in the Army, and that if those objections are carried to a division and the contention is defeated, at all events those who raised the objection are absolved from being liable to this reply, the Estimates come before us piecemeal and in individual Votes, and how are we to tell which ought to be rejected and which ought to be approved? We have not the knowledge or the materials for the knowledge; and I confess at once that I am not one of those who take a very sanguine view of the good effects that would follow if the House were to enlarge its responsibility in this respect in some of the ways which are sometimes suggested. But I have on this subject a little bit of sound doctrine, an ounce of doctrine which I hope may be allowed to have that degree of weight, and which I should like to quote to the House, by Mr. Gladstone. I shall have occasion, I think, again in the course of my observations to quote Mr. Gladstone, and I think everybody, even those who differed most warmly from him in general politics, will admit that he was in our time the highest authority on this question of financial procedure. This is what he said in 1868—
  "To my astonishment the doctrine seems to have been laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when once the Estimates have been accepted by independent Members the House is responsible, for them in the same degree as the Minister of the Crown. It is impossible
  1402

  too emphatically to pronounce against that opinion. It is entirely contrary to the relation in which he stands to the House. The doctrine is monstrous. The Government have unlimited opportunities of investigating the Estimates of expenditure through the departments under the supposed control of the Treasury, and how is it possible that those who have no such power, even if they agreed to the Estimates, can be responsible in the same degree, as the Government?"
  That, I think, is high authority, sound constitutional doctrine, and also, by good luck, common sense at the same time. The second answer which we shall probably receive—we always do, and I believe that every Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it on every similar occasion—is that we are called upon not to confine ourselves to vague and indeterminate declarations, but to indicate the precise head of charge which we would wish to see dropped and to put our finger upon the cause and source of mischief. To that I make the same reply. We have not access to the facts and the causes. We do not know the relations and the comparative importance of the claims of particular developments of expenditure. What we see is the swelling torrent of expenditure swamping the country, exhausting and exceeding the ordinary resources of the country, necessitating the imposition of fresh taxes at a time when we had every reason to expect that taxes would be removed, bearing cruelly upon the taxpayer, crippling him and crippling the nation. We see, also, that certain policies and lavish expenditure appear to go together. Now it may be, and it generally is, that policy, according to the accepted dictum, governs expenditure; but there may be an occasion when expenditure is indulged in and then a policy is adopted or adapted in order to justify that expenditure. But, however this may be, we have seen them associated in like circumstances before, and we believe in their connection now; and that is ample ground for our complaint. It is idle to ask us, who have neither power nor responsibility in the matter, to say where and when, in what particular and at what time a more prudent coarse should have been taken.
  Now, how do we stand in regard to this great growth of expenditure? The figures have often been put before the House. Putting aside the cost of the war, £230,000,000, there has been since

  1403
  1895 an addition of £49,000,000 per annum to the ordinary expenditure That is an addition of £1 3s. 4d. per head of the population to what was previously paid. The population has increased by 10 per cent., the expenditure by 50 per cent. Of this increase of £49,000,000 £40,000,000, have gone to the fighting services. Those are the main facts, but let me take the two services individually. Take first the Army. It cost in 1895 £17,900,000. The current year's Estimates are for £28,900,000. That is an increase of £11,000,000. To this we must add £3,600,000 of capital expenditure under the Military Works Act. As the hon. Member for Exeter said the other day, each Department has a little private debt of its own. I assume that that expenditure will be the same as last year. Then we must add anything from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 for Supplementary Estimates, for the second Budget has come to be a second nature. Put the sum at £1,500,000 and we have a total of £34,000,000, close upon double the charge of 1895. I turn to the Navy. In 1895 the cost was £17,500,000. This year's Estimates and the capital charges for naval works amount to £42,300,000, and with the probable Supplementary Estimates we shall be fortunate if they are not swollen to £44,000,000. Therefore the two services together account for £78,000,000. But let us make the Government a present of the Supplementary Estimates. Let us give them credit for turning over a new leaf under the new administration. Then—and I think this is treating the right hon. Gentleman extremely handsomely—the cost will be £74,800,000 as compared with £34,400,000 in 1895. It is into this bottomless gulf of unprofitable expenditure that the money has been flung. This outbreak of expenditure has had its fiercest developments in coincidence with the South African War. Between 1895 and 1899 there was an increase of £9,000,000 on the fighting services. But in the three following years the expenditure on the Army alone increased by £9,000,000, and on the Navy by £7,000,000—together £16,000,000. That brings us up to the financial year ending March, 1902. In the next year the Estimates were practically stationary, but last year—the first complete year of
  1404
  peace—there was another and a most significant upward movement. The Navy charges were augmented on the Estimates by over £3,000,000. If we take into account the Supplementary Estimates and works, there would be a total of £40,000,000. This process of expansion has been carried further again in this present year. The Estimate increases have not been so serious, but the fact remains that they have not diminished, but rather augmented. If retrenchment had been used at the close of the war how different the situation would have been. It is, of course, inevitable that spending Departments should get out of hand in war. War always means wasteful expenditure in the field and at home—necessarily so. The purse strings, if not actually cast away, are at all events greatly slackened. This, I am afraid, is not in the spending Departments alone; the spirit is contagious. Again I fall back on my authority, Mr. Gladstone. In 1863—in his great financial days—Mr. Gladstone said that together with the so-called increase of expenditure there went up what might be termed a spirit of expenditure, a tendency which, insensibly and unconsciously, perhaps, but really, affected the spirit of the people, the spirit of Parliament, the spirit of the public Departments, and perhaps even the spirit of those whose duty it was to submit the Estimates to Parliament. This demoralisation is a thing we have often seen before, but never more conspicuously than within the last half-dozen years. And the gravity of the situation seems to me to lie in this, that, so far as the Army Estimates are concerned, a state of things necessarily abnormal is apparently adopted as the starting point for fresh and, as far as we can sec. unlimited demands on the taxpayer. We are to march on without a halt and never to turn our eyes back to the standard of national expenditure which existed before the war.
  Now, can it be pleaded that the millions thus added to Army expenditure have been laid out in accordance with any fixed plan or scheme or purpose? No. The Prime Minister within the last few months has announced the discovery of the true functions of the Army. The Secretary of State for War told us in

  1405
  introducing the Estimates that the discovery was not yet complete. All we know for certain is that the new conception, whatever it may be, destroys the other and earlier discovery, which was announced with no less elation two years ago. Then let the House observe that the naval expenditure also must have been conducted to a great extent in the dark, seeing that it had no reference to any co-ordinated theory of defence. Let us hope that the newly-organised department of direction at the War Office, under the Cabinet or over the Cabinet—I do not know what the relation is—will not be obliged to take the expenditure incurred and the additions made to our forces during the war as a chose pugée. The expenditure was incurred under the pressure of undoubted patriotism—still, without much discernment. But the House is expected to hold this standard sacred, apparently, so far as the Estimates submitted to us this year are concerned. This is the central part of the situation, and the one that differentiates it from the other cases, when at the close of the war, the question of expenditure has come up for consideration. I am afraid that reference to anything before the nineties will be set down as being early Victorian or even prehistoric: but the Prime Minister's military researches must have led him to consider what happened on two occasions in the last century—at the end of the great Continental war at the beginning of the century and at the end of the Crimean War in the middle of the century. In 1816 the Army Estimates were cut down at once, and when a famous military predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman—the Duke of Wellington—became Prime Minister, in 1828, the knife was ruthlessly and unsparingly applied. What happened after the Crimean War? Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone vied with each other in giving the Government of the day no peace and insisting on bringing expenditure back to the standard existing before the war. These precedents may be considered too remote, but they are not uninteresting or uninstructive to the country. So far as we are informed in this House, no hope of diminished expenditure has yet been exhibited. The Secretary of State for War said, taking the aggregate Vote and comparing it with last year's, we had
  1406
  £280,000 less than what he thought was the normal War Office Estimate. That is, the normal state of things must be taken as having been reflected by the expenditure of last year—an expenditure which was, practically, twice what it was ten years ago, and £10,000,000 in excess of the immediate pre-war standard. Then, in 1901, we were promised a reform of the Army. The Army, accordingly, was reformed amid much jubilation and self-congratulation. The reform is now gone, and all that remains is the share of taxes that was imposed. Then comes this more recent discovery. What said the Prime Minister last year, speaking on the Address, when this discovery must have been at least in part revealed? He said—
  "I greatly doubt whether any study that we can give to the strategic problems of the Empire is likely to show that in the future any great diminution in our armaments or in the cost of our armaments is likely or possible. We should be utterly contemptible if, in obedience to a natural, though I think an unfortunate, change in public opinion, we were to admit for a moment that we did not believe that the forces we have asked for are forces necessary for the safety of the Empire; if we were to diminish them by a jot, if, after having gone to the country and made Imperial speeches for four years, we were to go back to them and say, 'Imperialism was all very well when it was popular, it was all very well before the public realised what it cost, and now that it is a little less popular we will change our scale of demand for Imperial defence, and we will trim our sails to suit the changing gales of popular faith.'"
  Brave words; but take the bravery out of them, and they amount to a confession of helplessness in the presence of the Frankenstein of expenditure that Ministers seem to be held by as in a vice. I do not mean any double entendre in using the word vice. When stripped of rhetoric this amounts to a preposterous claim to manipulate and exploit in perpetuity the war fever which is now dead and gone. But then we have the Central Asian terror. The Prime Minister is very much impressed with that. We have been face to face with that Central Asian terror for a great many years, and it has been largely used on many occasions. I think it is reasonable, at all events, to say that events are occurring in Asia which, whatever the issue of them may be, must considerably relieve the minds of those who are anxious in the matter. Let the Government follow in Asia their own good example in Europe

  1407
  —on which we offer them unreserved congratulation; let them come to a good understanding and settle our differences with our neighbours. That will give more strength to our Indian Empire than doubling or trebling the South African garrison or pursuing in Tibet or elsewhere the singular policy of occupying the far side of a practically invulnerable frontier.
  I will only say a word or two as to naval expenditure. Everyman among us is in favour of a strong Navy. He would be blind, indeed, who did not see that it was the first condition of the policy of this country. But when we hear in after-dinner speeches, and read in leading articles, statements triumphantly made that this country will grudge no money for expenditure on the Navy, that goes considerably beyond the truth. The country must have proved to it that the expenditure is necessary; and such language, and the sentiment that it indicates, is mischievous in its effect, because it encourages expenditure which may be excessive, and, if excessive, wasteful, and, if wasteful, then hurtful to efficiency. But, again, here let the Government courageously follow their own good example to which I have already referred, and again, by friendly negotiations, secure for the States of Europe that immunity from the intolerable burdens of naval armament which can be secured by no height to which jealousies and rivalries and insane competition can carry us. When the Navy Estimates were before the House, I quoted some words of M. Delcassé, which I think are very significant and apposite. I take leave to quote them again. A Motion had been made urging France to take the initiative in suggesting a reduction of armaments to the other Powers. M. Delcassé said—
  "France has no need to speak to the nations. She has acted for several years so that her naval and military estimates have been slightly lowered. Other nations," he added, "can follow her example. Acts are worth more than idle words."
  There could not be a more paradoxical situation than that in which we have the Foreign Secretary, with the earnest and noble help of His Majesty himself, turning scowling faces into the smiling faces of friends, and substituting for isolation a good mutual understanding with half-a-dozen States of Europe, and
  1408
  the Prime Minister, on the other hand, presiding over his military department and, as he tells us, seeing nothing but aggression and sinister designs against us on every hand.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I never suggested such a thing.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the navies of other countries were maintained for the purpose of aggression against us, whereas our Navy was built with no idea of engaging in aggression against anybody. Let the two great Western Powers join in choosing the better part, and secure for Europe at once relief and a new era of peace.
  I have dwelt on military and naval expenditure—Why? Because in them is to be found the greatest mass of the increase—they account for four-fifths of it—because they take from us unproductive expenditure, mortgaging this immense revenue for armaments, which is unfair to the prospect of other sources of expenditure of greater direct interest to the people of the country. I speak of them especially because they ought to be most capable of reduction, and also because they are the branches of expenditure which are most dependent on policy. Again I am forced to fall back on Mr. Gladstone, and this is the last time I shall shelter myself under his authority to-day. This is what he said in 1873—
  "In the consideration of the charge for the Army and the Navy there is always mixed the question of policy together with the question of expenditure. Not only the credit of the Government, but also the whole character of the policy of the country is attached to the Estimates of the year for the Army and Navy in a sense and to a degree to which they are not attached to the Estimates for the collection of revenue and the Civil Services."
  But the fact remains that in all branches of expenditure proper financial control is the touchstone of good administration. If a due hold upon the purse-strings is lacking, policy as well as expenditure goes adrift. Prudent finance strengthens the position of the country. Easy finance goes with clap-trap Imperialism. We do not require to look far to find instances of the sort of things that

  1409
  lead to great expenditure. We have the case of Somaliland, we have the case of Nigeria, and we have now the case of Tibet. We all know exactly how it comes about. The man on the spot, full of zeal and full of public spirit, full of knowledge from his own point of view, and deeply impressed with the importance of that which is immediately before him, but possibly with no perspective and no view of wider considerations, urges on the Minister at home to take a certain step either against a tribe or against an individual, or whatever else it may be. There is an excuse for some hostile or strong action. He is refused, but he insists, and, if he insists long enough, he knows that the people with whom he is dealing will ultimately yield to his importunity. The same process is set up between the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and again we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing firm and whispering, or doing more than whispering, perhaps using very strong expressions, to convey the idea that he will not consent, but finally consenting. And then we have the Prime Minister, as controller of the general policy of the Government, all on the side of peace, but, on the other hand, daily and weekly, in his new capacity as director-general of the naval and military affairs of the country, always hearing the other side, the side which tends to action; and then it probably ends in permission being given to take the step that is recommended. But it must only be the first step. Never, never, never will they agree to anything more. Then, in one case after another, we at home, in our melancholy way, see the result. Circumstances have the mastery over us. You cannot stop. You must go on. Your prestige is involved. You might as well command the waters of Niagara to be still. Over you must go. Engagements have to be accepted and acted on which commit the country to responsibilities and burdens which were never dreamed of. And how much is this sort of thing likely to be increased when we have Ministers at home who are known to encourage this forward spirit in different parts of the Empire, and when the man on the spot, as I have called him, knows that he has at least
  1410
  one or two powerful assistants within the Cabinet itself?

  Well, Sir, that is the cause of this large expenditure, that is the spirit of which I complain; but when we speak of expenditure and deplore it, then it is said that it is all nonsense to denounce it, that the country can well afford it. The ability to pay has nothing to do with the justice or the necessity of the demand. I believe that the Eastern, the Oriental, fiscal method is to say, "Here is a taxable matter, let us tax it. Here is a man with money, let us take some of it from him." But that has never yet been our way. Our principle has been to take only what was strictly required for public purposes. It is largely due to the watchfulness exercised over expenditure and the adoption of such fiscal methods as will best suit the interests of the people, that the wealth of the country, which is being cut to pieces by taxation, has increased, and that its commerce has greatly developed. Therefore we should be suspicious of excuses such as that the country does not feel the pinch or that the taxation will be of a painless character, like painless dentistry. This House is in the position of a trustee. We are bound to see that no expenditure is incurred which we are not satisfied will be wise and necessary. This is a truism, but it is apt to be overlooked. But can the country afford it? What do you mean by the country? If you mean the whole wealth of the country, then it is easy to show that the expenditure will diminish it by only such and such a percentage. But that has nothing to do with it. Who are the classes and individuals who pay? The men with small incomes; the men with low and precarious wages; the family of slender resources, where every increase of price is felt. They may be able still to get their necessaries, but if they get them at a higher price they have to lose certain comforts which they had before. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham last year made the announcement, as I understood, that he intended to visit a large number of cottages in order to prove to the working classes by means of a table, that the working man would gain by an extended system of indirect taxation. I do not know

  1411
  whether that tour has yet been made. The right lion. Gentleman was busy in the winter, and we are glad to know that he has been recovering his health in the spring. But now the summer has, as it seems, set in, and it would be a good time to make that tour. If there is any advantage in such a series of domiciliary visits, why should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer also visit these cottages—they cover many square miles in this country? The right hon. Gentleman might not find that the inmates were consuming less sugar, or less tea, or even less tobacco, but they will have a smaller sum to lay out upon other things, and there must be a corresponding loss to the home trade. The payers of income-tax, too, would have a story to tell of painful economies they have to set on foot, and these again are prejudicial to trade. It is ridiculous and it is the purest nonsense to pretend that the question is disposed of by the statement that the country is able to afford it, and that 50 millions of extra taxation can be levied without causing inconvenience, suffering, and depression of trade, and that of those 50 millions 40 can be sunk in unproductive expenditure without damage to trade and employment.
  And now I come to another point, and I am glad to tell the House it is my last. This Bill has for its sponsors a Government pledged to great changes in our fiscal system, and the main doctrine upon which that system has hitherto rested is to be deleted, annulled, in fact, obliterated altogether. More than that, they are overshadowed and dominated by fiscal projects of an even wider character than those they openly profess. As sponsors for the Finance Bill they enlarge on the prosperity of the country as able to bear the additional burden of 50 millions a year; as fiscal reformers they enlarge on the serious condition of trade and the scarcity and precariousness of employment. Let them be careful to attribute effects to their true causes. Expenditure is a vital factor in fiscal policy, as the use which has been made of the present scale of expenditure in the fiscal agitation has shown. What said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham last week? "We have," he said, "a new issue altogether; we have
  1412
  to find a great revenue by taxation, and I want to raise that revenue as far as possible from the pockets of foreigners." Now what does this mean? I am not going into the merits of the policy itself, but what does it mean? That fiscal reform is to be an alternative to economy, that the country is to go on squandering money, but it is to be under a system of fresh taxation, of lucrative taxation, taxes paid by other people, taxes which hurt nobody and bless everybody. That is the only alternative policy that holds the field against a policy of retrenchment, and for the advocates of high expenditure it may not be ill designed. It may, perhaps, account for the easy financial methods of the Government. But from our point of view the exploiting of expenditure in this fashion is one of the gravest dangers of the financial situation. When we give credit to the Government for a Budget which in the main—there are blemishes in it I know —but which is in the main a free-trade Budget, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that, on the other side of the account, fiscal reformers desire, and proclaim the desire, to use it as a means to hold free trade to ransom. This is the reason for which I ask the House at this stage to agree to this Amendment and to declare with a strong voice against extravagant expenditure.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, having regard to the heavy burden of taxation proposed by this Bill in a time of peace, deems it necessary to declare its condemnation of the large and continuous increase of the national expenditure in recent years.'" —(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)said the right hon. Gentleman had traversed a large area in the course of his speech, but such comparisons of expenditure as he had made were not very useful. He proceeded on the assumption that up to 1895, the last year when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were responsible for finance, expenditure was above

