Sitting of 17 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 Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Great; Yarmouth Corporation Bill [Lords]; Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Ryde Gas Bill. Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  Brymbo Water Bill. Bead the third time, and passed.
  Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  London and India Docks Company Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Elysée Palace Hotel Company Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [Lords]; St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Land Drainage Provisional Order (Owston and West Butterwick, in County of Lincoln (Parts of Lindsey) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional
  24
  Orders (No. 10) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Education Board Provisional Orders (Cardiff and Newport (Monmouthshire) Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Caerphilly, Epsom Rural District (Cheam), Mansfield Woodhouse, North Worcestershire (Bromsgrove Urban), Stroud, Nailsworth and Durley, and Sutton-in-Ashfield, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Caerphilly, Epsom Rural District (Cheam), Mansfield Woodhouse, North Worcestershire (Bromsgrove Urban), Stroud, Nailsworth and Durley, and Sutton-in-Ashfield, "presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be; printed. [Bill 198.]
  Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea). Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education, under Sections 17 (7) and 21 of The Education Act, 1902, relating to the County Borough of Swansea, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Anson and Mr. Victor Cavendish.
  Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education, under Sections 17 (7) and 21 of The Education Act, 1802, relating to the County Borough of Swansea," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. Bill 199.]
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Barnard Castle Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Govan Burgh (Electricity) Bill [Lords], Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Skipton Water and Improvement Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Croydon Gas Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Company to construct new railways and to authorise agreements between that Company and the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways Company; and for other purposes." [Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway] Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Corporation of Preston with reference to their water undertaking; and for other purposes." [Preston Corporation Water Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Bournemouth to construct further tramways and to acquire the undertaking of the Tuckton Bridge Company; and for other purposes." [Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to construct and work addi-
26
tional Tramways in and adjacent to the city; to widen existing streets; to construct new streets across and works in the Ouseburn Valley; to make a new quay; to acquire lands; to establish a superannuation fund; to raise further money; and to confer various further powers upon the Corporation in respect of their existing quays: and for other purposes."[Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Alexandra (Newport and; South Wales) Docks and Railway Company to extend their existing South Dock and to construct other works and to execute a diversion or straightening of the I River Ebbw; for changing the name of the Company; and for other purposes."[Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the payment to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and application by ' them of moneys payable under The City and South London Railway Act, 1896, by; the City and South London Railway Company in respect of the church of St. Mary Woolnoth, in the City of London;: and for other purposes, [St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the making of tramways and I tram roads in the city of Belfast and in the county of Down; and for other purposes." [Holy wood Tramways Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the North Wales Power and I Traction Company, Limited, to construct generating stations and supply electricity in certain parts of North Wales; and for other purposes."[North Wales Electric [Power Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to extend the city and county of Bristol; I and for other purposes." [Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Education Board Provisional Order I Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords]. Read; the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]
Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords]; Preston

27
Corporation Water Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]; St, Mary Woolnoth Bill [Lords]; Holywood Tramways Bill [Lords]; North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Perth; Dingwall; Tain; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Dacre Banks; Heaton; Newcastle - on - Tyne; Tybie; Grantown; Castleton; Swansea (two); Manchester (four); Perth, (three); Scarborough; Stirling; St. Ninians; Twerton-on-Avon; Frome (two); Bridport; Dunfermline; Ilkeston (two); Torquay (four); Sheffield; Newton St. Boswells; Eccles (two); Greenwich; Bolton (two); Whit-wick (two); Weston-super-Mare; West Fife; Wells; Ludlow; Cardiff (ten); Govan (two); Wantage; Glasgow (nine); Derbyshire; Plnmstead; Sunderland; Morecambe; Liverpool; Henley-on-Thames; Stourbridge; Wick; Fearn; Brinscall; Batley; Chi3wick; Isle of Wight (three); Worcester; Rochdale; Westminster; Llywell; Cheam; Esher; Romford: Leytonstone; Angor Dyfi; Tain; Edinburgh (four); Urray; Muir; South West Riding of Yorkshire; Loughborough; Culbokie; Denton; Cromarty; Kirkcolm; Dartford; Knaresborough; Hugglescote; Bexley; Cupar; Tunbridge Wells; Ford; Malton; West Bristol; Tonbridge (two); Penistone; Lawrence-kirk; Boness; Gravesend; Great Ayton; Whitby and Darlington; Stonehaven; Long Buckby; Waterbeck; Thomhill; Chelsea; Felling; Jarrow-on-Tyne; Bris-
  28
  tol (three); Burradon; Brighton; Alloa Hebden Bridge; New Dock; Salford Tillicoultry; Resolis; Cwmbran; Wishaw; Barmouth; Luton and Leighton Torrybum; Greenock (two); South Manchester (two); East Holywell; Tudhoe; Llanelly (two); Market Lavington; Sawley; Higher Broughton; Guisborough; West Renfrew; Kilbarchan; Camberwell; Carris; Paisley (two); Galston; Baronhiu; Muirkirk; South Ayrshire; Vale of Doon; Grangemouth; Denny; Stenhousemuir; HornseyRoad; Newport (Mon.); Banff; Peterhead; Elgin; Bexhill-on-Sea; Dundee (four); Crail; and Fochabers; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against; from Sheffield; and Atcham; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petitions against; from St. Giles; and Camberwell; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Stoke-upon-Trent; and Herefordshire County Council; to lie upon the Table.
  TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition from Perth, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of General Report and Statistics for the year 1902, Part IV., Colonial and Foreign Statistics;; Statistics relating to Persons employed, i Output, and Accidents at Mines and: Quarries in the British Colonies and in Foreign Countries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS (GENERAL REPORT).
  Copy presented, of General Report to the Board of Trade upon the Accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATIONERY OFFICE (CONTROLLER'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Fourth Report of the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners and Statement of Accounts for 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Cousular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3061 to 3063 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Union of Benefices Act (Saint John, Fitzroy Square, with Saint Saviour, Fitzroy Square). Copy of Scheme under The Union of Benefices Act, 1860, for effecting an Union of the Benefices of Saint John, Fitzroy Square, with Saint Saviour, Fitzroy Square [by Act].

  India, Colonies, and Dependencies.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  Percentage propotion.

  Total Public Revenue.

  Total Public Expenditure.

  Total value of Imports and Exports (by sea), including bullion and specie.

  Expenditure on, or contribution to, the provision and maintenance of the Royal Navy.

  5.

  6.

  Expenditure on, or contribution to, the provision and maintenance of the Royal Navy bears to total Public Expenditure.

  Expenditure on, or contribution to, the provision and maintenance of the Royal Navy bears to total value of Imports and Exports by sea.

  India

  Self-governing Colonies

  Total India and Self governing Colonies

  Other British Possessions

  Total other British Possessions

  ABSTRACT.

  India

  Self-governing Colonies

  Other British Possessions

  Total

  United Kingdom

  —(Sir John Colomb)

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments performed on Living Animals during the year, 1903, under Licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing painless from painful Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 186, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  PUBLIC REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ROYAL NAVY).
  Return ordered, "showing the Public Revenue and Expenditure; the total value of Imports and Exports (by sea); expenditure on, or contributions to, the cost of the provision and maintenance of the Royal Navy; and the percentage proportion such expenditure or contribution bears to the total Public Revenue and to the total value of Imports and Exports (by sea) in each of the various portions of the British Empire for the latest year for which figures are available, in the following form:—
  CROWN AGENTS.
  Address for "Return showing 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."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Longworth Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have purchased the

  Estate.

  Valuation.

  Rental.

  Purchase Money.

  No. of Tenants.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Buckley, Thomas

  16

  5

  0

  17

  16

  0

  399

  1

  Maxwell, Annie

  41

  10

  0

  24

  0

  0

  518

  2

  Julian, Jas. Ed. J.

  329

  15

  0

  373

  6

  6

  7,701

  15

  De Moleyns, Townsend Armberg

  305

  10

  0

  244

  16

  8

  5,883

  9

  Horan, Timothy

  65

  5

  0

  103

  6

  6

  2,100

  5

  Leahy, J. W.

  128

  0

  0

  160

  0

  0

  3,850

  1

  Total

  886

  5

  0

  923

  5

  8

  20,451

  33

  Alleged Illegal Arrest by the British North Borneo Company.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Under-Secretary of; State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether His Majesty's Government has any control over the Chartered Company of British North Borneo; whether he is aware that on 30th December last certain officers of the company, including a magistrate, visited the estate of Mr. J.
  Longworth Estate in the county of Galway; and, if so, will lie direct that the holdings of those adjoining, whose valuation does not exceed £8, shall be enlarged.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Longworth Estate has been purchased by the Board for the benefit of congested districts in county Galway. The Board has not yet investigated the circumstances of the small holdings adjoining the estate.

  Sale of Estates in County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many landlords in Kerry have sold or agreed to sell their estates under the Land Act of 1903; what are their names; and what is the valuation, rental, purchase price, and number of tenants of each estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The following Return gives the desired information:—
  C. Robertson, at Mempakul, for the alleged purpose of capturing runaway Chinese coolies, and that the party fired upon and wounded one of Mr. Robertson's workmen named LiMin; that Mr. Robertson, on the 31st December, represented the facts to the magistrate, who replied that if he found anyone spreading such rumours he would have him severely punished; that Mr. Robertson represented the facts in a letter, dated 4th February

  33
  last, addressed to the High Commissioner at Singapore, who forwarded a copy of Mr. Robertson's complaint to the Acting Governor of British North Borneo; and that Li Miu has been arrested by the British North Borneo authorities and put in gaol; and, if so, whether the Foreign Office will take steps to have Li Min released, if he is still in custody, and compensated for his injuries, arrest, and detention.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The control exercisable by His Majesty's Government over the British North Borneo Company is defined in the Company's Charter of 8th November, 1881, to which I would refer the hon. Member. Article 10 of the Charter deals I with the treatment of the inhabitants of the territory generally. His Majesty's Government have had no report with regard to the case referred to, but will at once communicate with the High Commissioner for the Straits Settlements on the matter.

  Naturalisation Fees.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the question of naturalisation fees paid by workmen coming into this country; whether he is aware that the present fee is £5; and, considering the low rate of wages generally earned by this class of people, whether he can see his way to reduce the present naturalisation fee to £2 instead of £5.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The question of the amount of the fee which ought to be charged for naturalisation certificates has been frequently reviewed by myself and my predecessors, but the conclusion reached has always been that the present fee of: £5 is a proper one, and that no sufficient ground (e.g., that it operates to prevent desirable persons from obtaining the; privileges of British nationality) has been shown for reducing it. I am not in possession of any facts which would lead me to alter that view.

  Fountains in Kensington Gardens.
  MR. COGHILL: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as
  34
  representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can state what is the reason why the fountains at the Bayswater end of the Long Water in Kensington Gardens are not playing; and whether he is aware that it is now more than eighteen months since they last played.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The stoppage of the fountains was occasioned by the renewal and reconstruction of the boiler and pumping plant at the engine station at the head of the lake. They were stopped, I am informed, in June last year, but were going for a fortnight at Easter. It is expected that they will be at work again in the course of the summer.

  Increased Salaries for Postal Officials at Hastings.
  MR. FREEMAN-THOMAS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what increase has been or will be made in the maximum salaries of the postmaster, chief clerk, superintendent, and the assistant superintendents of the Hastings Post Office, in consequence of the recent increase in the number of the sorting clerks and telegraphists' staff at that office.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The maximum pay of the chief clerk and superintendent at Hastings has recently been increased by £20 a year in each case, and the maximum of the assistant superintendents has been raised by £10 a year. The revision of the postmaster's salary will not be due for some time yet.

  Postal Collections—Weight conveyed by one man on a truck
  MR. FREEMAN-THOMAS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what weight is one postman required to take when on a collection with a truck.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is no hard and fast rule. The weight to be conveyed by one man with a handcart depends upon various circumstances, such as, for instance, the distance to be travelled and the nature of the road.

  Sorting of Parcels at St. Leonards-on-Sea Post Office
  MR. FREEMAN-THOMAS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his

  35
  attention has been called to a petition, sent to the postmaster of Hastings on 3rd October last, having reference to the arrangements made for the sorting of parcels at the St. Leonards-on-Sea Post Office; and if he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) My attention has not previously been called to the petition to which the hon. Member refers, but I will cause inquiry to be made.

  Recommendations of Eastern Mail Service Committee.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: To ask the Postmaster-General what steps have been taken to give effect to any of the recommendations made in the Report of the Eastern Mail Service Committee.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have already arranged with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to continue their present service for three years after the expiration of the current contract on 31st of January, 1905, but with an acceleration of 24 hours on every section of it both in the outward and homeward direction. For this increase of speed the Company will receive an addition of £10,000 a year to their annual subsidy of £330,000, and during the three years for which this arrangement is to remain in force it will be ascertained whether further improvements can be obtained by open tender. But I have also procured from the Peninsular and Oriental Company the option of prolonging the arrangement for two or four additional years if circumstances should at any time make a further extension desirable. If the prolongation is made for two years only the subsidy for the whole period of five years will be £330,000, but if the arrangement is maintained for seven years in all the subsidy for the whole period will be at the rate of £315,000 a year.

  Navy Pensions.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Greenwich Pensions do not provide for
  36
  more than a third of the applicants over 65 years of age; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of assimilating the Army and Navy system of pensions for campaign service.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The shortage referred to in the first part of the Question does not arise in the case of Greenwich Special Pensions, but in that of the age pensions to men over 55 years of age. Up to the present time no difficulty has been experienced in providing Greenwich Hospital Special Pensions to applicants who are 65 years old or more, who have a war medal, and are in necessitous circumstances.

  General Officers for Indian Establishment.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the list of general officers for the Indian etablishment is made up; and, if not, when the vacancies will be filled.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There is an establishment of generals for the Indian Army which is at present full. Under the Royal Warrant, except during a period of war, the maximum number of lieutenant-generals is five, and of major-generals 22. The actual number is governed by the number of promotions to these ranks necessary to fill appointments by selection or as a reward for distinguished service.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Commissioners of National Education have granted to some principal teachers, appointed for the first time on or after the 1st of April, 1900, salaries largely in excess of the initial salary, while other teachers similarly circumstanced are denied any such increase.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not practicable to reply to a Question of this general character. If the hon. Member will communicate to me the particulars of a specific case I shall be happy to make inquiry and to communicate to him the result.

  Sale of Intoxicants to Chinese Labourers in South African Mines.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangement has been arrived at with Lord Milner with regard to the sale of intoxicants to the Chinese labourers who are to be employed in the South African Mines.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not yet been informed by Lord Milner of the arrangements which will be made, but I have reminded him by telegraph.

  Wages of Chinese Labourers in South Africa.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state what provision has been made in the regulations controlling the recruiting of Chinese coolies to ensure that they shall be paid a rate of wages not less than that now received by the Transvaalnatives.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The following are the terms of the wages; clause inserted in the contract: Any labourer employed at labour to which; piece-work is not applicable shall be paid for the work on which he is employed at the rates detailed by Chamber of Mines Schedule of Native Pay, May, 1897, restored January, 1903. If, however, within six months from the date of the said labourers' arrival in the Witwatersrand district the average pay of the; labourers employed under the said Ordinance does not equal 50s. for thirty working days the rate shall be increased from 1s. to 1s. 6d. for each working day of 10 hours. The schedule of native pay referred to will be found at p. 151 of [Cd. 2025]. The majority will be employed on piece-work, and will, I am assured, be in a position to earn about 50s. for thirty days' work, which is, I am informed, the average wage of the Kaffir at the mines. The Papers which have been laid will contain fuller information on the subject.

  Resumed Consideration of New Rules of Procedure.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he pro-
  38
  poses to resume consideration of the new Rules of Procedure, which were left in an unfinished state two years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 3rd May to the Question of the hon. Member for Cirencester.†

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Reorganisation.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will invite the attention of the Committee now examining the recommendations of the Esher Committee for the re-arrangement of the military commands and administrative districts within the United Kingdom, to consider the expediency of creating a separate command for South Wales and Monmouthshire.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR {Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The recommendations of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers are now under the consideration of the Army Council. The system proposed by Lord Esher's Committee involves the grouping for administrative purposes of four regimental depots into a brigade or sub-district, and if this be adopted it will not permit of the establishment of a separate one including only South Wales and Monmouthshire.

  Rock Drilling in Metalliferous Mines.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the observations of Dr. Haldane at an inquest held on a Cornish miner at Bisson, to the effect that rock drill is dangerous and should be done by use of the water jet; and, if so, will he take steps to make the use of the water jet compulsory in all metalliferous mines in the Transvaal.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have not seen
  †See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 268.

  39
  Dr. Haldane's observations referred to, but I have read an interesting paper by Mr. Francis Fox. M.I.C.E., on this subject, and I also learn from the Home Office that the inquiry which has been made into miners' phthisis in Cornwall by Dr. Haldane, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Thomas, is now completed, and that their report, which deals with the precautions to be observed in the use of rock drills, will be issued very shortly. I shall at once bring it to the notice of the Transvaal Government. I would at the same time point out that this subject has for some time engaged the earnest attention of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, who have offered prizes for the best practical suggestions and devices for dealing with the matter.

  Proposed Jewish Settlement in East Africa.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will appoint an independent Commission to inquire into and report on the suggested cession of territory to an alien race in East Africa.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: There would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be no: advantage in appointing a Commission; no cession of territory is contemplated. The conditions of the lease to the Jewish Colonial Trust are under discussion.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I shall call attention to this matter on the Motion to adjourn for the holidays.

  Railway Rates on General Merchandise.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the same questions concerning the railway rates on general merchandise which are engaging the attention of a Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture, in respect of agricultural produce.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Motor-Cycles in the West End.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the speed at which motorcycles are driven in the neighbourhood of Trafalgar Square and Pall Mall; and, if so, will he instruct the police to prosecute the offenders.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have not had my attention drawn to this particular matter, and I am informed by the police that they have neither noticed personally, nor received complaints as to cases of motor-cycles being driven in; the neighbourhood indicated at such speeds as to be a matter for prosecution. The police have full instructions as to enforcing the provisions of the Motor Car Act and any rules thereunder.

  Sievier v. Duke.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the recent case of Sievier v. Duke, a police constable of the Metropolitan force gave evidence that one of the litigants was in his opinion a person of evil reputation; by whose authority or instruction he was permitted to give such evidence, and whether he received from any person, and, if so, whom, any reward or gratuity for attending the court as a witness; whether he has sanctioned the practice of a police constable appearing in a civil cause between private litigants to express opinions as to the character and reputation of one litigant at the instance and on behalf of the other litigant; and, if not, whether he will censure those responsible for permitting the officer to give such evidence, and take steps to prevent the recurrence of such conduct.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The officer in question attended to give evidence in obedience to a subpœna, and, I am informed, received ordinary conduct money only. The police authorities had no power to forbid him to obey the order of the Court and I am, therefore, not prepared to pass any censure on them in

  41
  the matter. I am not aware that there exists any such practice as that suggested in the Question, and I certainly should be the last to encourage it.

  Railway Rates for Fish.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the question of railway rates for agricultural produce will include in its inquiries the rates for carriage of fish.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: We fully recognise the importance of the question of the rates charged for the carriage of fish by rail, and any representations which we may receive on the subject will be carefully investigated by our inspectors. But it would not be possible to extend the work of Lord Jersey's Committee in the manner proposed. The composition of the Committee would require to be considerably altered, and it was appointed, moreover, solely for the purpose of investigating the question of the alleged preferential treatment of foreign and colonial as compared with British produce—a question which scarcely arises in the case of fish.

  Old Admiralty Buildings.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why part of the old Admiralty buildings is being taken down; whether the rest of the structure has been condemned as uninhabitable and whether it is intended to erect on the site a new office for one of the Government Departments.
  LORD BALCARRES: The only part of the old Admiralty buildings to be taken down is a wall facing the Horse Guards Parade which is to be rebuilt to correspond with the west wing. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. Additional accommodation is to be provided for the Admiralty in the new wing which is is now under course of construction.

  Sanitary Condition of Derrygonnelly.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sanitary and sewerage condition of Derrygonnelly, county Fermanagh, is in a dangerous condition to the health of the inhabitants, and that the medical and sanitary officers for the district have reported on the insanitary state of the village, and brought the matter to the notice of the Local Government Board; and, if so, if he will direct that immediate steps be taken to remedy this state of affairs.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The defective sanitary condition of Derrygonnelly has engaged the attention of the Board, who have urged the rural district council to proceed with the necessary sewerage works, but so far without effect. Section 15 of the Public Health Act, 1896, provides, however, that where a formal complaint is made to the Board that the sanitary authority has made default in this respect, the Board if satisfied, after due inquiry, that such default has been established, shall enforce the performance of its duty by the local authority. The attention of the council has been drawn to this enactment.

  Commissioners of Education in Ireland— Land Purchase.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, having regard to the statement made in the Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, just issued, that the offers made by their tenants in Ireland were refused because they were inadequate, he can furnish a Return showing the rental, the receipts, and expenses in connection with these estates, and the offers made by the tenants on each estate, in order that the statement may be examined; whether he can induce the Commissioners to arrive at terms immediately in the interests of the tenants, and whether he can tell how much the rents on these estates have been reduced in the last year and in the last fifteen years owing to the rent-fixing provisions of the said Acts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question has been referred to the Commissioners, by whom it will be considered at their meeting on Thursday next. The result of that consideration will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Lloyd-Apjohn Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what progress has been made with the sale of the estate of the late Michael Marshall Lloyd-Apjohn, in the parish of Nicker, and county of Limerick, which has been for a long time in the Land Judge's Court; whether the Receiver to the estate has made any offer or terms of sale to the tenants, or have the tenants offered any terms for purchase; or is there any probability of an immediate arrangement.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In February the Land Judge authorised the Receiver to negotiate with the tenants with a view to the sale of holdings. Negotiations have been entered into and are at present in progress.

  Agricultural Labourers in Ireland.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he say (1) how much money which might have been utilised by the district councils in Ireland in the interests of the agricultural labourers is remaining over from the Local Government (Ireland) Grant; and (2) will this money in the future be applied to the purposes for which it was intended; (3) will he give the names of the various district councils which have exhausted the poundage allowed them under the Labourers Acts to the amount of 10d in the pound; and (4) can he say whether he will make provision in the Labourers Bill at present before the House for supplying the second plots for the labourers in the unions in which the limit of 1s. in the pound on the valuation has been already reached.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In reply to the first and third inquiries, I refer to the House of Commons Return No. 198 of the Session of 1903. The question of the application of the unexpended balance is
  44
  under consideration. In answer to the fourth inquiry, it is not proposed to increase the present maximum rating limit, of 1s. in the pound.

  Kerry Fisheries.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of congested electoral divisions in the Parliamentary Division of North Kerry; how many are inland, and how many on the sea coast; and whether he can state how much money has been spent by the Congested Districts Board on the inland congested divisions, and also how much money on the seaboard divisions for the development and improvement of the several fisheries for each of the years from 1897 to 1903 inclusive.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A list of the scheduled electoral divisions will be found in the Board's First Annual Report. The accounts of the Board do not show its expenditure by electoral divisions, but by counties. The Board has expended £22,077 on piers and roads in the county; £18,300 on agricultural schemes; and loans amounting to £13,978 have been made for fishery purposes. Detailed information in respect of all these matters is set forth in the yearly Reports of the Board.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are eleven congested divisions in North Kerry, and although numerous applications have been made to the Congested Districts Board on behalf of the fishing industries they have not spent a single penny there.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the question was before the Board. He was not aware that money had been asked for for that purpose.
  MR. FLAVIN: I can assure the right, hon. Gentleman that many applications, have been made.

  Irish Fishing Industry Return.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return

  45
  in connection with the fishing industry in Ireland standing on to-day's Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The information indicated in the Return will be found in Part 1 of the Report of the Fisheries Branch of the Department for 1902.
  MR. JOYCE: Would it not be better to give this Return? It is most important it should be in the hands of Members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is a Return available, and I do not think anything is to be gained by multiplying Returns.
  MR. FLAVIN: What is its date?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report of 1902.
  Appended is the Return referred to:—
  Return showing, in respect of the fishery industry in Ireland, the opening and closing dates for rod and net fishing, in the following form:—

  Name of river.

  Country of countries through which the river flows.

  Opening date for Rod fishing.

  Closing date Rod fishing.

  Opening date for Net fishing.

  Closing date for Net fishing.

  Listowel and Tarbert Coach Contract.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what the contract price per year is for the coach; service between Listowel and Tarbert; and whether he will explain why, when the contract was entered into, tenders were not invited from people living in Listowel and Tarbert.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The contract price for the coach service was £600 a year. Tenders were originally invited by advertisements published in the Dublin and provincial newspapers, and, as a matter of fact, were received from both Listowel and Tarbert.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a service which now costs £650 could be carried out by local people for half that amount, and, if so, will he consider the question?
  * MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. FLAVIN: Am I not entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that an amount of public money is being wasted?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not on a Question. The proper time is the Estimate.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what reduction has taken place in the number of men in the Royal Irish Constabulary force, from January, 1884, to January, 1904, and also the reduction in the officers for same period.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Twenty officers and 3,021 head and other constables.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Cadets.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether District Inspectors Hodge and Richardson, of the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, are at present on leave; and, if so, for how long; whether those officers are drawing their full pay and allowances while on leave; and, if so, how much per month; and under what circumstances those officers have applied for leave.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The two gentlemen referred to are cadets at the depôt. They returned to the depôt from leave of absence on the 12th inst. Whilst on leave they drew their pay at the rate of £6 5s. 8d. per month. They are not in receipt of any allowances.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything as to the business which will be taken when the House resumes?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY {Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The Revenue Votes 1 and 2 will be taken on Tuesday when the House meets after the Whitsuntide holidays. The House may discuss on Wednesday the Anglo-French Agreement on the Second Reading of the Bill which deals with that part of the subject. Supply will be taken on Thursday, and on Friday some of the smaller Bills will be taken.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Shall we be able to discuss the whole Anglo-French Agreement on a Bill which deals with only part of it?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill can only deal with a part of the Agreement, but I understand that there will be no difficulty in taking on that part, which is an integral part, and in that sense the part which involves the whole, a discussion in its broader aspect.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman define the smaller Bills for Friday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon.friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset gives me a specimen—Penal Servitude and Dogs.

