Mr. Mellor,—Sir, in laying before the House the Financial Statement of the year, my first duty is to make as clear as I can to the Committee the financial balance-sheet of the year which concluded on March 31, 1893. The financial history of the last six years, which covered the term of the last Parliament, is remarkable and instructive. The right hon. Gentleman my Predecessor in Office, in his first Budget in 1887, had formed a gloomy anticipation of the immediate future of the Revenue, and he took measures accordingly. The Naval Estimates for that year and the next year were largely reduced. The fund set apart for the liquidation of the Debt was considerably diminished. Happily, however, those clouds which seem to have gathered in 1886–7 passed away, and a period of great financial prosperity immediately set in. The Revenue began almost immediately to rise on an ascending curve, which reached its summit level in 1890. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was in possession for several years of handsome surpluses; but in 1891 symptoms of a less favourable kind supervened. The top having been reached, the Revenue began to flag, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself on a descending curve, and his Estimates for 1892–3 were for a Revenue of £541,000 less than the actual receipts of 1891–2. His calculation for the year which has just closed was for a practical equilibrium with the customary margin without any change of taxation. The Expenditure for 1892–3 was estimated in the Budget at £90,253,000, and the Exchequer issues have been, in fact, £90,375,000, which is an excess over the Estimate of £122,000. I do not desire to oppress the Committee by going into details of very elaborate figures. Of course, all the figures I am now dealing with are in the hands of hon. Members in the Paper which has been circulated. I will, therefore, confine what I have to say to remarks upon those figures which seem to mo to be most material. First of all I have to observe that the Army appears to have cost £89,000 less. That is an apparent and not a real saving. Indeed, the cost has been rather more. There was a surplus coming from grants of 1891–2 which reduced the Exchequer issues of 1892–3. In the Navy there is an excess of £62,000 in respect of 1891–2, which was voted in March. In the Civil Service there was £11,000 loss, and there would have been a larger saving had it. not been for a great increase in the Education Vote. Customs and Inland Revenue are £33,000 less, and Post Office and Telegraphs £199,000 more—an excess of Estimates which was only revealed at the last moment. But for these unexpected sources of Expenditure and Supplementary Estimates, the total would have been well within the mark of the Budget Estimate. It is difficult, if not impossible, to gauge with accuracy the demands of Education Grants, which largely exceed the Estimate which had been formed; and it is impossible, beforehand, to say what the grants for the new year will or will not be. There is always an element of uncertainty. As to the Post Office Expenditure, that is an abyss which no plummet can sound. I shall have something to say on that subject later, which is, and is likely to be, the despair of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. This is the Expenditure which has been defrayed out of the Revenue of the year. But, besides this, it is very important not to lose sight of the fact that there is a large Expenditure which has been met by borrowing. There was borrowed for the Expenditure of the year £2,056,000. The figures are: Naval Defence Act, £1,150,000; Imperial Defence Act, £285,000; Barracks Act, £535,000; Telephones, £86,000; total, £2,056,000. This, added to the normal Expenditure of £90,375,000, gives a total real Expenditure of the year of £92,431,000. With reference to an incidental matter of some interest, I should like to make a short statement as to the Expenditure upon the re-coinage of light gold. The amount of light gold to he called in was estimated to be about £43,000,000. In 1891 the late Chancellor of the Exchequer sot aside £400,000 to defray the loss on the re-coinage. Up to March 31, 1893, the light gold brought in has amounted to £18,000,000, and the loss upon this has been £298,419 6s. 7d. It is calculated that there remains to be brought in £25,000,000, upon which the loss is estimated at £355,110, or a total loss of £653,530 on the whole. Of this amount probably £9,000,000 will be brought in during the year 1893–4 at a cost of £144,920. The average loss on the sovereign has been 2·639d., and on the half-sovereign 2·923d. It is expected that the whole renewal will be completed in the year 1895–6, and then there will have been achieved a great work, which I congratulate my right hon. Friend opposite on having begun, and one necessary to the reputation of a great commercial country, the transactions of which are founded on a gold standard. I must now pass on to the Revenue of the year that has concluded. The Revenue for 1892–3 is estimated in the Budget at £90,453,000. A decrease of £542,000 was allowed for by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, as compared with the Exchequer Receipts of 1891–2. The actual payments into the Exchequer have been £90,395,000, or less than the Estimate by £58,000. I think the Committee will consider that a marvellous approximation on so vast a sum. No person who occupies my position will fail to render his testimony to the wonderful skill, the experience, and the prescience of the officers of the Revenue Departments, who are able to give such accurate forecasts of the finance of the country. It also proves another thing— the extraordinary exactitude of averages, because when you come to examine the details you will find that in many respects they differ from the expectation; but, on the whole, the average comes out all right. I intend only to deal with the more important items. The Estimate of £90,500,000 has been realised within £58,000. The Revenue from Customs was estimated at £19,900,000; the money actually received into the Exchequer was £19,715,000, or loss by £185,000. I should like to state to the Committee what, perhaps, everyone is not familiar with—the distinction between Exchequer Receipts and net receipts. The Exchequer Receipts are those which the Exchequer receives in the course of the year, and the Exchequer may receive some money belonging to last year. If hon. Members wish to ascertain the yield of taxes they must take the net receipts and examine what is the actual amount of taxation which properly belongs to each year. If, therefore you examine the net receipts the differences are more conspicuous. The Customs net receipts of 1891–2 were £19,828,000, and those of 1892–3 £19,633,000. The falling off in produce was, therefore, £195,000. Comparing the Customs net receipts of 1892–3 with those of 1891–2 we find: (1) a falling-off in spirits of £337,000; (2) tea about stationary (a decline of £12,000); (3) tobacco, markedly better by £182,000; (4) wine, less by £22,000.