  1413
  reproach, and since then it had fallen away and offered unfavourable comparison. Of course, it must be admitted that since that year expenditure had increased, and to a considerable degree; but it must be remembered in what condition the right hon. Gentleman and his Party left the national defences. The present Government had often been blamed for what had been called want of foresight in preparing for the Boer war, but in the three or four years before the outbreak of war they were able to do an immense amount of preparation for such emergencies as might occur. Did the right lion. Gentleman really imagine that the condition of our naval and military forces was, when he left office, suitable for facing war of any sort or kind? In instituting a comparison this side of the account must be looked at. Under those circumstances he did not think the Opposition had any ground for taunting the Government with not pursuing a policy of retrenchment. He did not think that their policy, prior to the outbreak of the war, could be accurately described by the term extravagance. He was justified in saying that the policy of attempting to avoid war from the fear of being accused of an agressive policy had been carried to a dangerous extent. There was every reason at the present time for saying the country was able to bear the burden imposed, heavy though it was and severely though it pressed on some classes, and the needs of the country must be taken into consideration. Upon this the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government simply of piling up huge armaments, both naval and military, but he did not deal with their national needs and necessities. He gave the Government good advice as to acting in friendly relations with other countries, and congratulated the Government on the success which had attended their recent efforts in that direction, but he did not allude to that strength of position which was favourable to friendly agreements and commanded respect. Were they not now in a better position, without any wish to appear aggressive, to be able to make those friendly agreements of which he had spoken? They had no wish to use that force or to boast
  1414
  of their strength, but by being strong they were able to earn respect and, he hoped, the genuine friendship of other countries. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that we should avoid doing anything in Somaliland or Tibet in order to avoid the possibility of hostilities?
  The right hon. Gentleman confined his criticisms to naval and military expenditure, and he scarcely alluded to the other portions of national expenditure. There were, however, u few matters to which he should like to direct the attention of the House. At the be ginning of his speech the Leader of the Opposition said there was a wave of extravagance in regard to expenditure going over the country, and he seemed to think that that was due to the fact that the Government had taken the view that it was necessary to spend a considerable amount of money upon the Army and Navy. He did not believe that in the past sufficient attention had ever been given to putting the defensive forces of this country upon a better scientific basis. They saw now a systematic attempt being made for the first time to co-ordinate the two great forces of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer at any length to the Civil Service Estimates or suggest extravagant expenditure was taking place there. It was his privilege as Secretary to the Treasury to have, perhaps, more correspondence with Members than any other Minister, and from all sources he was in the habit of receiving almost daily suggestions that were certainly not in the direction of economy. Hon. Gentlemen wrote to him advising increase of wages to Government employees, expenditure on manuscripts, or for the preservation of ancient monuments, or for better provision for the comfort of the people, and much of his time was spent in writing politely but firmly to decline undertaking further expenditure. He did not believe there was anybody in the House, outside the Treasury Bench, who not only preached economy but made some effort to practise it. He was not going to refer to all that had happened through the session, but he would refer to what took place during three days last week. On Wednesday it was proposed that

  1415
  they should pay themselves. On Thursday they spent the whole day discussing the Post Office Estimates; he was in the House most of the time. Not a single word was said in the course of that debate in favour of economy or retrenchment. It was one succession of representations from both sides of the House to his right hon. friend the Postmaster-General that this or that postal facility ought to be given. On Friday last a proposal was brought before the House that the country should undertake another large amount of expenditure on lighthouses. The only word of warning came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who pointedly asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House if they were going to vote in favour of putting this extra charge on the Imperial taxes on Friday, and if they were going to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman to-day. He did not think it fair or right that the Government should take all the blame to itself. He was not going to give statistics, but if hon. Gentlemen would go through the debates which had taken place from time to time on Bills which had been introduced by private Members, they would see that there had been almost constantly a demand for additional expenditure. Personally, on Saturday morning when he came to consider the work which had been done during the course of the week by the House of Commons, he gave a sigh of relief if the Government had not been forced to add some further expenditure to the Imperial finance. He did not mean to say, or to suggest, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should not bring those matters before the House. No doubt they were matters of importance, and no doubt if there was money available it might be usefully applied to these purposes. He wished at the same time, when they were bringing these Bills and Resolutions before the House, they would bear in mind their own most admirable economic maxims on the occasions when the Budget Resolutions were being discussed. When the Budget Resolutions were being considered recently they heard a great many criticisms, and no doubt in the course of this debate they would hear a great many more, but he wished that hon. Gentlemen would
  1416
  take a little more note of some of their own speeches, and that, instead of pressing certain views on the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, they would spend a little time in sending extracts from their own speeches to the correspondents who were continually pressing demands upon them.
  He would say to the right hon. Gentleman when he brought up this matter of economy in the form of the Amendment now before the House that he ought also to bring it up on the discussion of the Estimates. The House had made certain alterations in the rules of procedure during the last few years, and he thought he was rightly interpreting the wish of the Prime Minister when he said it was his right hon. friend's desire that on Thursday, which was allocated to Supply, the Votes brought forward should be chosen by the House as a whole, and by the Opposition in particular. Time after time he had appealed to his hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to let him know what Supply was wanted for certain Thursdays. It was really no exaggeration to say that his hon. friend who was responsible for the business of the House had almost to go round begging hon. Gentlemen to tell him what Supply was wanted. Except possibly during the discussion of the Army Estimates there had scarcely at any time been a symptom of a general desire to reduce expenditure. On the contrary, the whole tendency shown in Supply was towards increasing the expenditure. He did not wish to press this point too strongly, but he ventured to say that nobody more than his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome the support of the Leader of the Opposition, when the Estimates were before the House, in getting hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to assist in the direction of economy. The right hon. Gentleman had said in connection with the debates in Committee of Supply that they had, of course, not got the materials which were in possession of the Government Departments in framing the Votes. He himself understood that that was exactly what Committee of Supply was for—that was to say, it was intended that in the debates in Committee of Supply the Minister responsible for the Vote should be criticised and examined,

  1417
  and that he should have an opportunity of defending the proposed expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had said that they were not prepared to discuss the Navy in any hostile spirit. He did put in a few words of warning with which nobody would disagree, but it was a most remarkable fact that when the Estimates were discussed in the few hours before half-past seven they were able to run through all the Navy Votes with the exception of one which was left outstanding in order that it might be discussed later on.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: How many days discussion had gone on before?
  MR. LOUGH: Three days.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Well, there were three days, but he did not think that could be taken as indicating a great wish to discuss the details of expenditure in public. If the House did not wish to attack the proposals of the Government he was sure that he should be the last to do so.
  MR. LOUGH: We did attack them.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid hon. Members were not so ready when Supply was put down for discussion as they were on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to talk about economy.
  MR. LOUGH: We tried to knock out two churches.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that if in stating their views as to how economy should be effected hon. Members opposite could only attempt to knock out two churches on the Navy Estimates, the policy of the Government was not one which could be seriously attacked. He hoped that during the present debate the Government would hear more definitely what their sins in the direction of extravagance had been, and also that hon. Members opposite would give a clear declaration of their policy, because, after all, it was nothing else except a matter of policy. [An HON. MEMBER: Heat, hear!] He admitted it. He hoped that they would
  1418
  have an equally frank admission from the other side, and if they could show a policy which, with greater economy, would do all that the country considered necessary to meet the requirements of the public service and to preserve the de-fences of the Empire, he should be very much surprised indeed if they were able to show much retrenchment. He could assure the House that the Government realised the importance of economic management and administration, and that they would be glad to receive the help of the House itself in the exercise of economy.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was one sentence in the good-humoured speech of the hon. Member which he was afraid most of them heard with deep regret. While professing to answer the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the policy of the Government had in some cases been unduly aggressive, the hon. Member went out of his way to apply that statement to one case only, namely, the South African War. The hon. Member said if there was fault to be found with their South African policy it was that it had not been sufficiently aggressive. He would be out of order if he went into the South African War policy, but surely they might be allowed to remind the House of the Jameson Raid, On the subject that was really before the House the Financial Secretary to the Treasury attacked the predecessors of the Government for having in 1895 left the naval and military services of the country in an abnormal condition. Now as regarded the Navy every statement made at that time, on either side of the House, was that the Spencer programme was sufficient and proper under the circumstances of the day; and, as regarded the military side, he appealed to hon. Members who were interested to read the Report of the War Commission to see what they made of the Prime Minister's assertion that the Army before the South African War had been brought up to a proper condition—he meant as regarded stores. In two speeches on that subject the Prime Minister hid said that the condition of the Army in 1896 had been satisfactory.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is your view of what I said.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Prime Minister's statement was to the effect that, by the efforts of the predecessors of his Government, the defences of the country had been left in an adequate condition. That was the fact.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; you are quite wrong.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that as to stores, the Prime Minister had, on repeated occasions, said that at last the condition of the stores was satisfactory; but the Report of the War Commission showed that that condition had up to 1902 still been unsatisfactory, and the strongest possible language was used on that subject by them. The entire expenditure, amounting to £11,000,000, for bringing up the reserve of stores had been approved by all sides of the House, but that did not affect current or year by year expenditure to the present time. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury also claimed that the present Government for the first time recently, had reduced the management of the Army and Navy to a scientific basis; that, for the first time, the Army and Navy services had been co-ordinated. Exactly the same claim was made in 1890. One of the main charges of extravagance and bad administration was that only now, under the new arrangements that had been made by the Government, the economy was to be achieved which ought to have been successfully made before, but which, as a matter of fact, did not appear on the present Estimates. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke in a chastened spirit about the expenditure of the Government, and tried to throw the whole blame on the House of Commons. It was hardly characteristic of a strong Government having the support of the House of Commons, to complain of letters which were received in favour of particular expenditure on London parks, etc. The House of Commons had to look to larger questions in a larger way, and the Government ought to resist the pressure from individual Members.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury represented, he understood, the
  1420
  free-trade section of the Treasury, and he was not open to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition as to the effect of fiscal policy on the financial control to be exercised by the Government. They all knew that protectionism tended towards public waste, and against efficiency in finance. The hon. Gentleman attacked the House of Commons individually and collectively. He attacked the House as though the Opposition, as a body, had supported the Lighthouse Dues Bill. Now the hon. Gentleman must know that in past years, when the condition of the finances of the country was very different from what it was now, some members of the Opposition had supported that demand for the abolition of the lighthouse dues, thinking that there was no more reason why the shipping community should be charged for these light dues than all members of the community should be charged individually for the lights outside their houses. Yet those same Members on this occasion had either walked out like himself, or even voted against the Bill solely on account of the state of national finance. This question would have to be considered in a wider spirit than that in which it was considered by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and all of them ought to be on their marrow bones and take their share of the blame for excessive expenditure. He should have thought that in a debate of this sort each side ought to have made large admissions to one another. He knew that it was not considered wise to make admissions, because they might be quoted against hon. Members in future debates; but, on the whole, he suggested that it was wiser to take a subject fairly and make all due admissions, and that the Government, in order to obtain support, should likewise make due admissions. He took it that hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had been trying to admit that the present Government had been extravagant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been trying to maintain that the Government had not been extravagant. He was alone in that opinion. It was not shared by his predecessors even, on his own side. The right hon. Member for West Bristol made speech after speech to his

  1421
  constituents, in which he made that statement as emphatically as it could be made. A right hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head, but he preferred to take the statement of the right hon. Member for West Bristol, although it must be said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol's statement was somewhat stronger than was due to loyalty to his collective responsibility. They all admitted—it was impossible to deny—that as regarded Army expenditure, the Government, by not knowing their own mind, by changing their system from time to time, had been extravagant.
  There was another matter on which there should be admissions. It was that the fiscal policy of the country must affect this question of extravagence. It did so elsewhere. But when they had 120 Members on the other side of the House who were most emphatic in giving a kind of support to the Government, and who said that they had the support of the constituencies behind them, who were in favour of raising an average 10 per cent, duty upon all foreign-manufactured goods, who claimed that the tax would be paid by the foreigners, that in itself that duty would be a blessing to the country—these hon. Members would not be actively interested in economy as some other hon. Members would be. It used to be a complaint that some Chancellors of the Exchequer spoke of the Consolidated Fund us like manna which fell from heaven. But these proposed import duties were to be more than manna. Hon. Members opposite had discovered a new heavenly blessing, a new fund, a new source of revenue, which they thought they would be able to spend with perfect freedom. He believed that two more admissions might be made on the other side.
  Was there any control over South African finance, over the finance of Lord Milner which affected the finance of this country? The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the Government was managed from the outside in one direction; he wished to make the same remark but that it was managed from the outside in another direction. The grand delector of the Government was outside the Government; and he was more powerful than
  1422
  the Government. That elector raised a case, the basis of which rested upon the taxation which did not tend in the direction of a reduction of expenditure. There used to be a Portuguese Minister in this country, who, although accredited to the Court of St. James, used sometimes to take a steamer to Lisbon, and there turn out a Government, appoint a Government in its place and then re-appoint himself as Portuguese Minister to London. Here the right hon. Member for West Binning ham could do that if he pleased. The Government was dominated by the right hon. Gentleman, somewhat unconstitutionally, on this fiscal question; and therefore it could not be trusted to insist on that careful administration of the finances of the country which the Constitution demanded. Coming to details, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury attacked the House of Commons for their treatment of the Navy Estimates; and he complained that the House of Commons had passed these Estimates in the course of one afternoon. But what were the facts? Every Member knew that the naval expenditure was entirely governed by the first Vote, Vote A, and the Shipbuilding Vote; and after they had had full discussion on Vote A, it was only on churches, chaplains, and such like, that they could hope to effect any reductions. There was a full discussion on Vote A, but the Vote for the Navy, from its popularity as being the first line of defence of this country, had not the same opposition in these debates as the Vote for the Army. At any rate, there was a very full debate this year, and a portion of the Shipbuilding Vote was kept over with the understanding that there would be a similarly full discussion in relation to it in July.
  Those were admissions which hon. Gentlemen opposite should make; but there were also admissions which Radical Members ought to make in regard to national expenditure. One admission they ought to make was that they should not attack a mere increase of expenditure without reason and without understanding. They should not attack an increase without examination. He thought, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that they might expect an increase,

  1423

  not only an increase in proportion to the increase of population, but greater. Some thought the household occupier voters more extravagant than the £10 householders of 1832. He doubted the Tory Party began their appeal to the new voters of 1867, the question submitted being in 1869 "who starved the cats." The cats belonged to the dockyards and victualling-yards; and their allowance was cut down from 8d. a week to 4d. Mr. Gladstone pointed out that a question of efficiency was involved, because the cats were kept to cat mice, and that, therefore, a reduction in their allowance would be likely to secure a diminution in the number of mice. That was the first question put before the now electors by the Conservative Party. As to the wage questions alluded to by the Secretary to the Treasury, there appeared to be a belief on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and also on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that any agitation in regard to the wages of Government employees was a dishonest agitation fomented by Members directly interested. There was more than that in it. There was a belief that the Government ought to set an example in those matters; and many hon. Members who had strenuously set forward that claim were those who did not represent the constituencies immediately concerned. Radicals, Labour Members, and Socialists would be stronger in the next Parliament; and they would be all in favour of higher activity in the functions of the State. It would be open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contend that those efforts would tend in the direction of increased expenditure. Those were admissions they should all make. There was no wickedness in the matter; it was a question of scientific administration. Just as the fiscal reformers had a new fund so had the Radicals also a new fund on which to draw. The Local Authorities Taxation Bill would give a new source of revenue to the State; for it would replace the wasteful expenditure under the present doles to local authorities and to that extent save the Exchequer.
  When they had admitted all that, what did the Amendment before the House assert? It declared that there was a great
  1424
  increase in recent expenditure, and he thought that it was specially directed against the recent increase in the national expenditure having regard to what the country got for it. It should, however, be remembered that one of the great causes of the increase in national expenditure in recent years had been the swing given to expenditure as the result of the South African War; and for his part he had always thought in the present state of the national life of the country, with rivals pressing upon it, with America coming rapidly to the front, and with Germany with 60,000,000 of well-educated people competing with it, that it was national lunacy to spend £200,000,000 in buying a white elephant in South Africa. But he admitted on the other hand that up to the present time the increased expenditure on the Fleet was one which was proper as long as the Kaiser was telling the world that he was trying to knock this country off its perch and willing to engage with two other Powers against it. The course taken with regard to naval expenditure was one which no Government could avoid; but now a change had taken place owing to the circumstances which had been alluded to; and undoubtedly some improvement might be looked forward to in the future. Making all those admissions, however, he alleged that as regarded military expenditure there was an overwhelming case of waste against the present Government. Even now the Government admitted that a large reduction in Army expenditure ought to take place; but they did not make it.
  To his mind, one of the difficulties in this debate was that they could not dwell unduly on examples from one partcular class of Estimates without being out of order; but he would wish to give an instance of the want of continuity in military policy which had occurred in South Africa. The first plan was the plan of the South African Constabulary. It was entirely a South African plan, after being once started in this Parliament; and was to be maintained from South African sources. Then arose the inability of the present Government to cope with Lord Milner's finance, and the result