NEW BILLS.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Acts, 1881 and 1892," presented by Mr. Walter Long; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, and Mr. Grant Lawson: to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

  NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL.
  "For vesting in the Admiralty certain lands at Portsmouth, with the church and buildings thereon, for the purpose of, or in connection with, the erection of barracks, and for other matters incidental thereto," presented by Mr. Arthur Lee;
  48
  supported by Mr. Pretyman; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  "To facilitate the opening and working of certain of the lower series of Coal Seams in His Majesty's Forest of Dean, and in the hundred of St. Briavels, in the county of Gloucester, and for certain other purposes connected with the mines in the said forest and hundred," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; supported by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
  ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  "To provide for the registration of architects," presented by Mr. Atherley-Jones; supported by Sir William Coddington, Mr. Wallace, and Sir Christopher Furness; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
  ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION BILL.
  "For approving and carrying into effect a Convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic," presented by Earl Percy; supported by Mr. A. J. Balfour and Mr. Secretary Lyttelton; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
  POOR LAW OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and Servants in Scotland, and for contributions towards such allowances by such Officers and Servants; and to make other relative provisions," presented by Mr. Maxwell; supported by Sir William Arrol, Sir Lewis McIver, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Alexander Cross, Colonel Denny, Mr. Ure, and Sir Charles Renshaw; to be read a second time upon Monday, 4th July, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (RURAL DISTRICTS) BILL.
  "To amend The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and the Acts amending the same, and the Local Government Act, 1894, so as to facilitate

  49
  the provision of cottages by rural district councils," presented by Sir Walter Foster; supported by Mr. Channing, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Frederick Wilson, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Soames; to be read a second time upon Monday, 6th June, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

MONUMENT TO THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I rise with, I believe, the general concurrence of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to move this national recognition to a man who held the office of Prime Minister, I believe, for a longer time than any one who has served the Crown in that capacity since the great Reform Bill. When a vote similar to this was; proposed on the last two occasions it was proposed by a Leader of the House differing in politics and often brought into political conflict with the statesmen to whom it was desired to do honour. That position was not without difficulty to the mover, yet I am not sure it was not easier than the one which falls to me; for I am perhaps hampered in saying all that comes into my thoughts on such a subject not merely by political agreement, but by personal relationship, and by a connection, a close connection, in politics which dates from my earliest political experience; since, indeed, I do not think that I should ever have been a Member of this House had it not been for Lord Salisbury's advice and influence. That does not make it easier for me to attempt with that impartiality of spirit which befits the occasion to recommend this Vote to the House.
The task, difficult in itself, difficult from its accompanying circumstances, is certainly not made easier for any man who desires to give a portrait of the late Lord Salisbury by the difficulties inherent in the subject. The three great statesmen,
50
Lord Beaconsfield, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Salisbury, who have within living memory been the subject of such a Vote as this, not only differed from each other to a degree which it is difficult to exaggerate, but were in themselves, I think, men very hard to classify. It may be that the perspective of time makes a difference; but I should not have said the same, for instance, of Sir Robert Peel, of Lord Palmerston, or of Lord Russell. They seem to fall more easily into the ordinary categories of description and criticism—That is no condemnation of them, far from it; but Lord Beaconsfield, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Salisbury were all men struck in so particular and special a mould that it is very difficult for any of the great artists, even with unlimited opportunities before him, to present to his fellow-countrymen a living portrait of the manner of men they were. And perhaps it is most difficult in the case of Lord Salisbury, because Lord Salisbury was by nature reticent. I have never known him to speak of himself. He seldom, even in practical life, gave a reason for or against any course of action which went beyond the actual needs of the moment; and where other men revealed themselves in easy generalities, he was apt to illuminate the subject with, but to shroud himself behind, some brilliant epigram. There was also a peculiarity which I think he possessed more than any man I have ever known—a certain self-contained simplicity which made it not easy for other men quite to understand him. It would be most unfair, I think, to say of Lord Beacons field that he was theatrical; but it would not be unfair to say that he had no objection to a picturesque or dramatic situation in which he was an important figure. It would be most unfair to say of Mr. Gladstone that he was greedy of popular applause; yet, rightly, I think, he I am sure was moved by the fervour of popular admiration which his genius was so eminently fitted to elicit. Lord Salisbury was, I believe, absolutely without any feelings of that kind at all. For good or for evil—and I do not say that it was wholly for good—he was completely indifferent to popular applause, or to applause of any kind, popular or otherwise; and that is so apart from

51
the ordinary feelings, or it may sometimes be the weaknesses, of humanity that it makes his portraiture very difficult to draw.
And there was another reason which must stand in the way of any man moving this Vote. It is that to the present generation his House of Commons life is now merely a matter of history. A few there are, but a very few, who knew him in the culminating period of his House of Commons career, when by dint of sheer debating ability he had won his way to the very forefront of Parliamentary statesmen. But he was almost immediately carried away by what he regarded as an unhappy accident of birth to another place; and he so profoundly felt the loss that, if the story that we have always believed be true, although there was many a notable battle fought across the floor of this House in which his opinions, his convictions, and his Government were at stake, never once could be bring himself to watch from that gallery the contest in which he was born to be a protagonist. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it is a singular reflection to make that had Lord Salisbury been able to have his way, had he indeed remained what he was born to be, an ornament of the debates of this House, it would have been quite impossible for him to have been Foreign Minister through all the long and troubled years during which he directed our foreign policy: for that most laborious Department can never be filled, in my judgment, by any man who does his work both n his office and in this House. I think, therefore, that, however great the loss may have been to him, the gain to the nation from the change was great. I admit that it is impossible to form a full and fair judgment of the foreign policy of any statesman until his career be run and until the secret documents by which alone he can be judged become common property. There are bold individuals who write the history of their own time. But those histories, however great their literary skill, can, unless the writer have access to special information, have but little interest for posterity; and what is true of domestic history is doubly true of the history of international relations. It is not until the Chancelleries of Europe have given up to future historians their
52
secrets, it is not until the controversies in which we have been engaged have lost all living interest and have become the property of the student and the historian, that our children will be able to judge how great was the part played by Lord Salisbury, and how beneficent was the part he played in the foreign history of this country. And yet, Sir, I think it is by a sound instinct that men of all Parties, though they have differed, and may yet differ, from this or that action of Lord Salisbury as Prime Minister and as Foreign Secretary—it is by a sound instinct that both the House and the country regarded him with great confidence as a man earnestly desirous of maintaining the honour of his country, and not less desirous of maintaining the peace of the world, zealously bent on combining those two surely not antagonistic interests. Therefore, it is, Sir, that with some confidence I ask the House, in the traditional terms which time has consecrated to occasions like this, to express the national gratitude for Lord Salisbury's services. Certainly this I will say, with universal concurrence, that never did any man bring to the service of his country an intellect of greater distinction, and never did any man spend himself in that service with more single-minded and whole-hearted devotion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late right hon. the Marquess of Salisbury, with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same." (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, so eloquent, so full, and so deeply interesting has been the speech with which the Prime Minister has commended this Resolution to the House, that if I obeyed my natural instinct I should say nothing except formally to express my concurrence in

53
the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken with the fulness of knowledge derived, as he said, not only from close political connection, but from still closer personal association with Lord Salisbury, and the tribute he has paid to the character of Lord Salisbury, I think, will remain a treasured possession of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the two previous occasions of recent years when a similar Motion was made in this House. In the case of Lord Beaconsfield, and again in that of Mr. Gladstone, the monument proposed was to be erected in order to perpetuate the memory, or to assist in perpetuating the memory, of a House of Commons man, of a statesman who had passed the greater part or the whole of his career in this House, whose personality was familiar to its Members, and who in each case had through many years earned a title not only to our admiration and gratitude, but to our personal regard, and I would almost say affection. It is not so, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, with Lord Salisbury. He quitted his place in this Chamber thirty-six years ago, and the greater and more prominent and more brilliant part of his public life was spent in the other House. In fact, to most Members of this House he was personally unknown. Not the less on that account are we able and willing to recognise the greatness of his services and of his qualities. Sir, Lord Salisbury's exalted character, his honesty of purpose, his independence of thought, his broad views, and his steadfast devotion to duty won him the regard and the confidence of men of all shades of opinion. Even those of us—in my humble way I am speaking for them—who on proper occasion differed from him in policy were always proud of him. High as the position was which he occupied in this country and in the world, we knew and had perfect confidence that its lustre would not be dimmed or its power for good misused in the hands of Lord Salisbury. The House of Commons, Sir, does well now to seek; to give outward form to a feeling which we all share, and therefore I cordially support the Resolution.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I need scarcely say I am sure that it
54
would be a very pleasant task to join with the two right hon. Gentlemen in commending this Vote to the House, and on the other hand, to raise a discordant note upon an occasion such as this must be distasteful to any man. But I feel that I should not be fulfilling my duty, in fact I feel that I should be guilty of cowardice, if I did not in a few words, and with as much consideration as possible for the natural feelings of hon. Members on both sides of this House, give expression to what I believe to be the view entertained by the Nationalist representatives of Ireland on this occasion. If I were a British Member of the House of Commons I would join heartily in supporting this Vote. It is, I think, one of the glorious traditions of this House that British Members of various Parties, notwithstanding bitter differences over political questions, can all unite to do honour to those who are the great men of their race; and I admit to the full that Lord Salisbury was one of the great men of the British race. Intellectually he was undoubtedly a great man, and by his statesmanship and his labour undoubtedly he has earned the respect and honour of the British people. But, Sir, this is another instance, if I may be allowed to say so, of how wide a chasm there is between the Nationalist representatives of Ireland and the rest of the House of Commons. We are in this House, but not of this House. We are here against our will. We are here for the purpose of making an hourly protest against the abolition of our own legislative liberties We have never felt ourselves really as a part of the House of Commons; and on an occasion such as this we are bound, therefore, to give expression, as moderately as possible and with as little desire to give offence as possible—we are bound to give expression to the views we entertain, I can quite understand the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Lord Salisbury is to him, just as to Members on the other side of the House, a great figure in British history. What was he for us? He was a man, Sir, who all through his career was the consistent and the vehement opponent of every extension of the liberties of the Irish people. He opposed the concession of the franchise to the Irish people; he opposed the land policy,

55
the Land Act of 1881, which undoubtedly brought safety to the property of the Irish tenant and peace to a large portion of the country: he opposed during many long years any extension of local government in Ireland, and in discussing that very question of local government in Ireland he used a phrase which still rankles in our minds, when he compared the Irish race, and their fitness for self-government, to the race of the Hottentots. Now, in these circumstances we, I think, will not be misunderstood if we say, as I say on behalf of my colleagues, that we do not, that we cannot, associate ourselves with the project in this Resolution. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is but the least that we can do to make this concession to the feeling on both sides of the House—we will not divide against this Motion. But I must be allowed, in the name of my colleagues, to say that we dissociate ourselves altogether from this project, that we do not share in what the Prime Minister called the national gratitude to Lord Salisbury, and that we cannot by our silence allow this Vote to be represented hereafter as the unanimous wish of an Assembly which contains against their will a number of representatives of the Nationalist feeling of the Irish people.
SIR ALFRED THOMAS: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues, I beg to join my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in the sentiments which he has expressed with so much grace and felicity. We Welsh people are very fond of triads; and that may be one reason why I always associate the names of Gladstone, Beaconsfield, and Salisbury, as the three giants of the later Victorian Era. It is hardly necessary for me to say that the political views of the late illustrious statesman did not accord with those of our people, from whom he claimed origin and ancestry; yet I question whether in any part of this vast Empire his memory will be held in higher regard and esteem than in Wales. In common with all, we know how much we were indebted to him when at a grave crisis he succeeded in soothing the wounded susceptibilities of a highly susceptible nation. Lord Salisbury was a man who
56
neither feared contumely nor courted applause. He was a great personality and a highly-minded Christian gentleman.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford spoke in the name of the Irish race.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: No, in the name of the Nationalist representatives in this House.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I wish to say that there is another Ireland—in whose name I claim to speak. The memory of Lord Salisbury to us is an; Imperial memory, a memory which, of course, does not appeal to the hon. Member for Waterford. To us Lord Salisbury was a great Englishman, a great Imperialist; and he did more, in our estimation, to consolidate the British Empire than, perhaps, any other statesman of the last generation. I can only say, on behalf of those I represent in Ireland, who are not a very small fraction of the Irish people—I know that I am speaking in their name—that we revere Lord Salisbury's memory and look back upon his political action as connected with the welfare not only of the Empire at large, but of Ireland as well. My views and those of hon. Gentlemen opposite undoubtedly are different. The hon. Member for Waterford says there is a chasm which separates us. Well, I believe that Lord Salisbury hoped that the day might come when that chasm might be bridged. I can only say for my part, and on behalf of my colleagues, that we also look forward to the day when that chasm spoken of by the hon. Member for Waterford may no longer exist, and when Irishmen of all classes and creeds may unite with me and those I represent in connecting Ireland with the great Empire of which it forms a part. It is not simply as an Irishman, but as something higher still to my view than even an Irishman, and that is as a subject of the head of this great Empire, connected as we are with the Empire, without which we should be but a miserable waif among the nations of the world, that I revere Lord Salisbury's

57
memory and heartily endorse the proposal to erect a monument to his name.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Honourable the Marquess of Salisbury, with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good the Expenses attending the same.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order read for re-suming 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 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."
LORD ALWYNE COMPTONwished to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having brought in a Budget based on the sound principles that direct and indirect taxation should go hand in hand. Personally he had only one criticism to make. He and his constituents objected to the tax on tea, believing there were oth r and better means of obtaining money for the Exchequer. He would never forget the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in which he spoke of the desirability of broadening the incidence of taxation. All
58
he would say on that subject was that it was because the Government were bound by the cast-iron rules of an old heresy that they were not permitted to broaden the basis of taxation, if there was the slightest possibility of benefiting any producer or manufacturer in this country in the process. But the part of the Motion that was of real importance was that in which it asked the House—
"To declare its condemnation of the large and continuous increase of the national expenditure in recent year."
If there was any meaning at all in those words it was that the expenditure of the last few years was unnecessary and unremunerative. Had that been proved in the debate? Different views were held as to the justice of the South African War, but, having visited that country, he doubted whether anyone with knowledge of the subject would deny that there were enormous potentialities in South Africa, and that when the country was developed it would prove to be a most remunerative investment for the money that had been spent. All through the debate there had been elaborate and detailed criticism of past expenditure, but except in the speeches of the hon. Members for Whitby and Oldham, there had been no suggestion whatever with regard to the future. Those two hon. Members who had left the Unionist Party in spirit but not in the flesh, had suggested that in consequence of the destruction of the Russian Navy by the Japanese a reduction should be made in the British Fleet. Personally, he would strongly protest against any reduction in the Army or in the Navy. As far as the Army was concerned, he sometimes had an uncomfortable feeling with regard to the amount of money that was being spent and the value obtained, but it should be remembered that a voluntary Army was an expensive luxury, and as long as it was the desire of the people of this country to have a voluntary Army they would have to pay for it. As to the Navy, it was true that events in the East had altered the balance of power, but at the same time the advance made by Germany in the construction of her navy might well give the Government pause before they consented to any reduction in the British

59
Fleet. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his followers to state boldly whether, when the time came for them to cross the floor of the House, they would reduce the British Army and Navy, and, if so, the extent to which they would carry that policy.
Much had been heard on the question of economy, and many Members had expressed a desire to retrench and cut down expenditure. Surely hon. Members must be aware how illogical it was to express such views, and then on al most every other occasion to urge further expenditure. The absurdity of the position reached its height when, in a recent discussion on harbours of refuge, Member after Member who represented constituencies bordering on the sea asked for a harbour to be built in his district. Included in the number was the hon. Member for Argyllshire, although anybody with any knowledge on the subject knew that the West Coast of Scotland was the portion of the British Isles which least required harbours of refuge because of the natural conformation of the coast. Many references had been made in the course of the debate to Imperialism. All were Imperialists now, but different views were held as to the manner in which the policy should be applied. The Unionist Party had refused, and always would refuse, to run the Empire on the cheap. If hon. Members opposite held a different view on that point, he invited them to attempt to convince the electorate that a cheese-paring policy was the right one to apply to the Government of the Empire, and he would be very much surprised if the British people paid any attention to them.
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Though I have not been able lately to take part in the debates of this House, I have felt that upon this question, so far as my powers go, I ought to contribute what I can. I take the earliest opportunity which I have enjoyed of conveying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer my congratulations, in addition to those which he has already received from all quarters, on the manner in which he has discharged his responsible duties and the ability and the frankness
60
with which he has placed before the House the condition of the finances of the country. The Tight hon. Gentleman is a skilful artist; I should almost call him a financial cordon bleu. He is able to serve up disagreeable facts in a manner which is almost agreeable and to give a pleasant flavour to unsavoury viands. I admire the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has dressed up two successive deficits by an increase of £4,500,000 in taxation in times of peace, and made it appear as if it were almost a dainty dish to set before the king. However that may be, he must excuse us if we feel that, after all, the repast is neither appetising nor nourishing. I would like also to offer my congratulations to a younger Member of the House, the Secretary to the Treasury. He is an old friend of mine, but I assure him it is in a public and not in a private capacity that I tender to him this acknowledgment.
Before I proceed to any criticism on the Budget, I would record my entire agreement with many of the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon financial matters. In the first place, I have nothing but applause to render for the sturdy language which he held on the subject of the Sinking Fund. No man's practice always entirely accords to his principles, and I am hopeful that in the future the benefit of the Sinking Fund will not be drawn upon by diverting from it certain funds that ought to have gone to the liquidation of the Debt. Again, I can only approve of his adhesion to the doctrine of maintaining, I do not say pedantically, but substantially, an equality between direct and indirect taxation. That is a matter which, after a generation, has been achieved by the operation of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. They have destroyed that cruel system which, under the reign of protection, before the days of Sir Robert Peel and the Administration of Mr. Gladstone, imposed certainly two-thirds of the burden of taxation upon the poorer classes, who are the least able to bear it. I recognise completely what was stated the other night by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford—that Ireland being the poorest part of the Kingdom, is the country which most suffers from the

61
aggravation of indirect taxation. I have always said so myself, and I have always endeavoured to act upon it. Therefore, in my opinion, any attempt to alter to the disadvantage of the people the relation between direct and indirect taxation is one which ought to be opposed by all who have regard to the poorer classes of the community, and especially to the Irish people. Therefore I am not, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will perceive, an adherent to the principle of a universal system of scientific tariffs. I prefer the unscientific but less unjust system of taxation which has a due regard to the interests of the different classes of the community.
Then the right hon. Gentleman informed us—and here again I am able to agree with him entirely—that we have enjoyed a great wave of prosperity for many years. To what has that been due? It is a miracle, surely, under a system which we are told has suffered so long under the curse of free imports. How comes it that this wave of prosperity for many years has unfortunately last year failed the Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman frankly explained to us that that was not due to any errors in our fiscal system, but to occasional circumstances, which he explained in great detail and with complete accuracy. Then there was another sentiment with which I entirely concur. The right hon. Gentleman stated that there were many people who recommended to him methods of taxation which commended themselves to "people who were more concerned to tax out of existence somebody or something they dislike than to provide revenue for the Exchequer." That is an admirable sentiment, and it is impossible to express more accurately the fundamental principle of taxation—namely, that it should be for revenue, and for revenue only. It is not to be a spiteful system, intended to retaliate on the detested foreigner, who may be our best customer; but it should be for revenue alone. That is a very true doctrine, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has so well expressed it. It is the doctrine of purely unscientific tariffs and of the days before the advent of un-Royal Commissions. I only trust that the right hon. Gentleman may impress that doctrine on the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, and that he
62
may convert to it possibly even the Prime Minister.
I am afraid that here I must diverge from my agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. We have to consider what is the financial position of the country to-day; and I can honestly and sincerely say, without regarding financial subjects from a Party point of view, that I view the financial situation with great regret and with great apprehension. Never within my recollection has it been—I do not like to use alarmist language—in a more thoroughly unsatisfactory condition than we find it to-day. What is the position? My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition the other day said that in former times, after a great and costly war, you had a diminution of taxation. Yes, you had not only relief from war taxes, but retrenchment to repair the damage that had been done. In 1815 the House of Commons, in a wave of enthusiasm, swept away a 2s. income-tax in an afternoon. I do not ask the House now to proceed to such heroic measures as that; but the Crimean War was followed by the great reforms of Mr. Gladstone in 1860, in which I do not know how many tariffs, scientific or otherwise, were swept from the Statute-book, and the era of free trade, which brought that prosperity to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded, may be said to have been completed. But what is our position to-day? We have had a war entailing four times over the cost of the Crimean War. What is our position with reference to that? I prophesied last year, on the Budget of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the relief then given was the last the country would receive, I am sorry to say that the event has proved worse than my prediction, because it has been followed not by relief but by an aggravation of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol and myself upon the taxes by which we should be remembered. He said they would keep our memory green. I am happy to reciprocate his solicitude for our good fame and to promise for the memory of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be kept green by the fact that he is the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who has followed up peace by two deficits and an aggravation of

63
taxation. That is a record which is not to be found in the whole history of British finance.
I have sometimes thought that our financial system is rather absurd in this—that we proceed to determine what we will spend before we examine what we have got or are likely to get to meet our expenditure. I have sometimes thought that, if the financial year ended with the calendar year, you might have the financial statement laid before the House at the same time as the Estimates. In these circumstances you would consider both together, as we are, perhaps rather irregularly, now considering both together, and determining whether or not we can afford to spend all the Government asks for—whether the country is in a position to accept that taxation, which is the necessary consequence of the sums you are voting. But as it is we do not know when we are voting them whether they mean addition to taxation or the extent of that addition. There have been instances when the Budget has been brought in before or at the time of voting Estimates, and certainly to go blindly into unlimited expenditure without considering the effect in the sacrifices this may entail upon the people is not a business like method of dealing with the finances of a great country. I will not trouble the House with elaborate figures; they have been repeated, they ought to be and I hope will be repeated throughout the country, for the people do not sufficiently consider these matters. In my recollection we used to consider the expenditure of a few hundred thousand pounds as a serious matter deserving examination, but now we toss about millions as if they were half-crowns. That in great part is the reason for our present position, the neglect of the House of Commons, which ought to be the guardian of the finances of the country and the taxation of the people. I will just take one figure. In 1895–96 the money levied by taxation—(and I take that rather than the gross figures because I think it is the fairest way in dealing with taxation, and I do not include non-tax revenue), as I find them in the Return of the Member for Wolverhampton—amounted to £85,000,000 and in 1904 the amount estimated is
64
£121,000,000, a difference of £36,000,000 as the increment of taxation. We ought to ask ourselves, and the country ought to ask, What is the justification for this increase in the second year of peace? That is the whole point of this discussion. We know that expenditure does and must normally increase with the growth of population and of wealth, but the question is whether it is increasing in a moderate and justifiable degree or not. We all know that under what we believe to be a sound fiscal system each year there should be an increase of population and trade with an increase of revenue which we are entitled to use for the purpose of meeting the growing demands of the country, and even affording some relief of taxation. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol has pointed out, you began with very modestincrements of £500,000, £1,000,006, £2,000,000; but our expenditure has gone on like a falling stone with accelerated velocity, and you come now to £4,500,000 a year on the average of these latter years I have spoken of, and the worst of all is that each year in succession grows worse, and if you take the last six years you will find it is at the rate of £5,000,000. That is the situation which, in my opinion, is so grave and alarming. The right hon. Gentleman thought the increase was only proportionate to the increase in the revenue of the country, and he went back for forty years; but I go back five years and say that it is perfectly certain that your increment of expenditure is in far greater ratio than the growth of your wealth. Your wealth is not increasing in the ratio of the increase of your expenditure, and while, when the increase in revenue was between half a million and two millions, there was relief of taxation, here it is accompanied by increase in taxation, and that marks the whole difference in the position.
Everybody knows that the great increase of cost has been in the naval and military expenditure of the country. The noble Lord who has just sat down pledges himself, and his friends I suppose, that never under any circumstances will he agree to cheap Imperialism; but I should like to know what is the upper limit of Imperialism if the councils of the noble Lord are to be followed in this

65
matter. You have added £10,000,000 to Army expenditure, and I say nothing upon that, for I am not an expert in military affairs. But I know that those who are say that it has been muddled through, and that is not a satisfactory increase of expenditure, and with such an expenditure there is no advance in efficiency. You have had various schemes of Army reform, and never yet have I known a scheme of Army reform that was not accompanied by increased expenditure. Then, again, it is admitted this country must have a strong Navy; but there are people who are so nervous on the subject that they are not satisfied unless there is an extraordinary increase in naval expenditure every year, and the more you increase the more it is necessary to increase further. Now I should like to quiet the nerves of those gentlemen who are alarmed about the condition of the British Navy. There is a very instructive answer given to the hon. Member for Chester on this subject. These are the figures in relation to the great navies of Europe. In 1900 Great Britain spent on her Navy £32,000,000, and in the year ending 1904 £41,000,000 is to be spent. France in 1900 spent £12,500,000, and is to spend exactly the same in 1904. Russia in 1900 spent £11,000,000, and in 1904 is to spend £12,000,000 or £1,000,000 more Germany in 1900 spent £7,500,000 and in 1904 £11,000,000 ro £3,500,000 more. You have, therefore, with these three great European Powers last mentioned an increase of £4,500,000 on naval expenditure in four years, while in the same period the increase by Great Britain was double that amount, or £9,000,000. That should quiet alarm with reference to the British Navy. The whole naval expenditure of Great Britain this year is £41,500,000; but add the expenditure of the three other great Powers and the amount is £35,500,000; so that England is spending £6,000,000 this year more than the three other Powers combined. It may be added, the circumstance is perfectly admitted, that Great Britain can build ships more quickly when required and 20 or 30 per cent, cheaper than any other nation. That is all I desire to say about the Navy.
Now what is the situation of the country with reference to taxation imposed for the
66
war? We thought we were very fairly taxed even before the war, it was consistent with that great wave of prosperity of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke; but we have had an interesting Paper put before us, also in answer to a Question, which represents the taxes remaining after the war. The war taxes which still remain amount to £16,000,000 of indirect and £10,000,000 of direct taxation, so that the principle of equality between the two has not come about. I will not deal wish the coal tax. I go to indirect taxation on articles of common comsuption. You are raising £6,000,000 of war taxes from sugar, £4,000,000 from tea, £2,000,000 from tobacco, and £2,700,000 from spirits and beer, a total of £14,700,000 taxation, largely paid by the poorest classes in the country. That cannot be denied, and it is a very serious matter. The income-tax remains at £10,000,000, and that brings the war taxation remaining to £24,700,000. In one of his speeches dealing with the tea duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer either said himself or quoted somebody else to the effect that people were apt to over-saturate themselves with tea. I do not know whether it will be said any people are oversaturated with income, but in any case £10,000,000 for income-tax is a serious thing. There is a significant and instructive passage in Carlyle's "French Revolution," in which, speaking of the consequences of the extravagance which had accumulated to deficits which it was found impossible to meet and led to that revolt of an exhausted people suffering from the crushing burden of taxes, he writes—"they always ultimately fall on the dumb ranks of those who, with spade and empty wallet, daily come into contact with the realities." That is the evil of taxes of this description; they always fall ultimately upon the dumb ranks of those who, with spade and empty wallet, daily come into contact with the realities. That is the case especially with the poorer communities of this country and the greatest of the poor communities is Ireland. These are considerations which, I believe, far more than scientific tariffs, that suit the intent of capitalists, ought to occupy the consideration of the House of Commons.