  1425
  was that the British Army, to its great detriment and to the diminution of its efficiency, was now discharging the duties which ought to have been performed by the South African Constabulary. Money had been spent in hutments in the Northern Transvaal, but owing to the unhealthiness of the district the troops lad to be removed and money was lost. The result was that there had been not only waste, but that the efficiency of the Army had been impaired; and that process was still in progress. Again, it was said that the garrison regiments were only needed for Gibraltar and Malta; but after a considerable sum of money had been spent, the garrison regiments were hustled off to South Africa. As regarded Somaliland, the Secretary to the Treasury was apologetic and said that, in his opinion, the Government could not have acted otherwise. The hon. Gentleman defended the expedition, but the Government had brought it to an end without having achieved its object; in contradiction to the speech of the Secretary of State for War, less than a week Wore. That was a condemnation of the whole course of the policy on which the expedition was based. The expedition was condemned in the House of Commons on information supplied by Ministers themselves; and there was this difference between the Somaliland case and every other case, that Somaliland was officially admitted to be a totally worthless country, so that it was quite impossible for this country to ever recover its money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debates on the Budget not only maintained that there had been no extravagance, but he said that in all those cases the country had got its money back; but in the Somaliland case there was absolutely no possibility of the country ever getting its money back.
  The Leader of the Opposition said one very true thing among the many true things he said in his speech when he stated that wasteful expenditure always meant inefficiency. That could be proved in the case of the Army. Owing to want of continuity of policy in South Africa the troops there were now dispersed, and that was destructive to efficiency and fatal to discipline. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not
  1426
  think it was right that the House of Commons having assented to a certain military programme should complain of the expenditure. It was true that the House of Commons had assented to military programmes, each of which was inconsistent with the other, and all of which caused inefficiency and waste. How could the House give guidance to the Government? All that it could do it did do. It had a programme presented at its head suddenly with the assent, by telegram, of Lord Roberts and the assent of the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for India, and the whole Opposition and a great many Members on the Government side voted against it. It was now admitted that those Members were right. No one now said a word against them. The censure passed on that programme by the Report of the Committee of three to which the Prime Minister assented was the strongest censure that had ever been passed by anybody. The most essential part of the programme, the mixing together of the Auxiliary and Regular portions of the Army, had been absolutely abandoned. Another few days would see another scheme before the House, and the present scheme would be abandoned for ever. What could the House of Commons do which they did not do? What they could they said and did. The Army represented to the country the subject upon which there had been the most difficulty; on which the Government might have obtained the greatest credit if they had brought in a well-considered scheme of reform, but on which the failure of the Government had been greatest. At the present time the Estimates the House were asked to pas; were taking unnecessary money from the taxpayer. The Government had said that next year they would be able to make a great reduction in military expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon when Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it could be promised within two years. But that was a death-bed repentance, having regard to what the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had said on Thursday last. He admitted that those who disagreed with the expenditure of the Government ought to show in what way economy could be practised and where there had

  1427
  been extravagance. He contended that this Army scheme was a concrete instance of extravagance and that the saving which was promised next year ought to have been given years ago. There had been steady opposition to the policy of delay which had been going on for several years past, and for which the country had had to pay year after year. They had protested against these extensions of the Empire and prophesied the evils they were bound to bring in their train. Those who had opposed the war, these extensions of Empire in Africa, and the Somali policy, and who had supported the reduction of men in the Army Estimates, could fairly support this Amendment.
  The Leader of the Opposition had spoken of the amounts shown in the Estimates for the two services. The Navy was officially considered to cost £42,000,000, although in reality it only cost £41,500,000. The cost of the Army —of the land defence of the British Empire—was overwhelmingly greater. It was no less than £55,000,000, of which £35,000,000 was the expenditure here at home on Army, and £20,000,000 in India and from the Civil Service Estimates, because it must not be forgotten that there was war expenditure on the Civil Service Estimates. There was room for a great reduction of expenditure in this item, and if the Administration had been a strong one it would have been made long since. The Estimates were taking money unnecessarily from the pockets of the taxpayer. He should vote heartily for the Amendment because it had, in his opinion, been proved that there had been great extravagance under the present Government, and because of what the House had been told he believed that that extravagance was likely to continue.
  MR. HAYES FISHERsaid that while admitting that expenditure had so enormously and so very rapidly increased that it was a matter of grave national concern, he denied that the Government was to be blamed for that expenditure. Still further did he deny that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were in the position of governing the country even as much as £1,000 would be struck off it. There was no doubt a tendency to spend money on Imperial defence, armaments, and naval development, most of which
  1428
  had been fully justified; on the other hand there was a desire to lavish money on the hundred and one little things which went to swell the national expenditure. When at the Treasury he had the honour of framing the Estimates for the year 1903–4, in doing which he had taken the trouble to make a note of the demands made upon him during the short period he was in office, and he came to the conclusion then that with the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he might have had £2,000,000 a year for very different objects to those for which it was applied. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that Mr. Gladstone at one time said: "The spirit of Empire is abroad." It was the same with national, municipal, parochial, and private expenditure. Everybody was extravagant; they ordered things whether they could pay for them or not, and trusted that the Lord or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide. As a vote of censure had been moved on the Government, it was germane to consider the growth of municipal expenditure which had been controlled, not by the Government, but largely by gentlemen belonging to the Party opposite. In twenty years the national expenditure had increased by 50 per cent. Who did not know areas of local government in which there had been an increase of 50 per cent, in the expenditure — areas in which twenty years ago the rates were 5s. in the £, and were now 7s. 6d? Then there were the municipal borrowings, which, as revealed by the Return lately issued, were quite as serious a menace to our financial stability as any of the expenditure which had been so much animadverted upon in the course of the debate. Lord Welby, who had recently resented the criticisms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the expenditure of the London County Council, was himself the first to call attention to the fact that that body was outstepping the bounds of prudence. He was not attacking the London County Council, he was merely giving it as an example of how municipal bodies had been forced by the weight of public opinion to borrow and to spend large sums of money, sometimes on remunerative, but too often on unremunerative works. Economy was of no value at all as an election cry for Parliament,

  1429
  county council, or any other body. Whether the time was coming when the people would begin to feel the pinch of the heavy taxation rendered necessary by the expenditure for which they had so gladly voted he could not say, but, at all events, no regard for economy could be seen at present among the electors.
  The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had found fault with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for imputing to Members of the House of Commons a great deal of the blame for the increased expenditure. But it was not only his hon. friend who held that view. In the year 1903 a Select Committee was appointed to devise, if possible, some better means of controlling national expenditure through the House of Commons. That Committee, which examined many distinguished witnesses, such as Lord Welby, Sir Francis Mowatt, Sir George Murray, and others, stated in their Report—
  "Eight witnesses who had had special opportunities of noticing the effect of discussions in the Committee of the House of Commons on Supply, gave it as their opinion that for many years past the result was to urge increased, not decreased, expenditure."
  The whole of the evidence went to show that since Mr. Gladstone was a great power in the House a different spirit had prevailed, and that the result of discussion nowadays was to increase rather than diminish expend iture. Where could any barrier be looked for? There was none to be found in public opinion. He had no valuable suggestions to make, but he thought Ministers of the Crown, especially the Prim' Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have to develop a high moral and political courage, and refuse the demands constantly made by their colleagues for increased expenditure. It was no good the Secretary to the Treasury saying "No" if he was not backed up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; nor was it any use for the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say "No" unless they were backed up in their refusal by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Every Minister naturally desired to glorify and magnify his own Department, but it was highly necessary that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should review the
  1430
  expenditure of the country as a whole. The development of our protectorates, for instance, was more of a missionary than a commercial enterprise, and he could not help thinking that over the shores of East and West Africa we ought to write festina lente. He had never objected to the development of those portions of Africa, but he thought we ought, to be careful how far we went into the hinterland, and see how much revenue we might expect in return for the expenditure we incurred.
  The Financial Secretary who refused the demands of Departmental Ministers was not popular, but no Financial Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer should expect to be altogether popular with other Departments. The House of Commons itself ought to take more trouble to review the expenditure. Through the Select Committee on National Expenditure he suggested that each Estimate should have attached to it a table showing the decennial growth of that particular Estimate, so that the increase, instead of being concealed, should be conspicuously revealed, and he believed that suggestion was being adopted. There was really no proper stated occasion on which the whole expenditure of the country could be reviewed. The Budget discussions were a series of Party fights, which afforded admirable opportunities for the worst kind of Party recrimination but did not give opportunities for really valuable criticism. It would be much better to have even one stated occasion for a general review of expenditure than to fritter away their energies on so many useless discussions. It was doubtless true that expenditure in the main depended on policy and policy on the Government, but there was a large field in which the House of Commons itself might so review methods of expenditure as to ensure greater efficiency and economy. The establishment of a new "Estimates Committee" had been suggested, but he doubted whether any such Committee would effect a decrease of expenditure, because, inasmuch as expenditure largely depended on policy, the Committee would find that it could touch only the vegetables, while the real joint of policy was beyond its reach. All were anxious to reduce expenditure, or, if that were impossible, to get the utmost value for the money we spent, but when one

  1431
  analysed the expenditure and asked where money could be saved, a satisfactory answer was difficult to find. During the last twenty years Civil Service expenditure had increased only in proportion to the population, and the greater part of the increase was in the Vote for Education. In these days of fierce competition would anyone propose to reduce the expenditure on education? Administration was, he believed, becoming expensive, and possibly some saving might be made in that direction, but whereas administration might account for thousands, it should not be forgotten that it was policy that was responsible for millions. He doubted, too, whether the Party opposite would face the unpopularity involved in any reduction of grants-in-aid.
  By far the larger portion of the increase of expenditure was undoubtedly due to armaments. During the last twenty years our expenditure on the Army had doubled, and he was one of those who had an uneasy feeling as to whether we were getting full value for the money. On the other hand, he had great hopes that the new Defence Committee, when it correlated the expenditure on the Army and on the Navy, would succeed in getting a better Army than we now possessed for considerably less money. It was on the land and not at sea that he expected to see expenditure reduced. The Government hoped that in a short time the result of the deliberations of the Defence Committee would effect economies in the Army without diminishing its efficiency. He should personally deprecate any proposal that the expenditure on the Navy ought to be reduced. It was quite true that, since 1883, they had more than quadrupled their expenditure upon the Navy, In that year they only spent £10,000,000 on the Navy, but he was sure that that was a period of peril which none of them desired to go back to. The Navy expenditure gradually increased from 1886 to 1892, but did the members of the present Opposition when they came into power reduce those Estimates? What did Lord Spencer do when he was First Lord of the Admiralty? Why, he entered upon the biggest shipbuilding programme ever submitted to the Parliament of this country, and in two years the Party opposite, under the
  1432
  guidance of Lord Spencer, raised the Navy Estimate by £4,500,000. Since that time there had been a vast increase of this Empire and its commerce, and a great growth of colonial and Imperial aspirations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, speaking in 1899, said the real operative force in our success in regard to Fashoda was that France was conscious of her own maritime inferiority. The fact that the Government of that day and the Government in which Lord Spencer was First Lord of the Admiralty had expended large sums upon the Fleet of this country no doubt saved them from a terrible war. He did not believe that the people of this country grudged the money which had been spent upon the Navy, and they did not want to return to the state of things in the early eighties when one Admiral described our Fleet as "a menagerie of curious but ill-assorted vessels;" and another Admiral said he was in command of a vessel which was rotten to the core, and which could neither fight nor run away. Although reductions might be made here and there by a proper control and a general review of the whole system of expenditure, he did not believe the country would be justified, as long as Germany was building at the rate she was, in reducing, its expenditure upon the Navy. Just as the Japanese were ready to die for their country, the people of this country were ready to pay for the preservation of this Empire. Better times were coming, and one of the glories of this country would be that the sons and daughters of this Empire would readily give their contribution to this great expenditure which the country was called upon to incur for the maintenance of the British Navy.
  MR. McCRAEsaid the hon. Member opposite had stated that the present Government could not be held responsible for this great increase in the expenditure. The present Government, and that Government alone, were responsible for the expenditure of the country. Even the Secretary to the Treasury admitted that responsibility, and in the most pleasing manner he stood forth as the champion of economy in the smaller details of expenditure. The hon. Member had also asserted that this expenditure had placed our

  1433
  defensive forces on a scientific basis. That word "scientific" sounded strangely familiar. They had heard a good deal about scientific taxation, but that was the basis upon which they were told the six Army Corps scheme, which was part of this expenditure, was to be placed, but which had now been declared to be of no service whatever. Through the whole speech of the Secretary to the Treasury there was no reference to the grave condition of our national expenditure at the present time, although he twitted the Opposition with urging upon the Government increased expenditure in the smaller details of the services. That was a very cheap sneer, but it did not at all go to the root of the matter. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick said that this Government was parsimonious in thousands but profligate in millions. While the Government objected to the Bill which was passed for the relief of the shipping trade, they forgot that that relief would be very small in comparison with what was done by the Agricultural Rating Act, which gave £2,500,000 a year in doles to the landlords. The same objection which he had taken to the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury also applied to the various speeches they had had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had left the impression upon the House that he had not fully realised the gravity of our financial position, and he had made no attempt to grapple with a reduction of the expenditure after the conclusion of the war. As his right hon. friend had pointed out, a reduction in the expenditure was made after Waterloo, and the Crimean War, but the present Government had made no attempt to reduce the enormous expenditure which had been growing up in what in sarcasm had been called the "ordinary" expenditure. That expenditure, in round figures, had now reached £143,000,000 whereas in 1894–95 it was £94,000,000 or an increase of nearly £50,000,000. But that was not the whole case. The expenditure was increasing enormously, and that it was appalling was admitted even by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the discussion on the Budget on the 19th of last month, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, whose
  1434
  experience at the Treasury they all recognised, admitted that the present expenditure was extravagant, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, in his Budget speech last year, termed our expenditure not only extravagant but reckless. The fact of the matter was that this evil was hereditary in any Conservative Government, and they had extravagant expenditure whenever there was a Conservative Government in power. The Secretary to the Treasury had asked them whether the state of matters in 1894 was an ideal state of expenditure. All he could say was that when the Liberal Government went out of office in 1895 they left a surplus of over £4,000,000 to their successors, and now after all these years with a Conservative Administration in power they had an increase in the expenditure of over £50,000,000 and a deficit of over £5,000,000.
  He would like to consider the progressive nature of this expenditure under the present Government, for it had been increasing in a sort of compound interest ratio. If they compared the expenditure of 1897–98 with the expenditure under the Liberal Government in 1894–95 they would see that in those three years there had been an increase in the expenditure of £9,000,000 per annum. In the next three years they had an increase of £16,500,000 or an increase of £25,500,000 for the first six years of the present Administration. Take the three years from 1901 to 1904, excluding war expenditure, and they would find that the expenditure in 1901 was £119,000,000 in round figures, whilst in 1904 it was £146,000,000, or an increase; in three years of £27,000,000. But that was not the whole case, because in addition to that expenditure there was the increase under the Naval and Military Works Acts and other capital expenditure. If they took that into account, and also the sum raised and given over to the local taxation account, they found that the comparison was as follows. The expenditure including the two items he had mentioned for the present year was estimated at £162,500,000, as compared with £102,000,000 in 1894–5, being an increase of £60,500,000. No doubt that increase had taken a little time to develop, but the Government had taken

  1435
  fall advantage of the opportunity. This method of incurring capital expenditure and borrowing was a very serious one, and he thought that would be realised from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which had recently been put into their hands. It was so important that with the permission of the House he would read the following passage from the Report—
  "Your Committee entertain serious doubts as to the financial method by which naval works are provided for by means of loans. The same remark applies, of course, to military works, and other similar loan services. For special works of permanent character and large cost, it may, as an exceptional measure, be desirable to provide by loan repayable within a limited number of years. But the resort to such procedure should be the exception, not the rule. In recent years, annual or biennial Military and Naval Works Acts have become a regular part of military and naval linance. Your Committee would deprecate the continuance of this practice. They believe that it would be more in accordance with sound rules of finance and would tend to simplify the national accounts and maintain an efficient control over expenditure if the bulk of these services were included as formerly in the annual Estimates.
  The amount in the present year's Estimates under that head was £10,000,000, but even that sum was only an instalment of the total expenditure to which the House was committed, The House passed the other day a Bill to spend £3,000,000 on telephones. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply to give the House an idea of the expenditure to which the nation was committed under this head. The enormous growth of indebtedness could be realised when they considered that in the National Debt for the year just closed there was no less than £31,868,000 under the head of naval and military works, as compared with only £3,000,000 in 1894–5. This system could have only one result. It disguised to a certain extent our ordinary expenditure and it enormously increased the National Debt. In 1904–5 the Nation Debt was £794,490,000, being an increase of £135,480,000 on the amount in 1894–5. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said in respect of the dead-weight Debt—that was the Funded Debt, apart from these borrowings for naval and military works—that a sum had been laid aside to sinking fund by which they had
  1436
  reduced the Debt £5,149,000. Supposing that had been so, it would have been nothing to boast of, because he found that Mr. Gladstone in 1865–6, when the National Debt amounted to very much the same Bum, said that the effective reduction of Debt amounted to £5,179,000, almost the same as the sum mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last year. Mr. Gladstone also pointed out that of the total expenditure of that year the Debt charge amounted to 43 per cent. The Debt charge this year only amounted to 19 per cent, of our total expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make it quite clear that the reduction of £5,149,000 only applied to the dead-weight Debt, while on the other hand he was borrowing under the other heads of capital expenditure. If they excluded the money borrowed, and the Transvaal loan, they found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had increased the Unfunded Debt by £4,298,000, leaving the not Debt reduction only £851,000 upon last year. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman claimed to have reduced it also by the £3,000,000 which we got out of the Transvaal loan, but that was only a very pleasing way of putting the matter, and when the House considered the method by which that sum was raised they would realise that it was not really an effective reduction of debt. It had been said that "mercy is twice blessed." These £3,000,000 had been twice borrowed. They were borrowed first of all to lend to the Transvaal. Borrowed again by the Transvaal to repay us by a loan guaranteed by ourselves: applied to the reduction of Debt for which we were really still responsible, as well as for the other £3,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put into his Exchequer balances. He wished to point out in regard to our national indebtedness that there was no sinking fund added in respect of the extra borrowings on account of the South African War. The addition to the National Debt charge was hardly sufficient to meet the increased interest in respect of the Debt, and no part of the Debt charge actually went as sinking fund for the increased expenditure due to the South African war. The Exchequer