67
If I am not wearying the House, I should like to say something upon what is a drier, but not less important topic, and that is the condition of the Debt charge. There is nothing so important to the commerce of this country as the manner in which you deal with the National Debt. Those who know anything of the situation of England as the great money market of the world know that its credit depends on the treatment of the National Debt, and all trade depends upon credit. You have not abstracted £159,000,000 of money borrowed and spent on unproductive expenditure which would have gone to the maintenance of the industry of this country without inflicting upon it very serious mischief. Let us see how the Debt stands. The aggregate gross liabilities of this country (deducting assets) were this year £763,000,000, that is to say, they are £155,000,000 more than they were in 1899, the year before the war. In order to find a similar figure for the Debt you have to go back a whole generation to the year 1873. In spite of all the efforts you have continuously made to reduce the Debt, you have gone back thirty years. In these thirty years there had been most careful attention to reducing the burden of debt in this country. That has been swept away by the war. The character of the Debt also has altered for the worse. It has always been the object of every financier, the right hon. Member for West Bristol as well as myself, to endeavour to reduce as far as possible the Unfunded Debt, and the right hon. Gentleman did succeed in bringing it down to £8,000,000. What does the House suppose the Unfunded Debt is today? —£71,000,000. We know if you have an emergency, the renewal of the Unfunded Debt becomes a very serious matter, with reference to the interest you have to pay upon it and the disturbance which is usual to the money market. Now there has been a great deal said of the evil system of what is called "the extraordinary debt" —capital outside the regular Debt. It used to be a million or two, now it is £31,000,000. This extraordinary debt is like the extraordinary budgets of foreign countries, which are one of the greatest curses of finance.
68
After you have passed the Statute authorising the borrowing for these special funds you hear no more of it, and it is done really without the cognisance of the House of Commons or of the country. It has been said that each of these borrowings has a little sinking fund of its own; but that is no answer, because that sinking fund is paid by the taxpayer in the Vote for the money for that sinking fund, so that anything more injurious to sound finance than this large external extraordinary debt cannot be conceived. So much for the capital of the Debt. When you come to what is called the cash account (that is the annuity payable for the Debt, is an annuity and not a capital sum), you find that this year the interest on the Debt is £21,000,000. In 1899 it was £17,000,000, so that there is an increase of £4,000,000. It has swept away the whole advantage of the conversion of the Debt, which amounted to about £3,000,000, and you have to go back to the year 1884 to find a year in which you paid in interest on the Debt the same sum as you are paying this year. You have swept away, consequently, the whole of the economy and the whole of the advantages which you obtained by the prudent and sound finance which has hitherto existed. How long will it be, with regard to the Debt, before you get back to the status quo ante bellum? I doubt very much whether there is any man listening to me to-day who will see that time. These are most serious considerations. They are not very much "understanded of the people," but they have a very serious bearing on the credit of the country, on the trade of the country, and on the taxation of the people. They justify my statement that the financial condition of this country is in a worse position than it has been for many long years. The position is this: the taxation of the country has increased and is increasing, and its expenditure is increasing, I venture to affirm, beyond what you are entitled to attribute to the increase in the wealth of the country. I admit that the wealth of the country is increasing, but not in the ratio of the expenditure of the last five years.
There was one sentence in the speech of the Chancellor of the

69
Exchequer in which I cordially concur. I know what Chancellors of the Exchequer have to suffer in the House of Commons and from people outside the House of Commons too. An Austrian Prime Minister once said, "Wars are not made by Governments, they are made by newspapers. "Expenditure is made by newspapers, and I think also by a great many people in the House of Commons. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that "if there is to be economy there must be a change in, this House. "I agree. Nothing could be more desirable than that there should be a change in this House. I was glad to; see it announced, not upon official; authority, but upon great authority, that there was to be a change in this House within "a reasonable period. "When that reasonable period comes there will be a great competition among the issues which are to be put before the country. I venture to; hope that one of the most prominent of these issues will be the expenditure of; the Government. In my opinion the country will be, and ought to be, more interested in diminishing expenditure than in increasing scientific taxation. What the nation wants is not more taxes, I but less taxes, and fewer of them.' Therefore I hope the issue will be determined in that sense. It has been by a long series of diminutions of taxation, and by moderate and sober I increases of expenditure, that we have seen this country in the state of I prosperity which it has unquestionably enjoyed for the last half century. It is that which has built up that great' financial resources which we were all! glad and proud to see, and which even under the stress of this costly war, sustained the arms and the strength of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seeks to console us by saying that the country can well afford it. I do not believe it can afford it. We have overdrawn upon and exhausted these resources. You have increased your Debt; you have brought your taxation up to a point when it is oppressive to the people; you cannot borrow another £159,000,000 on the same terms that you have borrowed the last £159,000,000. You cannot go on increasing the income-tax above 1s. as
70
you were able to increase it above 8d; I you cannot goon augmenting indirect taxation without causing great discontent in the country. In another emergency you will lack the resources I which stood by you before you began the last extravagant war. During the former period it was very different. Under successive Chancellors of the Exchequer belonging to different Parties you diminished debt and reduced taxation, but in later years you have piled up debt and increased; the taxes. Now, if I may use the phrase, you are beginning to over tax the resources of the country. Your ate of; expenditure is increasing at a ratio; greater than the increase of your resources, and in my opinion—I may have no other opportunity of offering it in this ' House—the House of Commons and the 'country should cry "Halt! "in this; reckless expenditure.
It has been well said that expenditure depends upon policy. If your policy is to be judged by your expenditure: your policy must be condemned. What is expensive, what is extravagant, what leads to great expenditure, is the spirit of inflation, of annexation, of raids in every quarter of the world, of retaliation, tall talk, appeals to international; jealousy, the false doctrine that every good which comes to others is an injury and an evil to ourselves. Those are arts which delude ignorant people. They are an expensive luxury; they are things by which the people may be deluded, but which in the end they will have to pay dearly for. The fruits of such a policy may be read, I think, in the contents of this Bill. They are ruinous expenditure, aggravated debt, and in tolerable taxation.
MR. CHAPLINsaid that the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by telling the House that he had been unable recently to take part in their debates. He was sure they all rejoiced at the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, and, if he might say so without presumption, he would offer his congratulations to the light hon. Gentleman on what he would call the "good old form" he had displayed, which reminded the House of so many of those speeches to which hon. Members had listened with pleasure and admiration on both sides of the House.

71
They had learned with regret from public statements that the time had come when the right hon. Gentleman had decided that he would not seek re-election in a future Parliament in this House. The right hon. Gentleman and himself came into the House together. In their time across the floor and sometimes across the Table of the House they had had many bouts, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would believe him when he told him that there was no one in the House who would regret his absence more thoroughly, or deplore it more than he would himself, because the right hon. Gentleman would be another old link gone in connection with the past, and he would be another great ornament of the old school of debate removed from the House.
The right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the financial position of the country at the present moment was very bad, and he seemed to argue that hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches did not appear to consider the position sufficiently seriously. He had heard between thirty and thirty-five Budgets discussed, but he could not recall an occasion when a formal Resolution was moved by the Leader of the Opposition in condemnation of the Budget of the day, on which the state of the Benches could be taken as an index of the interest displayed in the debate than on the present occasion. The Leader of the Opposition had to speak to Benches which were partly empty, and during the remainder of the debate the House was practically a desert, and it was even necessary to move a count in order to procure the necessary degree of attendance. The right hon. Gentleman said that the present condition of the finance of the country was unsatisfactory, and that he viewed with the greatest apprehension the large increase in expenditure. He himself admitted there was a large increase; he deplored the necessity for it, and no one would wish to see it reduced more than he would. But there was another side to the question, and that was that if expenditure had increased, so also had the responsibilities and duties of Empire increased. It might be true that the expenditure of the country was increasing, I and continuing to increase; but so also was the increment of the national wealth.
72
It was impossible to avoid some, at all events, of the increased items of national expenditure; and the answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and the reason why the House of Commons did not take the Resolution as seriously as was intended was that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, while complaining of increased expenditure, did not give the shadow of an indication as to how that expenditure could be reduced, and if they were serious and intended to carry the country with them they should be prepared to show how the national expenditure could be reduced. He was not at all surprised that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had not attempted to do that. It was very easy for them to say that they condemned large expenditure, and very easy to put it in the form of a Resolution; but it was exceedingly difficult to put any such Resolution into practice. By all means let expenditure be cut down, but right hon. Gentlemen should be sure that they were right before they began. If they were not, they would, as had happened hundreds of times before, have to replace the expenditure, often times in a great hurry, sometime even in times of panic and at a cost greater than before.
The right hon. Gentleman had a cut and dried plan of his own. He said that the country required not only a change of policy but a change of Government. That being so, he would no doubt be gratified to learn that the Leader of the Opposition and, even a more important personage, the chief Whip of the Liberal Party, had made up their minds that the present Government was doomed. On Saturday the chief Whip was reported to have said that although they would be none the worse for another year or so in order to make sure of the 150 seats they required, yet he predicted with confidence that the Liberal Party would achieve a record victory, such as had not been seen for 100 years. He himself had his doubts. Personally, he hoped the Liberals would win; but whether they would make a record was another question. When they did achieve their desire; they would be met with a Nemesis in the long list of promises and pledges all unredeemed, on which they would have floated themselves into power, and for which they would have to pay

73
immediately afterwards. On the very threshold of office they would have to meet the questions of Home Rule and the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and he was sure the hon. Member for Waterford would keep the nose of the Leader of the Opposition very closely to the grindstone regarding them. He doubted whether either of those policies would have the effect of facilitating very greatly the reduction of expenditure which they desired to make. Another thing which would have to be dealt with was the Resolution which had been moved and which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would do their best to carry. A Resolution of this kind passed by the leaders of the Opposition pledged them, it must be remembered, to a corresponding reduction of these burdens the moment they had the opportunity to attempt it.
Where was this reduction to be made? A part of the large increase had been due to education. In his view, far too large a charge had been placed on the rates for education now. Was it on education that the Party opposite were going to make a reduction. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had spoken of "doles" That was an ominous expression which he did not like. He remembered that one of the surpluses of earlier years was devoted to the relief of agricultural land; that, he believed, was called a dole, and he felt some alarm under the circumstances as to what the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite would be when the Act came to be renewed. It would have to be renewed in 1906, at which date, according to the Chief Liberal Whip, the Party opposite would be in power. Were they going to continue the Act? If so, one of the sources from which they might get something in reduction of expenditure would be gone for ever. If they were not going to continue it, then one of the first effects of their succeeding to office would be the doubling of the rates upon land. That might be a right and proper policy, but it would not help very materially with the record majority of which the House had heard; the immense number of seats the Liberal Party hoped to gain. If there was one thing the rural voter
74
had a more holy horror of than of anything else it was anything in the nature of the increase of rates. He offered these few remarks in order that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might not come to any hurried decision when the good time came. After all, there were only two items to fall back upon, the Navy and the Army, called by the Leader of the Opposition "the bottomless gulf of unprofitable expenditure into which this money has been Hung." Our Navy, and the prepared state it was in, had probably in his (Mr. Chaplin's) opinion saved this country a great war with a great European Power which would have cost hundreds of millions at the time of the Fashoda incident. They might even try their policy of reduction on either or both the Navy and Army, and he was not at all sure that the Party which, when they were last in office, depleted our stores and left this country without the necessary amount of requisite taxation, would not be capable of reducing the Navy to what in his opinion might be a perilous extent.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg the right Gentleman's pardon, the hon. Member says we left the country without the requisite amount of taxation. Why. Sir, we left three years of great surpluses.
MR. CHIPLINapologised for having used the wrong word—he was alluding to the cordite incident and should have used the word "ammunition" He recommended the Party opposite, before dealing in too stringent a manner with the Navy, to remember the fate which befel a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who brought his political career to an untimely close by suggesting that very considerable reductions must be made, and suggesting our coaling stations for the purpose of the experiment. He was not one of those who thought there was any reason for hysterics because of the Estimates presented to-day. Our Budget, after a prolonged and costly war, was very little larger than that of our neighbour, France, after a long period of profound peace-Even if they desired to see reductions made as far as possible, there was no reason to lose their heads.

75
A few days previously he had been challenged to say whether or not he was not greatly disappointed with the present Budget. He could relieve all apprehension on that score. He was not in the least disappointed. It had been suggested that he would be disappointed, because instead of the increase of the tea duty there had not been a re-imposition of the shilling duty on corn. But he was fully aware that that was impossible, because, owing to the passion and prejudice displayed on the other side, and to a certain amount of weakness exhibited on the Government side, an honourable pledge had been given that no duty of that kind should be imposed during the present Parliament. The result had been a chorus of lamentations, because of the increase of the duty on tea The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition started the complaint, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolver hampton pointed out that the price of tea had already been raised to the full extent of the increase of duty, and that the burden fell with excessive severity on the poorest of the poor; the hon. Member for West Islington declared that tea had become as important as bread to the poor; the hon. and learned Member for Waterford dilated upon the cruel infliction involved upon the poorest of the Irish people; and the same complaint of hardship was made by the hon. Members for Dumfries, Crewe, Poplar, South Tyrone, Donegal, and Woolwich. He agreed that the duty on tea would undoubtedly be felt by the poorest of the poor; but why? Because of the clamour made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his followers against the shilling duty on corn. He himself last session raised the question of the relative merits of the shilling duty on corn and a 2d, increase in the duty on tea, and argued strongly against the latter, but in the division on that occasion, those who now complained so bitterly of the tea duty, deserted him to a man. He submitted, therefore, that it did not lie with hon. Members opposite to complain of the tea duty, seeing that they deserted him last year, when he was doing his utmost to procure the very thing they now professed to desire. The Government, however, were now helpless, unless they could be released from the
76
pledge which he thought they had somewhat foolishly given. But if right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite were really sincere in their professions, there was a chance for them yet. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and his friends would acknowledge that, judging by the light of subsequent experience, their views as to the mischievous nature of the shilling duty on corn were mistaken, and would constitute the Member for Sleaford their ambassador to support their changed views before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed there was yet a possibility of the poorest of the poor being relieved of a tax which they would undoubtedly feel by the substitution of a tax which they would not feel in the slightest degree. If, however, the Party opposite declined to take that course-as he fancied they would, so obstinate was human nature—it would give Members of the Unionist Party the opportunity of explaining to their constituents, that, however loud hon. Members opposite might be in their professions of anxiety for the interests of the poorer classes, when it came to the test those professions were absolutely worthless.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I need scarcely say that I shall not accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford to make a public recantation of opinions I have already expressed, but I sympathise with his anxiety that the time should be hastened when he might proclaim in countless cottage homes the desirability of a tax upon corn.
MR. CHAPLIN: I do it now.
*SIR HENRY FOWLER: Then I have no doubt we shall see the result of the seed he is sowing when the harvest is reaped. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been characterised, as are all his utterances, by uniform good feeling towards his opponents, and a fair and courageous statement of his own views; but it has not touched the Resolution. In that respect he has but followed the example of all other supporters of the Government who have spoken. This debate has been distinguished by a masterly speech from my right hon. friend, whose

77
memory, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will always be kept green in the recollection of the people of this country by the admirable manner in which he discharged the duties of Finance Minister when he held that responsible post; never was my right hon. friend heard with greater pleasure on either side of the House, and never, even in his most powerful days, did he make a more able speech in defence of those principles, those canons of fiscal policy, which he has advocated so uniformly through a long series of years.
Last night we had from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a very interesting speech, which deserved the eulogium passed upon it by my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth; but beyond a repetition of the oft exploded delusion as to the state in which the late Government left the defences of the country in 1895, he merely read Members of the House of Commons a lecture—I do not say an unnecessary one—for uniformly desiring to increase the expenditure of the country. But there is nothing new in that experience. Every Secretary to the Treasury and every Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that the greatest enemies to reduction of expenditure are Members of the House of Commons. I remember the late Mr. Childers once told me that during the time he was in office he kept a record of the proposals made in this House for reducing and those for increasing expenditure, and he found that, in round figures, about twenty proposals were made for reducing expenditure, while over 500 were made for increasing it. I shall have something to say presently about the exact functions of Committee of Supply, but I do not think that the general inclination of Members who have no special responsibility for the taxation or the expenditure of the country, and who are naturally inclined to take a local point of view, is a satisfactory answer to urge in a great crisis in the financial position of the nation. The hon. Member for Fulham, however, used a singular expression towards the close of his speech. He said that it was necessary that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should develop a high moral and political courage "in order to refuse demands made
78
upon them by their colleagues and the House for expenditure. "A further justification of the attitude taken up by the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the House advocating expenditure one day and economy the next, was made, amongst others, by the hon. Member for Newcastle, who declared his sympathy with the protectionist views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, and contended that what we were suffering from was a financial policy which had too narrow a basis. I was, however, surprised, on examining the Division List, to find that on Friday last that hon. Member voted in favour of a large dole being given from the general Exchequer for the benefit of one particular trade.
MR. CHAPLIN: I opposed the Bill to which the light hon. Gentleman refers.
*SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with that, but the hon. Member for Newcastle. Personally I regret that that"- measure did pass a Second Reading. I wish, however, to ask the House to deal with the Motion before us. It is a Motion: which calls attention to the heavy burden of taxation proposed by this Bill in a time of peace, and asks the House to declare its condemnation of the large and continuous increase of the national expenditure in recent years. Let us get a clear idea in our own minds of that heavy burden before we go to the methods to be taken in order to reduce it. We have had many figures quoted in this debate, and I have no doubt we shall have many more before the discussion closes, and therefore I am very reluctant to add even the smallest contribution to those figures. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is following the bad example of his predecessor in the mode in which he presented our financial position to the House in his Budget speech. We have a mystified state of the finances in which there is exaggeration on the one side and concealment on the other. The figures given to us in the official statement represent the country as having an increased burden of taxation up to an amount which it has not had, and an expenditure and a taxation much

79
less than that which the correct figures disclose. I will tell the House where I think the first error arises. My right hon. friend alluded to this when he referred to my Return and dealt with the non-tax revenue, but there is also an additional revenue which is non-tax, but which also involves a burden upon the people. Take the Post Office. There you have on the one side an enormously increasing expenditure which is greater this year than it has ever been before, and on the other side you have the Post Office revenue. Let us take a period of three years. In 1882 the Post Office cost £5,500,000; in 1892, £9,250,000; in 1902 it cost £15,250,000, and it is costing more now. But that is no burden upon the people. Of course the net revenue from the Post Office increases only by a small amount, and in the last ten years it has not increased more than a quarter of a million. There is a large sum spent every year upon the development of facilities for the public, and this outlay in our accounts appears as taxation in one sense, but it is really outlay by the Government in carrying on a business but all we have to consider is the net profit. I give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the benefit of that on the one side, but on the other side I come back to an old grievance, viz., the non-accuracy of the statement of the revenue for the past year, and the estimated revenue for the coming year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last year said the death duties produced £13,000,000. That was the truth, but not the whole truth, because the revenue from the death duties last year was £17,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman said the Excise produced £31,500,000, but the real revenue from that source was £37,000,000 and therefore we are misled in looking at the result of the death duties to which we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. This mistake arises from the ridiculous plan of having a local taxation account and allocating certain portions of certain taxes to certain purposes. You might as well deduct from the income-tax £10,000,000 a year, hand it over to the Navy, and call it local taxation, and then state the Navy charge at £10,000,000 less. I
80
did appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon last year, and he promised to take this into his consideration this year to see if he could not make a more intelligent and intelligible statement of the position on this subject. This system was introduced like a good many other unfortunate blunders in finance, at a time when there was a good reason politically for it, and a good Party reason. It might be correct to say that if this had not been done great reforms in local government would not have been carried out, and that it was necessary to have a make-believe in order to assure those who undertook certain burdens that they would have a commensurate advantage from them. That was the beginning of the evil. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford has referred to what he calls the great reform of the Rating Bill and he has threatened that any attempt to interfere with that will sweep the Liberal Party out of existence. But when he introduced his relief of agricultural rates instead of saying boldly, "I propose to put on the Votes so much money to be paid to the agricultural interest in relief of rates," he deducted the sum from the death duties, carried it to the local taxation account, and therefore it has been concealed in that way.
These allocations of certain proportions of general taxation convey a seriously inaccurate statement of what is really raised by Custom, Excise, and Estate Duties. I will now give to the House what I conceive to be the true amount of receipts on the one hand and the true amount of payments on the other. I am going to take the ten years from 1893 as what I will call my datum line. In that year our expenditure met by taxation was in round figures £86,000,000. In this I ask the House to follow me carefully. How was it spent? The Debt cost £25,000,000; the Army and Navy £33,250,000; the whole of the Civil Service £25,000,000; and the collection of taxes £2,750,000. That is roughly how the £86,000,000 was spent. That is an expenditure which we on this side of the House have no right to complain of, and which had the approval of

81
both Liberal and 'Conservative Administrations. We start from that datum line in 1893–4 with an expenditure of £86,000,000 chargeable upon the taxation of this country. In 1902–3, which is the last year for which we have the Return, the accounts of which have been analysed by the Treasury, we find that the net expenditure has gone up to £127,250,000. This was made up as follows:—Debt £28,750,000; the Army and Navy £00,000,000; Civil Service, including education, £350.750,000, and the collection of taxes £2,750,000; making a total of £127,250,000. I have tried to make the same apportionment of the right hon. Gentleman's estimate for next year. He may not agree exactly with my figures but I take it that the expenditure from taxation for which he has estimated next year is £137,000,000, and therefore there is an increase of the difference between £86,000,000 and £137,000,000 which is practically an increase of £51,000 000 between the year 1893 and the present time. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how I distinguish that expenditure. I place the Debt at £27,000,000, the Army and Navy at £66,250,000, the Civil Service £40,500,000, and collection £3,000,000. which amounts to £137,000,000. That is how I make up this increase of £51,000,000, which includes £33,000,000 of an increase for the Army and Navy and £15,000,000 for the Civil Service, there has been a large increase in the Civil Service, and it is not fully explained by the statement of the increase upon education. I think there is a great deal of extravagance in the Civil Service as well as in other items of expenditure. If my figures are correct we have put upon the people of this country, and are putting on them by this present Budget, an increase of taxation which represents virtually £51,000,000. This increase is accounted for as follows: — Debt £2,000,000; Army and Navy £33,750,000: Civil Service £15,250.000. But is this increase of Imperial taxation all? When we are talking about the burdens of the people in this country we must remember local taxation. I think I am well within the mark if I put the local taxation at £50,000,000 for England and Wales. I am taking the actual rates for poor relief, police, highways, and education, excluding gas
82
water, and similar rates, and I am leaving out Ireland and Scotland. I do not think you can put the local and Imperial taxation of the United Kingdom at a penny less than £200,000,000.
The first question which the House and the country has to ask is, Can we afford to tax the people in a time of peace to the extent of £200,000,000 for the purpose of Government? The population of the United Kingdom is 41,000,000. and a taxation of £200,000,000 means an average taxation of £5 a head, man, woman, and child. Well, that is a very large figure, but I distrust averages. You cannot average burdens, at least if you want to average them fairly, without averaging the breadth and strength of the backs which have to bear them, I have been trying to bring home to my own mind and to the minds of others an idea of what the present taxation means and by whom it is borne. My right hon. friend has said that a large and overwhelming portion of the increased taxation is borne by the class who are least able to bear it. Let us take as a test the houses in Great Britain where house duty is levied. I cannot extend this calculation to Ireland because they have no house duty there. In round figures there are 8,000.000 houses in Great Britain. Of these 5,750,000 are under £20 rent and of the 5,750,000 there are 3,250,000 under £10 rent. If hon. Members will consider these figures they will see where the people live. Of the 8,000,000 houses you may say that four-sixths are under £20 rent. If you take for each house an average of five persons you will see that there must be at least between 25,000,000 and 26,000,000 people who are living in these small houses, and these are the people with respect to whom we have to determine how taxation has to be borne. You have to ask how the taxation affects them, especially when imposed on their daily food and upon everything essential to their comfort. I have been asked at what I estimate the income of the country. It is stated in a recent work that you can put the income of the people of this country at £2,000,000,000. I cannot accept that figure. I do not believe it is £2,000,000,000. I know that the Inland Revenue say that the total amount of income under all the schedules