  1437
  balances had been reduced to £4,000,000, as compared with £8,900,000 before the war. In 1864 Mr. Gladstone said that £7,352,000 was "an ample but an excessive amount. "But the Exchequer balances should bear some proportion to the expenditure for the year, and the expenditure in 1864 was £67,000,000, against an expenditure this year of £143,000,000. The Exchequer balance should also bear some proportion to the charge for income-tax, otherwise large borrowings must be made to finance the Treasury during the lean periods of the year. Yet in 1864 the charge for income-tax with Exchequer balances at. £7,000,000 was only £9.000,000. This year with Exchequer balances at £4,000,000 the charge for income-tax" is £30,000,000.
  With regard to the National Debt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not fairly stood up to his responsibilities, but had resorted to narrow and flimsy expedients in meeting a deficit, as he hoped to be able to show the House. No amount of explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get over the fact that he had met the deficit out of the Exchequer balances. How did he provide for the deficit? He had borrowed it out of the Exchequer balances, and he made a call on the unclaimed dividends to the amount of £1,000,000.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present, House counted and forty Members being found present.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid he was deeply grateful to the hon. Member for having given him a larger audience. He had shown that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken borrowed money to the extent of £2,288,000, and £1,000,000 from unclaimed dividends, but how did the right hon. Gentleman propose, according to his plan, to meet a balance of £1,500,000 when he only anticipated in his Budget a surplus" of £730,000? Now, supposing that the surplus was much larger than he had estimated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right whatever to that sum. Realised surpluses had always been looked upon as an addition to the sinking fund for the re-
  1438
  duction of debt, and the right hon. Gentleman by looking forward to this anticipated surplus to increase his Exchequer balances, or to meet the deficit of last year, was making a gamble in futures, which was unsound finance. This policy of shifts and expedients was quite unworthy of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. He claimed that he had shown that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not fairly met his obligations, that he was a kind of financial smuggler, who not only evaded the Customs duty but had not paid for his goods in the country of origin. The right hon. Gentleman had anticipated a surplus which ought to go to the reduction of debt in order to meet the ordinary expenditure of the year.
  They all knew that the burden of taxation was enormous. He thought that the country hardly realised that the £25,000,000 of extra taxation put on for the war was still in existence for ordinary expenditure, and that the greater portion of that increased burden rested on the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted him when he was speaking about Mr. Gladstone's Budget of 1859 and stated that the tea duty in that year was very much higher than at the present time. But if the right hon. Gentleman had gone to the year 1866 he would have found that the tea duty was 2d. per lb. less than was proposed for the present year. They had therefore good reason to complain that this extra 2d. per lb. was imposed this year. It was a cruel tax, and next to the corn tax, it was the most oppressive that could be put on the poor. Moreover, when they increased the tea duty 1d. per lb., which was 100 per cent, on the value of the article, lie maintained that it was inequitable taxation. It was a melancholy fact under the head of Customs, apart from Excise, which really bore most hardly on the poor, to find that the estimated revenue was £1,000,000 more than the estimate of 1902–3, which was the highest year of taxation during the war, and included the corn duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give some explanation of the principles on which he had founded this extraordinary Budget. The Customs and Inland Revenue in 1902–3 amounted to £92,000,000, and the

  1439
  income-tax to £38,600,000, or a total of £130,600,000. The estimate of Customs and Inland Revenue for 1904–5 was £91,150,000, and of income-tax £30,000,000, or a total of £121,150,000. That was a reduction of the income-tax revenue of £8,600,000 compared with a reduction of less than £1,000,000 on the indirect taxes. Not only that, but there was no promise that there would be any reduction in the indirect taxation in the future. That was unfair to the indirect taxpayer. Moreover, what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in his Budget speech in regard to future policy as to income-tax? The right hon. Gentleman stated—
  "I say for myself, that, in my opinion, it is the income-tax payer who will have the first claim to relief."
  The income-tax payer had already been relieved to the extent of 3d. per £, while there had been no reduction on the war taxes to the indirect taxpayer. All his war taxes were continued. He was perfectly certain that the country would have something to say in regard to this method of finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was only faced with temporary difficulties. If that were so, his bold course would have been to put 2d. per £ on the income-tax to make up for the 1d. wrongfully remitted last year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that that was a very simple, but not a good course.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that on the question of income-tax he had the courage of his convictions, and had supported the Government. When the financial Nero was fiddling or dining he had come to his rescue. He asked, were the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties really only temporary?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The difficulties are partly temporary.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid he accepted the correction; but the right hon. Gentleman had said—
  "I look for further relief to the cessation of military operations in Somaliland."
  1440
  He spoke with bated breath, but he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the fact that the cessation of military operations in Somaliland coincided with the introduction of the Budget. He was afraid, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not look for a reduction of expenditure in that direction, because so far as they could gather from the answers to Questions put in the House, the Somaliland question was again causing anxiety. Now, while it was not the duty of the Opposition to make specific proposals for the reduction of expenditure, he thought they were all agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech that they must look to Army reforms for a reduction in expenditure. The Estimates which the House passed in regard to the Army were bogus Estimates, Estimates for a scheme which had been declared to be defunct. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer secured a large reduction of expenditure on the Army, was the saving, to be devoted to the promised relief of the income-tax payer? In the last year of the Liberal Government, 1894–5, the Army expenditure amounted to £17,700,000. This year it amounted to-£29,400,000, or an increase of £11,700,000,. The increase on the naval expenditure was £20,000,000. The greatest need of the present day was the need for financial reform. We must have a check on expenditure; we-must have greater control. What was the real remedy for all this? It was very simple, very effective—a change of Government. The root of the evil lay in the policy of His Majesty's present advisers. What was wanted was to get back to the old paths of sound finance, and put in power the traditional guardians of the public purse who would exercise a wise and discriminating economy. The Secretary to the Treasury said—and he agreed with him —that expenditure depended on policy, and the hon. Member had asked what policy they, on that side of the House, had to offer? He would tell the hon. Member. It was a policy of peace. A peaceful policy was in the nature of things an economical policy. He was glad to see that there was soon to be an opportunity of getting a change of Government. They heard a voice last week from Birmingham, a high, if not

  1441
  the highest, authority in these matters, which said that a general election would take place in a reasonable time. They on that side of the House would welcome the opportunity of appealing to the constituencies of the country. They were waiting for that opportunity, and hoped that the Prime Minister would not be long in taking the plunge.
  MR. BECKETTsaid he thought the House would agree that the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition was not superfluous. The question of national expenditure must appeal both to the House and to the country, though, judging from the aspect of the House just then, little practical interest seemed to be taken in it. He believed, however, that the economists were being daily recruited. He could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that zeal for economy on the part of the Opposition was shared by Members on the Ministerial side of the House. The Secretary to the Treasury said he was rather tired of hearing professions of economy and that he would prefer to see them carried into practice. If he found himself walking into the Division Lobby against the hon. Gentleman on behalf of reductions in the Estimates, which made for economy, he trusted he would not be blamed by his Whips, but would plead the advice of the hon. Gentleman as sufficient justification. As a matter of fact, many Members had given positive proof that their professions were to be followed up by practice, because last year they moved that the Army should be reduced by 27,000 men. That was a practical measure in favour of economy, which might perfectly well have been carried out. It could hardly be contended that the present state of affairs was not a weakness and danger to this country which ought not to be allowed to continue. To wage a successful war you required three things, ships, men and money. It was perfectly true that the public could bear this burden and a still greater burden. But if an animal had to go a long journey they must not load it up to its full carrying capacity. He trusted that this country would go a long journey, but that journey would be shortened if that carrying capacity was over-loaded,
  1442
  and it was over-loaded since we continued the war expenditure in peace time. He did not think it could be denied that the present expenditure was a war expenditure. It was true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, that it was only right and reasonable that our expenditure should increase with the increase of wealth and population, but the increase should be a proportionate increase. The increase during the last few years had been a totally disproportionate increase, and it was that disproportionate increase that was so alarming to all serious economists.
  What had been the rate of increase in recent times? The last speaker had suggested a change of Government as the remedy for the present state of affairs. He was not quite so sure as to that when they considered the figures he proposed to bring before the House. They must compare the present time with a period when the state of affairs was pretty much as it existed to-day. A quarter of a century ago, at the end of Lord Beaconsfield's Administration, the expenditure of this country was £71,500,000. Lord Beaconsfield, it must be supposed, was fully alive to the Imperial necessities of the country; at any rate, he was denounced by hon. Gentleman who came into office on the cry of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform;" but during that tenure the expenditure increased to £81,000,000. Then the Conservative Party came into office, and in six years Lord Salisbury's Administration reduced the expenditure to £78,000,000. There were many hon. Gentlemen who pretended that a large expenditure was vital to the security of the nation. Did they mean to say that when Lord Salisbury reduced that expenditure he proved himself indifferent to national security? Did they pretend that Lord Salisbury starved and neglected the services, and was guilty of a cheese-paring Little Englandism? Yet, if there was anything in the contention that one was only a true patriot if one was spending money, Lord Salisbury himself fell into that category of Little Englandism. When Lord Salisbury went out the Party opposite came into power, and Sir William. Harcourt, a most stern and rigid economist, became Chancellor of the

  1443
  Exchequer. Again the expenditure rose from £78,000,000 to £81,000,000. This was what the Party of retrenchment did during their last tenure of office, and he therefore thought, without any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman opposite he might somewhat question his statement that a change of Government would provide the right remedy for this policy of expenditure. In 1895 the present Government practically came into office; and in that year a remarkable thing happened. There was a coalition with the Liberal Unionists. Then the expenditure rose by leaps and bounds. In the first year it rose by £4,000,000, in the second year by £3,000,000, in the third year by £1,000,000, and in the fourth by £5,500,000. Then came the war. Before the war the increase of expenditure since the present Government came into office was at the extravagant rate of £3,500,000 a year, and if they reckoned what the expenditure should be during the present year at that rate— though he did not admit it was a fair rate—it ought to be £112,000,000 instead of £142,100,000. There was, therefore, an excess of £30,000,000 above what the rate of expenditure ought to be, even at the high rate of increase of £3,500,000.
  During the last ten years the expenditure of the country had increased from £78,000,000 to £142,000,000, or £64,000,000. Was there anything that had happened during those ten years which could possibly justify that enormous increase? He thought he was justified in saying that they had a war expenditure in a time of peace, and everybody would agree that it was time to cry halt and to retrace their steps. Hon. Gentlemen might say perfectly truly, "you must prepare for war. "But in continuing the present high rate of expenditure they were not preparing for war. As a matter of fact they were doing the very reverse. War was made by three things, viz., by ships, men, and money. There should be due order and proportion observed between the three. If they were spending too much on their men and ships, they were depleting their resources and weakening instead of strengthening themselves for war. It was just the same as if a prizefighter spent his time in developing his
  1444
  muscles and took too little food. He might be able to strike a hard blow, but could not fight to a finish. If we persisted in maintaining war expenditure in times of peace in order to prepare for war, we should have nothing to fall back upon when war did at last arise. They were more exhausted by the South African War than they thought they were, and the result was that they could not make war with a Great Power at the present moment. No Government would dare to involve this country in a great war at the present moment unless in defence of the national existence of the country. They had the men and the ships but they had not got the money, and until they had the money it was impossible for this country to go to war with a Great Power.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great parade of the wealth of the country in his recent Budget speech, after having tried during the autumn to persuade the country that it was on the verge of ruin. The late Colonial Secretary said last week that England was a third-rate Power, and that if it did not follow his advice it would fall to a fifth-rate Power. That would be possible if the country continued to spend more money than it could afford. The point was that the limits of the taxable capacity of the country had now been pretty well reached. Customs and Excise were no longer buoyant, and if expenditure were to be increased more would have to be put on tea, tobacco, beer, and spirits. Without raising a controversial question, he might add that the Licensing Bill would deprive the country of a potential source of revenue. Commodities were now taxed as highly as they could bear, and if they were taxed more the result would be to diminish consumption. In imposing taxation what ought to be borne in mind was that they should fix duties at such rates as would produce increased consumption, because that implied increased trade, that more capital was put into ships, that more sailors were employed, more goods were imported, and in order to manufacture those goods more raw material had to be imported, and more ships would have to be built for that purpose, and also to take the manufactured goods to other countries. That

  1445
  meant that they would make more machinery, would employ more men, and would generally enjoy greater prosperity as a result of increased consumption. Considering that they were in a time of peace, he was justified in saying that the taxable capacity of the country in respect of duties had been exploited to the utmost extent that was advisable in times of peace. There only remained the income-tax, which was already high enough. If money had to be raised for war purposes it was well known that the second shilling would not produce anything like as much as the first shilling had produced. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in favour of a graduated income-tax, but, speaking as a banker, he thought the difficulty of graduation was insuperable. It would lead to falsehood and evasion and should not be imposed, especially as the death duties were graduated. They were a fruitful source of revenue, and at the same time a fruitful source of hardship. The point now was that the Government could not continue to raise revenue from a reluctant people. The people were not paying cheerfuly, and a wise Government would lighten the burden in times of depression even though it involved the delay of the ship building programme, especially when there was no immediate cause for anxiety.
  He thought the Government had given practical proof that they now favoured a policy of peace. That treaty having been ratified, and the danger of war with France averted, he hoped for ever, was surely a time when we could afford to economise even in our Fleet. Our Fleet was now fully up to the two-Power standard which was sufficient for all purposes. With regard to the Army nothing more need be said. Everybody agreed that the Army expenditure could be decreased, and he and those who thought with him were of opinion that without impairing the efficiency of the Army the expenditure could be reduced by £5,000,000 or £ 10,000,000 a year. Nature had placed us in such a position that we did not need a large Army, and by our excessive expenditure we were throwing away that defence which nature had given us. We spent on armaments £1 10s. per head
  1446
  of the population; in France, it was £1 1s. 2d.; in Germany, 15s. 6d.; in Russia, 6s. 11d.: in Austria, 7s. 10d.: and in Italy, 9s. 11d. Was there anything that could justify us in spending on armaments at a greater rate than our neighbours. This competition of expenditure with neighbouring nations, in which we had left them far behind, was bound to be most disastrous to this country. The price to which Consols had fallen showed that to some extent the credit of the country was impaired, and if we went to war now, and had to borrow £200,000,000, we should have to pay very different terms to those on which we had secured money hitherto. He was not satisfied with the position of the Sinking Fund. The House had been led to suppose that £7,000,000 a year would be paid in reduction of debt, but that was not the case; only £3,800,000 had been paid. Not so long ago when the income-tax stood at 6d., £6,000,000 a year was being, paid in reduction of debt. Now when it stood at 1s. only £3,800,000 was paid in reduction, and our debt was £200,000,000 higher. That was a state of things that ought not to be allowed to continue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been very severe on municipalities, but had not a word of rebuke for national extravagance, but he would venture to point out that, so far as municipalities were concerned. £121,000,000 of their expenditure was reproductive and produced an income after paying the interest on the debt and a certain sum in reduction of the principal, and setting aside a sum for depreciation of £400,000 a year. If the national expenditure was reproductive in the same way, something might have been said for it. He deprecated this expenditure. The best preparation for war, in his opinion, was a moderate expenditure in time of peace.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he was glad to have heard the speech just delivered, because, though the Resolution might not be carried, it showed that there were those in the House who were desirous of decreasing the present great expenditure. In the early years of the reign of Queen Victoria, the country was almost forced

  1447
  into economy. The country then had a very heavy debt to bear, and for the first five years of that reign there was a continued deficit of about £1,500,000 to make good. Sir Robert Peel was the first to stem the tide of expenditure, and he established a rigid system of economy which was afterwards carried oat by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. At that time expenditure and income averaged £50,000,000 a year, and that average was continued during the whole of Sir Robert Peel's Administration and through that of Lord John Russell. Then came the Crimean War. During the first year of that war the national expenditure jumped up £30,000,000, in the second year £50,000,000, and in the third year £34,000,000, because directly the declaration of peace took place £17,500,000 were knocked off the Estimates. That war had the effect of promoting in this country a spirit of militarism, and naval and military expenditure had never got down to ante-Crimean days. Much had been said about the state of un preparedness in which the country was at the time of the Crimean War. The Navy was less powerful than now, and we had a small Army. On the other side we had France as an ally and Russia as an enemy, but the fact remained that our enemy was so exhausted and our ally so weakened in finance that they accepted terms while we could have gone on for five years more. Our success did not depend so much on our armaments as on our credit. Our naval and military expenditure when Queen Victoria came to the throne was £12,000,000; in fifty years it increased by 150 per cent, and at the second Jubilee it had increased to £42,000,000. The history of the past five years was most alarming, for in that period our naval and military expenditure had increased to £72,000,000. In twelve years the income raised by taxation had increased from £75,000,000 to £121,000,000, although the population had grown only from 38,000,000 to 42,000,000. There had been added £13,000,000 to the income-tax, £6,000,000 to the death duties, £4,000,000 to the tea duty, £4,000,000 to the liquor duties, and £2,000,000 to the tobacco duty; £6,000,000 had been drawn from the sugar duty, and £2,000,000 from an ex-
  1448
  port duty on coal. It was a question whether the country could bear any more. Most people had been obliged to recast their style of living and to retrench in every possible way. Personally, he had never felt the pressure of taxation until now, he could not bear any more; and if, whether by taxes or by rates, any more was to be compulsorily taken out of his pocket it could only come back to him in the form of Poor Law relief.
  Much had been said about "broadening the basis of taxation. "To his mind society was designed like a pyramid. At the base was the labouring class, then came the artisans and mechanics; then shopkeepers and merchants; and finally the millionaires at the summit. Hence when Ministers spoke about broadening the basis of taxation, it simply meant putting a heavier burden of taxation on the base of the pyramid, viz., the working classes, by whom four-fifths of the taxation on articles of consumption was paid. He was glad to think that economical ideas were reviving. It seemed as though the public were being taxed into economy. The Motion to which reference had been made, for a reduction of the Army by 27,000 men was the first real Motion in that direction for many years. The House of Commons had tried to deceive itself about the expenditure. Estimates had been reduced by a system of appropriations in aid; they had been further relieved by the allocation of taxes to local bodies; and a system of Loans Acts had served to keep expenditure out of the Budget. The truth, however, could not be concealed. He fully sympathised with a remark made by the Financial Secretary about the Civil Service Estimates. He strongly protested against the idea that Civil servants should be paid liberally. They ought to be paid justly, and there was no reason why the Civil servant should get more than his master, the taxpayer; he ought to be paid at the market rate, and no more. The division taken on Friday last was hardly a fair illustration of the extravagance of the House, because the Bill then under consideration was not for increased expenditure; it was merely a question of whether taxes already levied, though not by the Government, for the upkeep of lighthouses fell on the right shoulders. The increase in the

  1449
  Civil Service, however, had the advantage that it did not lead to more expenditure, as was the case with increases in military and naval Estimates. On that point he would recommend the House to read a recent article by Lord Cromer on "Imperialism." It was unnecessary to discuss Army expenditure, as there was a general feeling that we could have a smaller and more efficient Army for less money than we were now paying.
  In regard to the Navy, it was fashionable to say that the country would grudge no expenditure, but it should be borne in mind that this year we were spending £11,500,000 upon new ships and machinery, without arms, which was more than we used to spend upon the whole Navy. In the last year of Lord Goschen's tenure of office, France and Germany were building, but £8,000,000 were considered to be amply sufficient. In 1901, Germany, France, and Russia together spent £33,415,000 upon their navies: we alone spent £33,791,000, or more than these three Powers together. Since 1901, France, Germany, and Russia had added only £1,500,000 to their combined naval expenditure, while we had added £10,000,000. On the Admiralty's own calculation, that armour plated ships became obsolete in twenty-two years, cruisers in fifteen years, and torpedo and small boats in twelve years, an annual expenditure of £4,500,000 would be sufficient to replace the ships which became obsolete, while the present rate of £11,500,000 was sufficient to double the number of war vessels in ten years. An increase in the size of the Fleet would require larger establishment, more dock space, and more basins. Since 1883, we had launched forty-one new ships, or exactly the same number as France, Germany, and Russia together, but whereas their tonnage was 455,000, ours was 550,000. Therefore, instead of keeping to the two-Power standard, we were going beyond a three-Power standard, and that at a time when we were on better terms with France than ever before in the annals of history, when the war in the East had crippled Russia, and when there was a growing opposition to expenditure in Germany. Much, too, might be said about the burden imposed upon the people of the United Kingdom for armaments which were
  1450
  necessary for the defence not only of these islands, but also of the Colonies. We were a loyal people, and had borne the war taxes with patience; whatever grumbling there had been had come mainly from those whose services to the country had consisted in shouting with the band; and he hoped the Government, knowing how patiently the country had borne its burden, would not in time of peace try their loyalty too severely.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that, although he had been a Member of the House for a considerable number of years, he had never before known a "count" to be moved in the course of the debate on the Budget Bill, especially when a virtual vote of censure upon the Government in regard to expenditure had been moved. That it should have been possible seemed to prove the hollowness of much of the cry for economy. That the debate was hardly a serious one was shown by a comparison of the state of the House to-day and a few nights ago when the question of salaries to Members of Parliament was under discussion. He had always felt that the question of economy ought to be considered by the House of Commons to a far greater extent than was at present the case, and one of the reasons he had strongly urged the maintenance of the Sinking Fund was that it was an indirect way of insisting on economy. National expenditure had grown in a remarkable and unsatisfactory manner. He did not intend to discuss naval and military expenditure. He might say, however, with regard to the Navy, that he believed it was essential that the Fleet should be above suspicion in efficiency, quality, and quantity, as it was the main defence of the Empire; but there was a growing hope in the country that, in view of the recent treaty with France, and events in the East, it might be possible before long to effect a large reduction in the Navy, and certainly in the Army.
  It should not be forgotten that a large portion of the increase of expenditure was on the Civil Service Estimates, and it was to that that he desired to direct his remarks. It was useless for Members to say that too much money was being spent unless they were prepared to

  1451
  point to items which they considered ought to be reduced. He had studied these Estimates for many years, and he "found that in fifteen years they had practically doubled. That was a very large increase in the expenditure, and those who talked so much about our expenditure being excessive were bound to go into those details. In going into these details he wished to refer to the various items of this great increase in the expenditure. He would first take Class I., which was the expenditure for buildings. He would give the gross increase in the twelve years from 1893 to 1904, which extended over the special period they were discussing and which included what had been called the misdoings of the present Government. For this period the increase in Class I. amounted to very nearly £1,000,000, and this was enough for hon. Members opposite to talk about the enormous extravagance of the Government. That argument might go down all right at a public meeting where nobody knew any better, but he wished the House to look into the figures in order to see how that £1,000,000 was made up. A quarter of that increase was due to the rating of Government property, and surely the Government could not be blamed for that. Then there was an increase of £150,000 for post office and telegraph buildings. Could any hon. Member put his finger on that item and say it was extravagant? Such expenditure showed the development of business and increased prosperity. Then there was an item for extra land and insurance £75,000, and fuel £50,000. There was also an increase in the wages of Government employees, which was continually being urged upon the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The other day a proposal was made that everybody employed by the Government should receive a minimum wage of 30s. a week. For the last ten, twelve, or fourteen years they had been continually increasing wages—he did not say wrongly —but after they had done this, was it fair to turn round upon the Government when all this had been done by the order of the House, and say that it was due to their extravagance. The various items he had mentioned made up nearly the
  1452
  £1,000,000 increase in Class I. of the Estimates.
  He would now turn to Class II., which included the salaries and expenses of the various Government Departments. This Vote had increased by £870,000 a year during the twelve years he was considering. The amounts for the House of Lords and the House of Commons were less, the amount for the Treasury was the same, but the sums taken by the Foreign Office, the Privy Council, and the Charity Commissioners were also less, and a great number of the smaller offices spent smaller sums. He would show the House, however, where the great increases came in. In the Home Office there had been an increase during the period he was considering of £62,000; in the Board of Trade Department there had been an increase of £40,000; whilst the Board of Agriculture, which had been created owing to the demand of the public, was responsible for the expenditure of another £60,000, All those Government Departments really represented expenditure upon a matter of policy which had been forced upon the Government by the various interests in the country, representing all shades of opinion on both sides of the House, and therefore, it was absurd to turn round and charge the Government with extravagance, because the policy of the country demanded an enormous increase in the various inspections and inspectors and in the various Departments of the State, in order to make the State better and more competent to carry on the work of government, to make the various Departments more efficient, and to see that the working people had healthier and more sanitary surroundings. When they found that all these matters cost something like £1,500,000 was it not childish and absurd for them to turn round and condemn the Government that; had carried out this policy, for extravagant expenditure. It was the policy of the country that had dictated this expenditure. As one who had always been I keenly interested in the welfare of the people—although he thought sometimes this expenditure had been rather overdone —still, whether they approved of it or not the money had all been spent with the idea of improving the habits, conditions, and happiness of the people of this

  1453
  country. He was glad that they had expended this money, and it was neither right nor reasonable that hon. Gentlemen opposite should turn upon the Government and charge them with extragavance because they had increased the expenditure in that direction. He noticed that during the twelve years under consideration there had been an increase of £l17,000 for stationery and printing. He thought this was very excessive, and might be reduced, because it was largely due to the printing demanded by hon. Members of the House which handled to a very large increase in this Vote. With regard to printing and stationery they were luxurious in their habits and they demanded it, and therefore this was another instance where it was unreasonable to charge the Government with extravagance. In Class II. there had been an enormous increase in the wages, and that again was an expenditure for which the Government could not be held responsible.
  The law expenses were practically the same as they were thirteen years ago, but when they turned to Class IV., which was for Education, what did they find? Why, that during the twelve years he had taken the Vote for education had increased from £9,000,000 to nearly £16,000,000, or, in other words, the Vote had increased by nearly £7,000,000. He did nor think that even hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed to reduce the amount which was now being spent upon the education of the people. The regular cry all over the country was to increase the expenditure upon this Vote. He remembered when he first entered the Education Department more than forty years ago, the Education Vote was keenly criticised because it showed an increase of £2,000 or £3,000, but now every year this Vote increased not by thousands or by tens of thousands, but by hundreds of thousands. He hoped they were getting all the advantage which had been predicted out of this expenditure, but it was childish to abuse the Government because during their term of office an increase of £7,000,000 had taken place in the Education Vote, when hon. Members opposite knew that on every platform they were always telling the people that this was one of the best forms of expenditure they had, and that it was necessary in order to enable them to
  1454
  compete with the foreigner. The items he had mentioned accounted for a very large increase in the expenditure. Class V., for foreign and colonial services, also showed an increase of nearly £1,500,000, and this included the expenditure upon Uganda, colonial services, and Northern Nigeria. This expenditure might be either right or wrong, but at any rate it accounted for a part of the increase. The sixth item showed a satisfactory indication of economy, and it dealt with the' Pension Vote, which was actually less now than it was twelve or thirteen years ago. It looked as though they were not quite so liberal in regard to pensions as they used to be when they took into consideration the increases which had taken place in the staff. Class VII. was for commissions in the Navy which showed an increase of £150,000. There was an item of £70,000 for the St. Louis Exhibition, which again was a matter of policy, although he did not think it would do much good. At any rate it pleased America and helped the nations to work harmoniously together, and it would be a pity if this country, for the sake of saving this amount of money, had not been a party to that great Exhibition which would be an advantage to unity, peace, prosperity, and commerce. Then the Irish Development Grant had taken £185,000, so that vote these items were taken out of this Vote there was actually a reduction in the total expenditure.
  He was afraid that he had wearied the House with these various details but it seemed to him that it was really necessary and desirable, in discussing a question like this, for all these items, which might appear very insignificant, became very important in regard to the increase in the expenditure. The Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the decision of the House in regard to the Merchant Shipping (Lighthouses) Bill. The other night a proposal was made for the payment of Members, which would have involved something like £350,000 a year, and it was also suggested that the profits derived from the Post Office should be given up and that the rich shipowners should be relieved of the charges made for light dues at the expense of the State. He did not think that the shipowners were a class of men who were in such desperate

  1455
  pecuniary difficulties that they should burden the taxpayers with an additional half a million of money. Those things showed the absurdity of talking about economy in this House, and he regretted very much that the debates in this House had practically no tendency towards economy. He did not think for a moment that the country was in such a bad way that it could not bear the taxation which was now imposed upon it. He believed that even at the present time they were taxed less heavily than most European countries, and they were a great deal better off than a great many of those foreign countries. There were an immense number of people who were in great poverty, and who had great difficulty to live. They found taxation extremely hard, and this House was bound to consider their position.
  The hon. Member for North Norfolk had referred to the cost of the Army and Navy now as compared with what it was at the time Her late Majesty came to the throne. He thought those comparisons were perfectly useless. Guns and everything in connection with these services were different, and the cost now was very much more. The nation had developed enormously in wealth, and if they considered the increase in prosperity and population, the increase in expenditure was not so remarkable as it might otherwise appear. He thought, however, there were many small ways in which they might economise. He was quite certain that during the last twenty years most of the extravagance of which they complained had been due to the action of the House of Commons itself. In theory every hon. Gentleman, on both sides of the House, advocated economy: but every hon. Gentleman had a particular fad of his own which meant extravagance. The result was that every individual was always pressing for something which he thought most important and which was increasing the expenditure of the country, though when he came here and spoke in the abstract he wished to reduce expenditure. The Government had no doubt many faults to correct. No doubt that went without saying of any Government. They had done many things they ought not to have done, and had left undone many things they ought to have done. He had never seen or
  1456
  heard of any Government that had not. In regard to extravagance, he thought that could not be laid on the shoulders of the Government. The expenditure was what this House desired. They were delighted that the Navy had been strengthened, but they were like the man who had enjoyed a good dinner when he came to pay the bill. They did not like it so well. In regard to the Army, they knew perfectly well the expenditure had been somewhat extravagant in connection with, the war in South Africa. When they were in difficulty in the dark hours at the end of 1899 they were very glad to find that though there had been large expenditure they had been able to send out men. The cost of the Civil Service had enormously increased, and that was due very much to the action of this House. If they wished to reduce that expenditure they must carefully consider every item, but as long as they were determined to increase the expenditure on education and various other matter —he should be sorry to advocate reductions in certain directions—they could not expect for some time to come to reduce these items of expenditure.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that a great deal had been said about the Navy, and it was because of an allusion made by the Secretary to the Treasury that he desired to say a few words about the Navy Estimates. The hon. Gentleman was most unfair to the Opposition, lie taunted them with the small portion of time devoted to these Estimates. What had happened this session? More time had been devoted to the Navy than in any session he could remember, and the reason undoubtedly was that the Admiralty was as usual, better prepared than any other Department. The Votes allowed to pass with, little or no discussion were comparatively unimportant—for non-effective services and other matters in which no serious reduction could be thought of. What was important was the Vote which was postponed, and of which hon. Gentlemen talked as if it were of no importance. The Vote postponed was Section 3 of the Navy Estimates, Vote 8, which included the Note for new construction, upon which the whole growth of the

  1457
  Navy Estimates depended. They arranged for its being postponed because it was unfair to take it in a small House, and because it was the desire of both sides that for once, at all events, the policy of the Government respecting new construction should be seriously considered. He hoped his hon. friends who tad been joining in the appeal for economy would remember that the new construction Vote had been kept back for further discussion, and if they meant anything by their professions of economy they would for the first time face the responsibility of saying whether or Dot they would assent to this unparalleled demand for £11,500,000 for new ships which would result in the £38,000,000 to be spent on the Navy this year becoming £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 in a very short time hence. He regarded the declaration in his right hon. friend's Amendment as at this stage merely a pious opinion, which must be translated into action on the Estimates, and particularly on the Vote to which he had reterred.
  There was no doubt that Supplementary Estimates upset the financial equilibrium of the year, and as Mr. Gladstone used to say withdrew from the House of Commons a portion of its power of controlling expenditure. This year the Supplementary Estimates had two particular general features. There was a power which the Government of the day had of spending public money for purposes not authorised by Parliament at all. When he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day about the Chilian battleships he appeared to resent the question, and his friends appeared to think that it was another imputation upon his honour. In the course of the recess the right hon. Gentleman made himself responsible for the application of public money—he was not calling it in question—for a purpose which Parliament had never sanctioned, and when he put it to him the right hon. Gentleman did not admit it, but he tried to excuse it.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did admit it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid what he was complaining of was that he
  1458
  did not get from the right hon. Gentleman the frank acknowledgment be wanted for the information of the House. Did the House know by what means this expenditure was possible? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell him how he got hold of the money. They had been accustomed to believe that no money could be taken out of the Consolidated Fund for a purpose not sanctioned by Parliament, and that the Comptroller-General was the officer accredited for the purpose of preventing any such expenditure taking place. Now it appeared that that was all wrong, and that public money might be applied subject to an Act of indemnity passed by the House. That was a very serious state of things. He supposed that the money for these Chilian battleships was obtained by using a credit given by the Comptroller-General to carry out the Supply voted in the previous year. But the money having been placed at the disposal of the Treasury was illegally used for a purpose which Parliament had not sanctioned. That was an extraordinary kind of financial control, and he thought the House would agree that it did not make for the supervision of the House over expenditure or for economy in administration. Supplementary Estimates were bad always, but this year they were used deliberately to create a deficit. Practically the whole deficit of the year was the result of these Supplementary Estimates. His complaint was that it did not make it possible for them to know, when that deficit was being created or how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to meet it. If they had known that the whole of the deficit was to be met out of capital, not a man in the House would have passed it. It was a great blot on the Budget that a deficit so created should have been paid for out of capital in time of peace. It was unworthy of a British Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had plumed himself on the fact. The real truth was that the deficit of last year was £5,500,000, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided by the £3,000,000 from the Transvaal and £1,000,000 of unclaimed dividends. That was as if he had sold £1,000,000 of the Suez Canal shares. The Transvaal money had been not only borrowed, but twice borrowed. Three

  1459
  millions more than were wanted were borrowed for the war, and we lent that money to the Transvaal Government. It was repaid out of the money borrowed by them and guaranteed by this country.
  Another blot on the Budget was that it increased the taxation levied on the very poorest of the poor who had less than the absolute necessaries of life. There was a margin of the population, numbering many millions, who had so little to live on that they should not be taxed at all. All taxation of that class, which wa3 always indirect—if they knew they were being taxed there would be a revolution in this country—was an irremediable wrong. He did not think there was any legitimate necessity for relieving coordinately direct and in direct taxation. All increase of indirect taxation in the way proposed by the Budget was not only doubly wrong, but became a crime when they knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not scruple to add to the burdens of those who ought not to bear taxation at all and especially when he deliberately ignored publicans' licences, from which some of his hon. friend estimated that a revenue of £8,750,000 could be obtained. The right hon. Gentleman had refused to the House an inquiry as to the monopoly value of these licences, and in another Bill the attempt was going to be made to give that monopoly value to the publicans.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is beyond the questions involved in the Finance Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not going to discuss that point further, but, restricted as he was, he would advise his hon. friends beside him not to be unduly downcast be the result of the vote on the Licensing Bill. He would invite them to believe that the proper place for them to fight that Bii—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is engaged in discussing the Licensing Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am very sorry that I have what I meant to say.
  AN HON. MEMBER: "Lead us not into temptation."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What he wanted to discuss was the value of the monopoly given by the State to the publicans by their licences. The claim he made was that these licences were a proper subject of taxation and that they were a national asset, that that asset ought to be realised before any increase was made on the already heavy burden of taxation on the poorest of the poor. That was a point which, he submitted, might be made on the present Budget Bill, and it would certainly be enforced by Amendments in Committee. The House of Lords could control certain kinds of legislation; bur they could not refuse to assent to a Money Bills, and it would be perfectly open to a future House of Commons to declare that these licence duties were still too low, that the value of them was still public property, and that it was the duty of the State to appropriate that value.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid that if he were in order, arguments could be addressed which would completely demolish the case which had been attempted to be set up by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. But that would be reserved for another occasion. How could it be successfully contended that the expenditure on the Chilian war ships was illegal when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as soon as possible, informed the House of their purchase, and asked the permission of Parliament to sanction it He would call the attention of the House to the fact that the money for the purchase of the Suez Canal shares was obtained by Mr. Disraeli when the House of Commons was not sitting. The question of legality or illegality was a question whether the House of Commons would give approval for what had been done. He remembered the late Lord Chief Justice. Coleridge stating that it was absolutely impossible to contend that the House of Commons had acted illegally in such circumstances: because if they had sanctioned anything afterwards they had made it legal by their subsequent action. That was ex-pres-ed in the Prayer-book when it spoke of this being the High Court of Parliament. So long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to this House, at