83
that comes under then notice is £867,000,000. The only other addition is the aggregate of weekly wages, and it is a very difficult calculation as to the total of that. There are different tests. The Board of Trade in the fiscal memoranda attempted—I am speaking from recollection—to solve that, and I think they put the wage income of this country at about £700,000,000 to £720,000,000. That would give us something like an income from the whole of about £1,600,000,000. If that be the income of the country what an enormous sum £200,000,000 is to raise and spend in taxation, in time of peace. We must stick to that point. There is no use mixing up this with time of war. The nation, if it chooses to go to war, must be prepared to make great sacrifices, but this is a peace expenditure and a peace Budget. That is the reason why this Amendment is now submitted to the House. The Government are asking us to retain in time of peace upwards of £25,000,000 of war taxes. What did the Member for West Bristol say after he had retired from office. I am quoting from his speech made at the end of 1902 after he had ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"I venture to say that the present national indifference to the growth of out expenditure is one of the most dangerous symptoms of the present time. Now, what are the circumstances? Here we are at the close of a great and most costly war, which has cost this country millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, not merely in increased taxation, but in increased debt. One would suppose in private life that a man who had outrun the constable in that sort of way would first turn his thoughts to retrenchment. Does anybody nowadays think of retrenchment at all?
"In the last seven years the ordinary expenditure of the country has increased at the rate of no less than five millions and a half a year. We cannot go on in that way. We must stop that rate of increase. If you do not, what will happen? I will tell you what will happen. A shilling income-tax will be utterly insufficient for the needs of the country even in time of peace; and all the people who complain now of the little, the small taxation that has been imposed upon sugar and corn, will be face to face with heavy taxes, not only, perhaps, on those articles, but on many other great articles of popular consumption.
"You will have changed your fiscal system from a system of light taxation which has prevailed during the last 40 years, and under which the industries of the country have been enormously developed, to a system of heavy taxation, which will keep those industries
84
down. And the result will be that whereas thanks largely to the light taxation of the past, we have accumulated wealth in this country that has enabled us to bear the strain of this three years war with hardly any difficulty I at all, you may, in a future day of adversity, perhaps in some time of conflict, not with two Boer Republics, but with a great European Power, find yourselves at the commencement of a great struggle burdened with an enormous weight of taxation in time of peace which will make you absolutely incapable to deal with the cost of the war. That is the warning I venture to give."
There is another reason why I think the people cannot afford this taxation. Where is the margin? Taxation in time of peace must allow a margin for extra taxation in time of war. You have absorbed your margin. It is gone. If the £25,000,000 or £26,000,000 of taxation which was put on for the war had been taken off you would have had that margin in your hand to protect your interests in the future. My right hon. friend alluded to the House of Commons having on one afternoon in 1816 swept away £16,000,000 of income tax. The Government of that day had to adapt their Budget to the decision I of the House. I also believe that the payment of this large sum of money, this £25,250,000, is taken from the ' reproductive forces of the country. It has been fashionable of late to decry what Mr. Cobden said as very short-sighted and very unsound. Mr. Cobden said, with reference to this question of heavy taxation, that he preferred to leave the money to fructify in the pockets of the people of the country instead of its being paid into the Exchequer. You are destroying the wage-earning power of the country by extracting these sums for the purpose of national expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford said, Where are you going to reduce? That is the easiest question to put, but it is most difficult to answer. It is a question, I venture to say, not to be answered by those who object to the burdens. I think it is a question to be answered by the Government which proposes enormous increased expenditure. I think it is for them to prove that such an expenditure is necessary. But it has already been truly said that this question of expenditure is a question of policy. The question of expenditure under our system is not to be touched by Votes in Committee of Supply. We had once

85
a Return showing how much money in fifty years had been taken off the Estimates by Votes in this House. It came to £20,000. It is no excuse to blame the House of Commons for the expenditure. I do not think Committee of Supply can effect economies. Committee of Supply is meant to prevent extravagance. There is no Department of the State, which at some time or other does not think of what may be said by the House of Commons with reference to such and such a Vote. It is the fear of criticism which is ten times more valuable than criticism itself. The expenditure of the country must be regulated by the Executive Government of the country and no one else. They are responsible to Parliament, and Parliament is responsible to the country.
There has been a good deal said in the course of this debate about the question of our expenditure and the rate at which it has gone. We have been challenged by everyone who has already spoken on the other side of the House to state whether we are prepared to reduce expenditure on the Navy. Well, I do not know that there is anybody in this House who wishes to leave the country without a strong and powerful Navy. The portion of our expenditure which relates to the Navy is a matter with respect to which I entertain a very strong opinion. The maintenance of our sea power is absolutely necessary to our existence as a nation. Our supremacy in sea power is vital to our existence. My right hon. friend said just now that there must be some top limit to the standard of naval expenditure. Where are you going to stop? That depends on colleagues to some extent and the pressure they put on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should have thought that Lord Goschen was a very reliable and cautious First Lord of the Admiralty, and one of the last men against whom anybody would bring the charge of being a Little Englander, or the charge of wishing to reduce expenditure unnecessarily. My right hon. friend the biographer of Mr. Gladstone informs us that Lord Goschen differed from Mr. Gladstone so far back as 1874 on the question of defensive expenditure. How did Mr. Goschen
86
act when First Lord of the Admiralty? He was not afraid of saying to foreign Powers what he meant. He said to Russia if you increase, we shall increase; if you reduce, we shall reduce, I and he carried out his policy which, as I understand, was what has been called the two-Power standard. It appears to I me that Lord Goschen's views in regard to naval expenditure are different from those of the present First Lord of the Admiralty. I have great respect for Lord Selborne, but it seems to me, judging from his public utterances, that if he had his way there would be a boundless increase in the expenditure on the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was inside the Cabinet circle, and who was a responsible Minister said! with respect to the Estimates of last I year, 1903–4—
"He hoped he should not be charged with a desire improperly to curtail the expenditure of the Navy. During the years that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he had made himself responsible for Navy Estimates, which were raised from £19,000,000 in 1895–96 to over £31,000,000 in 1902–03. He accepted the two; Power standard; lie accepted the proposals of the Admiralty in order to keep up to that standard, and lie believed that in so doing he was but carrying out his duty to the House and to the country. But since the Estimates of 1902–03—the last for which he was responsible."—the House was asked to sanction an addition of something like £5,500,000
"He would take what, after all, was the real test in this matter—new construction. He had made a calculation when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, taking the best information lie could obtain; during the five years ended March, 1901, this country expended £35,000,000 in new construction, whereas France and Russia, the two countries with which we had been generally comparing ourselves, expended something less than £31,000,000 during the same period. There was an excess of £4,000,000. In 1901–02 our estimate for new construction was £9,000,009, and so far as lie was able to ascertain the new construction of Finance and Russia cost something under £7,000,000. He had no figures with regard to France and Russia for 1902–03, but our own new construction in that year was estimated also at about £9,000,000. The estimate for new construction in this year's Estimates was £11,000,000, an increase of two and a half million. What was the reason for that increase Had there been an increase in the programme of other countries with which we wore obliged to compete such as would justify it? That had never been stated."
The Estimates for 1904–05 showed another large increase of naval expenditure. My right hon. friend the Member

87
for West Monmouthshire has repeated to the House the statement which shows that we have now an expenditure on our Navy which is more than that of France, Germany, and Russia combined. We are not content with the two-Power standard; we have gone beyond the three-Power standard. I ask the most enthusiastic Imperialist in the House, Is there not to be some border line? Who is to draw that line?
If it is alleged that we have reached the limit for the Navy, I am sure that we have long passed the limit for the Army. What can the Executive do to reduce expenditure? That can be done by their policy. Mr. Disraeli once asked in a discussion of this —it was the occasion when he used the expression "bloated armaments"—" What need is there for this enormous, this extravagant, expenditure, when there is nothing in the state of Europe to justify it?" That is a question that might be put to the Government when they has rightly described the state of things were receiving the encouragement of an overwhelming section of the people of this country to endeavour to extend a system of friendly negotiation, already so successful towards France, in reference to Russia. A friendly understanding between England and Russia on Asiatic questions is absolutely essential in the interest of our Indian Empire. Let there be co-ordination in the administration of the expenditure of the two great spending Departments. I put it to the Prime Minister as representing the Cabinet that it is for the Cabinet, not the Departments, to decide what the expenditure ought to be, and to defend it in the House of Commons. Very careful control should be exercised over all other Departments. In all of them there is a tendency to increase expenditure. The non-effective charges should receive special attention. We are spending £6,000,000 in pensions the amount is growing. How will the Government meet the present Motion? When, some twenty years ago, a similar Motion was moved, though not by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Gladstone himself at once replied and dealt with the whole question of expenditure from beginning to end, and the financial position
88
of this country, and he accepted the Motion; he saw no censure of this Government in so doing.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Was it an Amendment to the Budget Bill?
*SIR HENRY FOWLER: It was not but it was after the Budget had been brought in. I do not ask the Prime Minister to accept the Motion as it stands, but I ask for an expression of his views, which have not been given and there has been no expression of Sympathy from his side of the House with reference to a reduction of expenditure. I join in praising the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on introducing the Budget but there was an omission from it; the right hon. Gentleman did not say a word expressing approval of reduction of expenditure, but held before the House the dreariest prospect for the future. My right hon. friend has rightly described the state of things as alarming, unhealthy, and dangerous, and he warned Members on the other side of the House who attached so much importance to the defences of country that there was danger of reaction Taxation may reach such a point that an impulse of indignation and sense of injustice may sweep away expenditure deemed necessary for protection of the interests of the country. Increase of taxation, aggravated by unequal pressure on homes least able to bear it, may sooner or later raise a feeling that will cast to the winds all Party ties, all Party loyalty, and declare in an unmistakable manner that there must be, under any circumstances, a reduction of expenditure.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There have been many interesting features in the debate, which has now gone on for two days, and especially interesting was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Monmouth, to which every Member will have listened with deep interest and renewed regret at the thought that another House of Commons will not see him in this place My personal respect is due to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge the kindness of his reference to myself, and

89
I may say that not the least of my difficulties in the office I hold is that it brings me face to face with such a great figure in Parliamentary life, such a master of finance, so powerful in debate. But, after all, I think the most interesting feature during these discussions has been the condition of the benches opposite. [Laughter and OPPOSITION Cries of: "We're all right," and "What of your side?"] Yes; there is not more belief in the reality of the discussion on one side than on the other, though a profession of the great need for such a discussion found prominent place in every speech from Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman: who has just spoken said we are in the midst of a grave financial crisis. That is the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but at no period of the debate did they show their sense of the gravity of the situation by an attendance of more than fifty.
MR. J. A. PEASE: Many more.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the correction. There was one moment when the hon. Member for Oldham did violence to his feelings by making a speech against the Government from this side of the House when the attendance was something under 100; but for the serious discussion of the great issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, there were not more than fifty Members on his side of the House. That is the first feature of the debate to which I call attention, and there is another of some interest. This Motion is a repetition in different language of an effort made three years ago from the same Bench when the Amendment was in charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The Motion then referred to the alarming growth of expenditure and the necessity for economy, but there was a special proviso that the right hon. Gentleman and those for whom he spoke were ready to make adequate provision for naval and military requirements. This was given first place three years ago in the first effort of a "rejuvenated and reunited Opposition." Any one who has listened to the present debate will know that while the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon.
90
Gentleman who has just spoken have declined any indication of where economy was possible, or where reduction should be insisted upon, other Gentlemen from that side have not been so reticent; they have not hesitated to express their opinion that not one only, but both of the services for the protection of the Empire must be subjected to the ruthless operation of the pruning-knife. I do not think that any attempt was made to show that in any other direction reduction was possible.
What, after all, has been the dangerous increase of expenditure that has taken place? There is an increase in the charge for the Debt in the last ten years of something like £4,000,000, partly due to a great war and partly to new charges created for interest and sinking fund for naval and military works in course of construction. There has been an increase in the same period of nearly £2,750,000 on civil administration. I am comparing the Estimates of the current year with those of 1894–5, a period for which the Conservative Party has been responsible, and I say there has been an increase. About £800,000 of that is caused by increased expenditure on Colonial and Foreign Office services in protectorates and dependencies in Africa. There have been some reflections on that expenditure. Is the House prepared to condemn it? We are told, and told rightly, that in regard to many of these matters yon cannot have a reduction in expenditure unless you have a reversal of the policy which is being pursued. Do right hon. Gentlemen opposite mean that, if they changed sides to-morrow, they would attempt to reverse the policy which is being pursued? I should be interested to know what; Lancashire would say if they attempted to clear out of these great possessions which we have marked out for the future occupation of the British race in Africa.[An HON. MEMBER: Chinese.] I am not speaking of South Africa now, but of; West Africa and East Africa, especially West Africa. What will Lancashire say to them if they reverse the policy which has been pursued, if they give up the effort to develop these countries to which Lancashire is looking to provide I in the future a remedy for the distress which is now existing and to guard them

91
against the danger of being unable to obtain the raw material which is an absolute necessity of their industry? An hon. Gentleman interrupted me with a reference to South Africa. I am not here to apologise for the policy pursued by the Government in regard to South Africa. There are Gentlemen—the Leader of the Opposition among them— who thought that policy wrong from the beginning, who did their best to prevent its coming to a successful conclusion, and who, though they failed to prevent the Government from carrying their policy through, undoubtedly aggravated the difficulties with which they were confronted. But for those of us who approved the policy, who thought it necessary, and who, great as the evils of war are, thought that in that case the evils of surrender would be greater still—we shall never reject a policy which we thought Tight on its merits merely because it has involved us in a considerable burden of taxation. If, when the country has made up its mind that a certain policy is necessary to the defence of its interests and the defence of its honour, we have come to the point when the country will refuse to find the expenditure necessary to carry it through, the day of our greatness would indeed be past. That is not the view I take of our countrymen. I have never hesitated to justify the expenditure we have incurred, and I am not afraid of the verdict of my countrymen upon it.
The next great increase of expenditure has been upon elementary education. I am well aware that some hon. Members think that the whole of that money is tno spent to the best advantage. I am tno quite certain that any hon. Member thinks that the whole of it is spent to the best advantage, although there is very great difference of opinion in different quarters of the House as to which part of the expenditure might properly be dispensed with. But there is not a Gentleman sitting on that side, or indeed upon this, who believes that the amount we are spending upon national education can be reduced in the future. Then there is an increase of £500,000 in the Revenue Departments, a very small percentage on the greatly increased revenue which they collect. There is a large increase in the amount which we contribute in aid of local taxation. The right hon. Member
92
for Wolverhampton has made an appeal to me, as to both of my predecessors, to recast the form of the national accounts. He said, and I agree, that our accounts are very apt to be misleading to those who do not study them carefully as to the amount of taxation levied on the people. He "complained that they did not show the amount levied and paid over in relief of local taxation. There is a great deal to be said for presenting the accounts in the form which the right hon. Gentleman framed, and the Return which bears his name is certainly the best Return for reference, if any one wishes to see the state of affairs, of any laid before the House. But, even if there would be some improvement in recasting them, it must be borne in mind that one object you have in having these accounts from year to year is to enable a comparison to be made, and to see how we compare with other years. If you alter the form of the accounts you destroy the possibility of comparison, and that is, I think, the main objection which has been felt by my predecessors.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I do not want to recast the accounts at all. What I want is that in the items of expenditure—Army, Navy, and education, and so on—you should put local taxation,. I and that you should, then put on the other side the true amount received from the death duties and Excise.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that would still leave the account misleading, but I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I believe it has the support of the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire, and anything which comes from them in such a matter as this is well worthy of consideration. But, putting that on one side, I return to the increase which we have made in the grants in aid of local taxation, an increase of about £4,250,000 in ten years. You may vary the method by which you provide the money; but one thing I will venture pretty confidently to assert is that, in spite of the opposition which has often come from the benches opposite to the proposal to give this relief, hon. Gentlemen will not venture to withdraw it when they become responsible for the national finances. If they had any

93
intention of withdrawing this relief to local taxation they would not, being anxious that their position should be perfectly clear to the country, allow any doubt to remain as to their intention but would give full notice of what they mean to do.
I have run hastily over all the items of increase in the last ten years except the Army and the Navy. They are, of course, the heaviest burden in the whole of our national account, and it is upon them that the increase has been greatest. General statements are made by hon. Gentlemen opposite to which no one on this side would take any exception. The right hon. Gentleman who preceeded me says he does not wish our Army to vie with the great armies of the Continent. It is not a question whether you wish it or not; the thing; is impossible, it is out of the question; it never entered into the mind of man to conceive of this country with an Army capable of vying with the great armies of the Continent as they are organised to-day. What we have to do is to provide ourselves with an Army capable of de-fending the British Empire. I have I regretted very much in the course of this debate to hear from the Leader of the Opposition and several other Gentlemen repeated sneers at the Committee of Imperial Defence which is presided over by the Prime Minister. That is the most effective means that has yet been contrived for perfecting the organisation of our military and naval; forces, for co-ordinating the one with the other, for measuring the demands of both against the financial needs of the country, and for developing from the whole a policy which gives us the requisite security at a minimum of expenditure, I say at once no one on this side desires I to construct an Army of the character to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes. But when the Leader of the Opposition points to the Army of ten years ago, and inquires what has happened to call for the increase which has since taken place, I am tempted to ask, has he been blind to the changes which have been going on? He speaks of the Central Asian terror, and says we have been accustomed to it for many years past. I think I remember the time when a witty
94
statesman said that the country was afflicted with "Mervousness." But who was right? Those who thought that Merv would pass under the dominion of a great Power or those who bade us turn to large scale maps and see how far Merv was from their frontier? [An HON. MEMBER: It was Lord Salisbury who said that.] Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the march of events in recent years does not give cause for re-considering the basis of our military; policy and has not altered the requirements which our Indian Empire makes for its defence? It is only a year or I two ago that we were being denounced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the imperfection of our preparation for war and for the insufficiency of the resources that this country had at its command. To-day we are bidden to use the pruning-knife ruthlessly the moment peace has been restored.
The right hon. Gentleman recalled to our minds what the great reductions were which were made on the conclusion of the French war in 1816. But what I wanted to direct attention to was the effect that these sudden and drastic reductions are apt to have on our security in future years. In 1801, when peace was concluded, there was an immediate great reduction in the Navy, and the country nearly paid dearly for that premature and unwise economy when war broke out a couple of years later. Did the economists of 1816 leave us with an Army well prepared, well found, and well equipped when the further great emergency burst upon us in the Crimean War? No. An hon. Member asked whether we have profited by the experience gained in the war now going on and from our own war in South Africa. Yes, we are trying to do so. But as to the lessons of those wars, you cannot make good in haste what you have neglected to provide at your leisure; and if you try to secure a reduction of your burdens at the expense of your security, in times of peace, you have to pay manifold for your neglect when war breaks out, and it may be that you will find that neglect irrevocable. The House also knows that the Government have been giving their most anxious and careful consideration to the question of Army expenditure. It is our desire to reduce the burdens which the

95
military forces now make upon us, and the Prime Minister indicated the change which he thought the new conditions had brought into the problem with which we are confronted. We no longer think it necessary to maintain H great Regular Army for home defence. If that be so, what is it that relieves us of that necessity? It is one thing only; it is the supremacy of our Navy on the seas. The hon. Members for Oldham and Whitby have indicated that the Navy is a proper subject for reduction. Does any hon. Member intend to depart from the standard laid down, I think with the common consent of the House and accepted by both sides, that in future we are to be content with less than the two-Power standard? The right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton did not pretend that we should do anything of the kind, for on a previous occasion he said that "the Navy must at all risks and at all costs be kept up to the point which experts deem to be necessary." Then, again, the Defence Committee has been denounced, and the hon. Member for Oldham said that where an expert was admitted to discuss a question, all sense of reason departed from the deliberations.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I did not say so, but I adopt it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In that case it is one of the suggestive methods by which the hon. Member arrives at his conclusions on many subjects, and it may perhaps account for some of our difficulties. I will assume for the purposes of discussion that the bulk of the House is determined that the two-Power standard shall be maintained in regard to battleships and a greater superiority with reference to cruisers. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman is that we have exceeded and departed from that two-Power standard, that it is now a three-Power standard. I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. If he acts on the standard laid down he will find that large reductions are not possible in our Navy Estimates. I will take first and second-class battleships. Of battleships Great Britain has built and is building sixty-three, France thirty-five, Russia twenty-eight, after
96
allowing for the loss of the Petropavlovsk. Germany has twenty-eight battleships, and she is able to concentrate in two of her home ports within a few hours steaming of the Channel. Some hon. Members have spoken as if the results of the war had been to wipe out one of the great navies of the world. I entirely differ from that view. When the present war is over we must, of course, consider the new situation created by it. We must revise our Estimates in the light of the then existing conditions; but, with the exception of one battleship I have struck off, no battleship has been so damaged that with proper docking facilities it cannot be repaired within a short time. We have not, therefore, exceeded the two-Power standard. We are proposing to lay down two further ships in the present year, which will give us a margin of two battleships over the combined fleets of the next two greatest naval Powers. That, however, is not the whole which goes to make up naval strength. It is easy to deceive the country, and not difficult to deceive the House, as to the actual naval preparations if you dwell exclusively on the construction programme and take no account of other items. It has happened before now. The other preparations have been allowed to lag behind, and, indeed, the defence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite when they brought in the first Naval Works Bill, which they are now so ready to condemn, was that the execution of naval works had not kept pace with the increase in the Fleet and it was impossible to overtake arrears out of current taxation. How important dockyard facilities are every student of these questions is aware. Then there is the accommodation for the sailors, and hospital accommodation as well. Nothing so disturbed the country in the late war as the conviction that enough had not been done for the sick and the wounded in the campaign. The hon. Member for Dundee is aware that the condition of the naval hospitals when he left office in 1895 was one that would not bear inspection by any competent person. Great expense has been incurred in providing proper hospital accommodation according to the later scientific ideas for the men of the Fleet. It is to the credit of Lord Goschen and

97
the Board of Admiralty which succeeded his that they have surveyed the whole field of naval expenditure and that they have carried out their preparations in all its different lines—not in building ships without guns, nor in providing guns without men to work them, nor without reserves of stores necessary for their efficiency or the accommodation required for the men in sickness and health. The inference of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton is that our expenditure has exceeded that of the next two Powers by a considerable sum in the last four or five years, and he infers that we have set up a three-Power standard. My inference is quite different. When I find that our programme gives us only: a margin in battleships of two over the: combined two Powers, my inference is that we had a great leeway to make up, and that we have been making it up.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Do you count cruisers?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I do not count armoured cruisers as I battleships. If I did I should have to make a large addition to the other side. Of course, there has been a considerable margin of strength in cruisers. But why is that? We have 9,000,000 tons of shipping spread over the whole world to defend in case of war. We know that foreign Powers have built specially in order to be able to strike at that shipping in time of war; and what cannot be said by any other Power of its shipping is that; upon our shipping depends the continued existence of our people, for we alone of the nations are dependent for sustenance upon sea-borne food. What is the amount of the shipping of the next two naval Powers? It is 1,500,000 tons as against; our 9,000,000 tons. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the same insurance which covers the smaller interest of other nations should be reasonably expected to cover our far greater and world-wide interest—an interest which involves the life or death of our people, while the interest of other nations involves but the issue of a greater or less pecuniary loss? We have not only to protect our sea-borne supply of food and raw material. We have to protect ourselves against invasion. Is there any other great Power which has
98
reason to fear invasion from over sea? It is only because of our cruiser fleet and our torpedo fleet that we are able to regard invasion by great and crushing armies as a practical impossibility. The real error into which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have fallen is that of confining their comparison in the growth of expenditure on the Navy to a small number of years. Let them take a wider survey. During the twenty-four years ended 31st December, 1893, which practically coincides with the time in which our modern Fleet has been created, we have spent on new construction £116,000,000, as against an expenditure by France and Russia of £111,000,000. That is to say, we spent £5,000,000 more than France and Russia, or about £200,000 more per annum, and it is by that small margin of excess that we have secured that predominance in cruisers and torpedoes to which I have referred. The right hon. Gentleman said that Lord Goschen was not afraid to come down to the House and say that if foreign Powers made a reduction in their fleets we should be willing to make a corresponding reduction in our Fleet. It is not Lord Goschen alone who has made that statement on behalf of the Government. We have never been unwilling to make good that pledge. The offer has been repeated many a time on the floor of this House. But I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that the present is a favourable moment for pressing for a reduction in the naval forces of other Powers. It is true that measured in millions the cost involved in our naval and military preparations comes to an enormous sum. But we have also to consider our capacity to bear it. In 1864 the proportion which our defensive expenditure bore to our national income was 3'4 per cent. Now, notwithstanding the enormous burden which we are said to have since placed upon the country, the proportion is only 3·7 per cent. Considering how vital are the interests at stake, and how irreparable the injury which might be inflicted, I do not think that is an undue proportion to spend on the greatest of all insurances.
After all the question which concerns me most in my official capacity

99
is—Is the burden of this expenditure intolerable? I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was the first speaker to call attention to the fact that the burdens of the people are not only those imposed by the central Government. There are also the burdens of local taxation, and if the total burden were intolerable it might still remain the fact that reductions should be made elsewhere than in our insurance for national defence. I think there has been great exaggeration in this matter. It has been said that were we unhappily to be engaged in another great war, our financial resources would be unable to meet the strain, I think that is too pessimistic a view to take. God forbid that we should have to undergo another great war in our time. But if such an evil should arise, I, for one, refuse to assent to the statement that we should be either unwilling or unable to make fresh sacrifices to defend our honour or our interest. But is the burden intolerable? Consider how the expenditure has been met. 215 of the expenditure comes out of taxes upon transactions, and payments for services rendered, like stamps and the postal revenue; 34·5 comes from alcohol and tobacco. That is to say, it is raised from taxes which no one need pay if lie does not wish, and which a great many people do not pay. 33·6 is levied from the direct taxpayer. So that of the whole sum only 10·4 per cent., or £15,500,000, is levied compulsorily from indirect taxpayers; £15,500,000— levied, of course, from those who pay direct taxation as well as from those who pay only indirect taxation—spread over a national income of something like £1,750,000.000, is the whole contribution that payers of indirect taxation need pay to the National Exchequer. Let me put it in another way. Our indirect taxation amounts to £1 11s. 2d. per head of the population. Of that £1 3s. 11d. per head is raised from alcohol and tobacco, which the poor man can escape if he wishes. What remains, that from which the poor man cannot escape, is only 7s. 3d. per head of the population; or less than 1¾d. per week. Is that an undue or intolerable burden in a country where practically every man has a vote and can take
100
an active part in directing the policy of the nation? What is more—although I do not accept it as a principle of indefeasible right that the amount raised by direct taxation should exactly equal that raised from indirect taxation—by this Budget I have brought the relative proportions of indirect and direct taxation to what they were before the war, and the comparison is more favourable to indirect taxation than it was at the conclusion of the three year's term of office of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not believe that the burden is as intolerable as hon. Members opposite try to make out, and I certainly do not agree that the charge of general extravagance against the Government can be sustained.
Then it has been said that I have not uttered one word in favour of economy, and my silence on the point has been contrasted unfavourably with the utterances of my two predecessors in office. After all, I have not been very long responsible for the national finances. I do not know whether I may not be able to propose further economies in the future. But this I do know, that those who have spoken most of economy have probably been responsible for the largest increases, and from the time the right hon. Member for West Monmouth assumed office as Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last occasion down to the present day, inclusive, my Budget for the present year shows the least increase of taxation. I am excluding war expenditure. When the right hon. Gentleman was responsible in 1886–7 he added £2,500,000. In 1893–4 and onwards, during the three years in which he was then responsible, he added an average of £2,500,000 a year. My right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol, whose example I am bidden to imitate, added an average of nearly £5,000,000. My right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, whose appeal for economy contrasts so favourably with mine, added an even larger sum. I have succeeded in bringing the increase down to £2,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: By not paying the deficit.] What is the use of the hon. Member saying that? The deficit of last year ought to have been provided for last year. It is not by what I have ventured to call lectures

101
and admonitions to this House in general terms that any good result is achieved. My right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol said frankly that he did not believe any great reduction of expenditure was possible; what he warned the House against was the continued increase at the same rate that has been going on in recent years. Whether that increase has been bigger or less I am at any rate in accord with the right hon. Gentleman on this point—that if any of it is avoidable or wasteful, it should be condemned, and it is the business of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to prevent it. My quarrel with them is that I think they underrate the importance of the demands which are made upon us, that they have too little considered the methods by which the economies they expect can be made, and that they are carried away by hopes of economy which they themselves, unless they be false to the principles they have laid down, will be unable to realise.
The Leader of the Opposition has invented an ingenious theory which he has broached on two occasions to account for the size of the Estimates for which I am responsible this year. He says that on this side of the House there is no real desire for economy, because out of this great expenditure we, or I in particular, are anxious to build a platform for tariff reform. I think the right ion. Gentleman really attributes too great a degree of simplicity to my predecessors, who have been responsible for so much of this increase, if he thinks that the right hon. Member for West Bristol and the right hon. Member for Croydon have for the last six years been recklessly and wastefully spending money in order that my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham might have a greater expenditure on which to found his policy. The expenditure is large, it has increased, and it is not easy to reduce it. What I can say to the House, for myself and my colleagues, is that we are as keenly alive as any to the desirability that there should be not merely strict economy in the administration of the finances, but that there should be some relief for the taxpayer from his burden. But as long as we are responsible for the safety and security of
102
the Empire, we cannot afford to buy present popularity by neglecting its defence or by leaving it unprepared for emergencies which may arise.
MR. ROBSONsaid the conditions of the benches during the debate emphasised the responsibility of the Executive. It indicated that the House left the responsibility for our great expenditure where it must always lie — with the Executive Government. Undoubtedly the House of Commons was responsible in that it maintained in power a Government, capable of defending so great expenditure, but the primary responsibility lay with the Government that prepared the Estimates, that pledged itself and its responsibility and existence upon the efficiency and economy of those Estimates. What was the answer, either expressed or implied which every Minister gave when an hon. Member criticised an item with a view to its reduction? That the responsible Minister adopting the advice of his officials pledged his responsibility that the item was one which was not in excess of the requirements of the Department. That was the view put before the House of Commons upon which it was invited to act. That was the principle it acted upon, and it could scarcely act upon any other. That was the principle upon which hon. Members opposite entered the division lobby, without having heard the debate, to support the Government. Now an effort was being made to shift the responsibility of the Government on to the shoulders of the House. He thought that Parliament could do a great deal more than it had done or than it had been permitted to do in the way of reducing expenditure. Parliamentary criticism had been controlled in recent years to a very marked and ominous extent. In the old days when a Minister proposed an increase in the expenditure of his Department he had always to run the risk of justifying that increase. It was not too much to say that now that risk was very greatly diminished by the new Rules of procedure. In the old days a Minister had to surmount a double barrier—the barrier of the Treasury and the barrier interposed in his way by the criticism of the House. The barrier of the Treasury

103
to increased expenditure had in recent years ceased to be of adequate effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in old times was anxious to encourage economy so as to remit taxes, but the Chancellor in times to come, if the country adopted the views of the present occupant of that office, might be relieved of the wish to avoid unpopularity by imposing new taxes. They had got a Chancellor now who did not conceal his opinion that by the imposition of new taxes we could add wealth and prosperity to many sections of the community and he could not understand the right hon. Gentlemen's avowal of a desire in the concluding portion of his speech to avoid increased expenditure. Why was he anxious to avoid increased expenditure unless it was to avoid increased taxation? What, then, became of the theory of scientific taxation which was to add to the wealth of the community? The Chancellor of the future, whatever he might have been in the past, would only be an efficient barrier to high expenditure if he entertained opinions very different from those of the present Chancellor.
There was no stronger indication of the lack of Treasury control than the growth of Supplementary Estimates which had become almost the rule. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol seemed to think that an economical Chancellor of the Exchequer would be preserved from most of those misfortunes if he had the support of the Prime Minister. That was indeed a most significant observation. He did not think anything had been said in the course of this debate to throw more light upon the great growth in recent expenditure than that remark. Undoubtedly the Treasury would be more efficient as an instrument for controlling expenditure in the Prime Minister gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer his support. But at the same time if there was the slightest fear that departmental extravagance would imperil Party unity, the Prime Minister would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer his support. There were economists on the opposite side of the House, but their enthusiasm for economy was not keen enough to give; the Prime Minister uneasiness with regard to the unity of his Party. Until they were courageous enough they
104
would never have the Prime Minister I as an economist. Hon. Members opposite did not choose to make the Prime Minister an economist, but they were; trying to make him a protectionist, which was quite a different thing. They had already seen in that debate the way in which Parliamentary control was hampered by the new Rules, but he could not believe it to be a mere coincidence that this enormous growth in expenditure should have taken place at an accelerated pace since the new Rules of procedure were adopted. He knew that those Rules were adopted for the convenience of the House. He was not going to suggest that they were absolutely necessary for the conduct of the business, but it was quite clear that they had diminished and impeded Parliamentary control. They had all observed the increasing habit of drawing into Supply nights questions of policy for which the House had no other opportunity of debate, and this had the inevitable effect of diminishing criticism on the point of economy. However, the House was still responsible, and the question was how it was to exercise its responsibility.
Let them just see how they were to judge the condition of things for which they were responsible. He would not follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer into detailed criticism of the various Estimates accounting for the increase of the expenditure. They must look at the total, and ask whether under any circumstances in times of peace they could afford such a total. The ordinary householder desirous of effecting retrenchment would come very badly out of an argument with his Prime Minister on an item of expenditure, especially if he were controversially inclined. He would say, "Look at the total; I am spending so much and I only get so much, and though your arguments, gathered from the cook and the butler and the coachman are unanswerable, I must choose between bankruptcy and retrenchment. "As to the question whether they could afford their present expenditure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; had chosen a fallacious way of judging. He had told them they were only spending little more than 3 per cent, on their

105
income, but no Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell them what their income was. He suggested that the question could be answered by considering the point which they had reached in their taxation. Could they in times of peace afford 1s. income-tax? He would go further and say that even in time of peace, if the 1s. were applied for the removal of some of the hardships existing in the present social system he should not grumble at the burden which might light on the propertied classes. But putting aside that reason, could England, or any other country, afford a 5 per cent, income-tax on the gross income of the people in time of peace? He said it could not. Passing from the income-tax there was another tax, scarcely less conclusive, showing how they had gone too far. When any country found it necessary to put taxes on trade then he said it had reached a point of expenditure at which it was necessary to stop. He instanced the tax on coal as a tax on an export. A tax on exports was the worst. It contracted the area of our trade, and helped to lessen employment. It was a tax for which there was no excuse in time of peace. It was worse than living on then capital. It destroyed their capital. Taxes on trade were hampering and impeding to the effectiveness of trade and labour. Taxes on income and taxes on trade having reached a certain point were a sure sign they had reached the limit of expenditure. What was to be said of taxes on food? He ventured to think that when to meet expenditure it was necessary to put additional taxes on tea and sugar, a point had been reached at which they ought to stop at any cost. He knew there were Members on the other side who, if they did not want to increase the income-tax, wanted to increase the coal tax and the taxes on food.
It was idle for the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to urge that he was as anxious as most in his position to avoid high expenditure. In fact, high expenditure was not only justified by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there were indications that the point at which Members of the Opposition desired to stop was the point at which some on the Ministerial side of the House desired to start. They wanted fresh fields to conquer. They wanted to add to taxation
106
of tea and sugar, taxation of bread. In fact, high expenditure was an essential of a protective system, which was the system with which they were threatened in the future. Everybody knew that protection nearly broke down in America, because the expenditure was not sufficient, and the manufacturers of that country, calling patriotism to their aid, just as the manufacturers of this country called Imperialism to their aid, devised a gigantic and corrupt system of pension expenditure reaching no less than £37,000,000 a year. They raised their expenditure because they wanted an excuse for more taxes. Nothing was more perplexing to a protectionist Chancellor of the Exchequer than a surplus. The American manufacturers did not care about retrenchment, or call themselves progressive free-traders. They robbed their fellow-citizens with zest. The real danger to the country was that taxation might lose its unpleasantness. There was a great Party going about telling people that out of these great burdens private profit might be made. If hon. Members opposite got their way and a protective system was established, high expenditure, with its correlative of high taxation, would be looked on as beneficial, and retrenchment as not only superfluous, but absolutely mischievous.
However there was one subject on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer advocated economy. He spoke of the municipal bodies, and drew attention, in melancholy tones, to their increased indebtedness. The right hon. Gentleman said that the time had come when they should call a halt to municipal indebtedness. There was certainly a consistency in his attitude about that, because municipal bodies could not raise their money by those methods of scientific taxation which were so much approved of on the other side of the House, unless they should have a reintroduction of the octroi system into England. And, as things were going, he did not see why they should not have a reintroduction of that system which prevailed in those countries from which they were invited to take their fiscal policy. That was a very legitimate object of ambition for progressive free-traders. When that had been brought about there would be no longer any occasion to

107
rebuke municipalities for excessive expenditure. Although in one week, when the Budget was introduced, we had the Chancellor of the Exchequer reproving the municipalities for increasing their liabilities, and although these liabilites had been incurred in respect of matters which might bring in a certain amount of profit to the community which incurred that expenditure, the very next week we had the Prime Minister coming along and pointing out that, as regarded another Bill, if the fund for compensation for licences was not adequate, the municipalities were at liberty to borrow immense sums. But as long as it was a question of spending money for light railways, education, or tramways, we must call a halt. There was one department in which perhaps the municipalities might be called upon to exercise economy. They on that side of the House had been challenged to say whether the grant in aid from the central to the local exchequer should be abolished. He was not entitled to speak with authority, but, so far as he was personally concerned, he should wish that that should be a primary object of our policy. These grants in aid were originally introduced to relieve property at the expense of industry, and now they had got to such a feature that they represented nearly 4d. on the income-tax; and that had been a great source of reckless economic administration. There was another system that might be applied which would avoid the difficulties with regard to the farmers. In Scotland half the rates were borne by the landlords. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman would say in regard to that; but he hoped the House would not be debarred from referring strongly and severely to that very wasteful source of public expenditure. The Liberal Party, he dared say, would not be able to do much in that regard. In matters of legislation they were not their own masters. Even the country was not its own master in regard to ordinary legislation. But in the matter of finance the House of Commons were their own masters, and he hoped the Liberal Party would take up the work of restoring the finances of the country, which had been demoralised by nine years of profligacy
108
and incompetence on the part of the Unionist Government.
MR. ELLIOTsaid he wished to put before the House one or two considerations as to the serious position in which the country found itself at the present moment. First of all he directed attention to the fact that throughout the debate, very little interest seemed to have been shown in it. The absence of Members on the other side of the House had been conspicuous. At one point there were only two Members on the; Front Opposition Bench and one Member behind them; while below the Gangway there were not more than half-a-dozen Members present. It could not be denied, however, that this question of increasing expenditure was of the greatest importance, and hon. Members were right: in making a protest against it. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition might be regarded either as a denunciation of the Budget as being bad, or as a protest against what Liberals alleged was the extravagance of the Government. At the same time it did the Chancellor of the Exchequer great credit that so little fault had been found with his Budget from: beginning to end. He was afraid that that; being so some little disappointment would have been caused to the right hon. Member for Sleaford; but that right hon. Gentleman had professed no disappointment on that account, because he seemed to think that though the Government were pledged against the corn: tax up to the next general election, there was a general understanding that after the next general election; the Party led by the Prime Minister would declare themselves in favour of his policy. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had found it easy to criticise, the proposals of the Government. He need not remind his hon. and learned friend that the income-tax and the war were wedded together. We had to pay our way, and the moment our guns had ceased firing we could not knock off expenditure. Looking at the truth and the substance of the matter the great increase in our national expenditure during the last few years had been directly or indirectly due to the South African war. But it should be remembered that they

109
could not, immediately peace was declared, reduce expenditure which had been increased directly and indirectly by the South African War. He could not see any prospect of Civil Service expenditure being diminished, because every Department, year by year, had more business to transact. Take the Aliens Bill, there would be more salaries to pay, more printing, more paper to be used. Hon. Members seemed to forget that they could not take out of the Treasury more than they put into it. He was not going into the question of the necessity of the South African War—he still had his own opinion on that matter—but that war entailed a gigantic expenditure, and that war had led to a great public misconception of what it would produce. They had learnt that it was not a short cut to the establishment of happy relations between the two races. Until they had restored by wise statesmanship and patient consideration happy relations between the two races they would have a large military expenditure, and it would be many years before they would be able to reduce military expenditure to anything like what it was before that unfortunate war began.
It was all very well to say that their burdens were heavy, but they should think of the incalculable risks the nation would run if their defensive means were not adequate to those risks. Even if hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they might find it incumbent on them to send another 50,000 troops to South Africa. Preparation should be made in advance, and a long view should be taken of such matters if anything like adequate safety and security for the country was to be assured. The whole position had been changed since the South African War. Good sentiments and good feeling between this country and neighbouring Powers ought to be restored; but they should not take an immediate view of the situation only. Not since 1815 had an European war lasted for more than two years. This country could not build a great Fleet in six months and send it to sea. The country must depend on preparations made beforehand, much more than in other days; and any Government, Liberal or Conservative, would deserve the utmost censure if, in order to secure
110
popularity by reducing taxation, they were to leave the country open to a disaster which many generations might not see the end of. Therefore he associated himself with the efforts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been making not to diminish the strength of the Army and Navy. It could not be denied that for years the Navy had been the protector of the peace of Europe. What was to be avoided above all things was an oscillation between exaggerated alarms and a state of mind in which war was supposed to be impossible. He had heard, with considerable dissatisfaction, censure passed on the Government for having at a critical moment purchased two Chilian warships; but that purchase was only evidence of the determination of the Government to use its strength—and money was part of its strength—to make preparations which might be necessary. He should be sorry if any remarks he had addressed to the House should suggest that he had any doubt as to the necessity of supporting the Government when it produced a well thought-out scheme. He would indeed be loth to take on himself the responsibility of declaring hostility, for instance, to the purchase of the Chilian warships. It was probable that the time might come when the taxation of bread and butter and imported manufactures—the policy of making things dear in the interests of a class—might be taken up by a Unionist Government, and until that was disproved by a half-dozan words from the Prime Minister he would not feel full confidence in his right hon. friend. That battle might have to be fought out, but it could not be fought out on the present Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to provide for gigantic expenditure; he had to raise gigantic revenue to meet it; and did it in a simple fashion. It was always disagreeable to have to pay; but there was no sense in looking at one side of the problem only. The hon. and learned Member had denounced protectionism. But there was none in this Budget, and that battle had not to be fought now. It was a Budget which he could heartily support, as having been proved to be adequate to the difficulties of the situation.
*MR. KEARLEYsaid that during the debate a quantity of figures had been used to show how expenditure had grown during various periods; and comparison between various periods to prove that expenditure had been enormously increased. No hon. Member, however, had referred to the question as to how the present burden of taxation had affected the trade of the country, and he proposed to confine himself to that argument. The increased burden of taxation affected the trade of the country in two ways. In the first place the conduct of trade was affected by these repeated alterations of the duties on commodities. The tobacco tax was reduced in 1889 and increased in the following year. In 1900 the tea duty was increased twopence a pound. In the next year the sugar duty of a halfpenny a pound was imposed, carrying in its train eighty other duties on eighty other commodities of which it formed part, and in the next year there was the corn tax, which involved duties on seventy-five other articles. Now the tea duty was raised again. The effect on the conduct of business was most serious. It upset the whole machinery, involved the locking up of an increased amount of capital, and led to general disorganisation. But what was of far more importance was that it affected the volume of trade. Since the sugar tax was imposed there had been a falling off of 310,000 tons of imported sugar, instead of an annual increase of 40,000 tons. Every industry in the country had been affected. The 430,000 tons by which the imports had fallen off would have been fetched by British ships, landed in British docks, carried over British railways, and handled by British brokers and merchants, and all these people would have been so much the better off. This made perfectly clear the fact that the country had reached a point at which it could not continue to bear increased taxation. If it could, there would have been no diminution of consumption. It was obvious that there had been husbanding of means on the part of consumers who could not indulge so freely in the necessaries of life as they otherwise would do. The falling off, moreover, was in quality as well as quantity and extended to tea as well as to sugar, and
112
the tea duties had affected seriously the importation of British-grown tea and increased undesirable imports from other countries. The decrease for Ceylon tea in the last four years amounted to 20,000,000 lbs., which had been partially supplemented by the importation of 10,000,000 of cheap and nasty tea from China and countries other than British. That was not beneficial to the interests of our dependencies abroad. It was not very much to be wondered at that these taxes brought about a diminution of consumption. The nation's trade was not made by the purchases of the well-to-do. It was the daily and weekly purchases of the wage-earning classes, conprising three-fourths of the population, which made up the trade of a nation and enabled it to keep up large armies and navies, and bear the burden of this ever-increasing expenditure.
The outcome of his own practical business experience was that any increase of price was instantly followed by a diminution of consumption. If Chancellors of the Exchequer who of late had been so free in increasing taxes on commodities would bear that in mind, they would be more disposed than they appeared to be to devise some other means of raising taxes than by imposing them on food products. The amount they yielded to the Exchequer did not represent half the effect that the wage-earner felt. The consumer not only paid the tax but also every profit and expense incidental to it and the extra burden was at least 50 per cent. in excess of the Exchequer receipts. The course of a nation ought to be identical with that which they as individuals pursued themselves. They had to cut their coats according to their cloth, and there must be a limit to this increase of expenditure. There had not been a single word of encouragement from anyone speaking in an official capacity to lead them to expect that they might look forward for a diminution in this huge expenditure. We were tauntingly asked what we wished to cut down. His reply was that better administration would save millions; for example we were still feeling the burden of the reckless purchase of remounts at £50 a head which were worth

113
perhaps £17 and of the wild cat Somaliland and other filibustering expeditions. If the Government did not want to see the trade of the country seriously crippled they would have to recognise that we had really reached our limit and that there must be a stop somewhere. The Chancellor had tried to wave the flag, and he called his critics Little Englanders, and said they wanted to reduce the Navy, but he thought the country apprehended the real truth of the matter and realised that this Government had outlived its usefulness. They pretended they still enjoyed the confidence of the people. As a matter of fact the country was waiting for it outside. They only wanted the opportunity. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite were patriotic, and had the interests of the country really at heart, the sooner they gave it the opportunity of dismissing them the better it would be for the welfare of the nation.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned until this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  FINANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [16th May], "That the Bill be now road 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 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."
  SIR EDWARD SASSOONsaid he found it difficult to follow the hon. Member in his comprehensive and indiscriminate onslaught on the financial scheme of the
  114
  Chancellor of the Exchequer and, by implication, upon the whole policy of the Government. But in common with everybody in the House and in the country, he could not but feel deeply concerned at the continually increasing and apparently unlimited tale of expenditure. Nothing had been suggested to bring that expenditure more effectively under the control of the House. To an ordinary observer and student of public finance it was difficult to discover the ground for this increase of our Estimates. It could hardly be explained by the increase of population. There was no necessary or recognised equation between the increase of expenditure and the increase of population. In 1893–4 the population of this country increased by 3,000,000 and in the same year the expenditure increased by £12,500,000. In 1903–4. while the population had only increased by 3,750,000, or 750,000 more than the increase shown in 1893–4, the expenditure had increased by £85,500,000. The figures were appalling, but was that expenditure unnecessary? Persons with more courage than responsibility might say it was, but he agreed with the light hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said that no man could put his finger on any item and say that it could be reduced or done away with. He agreed that we must have a strong Navy, and there was a good deal of force in the contention that the two-Power standard should only apply to battleships and not to cruisers, for the reason that, with the exception of France, foreign Powers had few possessions oversea to protect and guard, whilst on the other hand we were under very heavy obligations to protect our huge mercantile marine, our sources of supply, and our kinsmen across the sea. He mentioned these facts to accentuate the difficulties in which the House found itself in considering this expenditure, and not to demonstrate the justice of the Estimates. It was obvious that when they came to the Army they had less substantial ground to go on. We could not expect to vie and compete with foreign Powers in huge territorial armies, and therefore the Government would do wisely in limiting the establishment of the Army to the smallest point consistent with Imperial obligations.

  115
  He was, however, at one with those who objected to the additional taxation of tea; that was an altogether retrograde tax and must be regarded with grave misgivings. In so far as this fresh impost would tend to raise the price of the higher grades, and consequently to fall on the well-to-do classes, he had not a word to say; but the effect it would necessarily have of rendering the low-grade leaf higher in cost to the poorest of the poor was much to be deplored. Was it denied that the price would be raised? If so, those who did deny it must admit that the dealers would have to recoup themselves by adulterating their wares. His belief was that the incidence of this further tax would have to be shared between the consumer and producer. And who were these producers? They were fellow-subjects of their own who sent practically 93 per cent, of all the teas consumed in this country; who had, by dint of considerable expenditure of capital, of laying down machinery and plant of a costly description and by the display of resource and ingenuity, built up this interesting and important industry. They had also had to bear the racket of the artificially-raised rupee and of having to pay a higher scale of wages, owing to the standard of comfort and of living having appreciable risen within the last twenty years. What a strange and scarcely creditable commentary it was on the policy pursued by this House—and both Parties were tarred with the same brush—that, while they insisted on our maintaining the doctrines of free trade against India's own well-considered wishes and convictions, and while they insisted on her Government avoiding the merest scintilla of protection, or of protective tendency, even in cases such as the lower kind of cotton fabrics, where by no stretch of the imagination could any protective effect be proved to ensue, they were about to endorse the imposition of a tax on tea which, on the most numerous category of imports, could not be less than 100 per cent.
  The present situation was due to the fact that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an ebullition of somewhat misplaced generosity, took off a penny too much on the income-tax, and, in a still weaker moment, abolished the small
  116
  registration tax upon corn which was easy of collection, harrassed nobody, and therefore was the most ideal tax that could be levied. It was a thousand pities that the Chancellor of the Exchequer disdained other sources of revenue, because, he supposed, they were out of the beaten track; in which circumstances tea fell an easy prey to the grasping exactions of the Treasury. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he had exhausted all other possible and innocuous expedients? There was, for instance, the article of aerated and mineral waters. Something like 3,500,000,000 half-pints were, it was estimated, consumed annually in the United Kingdom. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer taxed the waters sold at 2s. a dozen 1d. per dozen, and the water sold at a higher price 3d. perdozen, he would obtain the£2,000,000 of which he stood in need. Then there were the imports of wasteful articles of luxury—such as diamonds, feathers and plumage, lace, expensive skins and furs. As regarded diamonds, the statistical abstract showed an import of only £46,000 for 1902, but that was a ludicrously low figure, and he should think the amount would be nearer two millions. Feathers and lace, seal skins, and furs amounted to over £6,000,000, so that a tax of three per cent., excluding diamonds, would bring in enough to balance the Budget. If these suggestions were rejected, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of giving an advalorem character to the additional tax on tea, so as to mitigate, if not avert, the severe incidence of the tax upon the poorest of the poor. The criticisms upon the Budget from the other side of the House had been singularly sterile. It was all very well for hon. Members to say they would only prescribe when called in, but he thought it was their duty to endeavour to make a Budget, which was admittedly framed on normal and traditional lines, as satisfactory as possible, rather than try to manufacture Party capital out of it. Until they did so he would have no difficulty in reconciling his own criticisms with support of the Bill.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid the general trend of the remarks of the hon. Baronet, who, from his