  1461
  the earliest possible opportunity, and disclosed what he had done, it was absurd for the hon. and learned Member for Dundee to make his appeal to the House of Commons and to threaten the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having been guilty of some high crime and misdemeanour which would in olden times have led him to the scaffold. The hon. Gentleman had said something about there being only pious opinions on the other side of the House: but one of the greatest difficulties of hon. Gentlemen opposite would be when they transferred themselves to the Government side of the House, to justify the promises they had made. It would be the old, old story. He must confess that it might be his want of financial experience, but he could not follow the hon. Gentleman in regard to the missing doubly borrowed money from the Transvaal. It showed the necessity not only of auditors for municipal, but for Government, accounts.
  He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who referred to the growing items of municipal expenditure, but he did not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, or his statement that a large part of that expenditure was reproductive. The majority of municipalities had no independent audit, and until they had an independent audit he could not accept figures as to what should be put to capital and what to revenue. He could not follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who said that the first object of the Supplementary Estimates was to create a deficit at the moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was preparing his first Budget. The country did not look forward with pleasure to a deficit; and he never yet heard that it we is any part of the policy of a new Chancellor of the Exchequer to create a bogus deficit unless he had the deliberate desire to make himself, and the Government of which he was a member, unpopular. The hon. Member for Whitby gave tie House two figures which should be well studied in connection with expenditure on the Army and Navy. Did the lion. Gentleman imagine that this country would be satisfied with the miserable pittance paid to soldiers and sailors in France and Germany, that
  1462
  this country would have conscription and insult its soldiers and sailors with two or three sous per day. He could not imagine what was the object of the comparison of the hon. Gentleman, except to damage his own Party. He knew something of the misery which was endured by the common soldier in Germany, and knew that he was unable to keep body and soul together unless he received a weekly remittance from his parents. If this country were to pay its soldiers a living wage, and have intelligent men in the ranks of the Army, they could not reduce the amount per capita now paid. He had some sympathy, however, with the suggested reduction in the number of troops. The first vote he ever gave against his Party was given against the Army Corps scheme, because he was convinced that if the War Office would make more use of the Volunteers and the Reserves it would not be necessary to have such a large standing Army. He had seen such a desire on the part of the middle classes to serve in the Auxiliary Forces, that he was convinced that if more attention was paid to that branch it would not be necessary to keep up the Regular Army at anything like its present strength. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consultation with the War Office, would make it clear that while the nation wished its soldiers to be properly trained and paid, the enrolment of civilian soldiers should also be encouraged. He was very much struck, in travelling through India two years ago, with the magnificent physique and splendid position of the native forces, who might be relied upon more and more; to defend the extremities of the Empire. The hon. Gentleman who referred to the French and German military system was speaking only to the Press Gallery, and he must have known perfectly well that it was impossible to adopt any such system in this country.
  The hon. Gentleman for one of the Divisions in Norfolk referred to the period when Mr. Ayrton was Chancellor of the Exchequer but was there ever a more economical or a more unpopular person? No less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, who had great experience in this House, said that economy in itself was not popular; and all who knew anything of the working

  1463
  classes knew that they did not approve of anything approaching a policy of cheese-paring in connection with the Army and the Navy. Unquestionably, the burden of taxation was now breaking the back of the middle classes. In his own constituency he saw the small shopkeeper being driven out by the large companies. That was caused not only by competition but also by the great burden of the rates. It was no use for lion. Gentlemen opposite to contend that municipal taxation did not fall heavily on the working classes; and he was not at all surprised that in some districts the rents had been reduced, the tenants being required to pay the local rates, not the landlords. That brought home to the tenant what the burden of the local rates was.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing a wider question than that before the House.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid the only other point to which he would refer was the great and growing expenditure which had now fallen on the Civil Service Estimates, and he thought that that was a matter which demanded attention.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned until this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
  GOSPORT WATER BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  A verbal Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  FINANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [16th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, having regard to the heavy burden of taxation proposed by this Bill in a time of
  1464
  peace, deems it necessary to declare its condemnation of the large and continuous increase of the national expenditure in recent years.'"—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid there was no question which could occupy the attention of the House to greater advantage, having regard to the alarming increase of our normal national expenditure, than the question of the retrenchment of that expenditure. The hon. Member for Whitby had informed the House that there had been an increase of £64,500,000 in the normal expenditure of this country in the last ten years, and when we remembered that that expenditure was largely unproductive it must appeal to us that so large an unproductive expenditure derived from the taxation of the whole community must so lessen the purchasing power of the community in regard to everything needed to feed and clothe them, and furnish their homes, as to exercise a detrimental influence on the general commercial prosperity of the whole nation. They were told that the expenditure for Imperial defence for 1904–5, including military and naval works and Supplementary Estimates, amounted to the gigantic sum of no less than £88,000,000, in 1891 the total expenditure was only £33,000,000. Such an alarming increase ought to cause the House to give the closest attention to the question of expenditure for Imperial defence. The Secretary to the Treasury had told the House that hon. Members had neglected their opportunities of criticising increased expenditure in connection with the Estimates, and that was perfectly true. Each Estimate ought to be criticised as it was presented to the House, but, on the other hand, it was the duty of the Government and especially of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to justify to the House and the country the enormous increase that had taken place in the national expenditure in time of peace. The expenditure last year, in time of peace, was £9,000,000 in excess of the previous year, and when the result of the financial year came to be known, it was found that not only had the

  1465
  expenditure been underestimated by £3,000,000 but the revenue had been overestimated by £2,750,000. The £3,000,000 added to the £9,000,000 increase of the previous year made a total of £12,000,000, which had only been reduced by £1,500,000 for next year. So that for next year the Estimates of expenditure amounted to £10,500,000 more than they did two years ago. It was not so much for the Liberal side of the House to show where this expenditure should be curtailed, as it rested upon the Government to justify this enormous increase in a time of peace.
  At an earlier stage of the Budget Resolutions he had raised the point as to how much we were to allow the knowledge and experience gained from the war at present being waged in the Far East to be left out of consideration. In that war it had been demonstrated that it was unwise to build huge battleships costing millions of money, which by a well-laid mine or torpedo could be sent to the bottom of the sea in five minutes. In view of the knowledge gained by that war so far as it had gone, the Government might with great advantage direct their attention to the question of whether a larger number of smaller and heavily armed and gunned ships might not be built at considerably less cost and be more effective for Imperial defence. A great deal had been said in the House on the question of Army expenditure. With regard to that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had said—
  "If the War Office laid out the money it Cut to the best possible advantage, which nobody outside the War Office believes it does, the strength of the Army could be reduced with advantage, and yet we might have a better Army."
  It was not the idea of Liberal Members to reduce the pay of Tommy Atkins, but they believed a small Army better trained and equipped would be more effective than that which existed. It had been condemned as to its organisation root and branch by a Commission appointed by the Government. He repudiated the suggestion that they wanted to give the soldier less or to mete out less liberal treatment and encouragement to the promotion of the efficiency of the Militia, Volunteers, and Imperial Yeomanry, upon which the country
  1466
  must mainly depend in time of war for home defence.
  He objected to the inflated national expenditure, because the Government had utterly failed to show any justification for it, in addition to which the taxation was unfair. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say if it were right in 1903, when remitting taxation to the extent of £10,500,000, to remit direct taxation in the proportion of four-fifths, and indirect taxation to the extent of one-fifth. Should not the same proportions he observed when it became necessary this year to reimpose a portion of the taxation taken off in 1903.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had answered the question in anticipation in his Budget speech.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONpointed out that in the taxation imposed this year the proportions were half-and-half. He further asked whether, in view of the enormous national expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman had given attention to the possibility of getting increased grants towards Imperial defence from the great self-governing Colonies of the Empire.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a separate question which does not arise on this Bill.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONbowed to the ruling of the Chair, and continuing, said the additional taxation imposed ought to have been avoided by cutting down both the Army and Navy Vote so as to prevent especially the further imposition of 2d. on tea. In 1900, when 2d. was put on tea, the right hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this extra 2d. was an exceptional tax levied for the purpose of the war. Two years later when he had to impose further taxation he said, bearing in mind that tea which was almost a necessity of life was already taxed up to 75 per cent. of its annual value, he should be sorry to increase it and he did not do so; but last year when the right hon. Gentleman had £10,500,000 taxation to remit, surely that 2d. on tea, which was a war tax, ought to have been taken off, instead of which the

  1467
  Chancellor of the Exchequer this year imposed an additional 2d. on tea. There was no justification in this Budget of such an unfair burden being placed on the working classes of the country.
  While they deplored the enormous increase in the expenditure for the defensive forces, they rejoiced in the increase of the expenditure for education. When in Massachusetts last autumn, he found that no less than £1 per head of the population there was spent on education, whereas in this country we only spent 8s. per head. In this connection he was reminded of an incident, connected with the educational expenditure, that happened in a Scottish constituency. A candidate was being heckled by a constituent who asked—"Am I to understand, Mr. Wason, that while you are prepared to spend £31,000,000 sterling on the Army and Navy you are only prepared to spend £8,000,000 on education; that while you are prepared to spend £31,000,000 in 'blawing brains oot' you are only prepared to spend £8,000,000 in' pitting brains in? "That question applied with greater force to-day when we were spending£16,000,000 "pitting brains in" and £88,000,000 in "blawing brains oot," or preparing to do so. A great majority on both sides of the House would welcome increased expenditure which would enable us to hold our own in competing commercially with the more highly educated, scientifically, nations of Europe.
  There was one especial item which he had hoped to sec dealt with this year in the annual Budget. He had hoped that by the practice of the most rigid economy the Government would have placed themselves in the position of being able to remove the tax upon coal, a tax from which the Treasury derived a revenue of £2,000,000; but a tax which was flagrantly unjust. Those engaged in the coal trade contributed in every respect the same as every other great industry of the country, in addition to which, owing to the mode of assessing, they were paving more heavily in regard to income-tax than perhaps any other great industry in the country. He hoped this point would be brought under the consideration of the Departmental Committee which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recently appointed to
  1468
  consider the question of the income-tax. Coal-owners had to return their profits on the basis of the preceding five years, whilst iron and steel works and other industries based their returns on the preceding year only. It was, therefore, obvious that if the coal-owners had to take the basis of five years they had to include the prosperous year of 1900 in their average, and were thus paying more than they should do to fulfil the intentions of the income-tax. The result was they paid a large amount of income-tax out of capital. The case for the removal of this coal tax was a very just one. It was true that the exports of coal last year had somewhat increased largely owing to the strike in America creating a demand for more than 1,000,000 tons, but that did not alter the fact except in regard to Welsh steam coal. The firms in Durham, Northumberland. Yorkshire, and Scotland who exported coal, came into competition with Germany, France, and Belgium, and, by reason of this tax of 1s. a ton, were receiving at the pit's mouth 1s. a ton less than they otherwise would. The result of the trading of the first eight weeks of this year at one colliery in Northumberland, had been a loss of £1,700, and but for the tax that trading would have resulted in a profit of £1,800. In his division in Yorkshire there was a colliery working a thin seam of coal at a great expense, and owing to the coal duty it was at present being worked at a loss. Without the coal duty they would no longer have £12,000 to pay, and there would be no question of whether the colliery should he closed, and 1.000 men be thrown out of employment.
  The question was. What was the practical result of this tax? So far as Durham. Yorkshire, Northumberland and, Scotland were concerned it was unjust, inasmuch as they paid all the taxes other industries paid, and this special tax in addition. The right hon. Gentleman did nut give a very encouraging reply, so far ns the removal of the tax was concerned to the deputation which waited upon him. The ex-Colonial Secretary, speaking on the coal trade in a mining district recently, told the miners that they were only waiting to be eaten up. The production of coal in Germany. France, and America was increasing with gigantic speed, and in a comparatively few years those countries

  1469
  would become exporters instead of importers of coal. The coal tax was unprecedented in the fiscal system of the country, and operated as a bounty to the foreign producer at the expense of the home producer. It was the confiscation by the Government of £2,000,000 a year from the earnings of the colliery-owners, coal-miners, and shippers engaged in working and exporting coal. It was levied in a manner that was obviously unfair. It was unfair that coal worth 6s. per ton should pay the same tax as coal worth 12s. and it was somewhat ridiculous that it paid the coal-owner better to sell coal at 5s. 11d. than at 6s. 10d. If he sold at 6s. 10d., he had to pay the duty; if he sold at 5s. 11d. he escaped it. There were further inequalities arising from the rates for carriage to the port of shipment. The coal was sold at f.o.b. prices, and if the colliery had to pay 2s. 7d. for carriage, the net receipt was 3s. 6d. and out of that the duty had of be paid, leaving the colliery-owner only 2s. 6d. Yet there might be another colliery producing coal of precisely the same quality in the case of which the cost of carriage was only 6d., and it could afford to sell at 5s. 11d., it escaped the duty and got a net return of 5s. 5d. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not remove the duty, it was to be hoped that he would at least consider its incidence, which was most unequal. It would be much fairer to impose a tax of 2d. a ton on the whole coal output of the country, charging half of it to the colliery-owner and half to the royalty-owner. One reason put forward for the introduction of the tax was that it would enable us to husband the coal resources of the country. As a matter of fact it had operated entirely the other way. The price of coal at the pit's mouth had fallen from 3s. to 1s. per ton, and many colliery-owners hail been compelled to cease working thin and expensive seams, and we were exhausting the most valuable coal resources of the kingdom far more rapidly than was the case before the tax was imposed. Representing as lie did one of the largest coal-mining constituencies in the kingdom, he had felt it his duty to bring this matter under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They congratulated him on
  1470
  his early attainment of that mo-t distinguished position, and he could only say that when the deputation waited upon him the other day his experience was that no deputation was ever treated with greater courtesy. He hoped the right lion. Gentleman would take into consideration the representations he had made, to him with regard to the unfairness of this special tax, and that in some form or other in connection with the Budget, he would so adjust the impost as to render it more equitable.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the last speaker had indulged in a long history of the coal tax, but he could not for the life of him see what that had to do with the Amendment before the House, which was apparently directed to criticising the expenditure incurred by the Government during the last few years. The hon. Gentleman presumably objected to that expenditure, and his objection was particularly to the fact that a certain tax was imposed of an industry in which he was interested. But every industry called upon to bear a tax of course objected to paying it. Still, somebody must pay taxation, and he could not see anything particularly hard in imposing it on the colliery-owner. The hon. Gentleman, too, had said we had learnt a lesson from the war in the East. He seemed to suggest the lesson was that they should not build big battleships, because they might be torpedoed. Well, the Japanese had had no vessels torpedoed, while the Russians had only lost one battleship from that cause.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: More.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the question was, could the Japanese have carried out their operations with torpedo boats had they not had large battleships to cover their movements, and he commended that point to hon. Members' consideration. With regard to the Amendment before the House, the subject had been discussed on public plat-forms for a good many months. Still it seemed to him to be a strange thing that on so important an occasion there should be only eight Gentlemen on the Opposition

  1471
  Benches, and only one on the Front Opposition Bench lie considered the small attendance on both sides of the House only confirmed what had been said by the hon. Member for Fulham, viz., that the constituencies were not in favour of severe economy; and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in favour of it only in the abstract. How could we exercise economy? The answer appeared to be simple—by not spending so much. Vet it was only on the preceding Friday afternoon that hon. Members opposite went into the lobby in order to relieve shipowners of a heavy burden which they had had to pay for centuries and which certainly did not constitute an undue burden on their industry, and they sought to put it on the State. Was not that an extraordinary way of advocating economy? Again, very recently hon. Gentlemen opposite voted for the payment of Members. That would have been an additional burden on the State. If they really wanted economy they must give up these small fads. Let them in no way add to the expenditure if they could not reduce it. But could they reduce it? An hon. Member had suggested that a small Army would be more effective. He disagreed with that, and he believed it was an admitted fact that had we had a stronger Army at the outbreak of the Boer War the campaign would have proved much shorter and consequently less expensive. Then again, the hon. Member told them that the training of the men was bad. He believed it was as good as it would possibly be.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: No one else believes it.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYwas sorry there were no Army reformers in the House at the present moment. Money might be wasted in the civilian department, but the training of the men was as good as it had ever been in our history. Even the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean would admit it could not be better.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEdissented.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYwas sorry for that. Perhaps the right hon.
  1472
  Gentleman would tell him in what respect he was wrong. He quite agreed that our expenditure now was as high as it ought to be, but it was not wasted expenditure. The outlay on our Army and Navy was a national insurance, and was only sufficient for the proper protection of our Empire in time of need. The House must know we had not yet entered on the millennium, and a weak Army and Navy would only put us in a position to be shot at. The Fashoda incident would not have terminated as it did had our Navy been weak. While we need not be aggressive, we must be prepared to stand up for our own. A question had been asked why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not increased the burden of indirect taxation in the same proportion as that of the direct taxation, the allusion being presumably to the fact that fourpence had been taken off the income-tax, representing roughly £10,000,000, while indirect taxation had only been reduced £2,500,000. But the hon. Member who asked the question forgot that the income-tax was a war tax.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: So was the tea tax.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY,continuing, said the tea tax was not touched in the Budget he was referring to. The present expenditure was peace expenditure, and was necessary to maintain the increased obligations of the Empire. Was the hon. Member aware that at the present moment direct taxation represented £1 9s. per head and indirect taxation £1 11s. 2d? But of the latter sum £1 3s. 11d. was obtained from the tobacco, beer wine, and spirit duties, so that practically a man who neither smoked nor drank only paid 7s. 3d. Surely that was not an unjust burden. Hon. Members who advocated temperance reform ought not to complain if the taxation were raised upon articles which they so strongly condemned. He would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be chary in advancing money by local loans. He thought also that the system of grants in aid was not a good one, for it tended to encourage extravagance on the part of municipalities. While he hoped the Front Bench