  117
  wide experience in commercial affairs was always listened to with interest, showed that he was alarmed at the magnitude of the national expenditure. The hon. Baronet had intimated that there had been a great sterility in suggestions and proposals from the Liberal Benches as to how the revenue which it was necessary to raise should be obtained. It did not lie with the Opposition to make proposals of that kind; they were not in office and it was not for them, who did not know and had not the information which the Government possessed, to bring forward any proposals. He was anxious to call attention to a different and wider aspect of national finance. During the half century previous to the last great settlement of the franchise and redistribution questions, the House was predominantly Liberal, and during the eighteen years since then it had been predominantly Conservative. If it were shown that the latter period had been marked by a policy which had led to an enormous increase of expenditure he thought the Conservatives would admit that that was their responsibility. There were signs that a new era was about to be entered upon, and that the period to which he had referred, with some of its great characteristics, was coming to an end. He could not understand hon. Members apologising for quoting figures in this debate. Finance was based upon figures. He remembered that Mr. Gladstone used to say that of all inanimate things Consols were the most intelligent, and that figures revealed the industrial and commercial state of the country in a way that nothing else did. It was admitted on all hands that the growth of expenditure was alarming, if not appalling; but even more serious than the growth itself was the rate of that growth. According to Sir Henry Fowler's Return, the expenditure during the financial year ending 31st March, 1887, was £78,000,000; during the year ending 31st March, 1896,£86,000,000; and during the year ending 31st March, 1905,£126,000,000; therefore, during the first period of nine years the rate of growth was 11 per cent., whereas in the second period of nine years it was 50 per cent. That was the way the country was drifting and its seriousness; could not be exaggerated.
  118
  There had been a significant admission made in the course of the debate, that we had now reached the limit of the taxable capacity of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply had mentioned the national income as£1,700,000,000 or £1,800,000,000, but. doubts had been expressed as to the accuracy of that figure. An interesting Return was got out for Mr. Gladstone's; Budget speech of 1881 showing the population, revenue, and expenditure. He wished very much that some revised Return showing those figures could be presented, for they were most interesting and most vital. He believed; that taxation was growing at a much faster rate than either the population or the ability of the people to contribute, and such a condition of affairs was much to be deprecated. Another interesting point was the relation of the various heads of expenditure one to another. He took the expenditure under three heads. Under the first head lie took all that was paid by way of interest or repayment of debt; under the second head all Civil expenses; and under the third head expenditure on the Navy and Army. Out of every £100 of expenditure in 1887, £32 went in interest and repayment of debt; £24 for the Civil Service, and £44 for armaments; in 1896 the corresponding figures were £30, £27, and £53; whereas £23 was now spent on interest and repayment of debt,£26 on the Civil Service and £51 on the Navy and Army. Surely it would be admitted that to increase expenditure on armaments relatively to that spent on civil affairs showed a nation was travelling on wrong road.
  But the whole question, as all would admit, rested on policy. During the eighteen years that the Conservative Party had been predominant this country had entered on an unparalleled course of expansion abroad, and the dominant note had been a certain restless aggressiveness. He would quote in connection the words of a very high authority indeed—
  "For the last twelve years you have been laying your hands with almost frantic eagerness on every tract of territory adjacent to your own or desirable from any point of view you thought it desirable to take. That has had two results. The first result is this, that you have excited to an almost intolerable decree the envy of other colonising nations, and that in the case of many countries, or several countries rather,

  119
  that were friendly to you, you can reckon, in consequence of your colonial policy, not on their active benevolence but on their active malevolence."
  This was strong language coming from such a statesman as the Earl of Rosebery—"malevolence" on the part of other countries must have had its influence in this need for Greater naval expenditure. By this territorial extension during the eighteen Years to which he had referred 60,000,000 people had been added to the Empire. It must be borne in mind that these and indeed millions of the coloured races which were included in the Empire were governed not as self-governing colonies, by their own free will and consent, but in the last resort by force. That was a great factor in the increase of the Army during the last eighteen years. Lord Salisbury had spoken in strong terms against the policy of expansion. He also noticed that the late Secretary for India had lately declared, and the Prime Minister had agreed, that this country had quite as much on its hands in the way of territory and people in Asia as it could manage. The most potent influence in this policy was the ex-Colonial Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman had over and over again claimed that it was to the advantage of this country to add to the Empire these peoples and areas, that it was good for trade, and what not. In regard to trade, there was no proof whatever that that belief had been realised. Trade had not developed in proportion to these additional responsibilities. Not even in Egypt, with all the advantages of lord Cromer's master-hand, had British trade increased So fast as that of other nations. Something had been said as to Committee of Supply in relation to national finance. But he did not believe that debates in Committee of Supply would have any effective control over national expenditure, nor had he any faith in setting up new Committees. They would rather fritter away the responsibility of the Government. It might be an old-fashioned notion, but he preferred that the Government of the day should have full and entire control over, and be responsible for, their Estimates.
  The matter really resolved itself into the question of whether
  120
  the money spent upon armaments could be lessened. That was the real crux of the matter. He was not an expert in naval matters, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said the other day that no sufficient reason had been given for the increase in the Naval Estimates this year; and such an opinion coming from a Gentleman with the experience and ability of the right hon. Gentleman was quite sufficient for him. He did entreat the Government to see whether there was not an opening for making an agreement with other Powers for the reduction of armaments. He agreed with the Prime Minister that the preservation of the honour of our country could be consistent with the preservation of the peace of the world. He regarded the Amendment as a pledge that the Liberal Party when it came into power would endeavour to reduce our national expenditure, and particularly in regard to armaments. The nation wanted, and he hoped they would soon have, a return, to the spirit and methods of Gladstonian finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said there was not much interest taken in the debate if the number of Members in attendance could be taken as a criterion. The right hon. Gentleman might have added that the absentees were mainly on the Government side of the House.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that his point was that hon. Members opposite were contending that a grave crisis had arisen in the financial affairs of the country, and yet there were not twenty members of the Opposition present to emphasise the gravity of the crisis.
  *Mr. JOHN ELLISsaid he would leave the right hon. Gentleman to settle the exact number of Members in attendance, but it was the fact that there had been a much larger attendance on the Opposition than on the Government side of the House. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's reason was that on the Ministerial side there was satisfaction and on the Opposition side there was dissatisfaction with the present state of things. This Parliament had been distinguished by its want of attention to debate from the Government benches. It was a significant fact that

  121
  the Ministerial Benches had been constantly empty during the debates. He thought there was another reason for that, and it was to be found in the fact that this was a moribund House of Commons. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] That was so, and that was why the attendance of hon. Members opposite was so poor. They were not interested in what was going on because many of them did not expect to return to the House of Commons. He supported this Amendment because he believed that the House of Commons should be mainly occupied with considering the wants, wishes, and feelings of the dwellers in the British Isles. They were the people upon whom lay the enormous responsibilities of empire, and upon whose character and capacity the whole of the structure depended. He hoped and believed that the efforts of the new Parliament which would be elected before long would be mainly turned in that direction.
  MR. CUST: said he did not think it was necessary for him to answer, at any great length, the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member began his remarks by defining the attitude of the Opposition, and he accused the Government of sterility. He would venture to point out to the hon. Member that it was not only the duty of the Opposition to criticise, but also to correct, and if they only criticised without correction, they were but barren fig trees and cumbered the ground. The only suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member was that the present expenditure of the country ought to be diverted into other channels. He thought that criticism was somewhat cryptic. The hon. Member made an accusation against Unionists as being responsible for the growth of the expenditure, because they had been the predominant Party for the last eighteen years. He would venture to point out that the Unionists could not have remained a predominant power in the country unless they had had the support of the majority of the House of Commons and of the electors. Therefore he thought the growing expenditure was justified, for otherwise the Government could not have existed. As for the figures into
  122
  which the hon. Member had plunged, they were interesting, but they were all admitted, and they all knew in what direction the expenditure had gone. It seemed to him that the interesting speech to which they had just listened, showed once more that there was something unreal, something of pose in this blind frontal attack on expenditure. Speaker after speaker, like phantom after phantom, with the Leader of the Opposition in the part of Banquo, rose up eloquent in criticism, but dumb in suggestion. For instance, the hon. Member for Oldham, who was pleased yesterday to amuse himself at the expense of the House, and to amuse the House at the expense of himself, talked as if economy was the be-all and end-all of national existence. With great respect to his hon. friend he wished to say that that seemed to him to be mere nonsense. Of course, all money was wealth, but all wealth was certainly not money. The capitalised value of Russia, for instance, was infinitely greater than the capitalised value of Japan, but it was Japan's timely expenditure upon what the Opposition had called wasted armaments which had placed Japan in the advantageous position in which she stood in relation to her wealthier enemy.
  Everybody wanted low taxes and everybody wanted economy, and nothing was more likely to secure popularity than a loud cry for retrenchment. At the same time he wished to point out that nothing was more liable to cause panic retrenchment. The two tendencies of panic retrenchment and panic expenditure were bound inevitably to succeed each other. He thought that the history of the last century showed that panic economy was fully as dangerous as panic extravagance. To-day, as after every war, there was, he would not say a panic, but a passion for economy, and it was, perhaps, worth while to consider the position in general facts and not simply as regarded the figures. Many of the facts seemed to have been ignored altogether, and the figures had been exaggerated. One obvious question with regard to the increased expenditure must be considered, and that question was how far this increase of expenditure was singular to ourselves, and was it normal or abnormal? It was generally admitted that when a man or a business or a nation

  123
  increased its establishment it also increased its expenditure. Whether the increased establishment was desirable, or necessary, or not, might be another question, but that question was not raised in this debate. The fact was, that the establishment had been raised and they were now dealing solely with the expenditure. They were merely told that economy for economy's sake was a very desirable quality and characteristic. It seemed to him that, in what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had called the Gladstonianepoch, there had been a certain confusion between the word "Retrenchment and the word "Reform," and they had become almost interchangeable terms. But retrenchment was not necessarily reform, and very often it was exactly the opposite of reform For instance, in the new Army scheme the cutting down of the Auxiliary Forces to such an extent as to seriously impair their value and efficiency as a military body was not a measure of reform but an absolutely riotous measure of false economy. It was worth while in this respect to consider what other countries were doing in order to see whether we were singular, or normal, or abnormal. The House ought to remember that the whole modern tendency was towards increased establishment and a larger central expenditure, over a more widely expanding area of government. Centralisation and expansion must of necessity mean expenditure, and of the new order of things he would suggest that Germany and Italy were two quite new spending centres, whereas the United States, France, Russia, and Great Britain were continuously expanding Empires. He wished the House not to altogether forget that expansion of territory and government ultimately meant new sources of wealth. They had now the markets of Canada and Australia and the Colonies, which were a great source of wealth and credit.
  There was also another reason for the rise of expenditure during the last thirty years. There were periods when every business and every nation and every spending body had to go through a certain number of years of re-equipment, and the further that day of re-equipment was postponed the larger would be the arrears and the greater would be the outlay required to bring it about. He would quote three instances
  124
  in totally different spheres which proved this point. In the first place he would give the case of the American railways. They were originally built on light rails, with light ballast, light trucks, and light engines, but as the railways expanded and the trade enlarged a period of re-equipment had to be faced. Consequently heavier rails, ballast, trucks, and engines had to be provided, and during the time that this conversion was taking place, involving KH enormous outlay, the dividends of the companies practically came to an end. But since that re-equipment had come into full working order the dividends had largely increased and were now more than repaying the enormous expenditure for re-equipment. In the second place, he would take the case of the British Navy. The Navy, they had been told, was making to-day abnormal demands upon the public purse not very far behind the requirements of the National Debt. The outlay they were asked to meet to-day was only the logical fulfilment of Lord Spencer's naval programme which was brought in under a Liberal Government. He would take as his third case an instance which occurred only yesterday. As they would have observed from the newspapers, there had been a sudden awakening of the Austrian Government, and they had discovered that their armaments were not up to the European standard, and as soon as they were satisfied that they would be placed at a disadvantage in this respect in case of war, they brought in a demand for £16,000,000, which of course might possibly be dead loss, but which the Austrian Government recognised as a necessary insurance for the future security of the country. He quoted that simply to illustrate what he believed to be the truth, namely, that the cause of the great expenditure in this country during the last thirty years was very largely a subsidiary cause and was due to the fact that this country had been passing through a period of re-equipment not only in regard to the Army and Navy and education, but in all other branches of the spending services; and although it might not be necessary to go on for ever spending at such a high rate, such expenditure had been justified up to the present time. He had no doubt that the high rate of expenditure from 1885 to 1903 was very largely

  125
  due to the starvation of the expenditure between the years 1859 and 1885.
  He had made a comparison between the expenditure of this country with other countries during the last ten years. This was an extremely difficult task, because the comparison could only be made piecemeal, for France, wisely or unwisely, kept practically no accounts, and Germany adopted the "federal" system, under which her accounts were very complex things to study. The United States adopted the States system, and that again made it a country almost impossible to compare with our own. There were, however, certain points worth noting, and he would take, in the first place, the case of France. During the last thirty years the ordinary Budget in France had more than doubled. This meant more than it did in the case of our own Budget, because the ordinary Budget of France excluded what they called "special" budgets, such as the cost of the expedition to China, subventions to various industries and trades, and also what were known as the "extra-Budgetary" expenses, such as railways, which from 1874 to 1899 amounted to 1,315,000,000 francs or about £52,000,000, or equal to about £2,000,000 a year. The Budget of France also excluded the Colonial Budgets, which were very difficult to estimate, but which amounted, at least for the period he was considering, to 110,000,000 francs or about £4,000,000, excluding Algeria. This made the total Budget of France, as far as could be gained from the French authorities at least, £160,000,000 or £170,000,000 a year, and that had been doubled in thirty years. There was some explanation for that expenditure on account of the increased establishment which had been going on in France as in this country, and in the same way the wealth of France had been expanding in order to meet the expenditure.
  If he was not wearying the House he would like to make a comparison in regard to the National Debt. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had sobbed at large over the additions to the National Debt caused by the war, but in the year 1892 the French National Debt was 21,000,000,000 francs, and the interest upon that sum was 739,000,000
  126
  francs. In 1902, the French National Debt stood at 30,000,000,000 francs and the interest paid upon it was 1,200,000,000 francs. Therefore, the British National Debt was £770,000,000, with a charge of £23,000,000, as compared with the French National Debt, excluding local debt amounting to £1,214,000,000, with a charge of £48,500,000. In other words, to put it quite clearly, the French public debt represented in capital £31 3s. per head of the population, with a charge for interest of £1 5s. per head of the population, whilst the British public debt was represented in capital by £18 17s. per head of the population, and the charge for interest 12s. 10d. per head. France was the only country whose expenditure and income could be taken as like to our own, but the task was rendered difficult because France kept no accurate account. However much expenditure was exaggerated in Opposition speeches or in speeches made by alarmist Conservatives, he thought the record of public burdens in the comparison he had made with France showed that from the actual figures this country had nothing to fear by a fair comparison. Even in the United States there was sufficient evidence of a similar expansion of expenditure, due largely, but not entirely, to an expansion in establishment. In 1892, the expenditure in the United States was $345,000,000; in 1903, $640,000,000; in 1904, the estimate was $661,000,000; and for 1905 the estimate was $727,000,000. This showed that whereas in the year 1892 the expenditure in the United States was $345,000,000, in 1905 the estimated amount required was $727,000,000, OT nearly double the amount required in 1892. It should be remembered that this was in addition to the State taxes, which for 1890 where put at $470,000,000. He did not say that these figures were conclusive, but he did say that they were illustrative and suggestive. His object had been to show that the recent rise in expenditure had not been merely due to a mad spirit of waste and extravagance, but the expenditure had reasons and limits. The outlay was a reasoned one and was limitable.
  There was one other point he wished to raise. It should be remembered that they were not taxing the same estate between 1898 and 1902 as

  127
  during the period between 1883 and 1897. Twenty years had elapsed and they were now taxing a totally different property. During that period wages bad risen 50 per cent. The inland revenue had risen 40 percent. Smaller profits and salaries which did not come within the purview of Somerset House were calculated to amount to £200,000,000 a year, and the total income of the country made up by all these figures was now very close upon £2,000.000.000 a year. "We were now taxing that amount as compared with £1,400000,000 twenty years ago. The national income showed an increase of 38 per cent., and the population an increase of 15 per cent. He thought all these considerations ought to be taken into account in forming a judgment on the increased expenditure of the country. He did not say that there was no cause for serious inquiry, but he did say that there was no cause for panic or trembling at our national expenditure. It seemed to him that any inquiry into national expenditure ought to go hand in hand with an inquiry into the system of taxation, its incidence on various classes, and above all its possible and equitable. At expansion. At present our hands were tied. Apart from a few necessary articles on one side, and the income-tax, which was strongly condemned by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden, we had absolutely no new sources of supply to fall back upon. A graduated income-tax had been quite possible in Prussia, and he believed that a wide increase of graduated direct and indirect taxation might ensure the elasticity of our future finance. New taxes, protectionist or not, would always be unpopular, but the House should remember that popular or not, they simply implied a wider distribution of the burden of public taxation. But they must increase the possible area of taxation, and they could pot do that in a moment. If they had a wide field of possible taxation, if the expenditure was carefully presented in a way they would be able to understand, and if they throw away formulas for common sense, he humbly thought there need be no fear for the financial future.
  *MR. GOUDARDsaid he wished to offer some practical suggestions
  128
  for reducing the very heavy expenditure they were now considering. Nobody who had listened to the debate would say that a discussion on the expenditure of the country was either untimely or unneeded. The watching of expenditure was one of the principal functions of the House of Commons, and it demanded far closer attention than had hitherto been given to it. They found all sorts of questions raised on proposals of taxation, and yet, after all, taxation was not so important as expenditure. Taxation was the outward and visible sign of expenditure, and, argue as they might as to the incidence of taxation, as to the kind of articles that ought to be taxed, and as to the persons upon whom taxes would fall, taxation depended on expenditure, and expenditure in its turn depended on policy. Policy was a matter for which the Government of the country was responsible, and anybody who had followed the history of the country since this Government came into office in 1895 on the question of cordite, would see that it had been a very bleeding time for the people. Soon after the Government came into office the first step in the downward grade of extravagant policy was made in connection with the doles. There was money enough, at all events, to expend in the interest of their friends—those whom they wished to keep on their side while in office, and after they went out of office. That alone involved the country in an expenditure of £3,000,000. They were told that there was no use grumbling about taxes, that they passed the Estimates, and that they must find the money to pay for them. That was the one argument which had been used against the Amendment. There was a great deal of truth in that, but he would ask how much control had Parliament over the Estimates? He could not help saying that the policy of the Government on the question of the Estimates had never been favourable to economy, or the reduction of expenditure. The debates in Committee of Supply were limited to twenty-one or twenty-three days, and he thought that this arrangement lent itself to extravagance. How many Votes were passed by the House under the guillotine without comment or debate? In 1903 they ran through Votes after ten o'clock

  129
  amounting to £5,552,896 without any comment. In 1902 they passed Votes under the guillotine Rule for over £12,000,000, and that included £2,317,800 I on the Navy, £758,600 on the Army, and £2,440,185 on Revenue Services. In 1901, under the same Rule, they passed Votes for upwards of £67,000,000 in something like an hour, that sum including £14,209,300 on the Navy, £44,988,600 on the Army, and £2,884,880 on Revenue Services. These Votes never received the slightest Parliamentary criticism, and in view of those facts he asked—What was the use of the Government asking hon. Members to deal with expenditure on the Estimates?
  It was this very Government that set up a Committee to deal with the question of public expenditure. Why had the Government, if they had any real regard for economy, paid no heed to the recommendations of the Committee on Public Expenditure? One recommendation was that the Estimates should be submitted to some kind of Committee. With, regard to the Army and Navy Votes, he could not help thinking that the diversion of money from one Vote to another was a dangerous practice and led to extravagance. He found that under this system very large sums had been devoted to purposes which had never been considered by Parliament at all. It might be said that this was done in accordance with a long established custom of this House, and that the Government were not responsible, but he could not help feeling that this Government were in an exceptional position, having been long in office, with a large majority behind them, and if their policy had made for economy they could have altered the system. In the third Report of the Public Accounts Committee, 1900, the following words appeared—
  "Estimates of cost submitted for Parliamentary sanction should be such as the House of Commons can accept as final."
  That was sound sense, but it had never been acted on, and never would be so long as they allowed the money voted for one purpose to be diverted to another. To illustrate the working of this system, he mentioned that in the Army Estimates for 1901–2, under Vote 10, Works, etc, there were twenty-two items which were largely exceeded, with Treasury sanction.
  130
  The excess sometimes was as much as 100 per cent, on the money voted by Parliament. There were seven cases of money voted by Parliament, amounting to £17,800, of which not a penny was spent. There were four cases of work begun without estimate at all and merely on Treasury sanction. He contended that was making Parliamentary control a mere mockery The Comptroller and Auditor-General had called the Committee's attention to a case where the House had passed an estimate for £14,019 for three lighters, while the actual cost was £28,306, being more than double what the House voted. In any ordinary man's business that would spell ruin. What was the explanation? That it was a convenient time to build a fourth lighter and that, instead of the excess being 102 per cent., it was only 49 per cent. A new lighter was ordered, for which an Estimate was never brought before Parliament. By this extravagant system, if the Admiralty came to the Treasury and declared it was urgent to begin to build a new battle-ship at once—it would cost £1,000,000, but only £100,000 would be spent this year and that sum had been saved from other Votes—the Treasury had power to sanction the expenditure, and commit the country to a new battleship, though it had never been considered or sanctioned by Parliament. He would instance "another case. A store was built at Gibraltar for the Navy, and the cost on the Navy Vote was £42,000, but it was found to be too damp for holding ammunition, and it was converted into a cold meat store at an additional cost of £47,000, making a total of £89,000, of which the Army paid £23,000 and the Navy £66,000. What relation was there between that expenditure and the Estimate laid before Parliament? This removal of Parliamentary control was a, most harmful thing in connection with our finances. The knowledge that surpluses of one Vote could be used to meet deficits of another Vote, removed one of the incentives to economy.
  They had been challenged to give practical suggestions. The practical suggestion the would make was that the power of Treasury sanction over the Votes for the Army and Navy should be limited in the same way

  131
  as it was over the Civil Service Votes, in regard to which it had no power to sanction the application of money voted for one purpose to another and different purpose. There were cases in which the Treasury had to give sanction to certain expenditure which had been, incurred before sanction was asked. In 1902 there wag the question of the rifle range at Enfield. The War Office, on the ground of the urgency of the work, put it in hand and asked sanction. The Treasury replied that in that case they did not see sufficient justification for their not being consulted before the expenditure was incurred, but of course they gave way. Parliament had no control over the Treasury, because, after the money had been spent, they were obliged to give sanction to it. If the Government had really in their mind the idea of economy there were many practical ways of dealing with it if they chose. Laxity in the large spending Departments depended on the lavish policy of the Government, and they would continue to have all the paraphernalia of extravagance so long as there was laxity and extravagance on the Treasury Bench. Peace, retrenchment and reform were still the watchwords which the House, as the guardian of the people's treasure, should respect in fact as well as in sentiment. He heartily supported the Amendment, because he thought that there was great need indeed for peace, retrenchment and reform.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that be ventured to remark with profound respect, in regard to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, that economy with reference to the Army Estimates was not always the short cut to efficiency. They all knew that after the Peninsular and Crimean Wars the Estimates for the Army were cut down, and that on account of economic views then prevailing, the Army was afterwards without transport, ambulances, and almost everything that was wanted. In 1857, during the Indian Mutiny, the Army was rather better off; but when the expedition up the Nile was, undertaken, Lord Wolseley had to take the cream of 100 battalions in order to get an effective force of 17,000 men. There were many other illustrations in
  132
  recent history that it cost a good deal more than judicious expenditure at the right time and in the right way. If he might venture to allude to the speech of the junior Member for Oldham, he would say that that speech might as well have been read from the other side of the House; and he utterly failed to see what the hon. Member's attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, had to do with the question before the House. He should like to say that if the representatives of the agricultural interest of the country had had their way, they would have liked to have had the re-imposition of the registration duty on wheat and a little something on flour which would have been a benefit to the farmers of the country. It was reported that the Emperor Charles V. of Spain had said that if he had only been consulted as to the Creation, he might have given some useful hints to the Almighty. If the agricultural interest had been consulted in regard to the com duty they would have said that they were perfectly content to leave things as they were.
  MR. ASQUITH: There has been so much general agreement in the course of this debate in all quarters of the House outside the Treasury Bench as to the main proposition affirmed by the Amendment of my right hon. friend that I can assure the House that I am going to occupy only two or three minutes in pressing once more and for the last time upon the Government for a further defence of the past and a more definite assurance as to the future. Sir, the sum and substance of the debate which has taken place in the last two nights may, I think be fairly expressed, with a slight modification in language, in the classic words of a Resolution once passed by this House—"That our expenditure has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." The principal facts are undisputed because they are beyond dispute and they are expressed in figures. I will only trouble the House with two or three figures which speak for themselves and are more eloquent than any comment which could be made upon them. It is conceded that during the last ten years our national expenditure—I am leaving out

  133
  of account expenditure for local purposes—has increased by £50,000,000 in round numbers, or at the rate of £5,000,000 a year. It is conceded that the annual cost of the Navy and Army during that time has doubled, indeed more than doubled. It is an undoubted that the capital of the Debt has been added to by at least £135,000,000 and, although that, of course, was a debt incurred for abnormal expenditure, yet the burden of the interest is, until it is liquidated, a standing charge upon the annual finances of the country. And if you turn to the other aspect of the matter, as it is natural and appropriate to do in discussing a Finance Bill, and measure our expenditure by the additional taxation imposed upon the people, you will find this significant fact—that of the £33,500,000 which was put on in the shape of additional taxation either actually for the war or, at any rate, under the pressure of circumstances connected with the war, we shall in the year whose financial arrangements we are considering, still be subject to £25,500,000. In other words, the war being over, except for the permanent addition to the Debt, and the expenses of the war being completely liquidated, out of that additional taxation of £33,500,000, we have only saved some £7,000,000 or £7,500,000.
  These are figures that, are beyond controversy, and one naturally asks—What is the apology which is offered on the part of those who are responsible for our finance? It has taken various forms in the course of the debate. The first, and from a Parliamentary point of view, the simplest and most obvious is what we may call the tu quoque, which is addressed on this occasion not only to those who sit on this Bench and have been themselves responsible for the finances of the country in the past, but to private Members and to the House at large. As regards us who sit here and here and were most of us responsible, in a greater or 1osser degree, for the finances of the country during the years 1892–95, I do not think we have any reason to fear comparison with those who succeeded us. I am not in the least degree ashamed to avow that I was a party to that expenditure, and I am perfectly prepared to justify it both in scale and proportion, as against
  134
  those who came after us. What is the addition that we made during the three years that we were in office from 1892 to 1895? The average annual increase was a little over £2,000,000 a year. During the next four years—and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Bristol was entirely responsible for the finances of the country during the four years which succeeded our Administration—the annual average increase was £4,000,000 a year; and during the last five years, in which the administration of the finances has been shared by different Chancellors of the Exchequer sitting on that Bench, the annual average increase has been no less than £6,000,000 a year. So, our record being a little over £2,000,000, during the next four years—I am taking a slightly different distribution of period from that adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening, but it is perfectly accurate—during the next four years that was multiplied by nearly two, and during the succeeding five years it amounted to £6,000,000. I do not think we have any reason to fear a comparison. The other form of tu quoque is a reproach addressed to the House at large. The House is supposed to be particeps criminis in this large expenditure. I agree that the Executive Government of the day, to whatever Party it belongs, is entitled and bound to resist improvident demands for extravagant expenditure for particular services from whatever quarter they proceed. But I have looked into the matter as to this session, at any rate, and I doubt very much whether, if all the proposed additions of expenditure suggested by private Members in any part of the House were added together they would amount to as much as the cost of a single battleship, [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] I am speaking of discussions in Committee of Supply, which is the place where these suggestions are mainly made, and I ought to add the payment of Members and the lighting dues of the shipping interest. I believe that as far as my estimate goes, if added together the amount, comparatively speaking, is relatively an insignificant sum. However that may be, it is not essential to my argument. I venture to repeat with the strongest emphasis what was said by

  135
  my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, that there is a totally different measure of responsibility as regards the private Member and the Executive Government of the day. They have to regard public of the day. Expenditure as a whole. It is the right and the duty of the private Member in regard to some particular interest and claim to urge them on the Executive of the day; but no aggregation of claims of that kind can possibly justify neglect on the part of the Executive in discharging the primary function of safeguarding the finances of the country.
  The second line of defence adopted by the official apologists of this increased expenditure is the growing prosperity of the country. I confess that is a line of defence with which I have considerable sympathy. We have been told so often in the past few months that the country is on the verge of ruin owing to our fiscal arrangements, that it is a 'relief to hear, after all, that we have this abounding reservoir of wealth out of which we can defray this unprecedented increase of expenditure. In one of the speeches made it was declared that "disaster was only kept from us by our increased trade and commerce." I accept the official assurance given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury that we may dismiss from our minds this gloomy cloud of pessimism which his hung so heavily on our spirits. On this point of the argument, that derived from the increased prosperity of the country, I will venture to repeat what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, that you must regard not only the amount, but the distribution, of the national income and expenditure. It is easy to say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his able and interesting speech, that a ma n who is below the level of the income-tax, If he forswears beer, spirits, and tobacco, and confines himself to the consumption of bread and meat, and a little tea, may voluntarily escape a great deal of taxation which we commonly call indirect taxation. When we are discussing the apportionment of the burden of expenditure and taxation as between different classes of the country, you must take things as they are and men as they are.
  136
  You must not take an ideal and abstract person, the man who lives an ascetic and isolated life, who shuts himself off from the common enjoyments and more or less perilous luxuries of our experience. You must deal with the human being as you find him. And if you come to analyse the burden of expenditure you will find that, it presses with increasing weight on the people less able to bear it.
  The third and the last defence suggested, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer consists in asking, "Where are you going to reduce your expenditure?" Primarily that is a question for the Executive themselves, I will show very high authority for that proposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to* the "doles" given from Imperial funds in aid of particular interests—agriculture and the owners of tithe rent-charge—and he asked, "When you come into office are you going to repeal them?" I will reply by a quotation from the greatest of our financial authorities. Speaking in 1869 on this very subject, Mr. Gladstone said that he knew no reason why £3,000,000 should at that time have been added to the public expenditure. "But it is one thing to put on £3,000,000, and it is quite another to take them off. By putting on £3,000,000 you create a number of offices, a number of new claims and new expectations, and you could not and ought not to destroy all these in a moment. Therefore the work of retrenchment must be a gradual work." Therefore, without discussing how far it would be possible, with regard to any specific class of expenditure, to retrench or reduce, the House must always remember that putting on is a very different to taking off. One thing is extremely easy and the other is extremely difficult. When you have created interests and expectations, a whole network of difficulties have been brought into existence. Let me give one or two illustrations. The right hon. Gentleman took the case of West Africa, and asked if we were going to diminish the grant spent in developing that part of the Empire for what we are all agreed to be a great Imperial need—the supply of an alternative field for the growth of cotton. I do not answer one way or the other. Personally, I am strongly in sympathy with the scheme, and I think it improbable

  137
  that the grant would be discontinued. But you must not look to "West Africa alone. Suppose you look to Somaliland. During the very time that this defence is offered, you have expended in Somaliland £2,500,000 upon an adventure which, as far as we can now judge by the admission of the Government themselves, was from first to last misconceived, mishandled, and futile.
  Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman points to the Army. The Army has been a natural and proper topic in the course of this debate. It is very easy to talk generalities about the Army, and we all agree that if we have an Array it is a mere platitude to say that we want one that is sufficient in size, efficient in equipment, and economic in administration. But have we any assurance when we look back upon the history of the last five years either that we have such an Army or are likely to get such an Army from the present Government? Only three years ago the Government launched with much expenditure of Parliamentary time and with a rhetorical benediction from the Prime Minister an ambitious and expensive scheme which now they themselves admit to be unseaworthy, and which they are going to withdraw. I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for War in introducing the Army Estimates this year. I will not say it was the foundation of his case, but a point on which he strongly insisted was that the system with which he found himself confronted and which he was about to reform was one which in many of its most vital features was unduly costly and totally inefficient. And what is the system put in its place? For many of the changes proposed I have much sympathy. But this House of Commons, asked to pass the Second Reading of this Finance Bill, has not the remotest idea of what is to be the cost of the Army. We have dummy Estimates put upon the Table and admitted by the Secretary of State to be framed upon lines which the Government have discarded; and until we have the further information which we have not yet extracted from the Government we have not the remotest idea what will be the ultimate Army account. That fact alone is
  138
  sufficient to entitle us to challenge the abnormal expenditure which the House is asked to vote.
  As to the Navy, here again it is possible to indulge in generalities on which everyone will agree. We all hold that the Navy is our first and may be our last line of defence, and that the maintenance of the supremacy of the sea is not only expedient but absolutely necessary for a country which is more dependent than any country in the world for its food supply upon sea-borne commodities. That necessity is still further enhanced by the fact that we possess by far the largest mercantile tonnage of all the marines in the world. I was rather relieved to hear that acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We had been told in authoritative quarters that our shipping was declining and that we were being rapidly overhauled by competitors and were on the verge of ruin. This is part of the invisible exports which, because they are invisible, some people treat as if they were non-existent. But, admitting that all these duties are cast upon our Navy and that the make it necessary for us to look upon that Navy as our first and most important line of defence, I should like to ask one or two questions of the Prime Minister as to what is called the two-Power standard suggested by the Estimates of this year. That standard applies, as we understand, only to battleships and does not apply to cruisers. When we had a discussion in Committee of Supply the Prime Minister told us that, apart from battleships, the two-Power standard was an elastic standard. Now a standard that is elastic is, from the very word, not a standard at all. I think the House is entitled to know what is the standard which, apart from battleships, the Government, on the advice of its naval experts, adopts. The second question I would put to the Prime Minister is with regard to the two-nation-power—the actual number and the equipment. I should like to know something about that. What is the relative quality, the age, the tonnage, and the power? I should also, in connection with this question, like to ask how it is that, if our standard as regards battleships is only equivalent to that of the two largest

  139
  Powers of the world, our expenditure for four or five years past is as much as the combined expenditure of three combined Powers. I do not put this question with any desire that there should be an undue retrenchment—I think I am entitled to Bay that. I have consistently voted every year in favour of an adequate naval expenditure and I do not press this retrenchment beyond the level of safety. There is a natural and inevitable expenditure in naval matters to meet the needs of the country, and I believe it is one of the cardinal features of this House to regard that with vigilance. The burden, however, has been steadily growing during the last ten years, and during the last five years it has been growing at an accelerated and a wholly unexampled rate. I think the figures speak plainly without any addition from me. Here we are in a time of profound peace, with an expenditure of £120,000,000 raised out of the taxes, I am not dealing with other expenditure, with an income-tax at 1s. and a tea duty at 8d., which is equal to 100 per cent. In such a position I think there is a real justification for the Amendment of my right hon. friend, and the House will be failing in its duty if it does not express its lively dissatisfaction and anxiety, and Ministers will equally fail in their duty if they do not take in hand without further delay a diminution of the burdens which already press, and which must, in the course of time, press more and more heavily and more and more disastrously, not only upon the comfort of the people, but upon the resources and the very credit of the Empire itself.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The right hon. Gentleman who has just summed up the debate in which the critics of the Government have taken part bases his charge naturally and rightly upon the undoubted and unquestioned growth of the expenditure of this country, not merely during the last few years, but over a large series of years. I am the last person to deny that the great growth of expenditure, whether it be Imperial or whether it be local—and local expenditure causes me quite as much anxiety as
  140
  the other—should make every person responsible, either in the one class of expenditure or the other, carefully consider what it is that justifies such a growth, and whether or not the community is in a condition to bear it. I would point out that the malady from, which we suffer is not a malady confined to this country, but, as was pointed out in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Bermondsey, is a disease which can be detected, not in the germs, but seen in full and luxuriant growth, in every other community as well as our own. I think on the whole that the growth of British expenditure, serious as it undoubtedly is, will bear favourably a comparison with the growth of expenditure in other great European countries. But, Sir, as my reply will be limited, I need not perhaps follow the right hon. Gentleman into some parts of his speech—that part, for instance, in which he ventured on the most paradoxical assertion that this House, or the Members of this House, or large sections of the Members of this House who are now clamouring for economy and are going down to their constituents to denounce the extravagance of the Government, have not done their very best, in so far as votes in the lobby can do anything, to make the expenditure of the Government not merely great, but absolutely overwhelming. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, said that the growth of expenditure recommended by this House did not exceed the cost of a battleship. Well, I do not pretend to have a complete list of the suggestions made or the votes given by various Members either on this side or the other—for both sides are ardent devotees of expenditure so long as they are not responsible for the finances of the country—but I am informed that one hon. Gentleman on the Address recommended a process of afforestation which would have cost the modest sum of £35.000,000; that a Pension Bill has passed its Second Reading which would cost £5,000,000 a year at the smallest estimate; that the Second Reading was passed of another Bill which would cost more than £500,000 a year; that a third measure was discussed, though not passed, for the payment of election expenses which would have cost anything up to £500,000

  141
  a year; and that a proposal has been made that the whole profits of the Post Office, amounting to £4,000,000 a year, should be expended either in the improvement of the position of the Post Office employés or in adding increased facilities to those members of the community who desire to send or receive letters and telegrams, among which I do not count myself. Well, I think, without going further into the details of these Parliamentary excursions and alarums, if the right hon. Gentleman will add up the sums which I have sketched to the House, he will see that a battleship would be expensive indeed if it approached in cost the total to which these schemes would amount.
  But there are, as I have said, two main questions which we have to ask. First, can the country bear the expenditure? secondly, is the expenditure necessary, regrettable as we all admit that it is? We all desire to diminish it. Even the Treasury Bench desire it. It may be difficult for hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe it, but if they will exercise a little faith even their scepticism may be allayed, and they may come to the conclusion that even the extravagant Gentlemen sitting on this Bench might perhaps have an easier time if they were not compelled to suggest taxes in the Budget, or to deal with the various criticisms of their expenditure, to which from time to time they are subject. Now, granting that the expenditure ought to be diminished, is it nevertheless of an amount which the country is incapable of bearing? Are we to be as pessimistic as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth was in the most interesting and able speech which he
  142
  delivered this afternoon—a speech which delighted us all? Are we to take his gloomy estimate of the finances? Well, I confess that even from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech I should be disposed to draw a contrary conclusion. To begin with, he compared, naturally, the extravagance of the present day with the economic theory with which Mr. Gladstone ruled the finance of this country. He looked back to the halcyon period of the early sixties. Well, but I believe that if he will work out the sum he will find that the expenditure of the country now in proportion to the wealth of the country now is smaller than the expenditure of the country in 1864 compared with the wealth of the country in 1864. So far from having gone down hill in this matter, we have improved. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] I am amused. I gather from the unexpected approval that my observations appear to have met with from various quarters of the House that hon. Members were more intent on extracting admissions for their own fiscal doctrines than following the argument which I was endeavouring to address to the House. Considering that I am an advocate of free trade I do not see why they should do so. Any gentleman who has taken the trouble to study my opinions may find them very clearly expressed. But to take them on their own ground, I would point out that, if their sole test of the merits of their particular doctrine is that this country has grown in wealth under free trade, they would be greatly embarrassed by a similar argument if applied to other countries which have not free trade. I think myself the argument on either side is a very childish one. If you are to decide whether a particular fiscal system is good or bad because the country

  143
  which enjoys it has increased in population and wealth, you will make a very small advance in any knowledge of political economy. If the House will allow me to revert to what is the proper point of the argument I am addressing to it, let me repeat that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth is of opinion that we are now staggering fatally under the burden of taxation, I can only say that the burden of taxation, relative to our powers of bearing it, is now lighter than it was forty years ago.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman said the State Debt is appalling, that public credit is shaken to its foundations. But the Public Debt, as he told us himself, is now at the point it was somewhere in the seventies, I think. Yes, 1874 was his date, just at the end of Mr. Gladstone's first Administration. The amount of the Debt now is exactly what it was at the end of Mr. Gladstone's Administration. I quite agree that, considering what efforts we have made to pay if off, it is greatly to be regretted that the great war in South Africa and the increased expenditure have brought it up to its present limits; but to say that the Debt is too much for us now, with all the growth of wealth I have described, when we bore it without sinking under the burden in 1874, is surely an absurdity. If you turn your attention from the capital charge of the Debt to the interest of the Debt, the comparison is equally against the right hon. Gentleman; because he told us himself in the course of his speech that the interest of the Debt now was at the same figure as it was towards the end of Mr. Gladstone's second Government in 1884. Under those circumstances, deeply as we may
  144
  deplore that the Debt has increased, yet, in view of the fact that with a smaller population and smaller wealth that Debt was borne, I will not say lightly or with ease, but without distress and anything in the nature of destruction of credit—in view of that fact, we need not think the burden of debt is going to distress us.
  Then comes the more difficult question whether the burden is a necessary burden. I will deal briefly with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the speech he has just made. He said that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the House that one of the great burdens of the Exchequer consisted now of contributions to local taxation, among which contributions were certain contributions which were bitterly, even obstructively, fought by hon. Gentlemen opposite not many years ago. Then the question arises, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to repeal that burden on the Exchequer when he comes into office? And here I saw the first dawning of financial responsibility which has illumined the Front Opposition Bench through all these debates. The right hon. Gentleman discovered a reason apparently, or thinks he discovered a reason, for obtaining contributions to local taxation when he is in office which he bitterly attacked when he was out of office. He said, You create all sorts of subsidiary interests, all sorts of employés—I do not know what the interests were that were created. But I do know this, that if there was the smallest sincerity in the opposition offered to the Tithe Rent Charge Bill, or the Bill for the Relief of Agricultural Rates, there would not be the slightest difficulty in any Government

  145
  which comes in, and thinks those measures were wrong, repealing them. I will not discuss Somaliland. Hon. Gentlemen by their cheers seem to think it is because I am afraid of the topic; I am not afraid of that or any other topic; and if they will insist on my referring to it, I will refer to it. And I say this, that much as we regret the necessity we have been under of expending money and valuable lives in Somaliland, let no Government which may come into office in this country, whose responsibilities extend to every quarter of the globe and to every continent, think they will be able to avoid expenditure of that kind. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been the greatest sinners in that, if sin there be. But in truth these are the unhappy burdens and responsibilities of an Empire such as ours; and you will no more be able to escape them in office by making fine speeches when in Opposition than you will be able to avoid any of the laws of nature by which, regret it as we may, we are inevitably bound.
  The right hon. Gentleman discussed the Army policy of the Government. Does he intend me to go through that before I sit down? The right hon. Gentleman said we were now proposing to change the Army system, a system which in our hands had no doubt proved very costly, and which we thought was not suited to the existing conditions of the Empire. Is that a subject of criticism? It cannot be the subject of criticism. It is perfectly true the Government have been considering, and I hope shortly will be able to give to the House their views on Army reconstitution. But the Army system which exists now is a system which we did not create, which has been systematically defended by the right hon. Gentleman
  146
  opposite, which we have done our best to bring up to the needs and requirements of the country, and which, I will say it boldly, under the most able direction of the present Secretary of State for India and his predecessor was turned into a fighting machine such as never has been known before in the history of the nation. That system, even perfected as it has been by those eminent administrators—[OPPOSITION laughter]—Gentlemen who laugh know nothing about the subject—even perfected as it has been by those eminent administrators, is one which, we think, does require change. Who is responsible for the system? Why, Sir, it has been the proudest boast of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are its authors, and, indeed, I believe their solitary claim to constructive Army reform was the establishment of the very system which we now propose to alter. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman went on to ask me certain questions about the Fleet, and he asked me what our standard was with regard to cruisers. He twitted me, rather unnecessarily I think, with having described it as an elastic standard. It is incapable of the semi-mathematical accuracy of what is called the two-Power standard of battleships. The cruisers have got very different and much less definable duties to perform. It is necessary, in the first place, to provide a sufficient number of cruisers to form the proper complement to the fighting Fleet, and, in the second place, to provide the number of cruisers necessary to patrol the waters through which British commerce flows. It is impossible to lay down a standard for the second of these requirements, nor can any parallel be drawn between the marine policing which is incumbent on this country, and the marine policing

  147
  which is incumbent on any other country; and that being so, whatever standard we might lay down is not to be found in a comparison of the number of our cruisers with the number of cruisers used by other Powers, but in a comparison of the number of our cruisers with the work those cruisers have to perform. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me further questions to which I could not now give him any conclusive or accurate answers, but I would point out that there are many reasons which must make a navy which is used as our Navy is used more costly than those of other countries. Take the case of Germany, for instance; she keeps her fleet in two ports, her ships are constructed to fight close at home, she does not contemplate oversea responsibilities of any great or important character, and she does not depend on the voluntary system of enlistment which we necessarily depend upon. You cannot have fleets of that character with objects so different, and expect them to be worked at a like cost. That, I think, will do something to satisfy the right hon. Gentle man third question.
  But there is a deeper question underlying all this question of expenditure on the Navy and Army, and on the Army in particular. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a great many very sarcastic references to the Defence Committee and to myself, as head of that Committee. I need not tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am sure he meant: nothing personally offensive to myself, and I go much further and say I do not object to anybody making criticisms of that kind. I have never put any service that I have been able to perform on the Defence
  148
  Committee at any high level at all. I can conscientiously say that I have never pretended that I have done much—well, I have hoped to do much—but I never raised any undue expectations of my own performances tin this connection during such time as I may remain president of that Committee. But not a meeting of that Committee passes—and we meet I weekly—without impressing more and more deeply upon me my sense of its absolute necessity, and of the incalculable loss this country has suffered from not having had such a Committee at work for many years past. Our work is necessarily slow. The president of the Committee, as the House may very well conceive, is a very hard worked man, a man who has got to keep in his mind an immense variety of subjects; and results therefore may not be arrived at with all the rapidity we had hoped and which the public have had a right to expect. But we are making progress, progress of the most valuable kind; and I frankly tell the House that, while the conclusions at which we have arrived with regard to Home Defence are undoubtedly reassuring as regards the number and cost of troops required to keep inviolate these shores from the only kind of invasion to which we believe them to be susceptible, it is brought home to me more and more every day that we have become by the mere inevitable march of events a Continental Power with borders coterminous with one of the greatest military empires of the world, or, if not coterminous, in the near neighbourhood of one of the greatest military Powers of the world. We have been told that if we only come to a friendly arrangement with that Power no force need be provided for the defence of our Indian Empire—well, at all events, that

  149
  we may diminish the force otherwise necessary for the defence of the Indian Empire. Is that a policy adopted by any other country in the world, whatever be its relations with its near neighbour? There are countries on the Continent—I do not specify, it would be absurd to name names—but there are countries on the Continent in the closest friendship and alliance with their neighbours, who, nevertheless, put every man they can under arms, and would feely if they altered that policy, however close the ties of treaty might be with their neighbours, that they would practically be handing themselves over to any change of public opinion in either country to be coerced and possibly defeated by their whilom friends. You can improvise much, but there is much in an army you cannot improvise; and, believe me, it would be perfect madness for this country to put itself, whatever its agreements were—and I hope our feelings towards our neighbours in Asia are of the friendliest description—it would be madness for us to lay down the proposition that, because we were able to come to a friendly understanding in regard to pending questions between us, therefore we were not to have all the preparations at our command which could not be invented on the spur of the moment. We must have preparation if our defence is to be effective and if we hope that defence will stand the strain and test of time. No other nation does that. Do not let us imitate a folly
  which has been committed by no other nation. [An IRISH MEMBER: A four-leaved shamrock!] I am glad I carry part of the House with me. In deference to the more stolid majority, let me correct my statement and say, do not let us perpetrate a folly which has been committed by no other nation. The House may depend upon it that this question of the needs of Empire and of the cost of Empire is one which is continually engaging and preoccupying the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is not a question we are allowing to sleep. It is not a question which we feel can be hastily settled. But it is, perhaps, of all the questions pressing upon our attention the one which is most closely engaging us; and if it be possible, and I hope it will be possible, to diminish the cost of these defensive armaments, let it at all events be done in conformity with a reasonable and rational plan, and not in obedience to some quite unjustified panic about the strength of the taxpayers of this country to bear the burdens which we have reluctantly put on, which we would gladly take off, and which we are convinced they will equally gladly bear if we are able to show that it is only at that price that the Empire can be adequately and honourably sustained.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 297; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 125.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Bigwood, James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Bill, Charles

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bowles, Lt.-Col H. F(Middlesex)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brassey, Albert

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Campbell, J.H.M (Dublin Univ.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gretton, John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Groves, James Grimble

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hain, Edward

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E.(Wigt'n

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfries-sh.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Worc.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Moore, William

  Cochrane, Hon Thos. H. A. E.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Charles J. Coventry)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hoult. Joseph

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Partes, Ebenezer

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Denny, Colonel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Dewar, Sir T R(Tower Hamlets

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Percy, Earl

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Doughty, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Keswick, William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kimber, Henry

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Randies, John S.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rankin, Sir James

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J(Manc'r.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Larson, J. Grant (Yorks. N.R.

  Remnant James Farquharson

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lee, A, H. (Hants. Fareham)

  Renwick, George

  FitzGerald Sir Robert Penrose

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thorn son

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lieut. Col. A. R.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Robinson, Brooke

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Garfit, William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gordon, Hn J.E (Elgin &Nairn

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  152

  153

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E(Notts.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und. Lyne

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Stock, James Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. J.

  Stroyan, John

  Wiloughby de Eresby, Lord

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(Oxf'dUniv.

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Taylor, Austin {East Toxteth)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Tuff, Charles

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Spear, John Ward

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Davie, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Ambrose, Robert

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Doogan, P. C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Frank

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Black, Alexander William

  Elibank, Master of

  Joyce, Michael

  Bo land, John

  Ellice, Cpt. E. C(SAndrw'sBghs.

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Labouchere, Henry

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Lambert, George

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Langley, Batty

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Field, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Burns, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leng, Sir John

  Burt, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Caldwell, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Cameron, Robert

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lundon, W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Crae, George

  Cawley, Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Kean, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt. Rt Hn Sir W(Monm'th

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harwood, George

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Crombie, John William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Cullinan, J.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Asthur D.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  154

  155

  Mooney, John J.

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John {Montrose

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Toulmin, George

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Murphy, John

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wallace, Robert

  Newnes, Sir George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Norman, Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehy, David

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Dowd, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  0'Kelly, James(Roscommon N,

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Malley, William

  Slack, John (Bamford)

  Wilson, Fred W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Partington, Oswald

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R(Northants

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, Thoedore C. (Radcliffe)

  Price, Robert John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Motion made and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. Clancy,)—put, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  THE FREE FOOD MOTION.
  MR. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister if he could give the House the terms of the Amendment which he proposed to move to the Resolution standing on the Paper for to-morrow night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot do so at this moment. The Amendment will be handed in at the Table.
  MR DALZIEL: Before the House adjourns?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Pretyman.)
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L.].
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to s the following Bill have been complied with:—Plymouth Corporation.
The same were ordered to He on the Table.
Gomersal Gas Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Bexhill Water and Gas Bill; Littlestone-on-Sea and District Water Bill; Colney Hatch Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Sheppy Gas Bill; Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [H.L.]. Reported, without Amendment.
Great Central Railway Bill; Doncaster Corporation Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Holywood Tramways Bill [H.L.]; North Wales Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Chippenham Gas Bill. Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
Gosport Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
North Staffordshire Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]; Midland Railway Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill;

3
Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz., M. Winchester, M. Exeter, E. Dartmouth, E. Belmore (chairman), L. Digby; agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday the 9th of June next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred t" the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Torquay Tramways Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Soothill Nether Urban District Tramways Bill; London and North Western Railway Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills: viz., E. Strange (D. Atholl), E. Westmeath, L. Mendip (V. Clifden), Deramore, L. Hawkesbury (chairman); agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday the 9th of June next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [H.L.]. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [HL.]. Read 2a (according to order).

PETITIONS.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of town, city, and county councils of; Barrow in Fur-ness; Canterbury; Chelmsford; Chester; Deptford; Huddersfield; Islington; Lewis-ham; Macclesfield; Radnorshire; Salford; Workington; Worthing; Wandsworth; Worcestershire Chamber of Agriculture; Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland; Liverpool and District Society of Incorporated Accountants. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Fourth Report of the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office.
  ACCIDENTS.
  General Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1903.

  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1902 PART IV. COLONIAL AND FOREIGN STATISTICS).
  Statistics relating to persons employed, out put, and accidents at mines and quarries in the British Colonies and in Foreign Countries, edited by Sir Clement le Neve Foster, D.Sc, F.R.S.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNION OF BENEFICES (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1860.
  Scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for effecting the union of the benefice of St. John, Fitzroy Square, in the Metropolis, and the benefice of St. Saviour, Fitzroy Square, and for effecting certain other measures incidental to or arising out of such union. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 80.)

  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  Report of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners, and "Statement of Accounts

  5
  for 1903. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Prevention of Corruption Bill [H.L.]; Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, Amendment Bill [H.L.]; Prize Courts Bills [H.L.]. Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Street Betting Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Thursday next.

NEW BILLS.
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read; and to be printed. (No. 82.)
  SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the falsification of seamen's and soldiers' certificates of service or discharge, and to false statements made, used, or given in connection with entry or enlistment into His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Marine Forces—Was presented by the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Tuesday the 7th of June next. (No. 81.)