  1473
  would do all it could to minimise unnecessary expenditure, he trusted there would be no decrease of the outlay on the Army and Navy, which was necessary for the defence of the country.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that practically all the speeches from the other side had asserted that the present debate was unreal, that whoever was responsible for the increase of expenditure, the one set of persons who were not responsible was the Government, and that the Motion under discussion was a mere Part move; but they had invariably wound up by deducing the same conclusion as that put forward by the right lion. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, viz., that the national expenditure was excessive and ought to be diminished. Sweeping and sudden diminutions of expenditure were generally wasteful and uneconomical, but he thought the Government might at any rate go as far as the hon. Member for Peckham and agree that there should be no further increase in the burdens of the people. He opposed the Bill because it continued war taxation in a time of peace, because of the constantly increasing expenditure of the country, and because there was no provision on the part of the Government, with a view to diminishing the accumulated debt and the increased charges due to the recent war. The Government had forfeited the confidence of the country, and he believed they had forfeited that confidence particularly with regard to their financial policy. The Budget WHS doubtless an "inevitable" Budget, in the Sense that it was the consequence of the policy which had been pursued by the Government during the last few years. As they had sown, so they must reap. But, as one who had opposed the past financial and political policy of the Government, he was entitled to oppose also this "inevitable "Budget.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken credit to himself for not having gone outside the ordinary routine of financial expedients—in fact, for having produced a humdrum Budget. It was indeed a humdrum Budget, but it ought not to have been. It was the first Budget for several years which had not contained any provision for the war expenditure, and
  1474
  if there was a strong claim last year for measures dealing with the serious financial problem caused by the magnitude of the war debt and war expenditure, how much stronger was that claim this year! The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have taken a wide survey of the situation and to have laid before the country some general scheme by which, in a reasonable time, the weight of debt might be diminished and some of the burdens of excessive taxation removed. But the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing of the sort. He hid strictly limited his view to one year. If he had in his mind a scheme by which he believed our financial position might be improved, but to which he could not in the present circumstances, owing to political or personal reasons, allow free scope, he occupied a false; position, If he and the Government of which he was a member really held these opinions upon important financial matters with which they were credited, it was their bounden duty to lay proposals before the country at the earliest possible moment, and obtain, if they could, the freedom of action in financial matters which they professed to desire.
  Other speakers had dwelt upon the particularly grave fault of the Budget that it retained as permanent peace taxation burdens which were imposed as temporary war taxation. They all remembered the appeals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol that they should take upon their shoulders at least as heavy a portion of the war expenditure as did their ancestors at the time of the Crimean War. Those appeals were cheerfully acceded to on the assurance that the taxation would be removed where the war was over. It was never anticipated that that taxation would become a part of the permanent financial burden of the country. In this connection he would give only one illustration. In the Army Estimates for the year 1900–01 a sum of £0,250,000 was put down for "temporary increases in connection with the war" but five-sixths of those increases had become part of the permanent Army expenditure of the country. There was one kind of increased expenditure for which the present Government was solely responsible. In answer

  1475
  to a Question the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that there were 17,000 troops, costing £2,003,000 a year, under the Colonial Office, and about 5,000 men, costing nearly £250,000, under the Foreign Office. This was expenditure of a military character; it did not appear in the Army Estimates, and it was due to the Imperial colonial policy inaugurated some years ago in Central and West Africa.
  With regard to the Debt, the House was entitled to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an exact statement of the present position. What was the figure at which the Unfunded Debt now stood? During the last three or four years it had stood at a figure which was absolutely unexampled in the history of the National Debt. According to a recent Return, the Unfunded Debt since 1901 had ranged from £78,000,000 to £73,500,000, an amount three, four, and even six times the ordinary sum. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the condition of the Unfunded Debt was one of the most serious financial problems, and said that action would be taken in regard to it as soon as possible. The first instalment of the Transvaal Loan had not yet come into their hands. With regard to the Debt, he would like to know what was the exact figure at this moment of the Unfunded Debt, and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any idea as to its possible diminution within the ensuing year or within any fixed period. He believed that £3,000,000 which came from the Transvaal was used for the payment of Exchequer bonds. He understood that since 1st April in the current year by the issue of Treasury bills the Unfunded Debt had been increased by £3,000,000. He believed that that was the case, and so far from reducing debt from the 1st of April they had raised £3,000,000 in Treasury bills and so the actual amount of the Unfunded Debt, if not £3,000,000 larger, at any rate was substantially larger than it was before. That fact had a considerable bearing upon the many proposals and suggestions with regard to the diminution of the Debt which had been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Then there was the question of "other capital liabilities," and these
  1476
  were increasing year by year under various charges. A table appeared in the National Debt Returns from which it appeared that these capital liabilities military and naval works, Uganda Railway, and the rest amounted to £31,861,000; but the House should not imagine that was anything like the total sum expended for these purposes; another £10,000,000 must be added. The Naval Works Act was started with the advantage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appropriated to that purpose unexpended balances from the years 1898–99, and the amount which in the ordinary course would have gone to the extinction of debt was swept into this whirlpool. This sum of £31,000,000 did not represent the commitments to which this House and the country were bound under the various Acts now in operation, and it seemed almost impossible for anyone to make a reliable estimate upon this subject. The Military Works Acts did not profess to give them any estimate of the total cost of the works, but the Naval Works Acts did give the estimated cost with regard to many of the items, although not in regard to several of the most important items. He thought he was quite within the mark when he said that the total commitments under the various Naval and Military Works Acts amounted to an extra' £25,000,000 or £30,000,000. Therefore, if they did not pass any more Military Works Bills, they had before them the certainty of an increase of capital liabilities on a sum equal to that which the country was already saddled with. For the introduction of that system of expenditure on a large scale the present Government alone was responsible, and these lax methods of finance had been adopted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessors under the present government. This system of borrowing money for public, works and making it part of the annual expenditure was as bad as it could be. Upon this point he was glad to see that the Public Accounts Committee had inserted in their Report a very strong expression of opinion in which they stated that this practice led not only to great expenditure, but to the confusion of the accounts, and the Report stated that in the interests of the

  1477
  control of the House over its finances, it was very desirable that they should return to the former practice of putting the money required for naval and military works in the annual Estimates.
  There had been under the present Government an increase in the practice of issuing grants-in-aid upon a large and extravagant scale always accompanied by The proviso that the unexpended balances should not be returned to the Exchequer and also with a proviso that in many cases they should not be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The House did possess considerable control over grants-in-aid as long as the Comptroller and Auditor-General possessed the power to audit. It was true that he could not call for the surrender of the balances, but he had the power of seeing that the money was expended within the limits of the audit itself, and that was a very threat safeguard. Then again, there was the system of throwing additional burdens upon India and the Colonies and the practice of introducing double budgets in the House for the large spending Departments, and very frequently they had not merely Supplementary Estimates, but in regard to the Army and Navy they frequently introduced a new programme for the year, which led to laxity in the framing of the original Estimates and this practice weakened the control of the House over expenditure. Another thing he regretted was the manner in which the present Government appeared to rely solely upon expert and official advice, for their expenditure upon the Army and Navy was regulated not so much by the advice of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, but by the heads of those great Departments who were military or naval officers. He was afraid this practice would undoubtedly increase more than ever under the new Defence Committee, and he could not help thinking that the operations of this Committee would not conduce to anything like economy or retrenchment. Sir George Clarke himself had stated that it passed human belief to anticipate that when the Defence Committee was in full wording order it would not add substantially to our annual expenditure.
  Hon. Members opposite said that, after all this increased expenditure was a
  1478
  question of policy. Of course it was a question of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government which had led to this vast expenditure, and it was only by a reversal of that policy that they might expect to obtain retrenchment and prosperity. They wanted a spirit of peace abroad and sympathy with liberty and not with autocracy, and if they got that they would be in the way of making a long stride towards economy. They had to convert the country to their side, and he thought they were in process of doing it. It was a great mistake to assume that the country was not waking up to the necessity of economy. There was no doubt that in the country the people were awakening and realising the enormous increase in our national expenditure; and when the poorer classes felt this increase of taxation they would demand from whichever Party obtained a majority at the next election that there should be retrenchment in expenditure and a reduction in the immediate future. They did not want panic reductions in expenditure, but they wanted both Parties in the State committed to real retrenchment and real reduction. They must cut their coat according to their cloth, abandon the loan and grant-in-aid system, and mike a serious effort to diminish the war debt, without waiting for that £30,000,000 from the Transvaal, which might possibly never come at all. They wanted no more doles, no more Licensing Bills, no more Irish Land Purchase Bills, no more pursuits of Mad Mullahs through the deserts of Africa, and no more "peaceful" Missions to Tibet. They must insist upon a reduction of the Army to a number which was sufficient to meet the necessities of Home defence and the defence of India, and a halt must be called in the permanent and continuous increase in the Navy. In the year 1899–1900, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Goschen, told the House, when he was asking for £27,000,000 for the Navy, that that sum was sufficient to give them the naval force they needed, but now the Government had raised that sum to £43,000,000. The sum of £8,000,000 was then considered sufficient for new construction, and why should they require now nearly £12,000,000 for

  1479
  this purpose, because all the arguments pointed in the opposite direction? At the present time they saw one of their greatest naval rivals being seriously injured in the war which was going on in the Far East. France was now their only naval rival in the Mediterranean, which was packed with British ships. Surely if the recent agreement with France was a real, substantial, and beneficent one it ought to lead both in the spirit, and in regard to the practical results which would follow, not merely to greater amity between the two nations, but also to a substantial alleviation of the burden of armaments both in this country and in France.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not, he thought, be surprised when he rose to support the Amendment which had been moved from the Benches opposite; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think that he addressed the House that evening in any way hostile, personally or politically, to himself. He had usually got on very well with Chancellors of the Exchequer. They had usually regarded him and others who sat on that Bench as right-minded and industrious Members of Parliament, and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that his two immediate predecessors were so impressed with the strength, the force, and the cogency of the financial criticisms from the Back Benches and from below the Gangway, that they had resigned their offices and come to help in the supply of that criticism. He was tempted to recollect how strong the influence of the Treasury might be. The most obdurate politicians seemed to have their opinions altered under Treasury influence, I which was almost stronger than that of the Board of Trade, and yet they knew that I twenty years ago the Board of Trade was strong enough to produce a very decided effect upon a political leader who was not usually able to come within outside influence. There seemed to be something about the air of 11, Downing Street peculiarly exhilarating, something which nor only gave to the occupant of that building clear views on financial questions but which very often imparted to him the courage of a martyr and the most unalterable convictions. It was all the
  1480
  more remarkable that the atmosphere should have that effect when they reflected upon the obscurity which prevailed at the residence of the Prime Minister next door, and the very dangerous and poisonous fumes which, until a recent date, issued from the Colonial Office across the road. It would be quite easy to chaff the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the very odd and anomalous position he occupied in regard to the Budget. He was a convinced tariff reformer as he told them during the holidays at Birmingham, and yet he had introduced a free-trade Budget, and he was defending that with force, fluency, and conviction. His right hon. friend believed it was profitable to raise revenue by taxing the foreigner, and yet the right hon. Gentleman selected as the principal subject of his Budget, tea—that commodity which all politicians, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham to the hon. Member for Islington, were agreed was a vital and indispensable necessity in the household of every working man. That was a subject which the right hon. Gentleman had selected for taxation, although he knew that the greater part came to these shores not as part of an insidious design or treacherous intrigue on the part of a foreign country, but as part of a free and generous Imperial sentiment which animated one of our most deserving colonies. By a strange concatenation of events, the right hon. Gentleman tilled a great position of responsibility. He was surrounded by peculiar public and still more peculiar personal difficulties, and he was bound to say that he seemed to have tried his best to do his duty according to the best traditions of the finance of this country As a sincere though he hoped not a pedantic free-trader, he should certainly not say anything calculated to discourage his right hon. friend from the path of virtue on which he had embarked, or disturb in any way the wholesome process of conversion which was evidently going on.
  Whatever opinion might be entertained as to the propriety of the discussion which the Leader of the Opposition had raised, there was no dispute at all as to the actual facts. They might differ as to the cause and their

  1481
  consequences, and they might, argue in regard to the excuses which the Government might offer, but of the sadden, immense, alarming, unprecedented increase and expansion in the national expenditure and of the very serious situation created thereby, there was no difference of opinion on either side of the House, nor even between people who sat on the same side of the House. He was not going to quote the figures. It was quite enough to say that the government of the country cost half as much again as it did when the Unionist Government, in 1895, came into power. Was it governed half as well again? In the same period the armaments, or rather the expenditure for the armaments, was doubled. Had they divided their dangers? Was it not true that the same policy which had doubled the armaments had halved the security, so that we rein lined in relatively the same position, faced by the same dingers as twenty years ago. —26,000,000 of taxation imposed during the war for the purposes of the war, and voted by that House under the emotions of the war, had taken their place in the regular ordinary permanent taxation of the country. The war was over, the taxation went on. But that was not all. Their expenditure was advancing by leaps and bounds and had in fact acquired a momentum of its own. Many important changes were maturing in the Army and Navy, and there was an automatic, steady, progressive increase in expenditure. It was said by one speaker that afternoon that the whole vast business had got out of hand. Like an estate in the hands of a spendthrift, our financial position was steadily deteriorating, and our finances were becoming more and more demoralised.
  He had done his best to bring this question of economy forward during the time he had been in the House. He did not know when a general election was to come. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said it would come within "a reasonable time." and the Prime Minister agreed with him in that as in everything else. The Prime Minister's idea of a reasonable time would, if he expressed his whole meaning, be found to coincide very nearly with the limits of the Septennial Act. Whether he himself would be fortunate enough
  1482
  to hold a seat in this House after the general election he could not tell. It was a matter of considerable uncertainty, he admitted; but, if he should be so fortunate as to be there on the day when the great transference of power took place, he should like to warn the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that he should do his best to pursue the same economic performances he had hitherto devoted himself to, and that, unless the incoming Government made a substantial reduction both in naval and military expenditure, he should do his best to be a plague to the right hon. Gentleman. He supposed his quarrel with the Government was now quite irreparable. The Prime Minister had dismissed him formally from the number of his supporters. [AN HON. Member: No wonder.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman behind him would be very glad if he and some others who sat near him were to go and sit on the other side of the House? If he consulted his own inclinations he should certainly do so but there were other things to be considered than that. And, besides, the established practice of that House had been that Members had a right to choose where they would sit and it had been assumed that other Members would accept their decision with tolerance and good humour—more than that was not asked of them. Since his quarrel with the Government had become serious, he should like to say that it had been solely and entirely on the question of finance. It was on finance that he was drawn to attack the Army scheme of 1900; it had been mainly on finance that he had been drawn to oppose the fiscal proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. Extravagant finance would in the long run drag this powerful Government to the ground. Extravagant finance was written on the head of their indictment, and it would be written on the head of their tombstone. No doubt the old familiar arguments would be advanced in reply. If expenditure was appalling, it was said, "Never mind, it is popular." If trade and employment fell off, it was said it improved recruiting for the Army, and for the Tariff Reform League also, according to the right hon. Member for Birmingham. If Consols and other gilt edged securities were depreciated, what

  1483
  matter? it was no longer necessary to reduce the interest on savings in the Post Office. Above all, if the domestic situa-proved embarrassing, distraction could be sought for in foreign war. There was brilliancy in decay; the human body preyed on itself and gained a feverish energy in the process of exhaustion. When expenditure increased waste increased. He did not make that as a special charge against this Government. It was true of all Governments. The expenditure of the country had bounded up in a great measure, and it was obvious that the proportion of waste and unprofitable expenditure must be actually and relatively great.
  The expenditure of the country required a critical examination periodicals by some one not concerned in it. That examination was usually made by a succeeding Government of a different political Party who surveyed the whole body of expenditure from a point of view entirely different from that of their predecessors. But as this was the second term of office which the present Government was enjoying, the ordinary working of that healthy constitutional check had been prevented, and therefore extravagance and waste had been progressive and cumulative. Two years ago the hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for Lynn Regis asked the Prime Minister to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter of examining the Estimates. The Committee was appointed; it sat, and examined witnesses, and made some moderate recommendations as to the way in which the Estimates should be examined. What had happened? The Report had fallen somewhere to the ground between the two Front Benches, and he was afraid that it was irretrievably lost. Control of expenditure did not depend upon control of details. Control of expenditure depended upon policy; and the present expenditure would never be checked and curbed until there was a complete change of policy. There was the Army. He hoped there would be an opportunity given for discussing how much the scheme of 1901 had really cost the taxpayers, and he trusted it would never be forgotten how this scheme, though from the first known to be absolutely unsuited to our needs, was cynically carried on, and how the whole system
  1484
  of the Army was altered in the vain attempt to make it work. Then there was Somaliland upon which £2,500,000 had been spent. Then there was the peaceful Mission to Tibet. That subject did not arise on the Finance Bill, because the charge fell upon the Indian taxpayers; but he trusted that an opportunity would be afforded before the Whitsuntide adjournment for discussing not only the immediate security of the forces employed in Tibet, but the moral and political considerations involved in that must unworthy and unprovoked act of aggression and crime. He agreed that now was the time for effecting a reduction in the Navy Such a chance would not recur again. The other day a first-class Russian battleship was sunk, and disappeared as if she had never existed. If our calculations for the strength of the Navy were not exaggerated before, obviously the Government could strike off one first-class battleship from their naval programme to counterbalance the Russian ship which had been destroyed. It was possible that there might be a still greater reduction in the Russian fleet. Surely here was a chance for the Government. Why not go to the Russian Government and say "You have lost your ships of war; but never mind we will make a proportionate reduction in our Fleet in order to counterbalance your losses."
  They had no right to say that the House of Commons was responsible for this expenditure; it was the Executive alone that was responsible. He did not deny that a great portion of the expenditure was due to the South African War. He said nothing about that war; he was tarred with responsibility, in his own small way, as much as anyone on this side of the House for acquiescing in that immense public disaster. The effect of the war had been two-fold; it had seriously increased the cost of our administration and disordered our finances, and it had totally changed, in the minds of the public departments, the scale of our armaments and general administration. The Government had taken full advantage of that change; they had found in the spending of money an easy solution for almost every Parliamentary and electoral difficulty, and had indulged in almost every conceivable financial