MONUMENT TO LORD SALISBURY.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I do not think that the Motion which I have placed upon the Paper can come as a surprise to any of your Lordships. I think, indeed, your Lordships would have been astonished if His Majesty's Government had not taken some such step as that which we are taking this evening. Your Lordships will recollect when at the beginning of this
6
session we met here for the transaction of business our first thoughts were of the great loss which this House and the country at large had sustained by the death of the late Lord Salisbury. On both sides of the House feelings of regret and respect for his memory were expressed; and upon this occasion I do not think I am wrong in anticipating that, without any reference to Party considerations, your Lordships' House will be unanimous in desiring that this mark of respect should be shown to Lord Salisbury's memory; for, although he was a great Party leader, we have a right to think of him, now that he is no longer here, not so much as a Party leader, but as a great servant of the State, a great public man who gave his unrivalled gilts and abilities ungrudgingly to the service of his country. It has always been the custom of Parliament upon occasions of this kind to look at the matter from this standpoint.
When Lord Salisbury's illustrious colleague, the late Lord Beaconsfield, was taken from us it was Mr. Gladstone who moved in the House of Commons a Resolution similar to that which I have to move this evening; and when in time Mr. Gladstone himself disappeared from the scene of which he had been so bright an ornament for so many years, it was Mr. Balfour, the present Conservative Prime Minister, who moved the Resolution in favour of the erection of a monument to his memory. Therefore, my Lords, in view of the unanimity which I believe prevails in your Lordships' House, I shall not attempt a lengthened panegyric of Lord Salisbury; for, indeed, it would be impossible within the compass of such a statement as I have a right to make this evening to deal adequately with a career so long and with services so splendid as those which he rendered. Lord Salisbury was no less than fifty years in Parliament. Of these fifty years twenty were spent as a Minister of the Crown. During thirteen of them he was Prime Minister and Leader of this House, and during eleven of those years he bore the double burden of the Premiership and the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a double burden which I venture to think no mortal shoulders could bear for long with impunity. It is no exaggeration to say

7
that you will find that during the history of that long life there was no single chapter that was idle or unprofitable.
In public life Lord Salisbury was conspicuous and distinguished among his peers. He was a great debater, a with full authority. Those of us who great master of language, but he never had that high honour will not readily condescended to the arts of the demagogue, forget the privilege which we enjoyed of He never was content with a mere forensic being his colleagues. Of Lord Salisbury's triumph, but he compelled the attention other attainments I will only say this, of those who listened to him, not by that if the world of politics had not studied effects or by elaborate ornaments claimed him, he would have been, beyond of style, but by the spontaneous expression of a powerful and original intellect, I am tempted to add that you will find that same style, with all its force and all its merits, in the despatches which he has left behind him, and even in those official minutes which, as his successor, it has often been my good fortune to read. He was a Leader of this House who commanded the universal respect of your Lordships. He had a keen appreciation of the constitutional position of the House of Lords, and a keen respect for its great traditions; and he never took part even in those of our debates which might have seemed the least interesting without adding to them something of his own which rendered his contributions to our discussions memorable and instructive. As a Minister I suppose Lord Salisbury will best be remembered owing to his successful conduct of our foreign affairs during a lengthened period. He was a wise and prescient director of our foreign policy, and if I had to single out any one particular quality by which he was distinguished I should say that that which most impressed those who were associated with him was his calmness and self-restraint even in circumstances of the greatest difficulty. We can all of us re collect occasions, some of them of comparatively recent occurrence, when peace and war trembled in the balance, when a single false step or a single careless word might have involved this country in a dangerous catastrophe, and when if that catastrophe was avoided it was certainly due to the prudence and wisdom with which Lord Salisbury discharged the duties which belonged to his high office If at the present moment we stand high amongst the Powers, if our word is respected, if our goodwill is desired, it is surely because Lord Salisbury laid deep and strong the foundation of that inter-
8
national reputation of which he was a faithful and jealous guardian.
Of Lord Salisbury's wisdom in counsel only those who had the high honour o f serving with and under him can speak with full authority. Those of us who had that high honour will not readily forget the privilege which we enjoyed of being his colleagues. Of Lord Salisbury's other attainments I will only say this, that if the world of politics had not claimed him, he would have been, beyond all question, a conspicuous figure in the world of literature or science. But, my Lords, beyond all things his life, public and private, was characterised by splendid qualities of devotion to duty, of independence of judgment, of absolute unselfishness, of incapability of any sordid aims or unworthy methods, and by the loftiest patriotism. The value of such a public man cannot be measured merely by his achievements either in diplomacy or in legislation. Such a man leaves his mark upon the public life of his country, by his example and by the manner in which his conduct serves to raise the standard of public life. Surely we may say of Lord Salisbury that his example and his manner of conducting the public affairs of this country have left their mark upon the nation. The nation, I believe, recognises Lord Salisbury as one worthy of the highest honour which it could pay him, it desires that his memory should be commemorated by the erection of a suitable monument to him; and it is, therefore, I believe, with the entire approval of our fellow-countrymen at large that I venture to move on behalf of His Majesty's Government the Resolution standing in my name.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter's, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Hon. the Marquess of Salisbury, with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great offices of State."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to second the Resolution which has been submitted to your Lordships by the noble

9
Marquess the Leader of the House, Here, where the memory of the great statesman to whom the Resolution refers is so fresh, and where he had such a commanding influence for a long period of his life, very little need be said in favour of the Resolution. The noble Marquess has spoken in feeling, eloquent, and appropriate terms of the late Lord Salisbury. He stood in a very different position towards Lord Salisbury from that which I occupied. Lord Lansdowne was a colleague of Lord Salisbury in the government and the Cabinet, and, there fore, he could speak with the greatest possible authority as to the influence, power and skill with which Lord Salisbury fulfilled all of his many high duties. I never had that high privilege. I had only once for a short time an official connection with Lord Salisbury, and that was as a member of a Commission nearly forty years ago. But it is right that not only those who shared Lord Salisbury's views in politics but those who were opposed to him politically should speak on an occasion of this sort. In this country we do not raise monuments to statesmen as Party politicians. We believe the man to whom we propose to do this honour has done great services to his country and is honoured by the nation at large. It is, therefore, I think, appropriate that one of those who has been all his life in opposition to the noble Lord should rise and make a few observations as to this Resolution. It is not always that we give monuments at public expense to our Prime Ministers. During the last century, I think, we had as many as twenty Prime Ministers, and of these only six received public monuments at the public expense. Some of those were in office as Prime Minister a very long period. Mr. Pitt's tenure of office was the longest, though most of his career, of course belongs to the eighteenth century Then there was Lord Liverpool, and next to him in this respect comes Lord Salisbury, who ended his career in the twentieth century. Mr. Perceval lost his life while he was in office, and was only Prime Minister for a very short time.
As to the impression Lord Salisbury, made on the people and on those who opposed him, I entirely endorse what the noble Marquess said. He had tran-
10
scendent ability, an ability which, if he had not been born in the sphere of politics, would have given him preeminence in both science and literature, In his political career I have often noticed the charm and adornment which his literary pursuits gave to all his great orations. Besides that, Lord Salisbury was a man of great political courage; he had the courage to propose and to support measures which he thought ripe for the country, and he had another quality which was somewhat remarkable. Holding high and lofty ideals on many matters, he not infrequently showed almost a singular disregard of what I may call the commonplaces of life, which sometimes led him to say things which startled both friends and adversaries alike. There was one quality of his to which I will venture to refer which, I think, is of the utmost importance in a great statesman he always observed astern loyalty to what was done in Parliament. When he was certain that Parliament was carrying out the determined wishes of the people of this country, even if he had opposed them, and was still in opposition—if he felt that the country had resolutely settled on a particular policy, Lord Salisbury did not try to upset it, even when he had the greatest power with his numerous supporters in this House and the other. I have said that it is necessary that the support of this monument should be national. On three occasions when Leader of a great Party he obtained great majorities when appealing to the country and this goes far to establish his claim to a national memorial. I feel that we ought to render honour to a man who has added honour to the long roll of Prime Ministers whom we have known in this country. We are bound to give this public tribute to what he has done for the nation with energy and devotion throughout his long and distinguished career. I beg to second the Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered that the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL. [H.L.]
[THIRD READING.]
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I wish to make an earnest appeal to His Majesty's Government to give every facility in their power for the further progress of this measure. I make this appeal on two grounds. In the first place, the Select Committee of your Lordships' house to which this Bill was referred, received many Amendments from the various Government Departments, and they have embodied in the Bill the whole of those Amendments. Then there is the great support the Bill has received throughout the country, which is shown by the enormous number of petitions in its favour which have been sent in. The town, city, and county councils which have presented petitions represent a population of over 8,000,000. Fifty chambers of commerce have petitioned, as well as forty-two trades unions, representing 300,000 members, sixty teachers' associations, the inspectors of weights and measures in eighty districts, and thirty retail trades associations. Several chambers of agriculture and farmers' associations have also petitioned, and I may add that the whole of Scotland, as represented by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and the Highland Society, is with us. The petitioners too, include a vast number of engineers and manufacturers of all sorts. I think these facts prove that there is a very strong feeling in the country in favour of the adoption of the metric system.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a; an Amendment (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COTTON AS CONTRABAND OF WAR.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that the Russian Government has declared cotton to be contraband of war; whether His Majesty's Government recognise their
12
right to do so; and whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken in the matter. This declaration is a new departure. It may be that it only applies to a certain description of cotton which, is used for explosives, but, however that may be, the interests concerned are very important, and they are anxious for information.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we received a few days ago from our representative in St. Petersburg a telegram announcing that the Russian Government had given notice that cotton was to be added to the list of article declared to be contraband of war. We were not given any particulars with, regard to the categories of cotton covered by this notification, and we have, therefore, thought it desirable to make is quiries on this subject. Of course there would be all the difference in the world if the notice applied only to cotton in a form in which it might be converted easily into combustibles, and not to cotton generally. We have not yet received any answer to our inquiry, and I should prefer, for the present at any-rate, to avoid expressing any opinion with regard to the question of right. If I receive any information, I shall be glad to communicate with the noble Lord.

TIBET
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to call attention to recent events in Tibet, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give to the House. It is not quite a month since we had a debate-of some length on this important subject; but since then some grave, and, I might almost say, disastrous, events have taken place which impel me to ask for further information before the holidays. I am not going into the whole question of the policy which led the Indian troops and this Mission into Tibet. We-have already had a long discussion upon that, and I stated on the last occasion that I addressed your Lordships upon it that we on this Bench endorsed the views which were put forward by my noble friends Lord Reay and the Marquess of Ripon as to the policy which led to this Mission. I venture to say that the

13
events which have since happened strengthen the belief that we were right. I shall not, however, refer to the points then raised. In my opinion from the very first it was impossible to expect that this Mission would continue to be a peaceful one. I understand now that time after time there have been serious conflicts, in which happily we have not incurred any great loss, but in which the unfortunate Tibetans have suffered very seriously. There has been, I fear, renewed complication. The Mission has been again attacked, and our troops, the escort of this so-called peaceful Mission, have been obliged to clear the villages round in self-defence, and very serious fighting has taken place.
I would refer to the several stages of this subject. On 6th October there was a question of advancing to Gyangtse. At that time the Government informed the Viceroy that an advance to Gyangtse was authorised if a complete rupture of negotiations at Khambajong proved inevitable. That was followed by another stage which began on 6th November when the advance was sanctioned under very special conditions. Those conditions were contained in a telegram from the Secretary of State to the Viceroy; they were that the step should not be allowed to lead to permanent occupation of the country or to permanent intervention in Tibetan affairs in any form, that the advance should be made for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction, and that as soon as reparation was obtained a withdrawal should be effected. The next stage was on 13th April, when there was an important debate in another place, in the course of which the Prime Minister made a strong speech on the subject. He said—
"The telegram of 6th November was most carefully considered by the Cabinet before it was sent. It represented a policy—not a departmental policy of the Secretary of State in Council—but the carefully thought out views of the Government. It represented their views on (6th November, 1903; it represents those views in April, 1904; no change whatever has occurred; and I do not think that any change is likely to occur."
He concluded with these remarkable words—
"My hon. friend who spoke last but one seems to think that circumstances will be too
14
strong for us, and that we shall be driven on from one stage to another, until nothing short of permanent annexation is reached. Well, I contemplate no such unhappy contingency, and were it to occur I should consider it one of the greatest misfortunes that could possibly happen to the Indian Government or to this country."
A few days later there was the debate in your Lordships' House, when the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a similar declaration of policy. The noble Marquess concluded with some words of caution which, perhaps, it is only fair that I should read. He said—
"I do not by that mean to say that whatever happens we are never to move an inch beyond the limits therein laid down, but the policy was adopted after the fullest consideration and by it we shall be guided in dealing with the future aspects of the question."
I should like to know whether the policy enunciated on those occasions is the Government policy of to-day. There was another discussion on this subject on the 12th of this month, when an important decision was announced by the Secretary of State for India. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had arrived at the conclusion that recent events in Tibet made it inevitable that unless the Tibetans consented to negotiate at Gyangtse the Mission must advance to Lhasa. This was qualified by the statement that the Government of India had been authorised to give the Chinese Amban notice that if no competent Tibetan negotiator appeared in conjunction with him at Gyangtse within a period to be fixed by the Government of India, steps would be taken to negotiate at Lhasa itself.
That is a very rapid change in the decision of His Majesty's Government. It is not for me to say what is necessary at the present moment. That is a matter entirely for His Majesty's Government who have full information on the subject which we in opposition do not have. I would like to hear what the noble Marquess has to say as to the policy which is hereafter to guide us in reference to this subject. This is a matter of the utmost importance in view of similar occurrences in India in years gone by which have led to serious disaster. I accept in full what the noble Marquess stated on a previous occasion with reference to Russia, and

15
will not now further refer to that phase of the matter. But I should like to know what our relations are with China. We hear in other places statements with regard to the co-operation of China in order to bring about a complete settlement of this difficulty. What is the nature of this co-operation? We have heard rumours that the Chinese Amban has at last reached Lhasa, after, I might almost say, long months of wandering in the dismal districts between China and Lhasa, and we also learn that he is going to meet Colonel Young husband. Then we hear rumours that he has done nothing to prevent the attacks on us by the Tibetans, and that four of his servants or those of Captain Parr have been murdered by Tibetans. I should like to know what our relations are with China; whether we are in close touch with the Chinese Government at Pekin; whether they are helping us to settle this difficulty, and whether any attempt has been made by the Amban to try and influence the Tibetans, and prevent these attacks upon us. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to give the House information, both with regard to the position of the Mission at this moment and to the future policy they intend to carry out in Tibet.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, the noble Earl prefaced his remarks by saying that he would not enter into the reasons for the despatch of the Mission into Tibet. He told the House that he adhered to the views expressed by his noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Ripon on the occasion of a recent debate on this question. I have a very clear recollection of that debate, and I do not think that the views expressed by Lord Reay were at all consistent with those expressed by the noble Marquess Lord Ripon. The noble Marquess objected to the Mission absolutely, and implored His Majesty's Government to withdraw it. Lord Reay did no such thing. He merely asked for information as to the object of the Mission, and we willingly promised him all such information as we could give, and Papers were laid on the Table. I have ventured to recall this small point because it is a little difficult to know what view noble Lords opposite take of our policy with regard to Tibet.
16
There was only one point which the Government of India and His Majesty's Government had to consider before deciding to send an expedition to Tibet, and that point was simply this. Were all attempts to get into communication with the authorities at Lhasa to be abandoned? Were we to have no redress, simply because we could not get into communication with the authorities, for offences committed against Indian subjects, for the pulling down of our posts on the frontier, and for the non-adherence to a convention agreed to between the two countries? His Majesty's Government decided that that position was intolerable, and that the only way to remedy that state of affairs was to end it. They, therefore, decided to send a Mission into Tibet. The House will recollect that in the first instance we sent Colonel Younghuband to Khambajong, just over the Tibetan frontier. The Mission was decided on in April, 1903. It remained at Khambasjong for many weary months. There were certain Tibetan officials there, but they informed Colonel Young husband that they could not converse with him, neither could they pass on any communication he might give them to the Dalai Lama. They said they were prevented by tradition and by their religion from having any communication with the Mission at all. His Majesty's Government then decided that the Mission should advance to Gyangtse, and that advance, as the noble Earl has pointed out, was sanctioned in the telegram of November 6. That telegram clearly laid down the policy of His Majesty's Government. The Mission arrived at. Gyangtse on 12th April last. It has waited patiently for the Chinese Amban and for duly accredited Tibetan envoys, but they have not arrived. Colonel Young husband's force has been attacked on various occasions, and, as the noble Earl has pointed out, it has been necessary to remove Tibetans from certain posts that they occupied to the danger of our position.
That brings us to the situation as it is at present, and I would like incidentally to remark that the difficulties that have recently arisen, and the hostility that has been shown towards this Mission by the authorities at Lhasa, do not prove that the policy of His Majesty's Government was wrong, but rather that they had a

17
danger to face which events have made easier for the public to realise. The principal question which the noble Earl addressed to His Majesty's Government was, What is our present policy? He endeavoured to show that the Government's policy, as declared by the noble Marquess and by the Prime Minister in another place, had undergone a sudden change in the decision that has been come to, to allow the Mission to advance as far as Lhasa if within a reasonable time delegates do not come to Gyangtse. I do not know on what statement the noble Earl bases his contention. Nothing has ever been said, so far as I am aware, by any member of His Majesty's Government that debars us from going to Lhasa if all our attempts at negotiating at Gyangtse fail. The policy of the Government is contained in the telegram of 6th November, which I will read to the House—
"In view of the recent conduct of the Tibetans, His Majesty's Government feel that it would be impossible not to take action, and they accordingly sanction the advance of the Mission to Gyangtse. They are, however, clearly of opinion that this step should not be allowed to lead to occupation or to permanent intervention in Tibetan affairs in any form. The advance should be made for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction, and as soon as reparation is obtained a withdrawal should be effected. While His Majesty's Government consider the proposed action to be necessary, they are not prepared to establish a permanent Mission in Tibet, and the question of enforcing trade facilities in that country must be considered in the light of the decision conveyed in this telegram."
So far as I am aware, no other policy has been enunciated and there is nothing to debar our going to Lhasa. The next declaration on the part of His Majesty's Government to which the noble Earl referred was the answer given by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State in the other House on the 12th instant. In that answer my right hon. friend said—
"His Majesty's Government have arrived at the conclusion that recent events in Tibet make it inevitable that, unless the Tibetans consent to negotiate at Gyangtse, the Mission must advance to Lhasa. The Government of India have been authorised to give the Chinese Amban notice that, if no competent Tibetan negotiator appears in conjunction with him at Gyangtse within a period to be fixed by the Government of India, we shall take steps to negotiate at Lhasa itself. The Government of India have at the same time been informed that His Majesty's Government do not intend I in any way to depart from the policy laid down
18
in the telegram to the Viceroy of the 6th November last."
I do not think it is possible for me in more definite terms to state what the views of His Majesty's Government are. The Government have clearly declared their view that it is not desirable permanently to occupy Tibet or permanently to interfere in the internal affairs of that country. But it is necessary to point out that circumstances have changed during the last few days. We are no longer in Tibet on a peaceful Mission; we are at the present moment at war with Tibet; and until we have by force of arms vindicated our position, and shown the Tibetans that we are not to be trifled with, His Majesty's Government ought not to be called upon by noble Lords opposite to give any definite pledge as to the exact form the settlement will take when hostilities are concluded.
The noble Earl asked what was the exact position of the Chinese Amban. I do not think it would be possible for a more difficult question to be put to any member of the Government. The Chinese Amban is at the present moment at Lhasa. He has had correspondence with Colonel Young husband, and has declared that he is doing his best to get transport, and that he will come to Gyangtse at the earliest possible moment. But we have to face the fact that he has never arrived. The noble Earl has asked for information about the Chinese official whose servants were brutally murdered. They were the servants of Captain Parr, who is in the employ of the Chinese as a Customs officer, and is, I believe, under the orders of the Chinese Amban. With regard to the question as to Chinese co-operation, which is also difficult to answer, I think I am correct in stating that the Chinese are very anxious that we should come to a settlement with the Tibetans. They recognise that the Tibetans have given us grave cause for dissatisfaction, and that unless we are able to persuade the Tibetans to allow the Chinese representative to come to Gyangtse to discuss matters with us we shall be justified in advancing to Lhasa to conduct the negotiations there.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has endeavoured rather to turn the

19
questions of my noble friend by starting fresh point s. The noble Earl asked what was our view of the policy of the Government in respect to this expedition to Tibet, and he rested the greater part of his defence of the expedition on events which had happened to the Mission whilst it was still occupying a peaceful position. He talked about the length of time that the Mission was kept waiting and of the insults that it received from the Tibetan authorities. Our objection to the Government's policy starts from a much earlier period. What- was the original cause of this peaceful Mission? There were, I think, three causes put forward—first, the unwillingness of the Lama at Lhasa to receive the letters of the Indian Government; secondly, the removal of certain pillar posts on the frontier; and, thirdly, disputes about the grazing rights on the two sides of the frontier. I admit that these are subjects which would naturally give rise to feelings of annoyance on both sides. What we find fault with is that the Government settled on this Mission without fully realising what it was certain to lead to. The question really was, was: it worth while, for the sake of the advantages that might be gained, to run the; grave risks which such a Mission involved? The chances of difficulty and I danger were far greater than any possible benefit that could be gained by India or by Great Britain from the efforts of the Mission. It seems to me that on this occasion, as on many others, the Government have proved themselves confirmed optimists. They always look for that to happen which could only happen under the most favourable circumstances. They never seem to regard the possibility of any operation in which they are engaged going wrong. Just as they thought, in the case of the South African war, that the Boers would not fight, so, apparently, they thought in the case of Tibet, that the Tibetans would also be found unwilling to fight, and that it was only necessary to, make a sufficiently big demonstration on I the Tibetan frontier to bring the Tibetan' authorities to their bearings. By this Mission to Tibet the Government of India seem to me to have brought us almost to an impasse. Whichever way we turn difficulties of the gravest character are to be found. If we retire the dangers as
20
well as the difficulties are patent to the most casual observer but if we advance; to Lhasa and find the Lama is not there, is it proposed to follow him into the misty regions beyond? And, having got to Lhasa, will the process of retirement to which you are pledged be found easy? I feel that a great deal more explanation is required than the Under-Secretary has given.
The noble Earl said that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition had questioned him as to the position of the Chinese Amban. I think my noble friend's question went a great deal further. It had reference to the relations of His Majesty's Government with China at this moment. How far, he asked, have His Majesty's Government received the support of the Chinese Government from Pekin or elsewhere? The position of the Chinese Amban is of small importance. The real question is, how does China look upon these warlike operations within, the territory of its vassal? Does it approve of them? Is it going to support you in bringing force to bear on the Lama at Lhasa, and in requiring concessions from the Lama? And will China be willing to see a Resident placed in parts of Tibet, which is only too-likely to be involved by the course you are taking? I know the delicacy of speaking on this subject at this moment, and I can assure the House that I would not say a word to increase the present difficulty, but if the Government call for the support of men of all Parties to get them out of this trouble the least they can do is to take the country into their confidence and tell us exactly the position and the policy they mean to pursue.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has attacked Colonel Young-husband's Mission from its first inception, and, not for the first time, we have had it suggested that the causes which led to the despatch of that Mission were causes so trivial and insignificant that we might well have declined to take notice of them. Well, no doubt, if you take them one by one they are small matters; but

21
it is the cumulative effect of these acts of insolent aggression that the Government of India has had to take into consideration. I do not think it is just to the Government of India to suggest that they dealt in a precipitate or vindictive manner with the aggressive conduct of the Tibetans. On the contrary, the Government of India showed itself extremely long-suffering, and it was not until its patience had been tried to breaking-point that it was determined to take some measures to vindicate our authority on the Tibetan frontier. So far from failing to realise the seriousness of the task which lay before us, it was because we realised that Colonel Young-husband's Mission was a service of danger and might involve us in collision with Tibet that we sent with Colonel Young-husband that considerable escort, the presence of which was so much criticised by noble Lords opposite as inconsistent with the peaceful character of the Mission. But for the presence of that considerable escort the Mission would undoubtedly be at this moment in a position of danger which I hope I may say it actually is not.
*EARL SPENCER: It could not have gone.
THE MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNE: Then the noble Earl throws us back on the alternative of again turning our face to the smiter and allowing the Government of India to be absolutely contemned. In regard to our relations with China in connection with Tibet, let me repeat again that from the first we have done our utmost to secure the co-operation and concurrence of China; and we certainly did secure the concurrence of China before the earliest steps were taken. And at this moment, so far as professions go, China is doing what she can to bring the Tibetans to reason. It is with that object the Amban has been sent to Lhasa. It is the presence of the Amban which is the outward and visible sign of such power as China has. If the Amban has not arrived at Lhasa until after interminable delays and wanderings in remote; regions, if at this moment he is at Lhasa desiring to come down and negotiate with
22
Colonel Young husband nod unable to do so because the Tibetans steal his transport from him—all that is evidence which I proves conclusively how impotent the Chinese Government is to control the action of the Tibetans, and how little we can rely upon their aid in extricating us from the position in which we now find ourselves. We are in constant communication with the Chinese Government. We have given them every opportunity of assisting us through diplomatic channels; but I am afraid that the measure of their ability to assist us is the power of the Amban, who, as we all know, is more or less a prisoner at Lhasa.
I take it the Leader of the Opposition has brought this subject on because he desires to elicit once more from us a declaration of our Tibetan policy, not in setting up the Mission, but so far as the future is concerned. As the representative of the India Office has said, our policy remains the same. I venture to suggest it is not likely that when His Majesty's Government have deliberately adopted and announced a policy they should be driven from it merely because their Mission has been attacked by a lot of ragged barbarians in a remote region adjoining the Indian frontier. We do not so lightly as that abandon the policy we have arrived at. With regard to the advance to Lhasa, the noble Earl suggested that in itself denoted a change in policy. I express the contrary opinion. It seems to me that, whether at Gyangtse or at Lhasa, the policy remains the same policy — the policy of obtaining a satisfactory settlement from the Tibetans and reparation for the injuries they have done to us. So far as we are able to reassure the noble Earl by telling him that our policy remains what it was, I am very glad to give him that re-assurance; but, of course, so far as the operations now in progress are concerned, we must reserve to ourselves a certain amount of discretion in carrying them to a conclusion which will be honourable and satisfactory to ourselves.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.