  1485
  irregularity. It was on a financial situation such as that that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham launched his fiscal proposals. He had no personal feeling whatever against the right hon. Gentleman; like a good many others he objected to his emissaries being sent down to disturb his own constituency while the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, although in favour of a policy of which the Government did not approve. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not present, he would much rather say these things in his presence. Since the right hon. Gentleman had regularised his position by his resignation, no one had any right to prefer a complaint other than of a purely political character against him; he had made a sacrifice, how great ho was perhaps now beginning to realise. If they had received rough treatment from the right hon. Gentleman they had at any rate received fair treatment from him. If they deplored his action, they did not deny his right, or that of any other private Member, to use to the full his influence in bringing to a constitutional decision a great question. But when the right hon. Gentleman returned from South Africa a great opportunity had been presented him. The finance of this country required a period of what Lord Rosebery called "recuperative repose," the public expenditure needed control, and the public departments required reorganisation. The right hon. Gentleman occupied a position of prestige and power unequalled in the country; the Government, on the other hand, were in difficulties, embarrassed by the Army scheme and a want of money, a want that would cling to them as long as they were in office. The part of a prudent statesman, even of a good Party man, would surely have been to try to do something to heal the scars of war and enable the country to recover from the sacrifices which it had been willing to make. No one else had the courage, the influence, or the business capacity, and if the right hon. Gentleman had found it possible to enter on such a campaign, many Members on both sides—certainly on this side —would have been proud to give him all the effective support in their power. The right hon. Gentleman chose a different course;
  1486
  instead of repose he chose agitation, instead of retrenchment, profusion, instead of financial recovery, fiscal reform! When he entered on that course, so full of peril, it carried him further and further from all the great traditions of the British Government and finance. There was another reason why the right hon. Gentleman should have exercised restraint. He was the Minister responsible for Africa. On the faith of his judgment and on the strength of his appeals this country had backed his policy through thick and thin; thousands of soldiers had lost their lives, many millions had been spent. If ever a man was under an obligation to devote the whole of his time and attention to African policy it was the Colonial Secretary. But the right hon. Gentleman cast that grim African obligation away as a child would throw away a costly broken toy, and plunged at once upon another enterprise, another adventure, as vast, as dangerous, as uncalculated, as uncontrollable as the one from which he had barely emerged. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's emotions were not sordid or selfish, but he thought he would not easily escape at the bar of history a charge, damaging to his reputation, of having abandoned without sufficient pretext or justification, a post which it was his duty to defend.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must not allow the hon. Member to make an attack upon the late Colonial Secretary for not continuing in his post. It is not relevant to the question either of expenditure or of taxation.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was only referring to the financial position of the country owing to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he would not pursue that further. At the cost of some personal friendships, the breaking of Party ties, and the disturbance of the financial position, the right hon. Gentleman's fiscal proposals had been checked and arrested. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham wished to measure the results of his policy during the past year he had only to contrast the reception given to his speech on 15th May, 1903, with that accorded to his speech on 12th

  1487
  May, 1904. What was the position, in the meanwhile, of His Majesty's Government? The Secretary of State for India, who was nothing if not modest, informed them that—presumably since he left the War Office—the position of the Government had been one of riotous triumph. The Prime Minister was entitled to congratulate himself on a very remarkable achievement. After a year of fiscal and financial discussion no one knew whether the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that a 10 per cent. duty would be a good thing or a bad thing for the country; no one knew what fiscal reform meant, or what retaliation and anti-dumping actually meant.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think this is not relevant to the Bill. It may be relevant to a Motion that is coming on on Wednesday.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that, with great respect, he was discussing the position of the Government as a matter relevant to the decision of the House on the Finance Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: I differ from the hon. Member. I do not think that he is entitled on the Finance Bill to discuss the whole policy or conduct of the Government.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling. After the next election was over, the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be the leaders of a strong and united Party, but they would not be leaders of the same Party but of a new Party. The course of financial events would alter the relations of those who now supported them. It would be a Party which had taken new ideas. It would not be a Party attached to the old traditions of old finance, or the old constitutional ideas which the Conservative Party had so long respected. It would be a Party with a test, and that test would be a tariff.
  The Leader of the Opposition, in the course of his speech that day
  1488
  had referred to what he called "claptrap, Imperialism." All Imperialism was not "clap-trap." But there were two kinds of Imperialism. There was the Imperialism of the camp, about which some of them who were leaving the protectionist Party knew something, and there was the Imperialism of the caucus, about which they had known something during the last few months. They ought to distinguish between the amateur Imperialists who gave their lives on the field, and the professional Imperialists who got their living by practising it in politics; they ought to distinguish between the sentiment which united us to our Colonies, and that bastard Imperialism which was ground out by a Party machine and was convenient for placing a particular set of Gentlemen in power. Speaking generally on the question of Imperialism as connected with finance, he cared a great deal more for the old Constitution of our country than for the cheap and flashy doctrine of Imperialism of which they had lately heard so much. But this Budget was the last of its kind. By the time the next Budget was presented, in all probability one of two things would have happened. Either a fundamental change would have taken place, owing to a Liberal free-trade victory at the polls, which would impose a change upon policy and consequently upon expenditure, or we should be listening to proposals of a general protectionist character. He ventured to predict to the right hon. Gentleman that if this vast expenditure continued it would not fail to raise the great labour issue. One would hardly think that finance was the governing factor in the whole political situation. It was not until the heavy burden had to be distributed that the combat of classes really began, and now, behind a perfect array of minor questions, such as graduated income-tax and the financial relations with Ireland, there began to rise up from slumber the two great giants, labour and protection. They might make model speeches in favour of economy, or appoint Committees of supervision or control, but the harm was done, the consequences were upon them. Be they evil or be they good, they would have to be faced, and before these two paramount issues were laid to rest, or carried into effect, the whole face of English politics would be

  1489
  altered, and of the existing Party arrangements, Party grouping, perhaps Party watch-words hardly a vestige would remain.
  MR. RENWICKsaid that everyone interested in government by Party must acknowledge that the speech to which the House had just listened ought to have been made from the other side. He thought the speech was notable for two things: first, for the fact that they had at last got an inkling of what hon. Members opposite meant by economy, and secondly, it was evidently prepared in the hope that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would be present, and that it would draw the right hon. Gentleman into a general debate on fiscal policy. One could hardly have recognised in the speech of the hon. Member that he was so lately one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Government in re-imposing the corn duty. The hon. Member had said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought in a humdrum Budget. The same opinion had been expressed over and over again on the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman in 1902 heartily supported the corn tax, and if that tax had not been taken off probably they would not have had such a humdrum Budget? The hon. Gentleman said that because a Russian battleship had been sunk, the Government ought to curtail its shipbuilding programme; but he maintained that if ever there was a time when it was absolutely necessary to keep up an efficient Navy, now was the time. Did Japan wait for the outbreak of war before ordering their ships? No; the Government of that country had their ships built in time of peace. Shipbuilders might be patriotic, but their patriotism would not allow them to build ships without a profit. Orders should be given in times of peace. It was too late to do so when war was contemplated, for then shipbuilders would require a larger profit and workmen would demand larger wages, and the expenditure would be correspondingly higher.
  There was one point in which he thoroughly agreed with the junior
  1490
  Member for Oldham, and that was the regret with which he regarded the raising of the tea duty from 6d. to 8d. He like the hon. Member represented a large manufacturing constituency, and for many years he had made speeches advocating the reduction of the tea duty on the ground that tea had become an absolute necessity of life. He looked forward to the time when, by a re-arrangement of our fiscal system, we should be able to reduce the taxation on tea. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Oldham that we ought to enter on a period of recuperative repose. That might suit Lord Rosebery and his followers, but it would not suit this country, which was accustomed to an active life and an active policy. He was perfectly aware that his friends opposite would like to get rid of the responsibilities of our Empire, and would like to cut down the Empire. But the nation was bound to protect every part of the Empire, and they on that side of the House were not afraid of taking the responsibility. The Empire had brought this country wealth and greatness, and all means must be adopted which were necessary to maintain it. What the country was suffering from at the present time was a financial policy, which was based on a too narrow basis of taxation. A broader basis of taxation must be adopted. Those who clamoured for economy and the decrease of taxation were the very persons who were always agitating for the increase of wages of Government servants, or the payment of expenses of returning officers at elections, payment of Members, and the like. A few days ago a deputation waited on the First Lord of the Admiralty and pleaded for an increase of the wages of dock labourers, and the First Lord told them that money did not fall like manna from Heaven. While not enthusiastic in regard to the Finance Bill, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals were safe, and he would consider it his duty to support them.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid it had been alleged that the House of Commons was largely responsible for the increase of expenditure. He was aware that the average Member of the House of Commons was not

  1491
  sufficiently impressed with the necessity for national economy. He, for one, would vote against every extravagance, even if it were proposed by a Liberal Government. When hon. Members talked to each other privately, all admitted that the present expenditure was too large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others had said that there was not much demand for economy, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see, when he came to meet his constituents, that there was a considerable demand for economy. The great bulk of the population were not men of considerable means; and many had very great difficulties in making ends meet. That was a class who were sufficiently large to claim the attention of this House, and that was the class who were very often on the verge of hunger. He made no apology for speaking for that class. Not only from this country but from Ireland they were emigrating every year in large numbers. There must be something wrong when, as a friend wrote him the other day, by one steamer a thousand young people left their native country, because they could not get their living in it. The condition of the very poor was so serious that it really needed their sympathy. He was sure that every hon. Member was a humane man; and that if it depended on individuals they would not vote for taxation which pressed on the very poor. National extravagance was bad for the nation because it begot self-indulgence; self-indulgence begot luxury; and luxury begot decay and ruin. To fight for economy was the duty not only of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but of every hon. Member, just as much as it would be his duty to fight for his country in time of war, and if they did not do their duty they were poor patriots and defaulting trustees. In no spirit of sordid meanness but as a matter of duty they should see that the nation's money was wisely spent. The expenditure of the country had increased enormously in proportion to their real requirements. Justice and humanity demanded that they should relieve the very poor of their burdens. Heavy taxation of the poor was that form of taxation least profitable to the State. It was not only unfair to the poor but it made the trade of the country worse. The very poor were the class that spent
  1492
  all they got, and that meant that if taxes took anything from them by raising the price of tea and sugar they must spend less on articles of consumption. If they lessened the people's income so much less would be spent on commodities produced by the rest of the community, and in that way the war taxation was producing bad trade in the country. Sir Robert Giffen had estimated that about 72 per cent, of the expenditure of the whole community was on food, dress, and housing—the absolute essentials of life—and if that were the proportion for the whole community, it was probable that the working classes spent 90 percent, of their income on such essentials.
  Of new taxes imposed since the war began, there yet remained £25,250,000 a year. Their total expenditure was too large. If they wanted to test that, they could compare their expenditure with other countries. He knew that it would be said that such a comparison was hardly fair, because of the burden of Imperial defence, but surely the time was not far distant when some of their statesmen would endeavour to devise some scheme by which the Colonies would bear a fair share in the defence of the Empire and at the same time have some share in its government. India the poorest part of the Empire paid for its own defence, but there were other parts of the Empire which did not pay anything like their fair share as compared with the United Kingdom, and until they had some such scheme as he suggested, and until other parts of the Empire contributed a share to its defence, they could not hope for much improvement. He agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that the country hid got into its present position through a policy of drift, and by allowing men in charge on the limits of the Empire to have too much of their own way. Only the other day he heard the Prime Minister state that this country was going to withdraw from Tibet; but now they were told that the expedition would advance. He thought, however, that this country ought to contribute to the cost of that expedition and that India should not be saddled with it all. It seemed to him that until they abandoned this policy of drift and altered the tone of their

  1493
  policy not only would the country have to provide for all rightful defence, but would also have to meet the cost of a continuance of little wars that kept developing into big wars. Surely one way to avoid such expenditure was that their public men should adopt a modest and not a boastful tone. Certainly the country would have to pay for boastful talk such as references to "the long spoon" and to "the sands running out" by men of great international fame. No man could boast in private life without losing by it; and if they boasted as a nation they would have to pay for it sooner or later. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said in his constituency the other day that this country should attract the sympathy of its great Colonies by respecting both them and herself, and in regard to foreign nations that it should carry out the golden rule of doing to others as they would wish others to do unto it. It was by that policy, he added, and that policy alone, that the welfare and greatness of the country would be maintained. That exactly described the policy they ought to follow. The one great reason for the expenditure they now had to incur was that this country had excited to an unnecessary extent the jealousy and hostility of foreign nations, and also, perhaps, to a certain extent because of the attitude of their own countrymen who thought that unless they were cock-a-hoop they could not be properly alive.
  Let them compare the expenditure now with what it was ten or twenty years ago. Including the licence duties which wore paid to the local taxation account and also the Military and Naval Works Loans, the expenditure in 1883–4 was nearly £80,000,000 and in 1893–4 £99,344,000, or an increase of over 15 per cent. In 1903–4 the expenditure was £164,000,000, or an increase over the expenditure of
  1494
  1893–4 of 65 per cent, and an increase of 90 per cent, as compared with the expenditure twenty years ago, That was really an astounding increase; and even if they allowed for the increase in population, which was 20 per cent., it meant an increase in expenditure of 60 per cent. In his young days he had heard of "bloated armaments" but if the man who used that expression twenty or twenty-five years ago were still alive, what phrase would he use now? It was no point at all to say that the municipal expenditure of the country had also greatly increased. If the municipalities were extravagant it was all the more reason why the State should be economical; not why the State should attempt to rival the municipalities in extravagance. He had heard extravagance advocated on the ground that it would put money into the pockets of the working classes, and set the wheels of trade going. That was a perfectly rotten argument, and was absolutely contrary to political economy. There could be no better illustration of the difference between sensible and extravagant expenditure than a comparison between, for instance, £100,000 spent on a warship and £100,000 spent on a merchant ship. The warship was unproductive—not only unproductive but continuously costly; but after a year or two the merchant ship yielded a return in the form of a dividend to its owners. That was an illustration of the difference between the continuous effect of extravagant expenditure and the continuous effect of wasteful expenditure. It also explained why trade was so much worse after a great war. Money spent on war was wasteful expenditure which might be spent on reproductive works, which after a year or two would be earning money for the country. It was because of the money spent on the war that trade was as it was, and that employment was decreasing. Another illustration of the difference between extravagant and reasonable national expenditure was the case of Egypt. Lord

  1495
  Cromer in his marvellous consular report last year on Egypt taught a lesson to every financier of every country and every time. He stated that he know perfectly well that he was keeping the country short as regarded expenditure on judiciary and police, but that he did that purposely in order that money might fructify in the pockets of the people. It did fructify, and the result was that the condition of Egypt had greatly improved. If they in this country also allowed money to fructify in the pockets of the people they would reap the benefit of it in time. Extravagant expenditure was bad for a country. They saw Consols falling in this country
  1496
  while Egyptian government securities were rising in value; and it would actually have been better for the finances of this country if they had been controlled by a benevolent despot such as Lord Cromer than to have been as they were under the control of this Government.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned"—(Lord Alwyne Compton)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at nine minutes after Twelve o'clock.

The Earl of Chichester sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Barnet District Gas and Water; Crystal Palace District Gas.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Tottenham Improvement.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Filey Improvement Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Great Western Railway Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a.
1358
Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Preston Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]; St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Croydon Gas Bill. Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]. To be read 2a Tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 78.)
Pier and Harbour Provisional; Order (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). An Amendment made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
Educational Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]: Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The order made on Tuesday the 26th of April last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bills, discharged.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE.
  Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, 1903, compared with the four preceding years: Volume II. (Abstract and detailed tables of trade with each country and at each port). Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MEDWAY CONSERVANCY.
  Statement of Receipts and Expenditure by the Conservators, for the year ended 25th March, 1904. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the Re-vaccination of children after the age of twelve— Was presented by the Duke of Northumberland; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 77.)
  PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order.)
  LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, there are additional Amendments in my name which I should like to say a few words upon. The Bill as reprinted is in accordance with the Amendments which were put before us by the Board of Trade. The Home Office, however, did not entirely approve of the Bill in that form and they made some Amendments thereon. The Amendments I now move are those which have been agreed to by the Home Office and the Board of Trade together, in conjunction with the Parliamentary draftsman.
  Amendments moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 15, to leave out the words "be deemed to; in line 18, to leave out the words 'if not so made shall be void and; in line 20, after the word system to insert the words 'and if any person makes or has any contract, bargain, sale, or dealing, or charges or collects any toll or duty contrary to the provisions of this section, he shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding 40s.'; in line 24, to leave out the words 'render void' and to insert the words 'apply to'; and in line 25, to leave out from the word 'Kingdom' to the word 'or' in line 28, and to insert the words 'or in respect of any subject-matter
  1360
  outside the United Kingdom, or of any goods to be imported into or exported from the United Kingdom, if made or had according to the system of weights and measures in force in the foreign country concerned."—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to. Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 79.)
  House adjourned at twenty-minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.