Is tea below the Estimate?

Tea is slightly below the Estimate. There is no confident belief that it is due to the falling-off in consumption. Tea is a commodity in which dealers are very cautious when the Budget is approaching. I do not speak with any certainty, but I have reason to believe that purchases are held back until it is known what is to be done with tea. I pass now to the Inland Revenue. The Budget Estimate was £54,862,000; the Exchequer Receipts, £55,085,000, or more than the Estimate by £223,000. The net receipts were £54,946,000, or £84,000 better than the Estimate. That again, I think, everyone will admit is a pretty close Estimate on a total of £55,000,000. But here, again, it, is not a question of detail; it is a question of averages. The Excise was £435,000 below the net receipts of 1891–2. The loss is almost wholly on spirits. Beer remains about the same as before. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated a fall on spirits of £200,000; but the fall, in fact, has been above 400,000. I remember that in one of his Budgets the late Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of there being a "rush to alcohol." To-day I should rather describe it as a "stampede from alcohol." I also remember that the right hon. Gentleman remarked particularly on the increase in the consumption of one kind of spirit—rum. The discontinuance in the consumption of rum as compared with other spirits is equally remarkable now. Why, I am not in a position to explain. The Spirit Duty is very eccentric, both in its rise and fall. It rises and falls with the condition of trade, but how much and how quickly it is very difficult to explain, and still more to forecast. I now pass to Stamps. Stamps are £245,000 better than the Estimate. The principal head of Stamps refers to the Death Duties, and here, again, the principle of averages comes in. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated a loss on Probate, as compared with 1891–2, of £211,000. The actual loss has been £419,000. The year 1892 is known, and will ever be remembered in the Inland Revenue, as the "influenza year." It produced an abnormal rise in the receipts of Probate Duty, which have since fallen off by nearly the amount of the exceptional produce of that year. The falling-off, therefore, shows that there had not been sufficient account taken of the immensely abnormal rise in the preceding year. In the Legacy and Succession Duty that increase appears in the year following the abnormal receipt of the Probate Duty, because it is collected a year later than the Probate Duty; and therefore is, as I may call it, an après coup of the great receipts of the influenza year, and so came into the receipts of this last year. The right hon. Gentleman estimated the gain in the Legacy and Succession Duty at £232,000; the actual gain has been £671,000. The loss in the one case was double what was expected, and the gain in the other was three times that which was anticipated. Therefore, in regarding this important source of Revenue, we must always set aside the year 1891–2 as altogether exceptional. It made a difference between the year 1891–2 and the year 1892–3 of £838,000, out of a Revenue of £5,000,000 of the entire Probate Duty. Then, as to General Stamps, they have realised, which is a good sign, £49,000 more than the Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman estimated for a fall of £100,000, and, in point of fact, they have not fallen much more than half that amount. That, in the present state of things, may be regarded, I think, as not unsatisfactory. The great falling-off since 1890 on General Stamps has been due mainly to Stock Exchange transactions. It is not due to a falling-off in the every-day stamp transactions of tradesmen. On the contrary, that source of Revenue is rather increasing. Now I come to, perhaps, the most important head of all, and that is the Income Tax. In the Income Tax the yield has been £70,000 better than the Estimate of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The maintenance of the strength and, I may indeed say, the continual growth of the yield of the Income Tax is simply marvellous; and nobody who has not carefully studied the question can understand how, in all the vicissitudes of trade and the apparent oscillations of property, the Income Tax is a source of constantly increased and increasing Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did a great deal last year to throw light upon this interesting question. He showed how the yield of the Income Tax did not mainly depend upon the principal and conspicuous trades or decline with their depreciation. He calculated last year, accordingly, on a fall of only £400,000 on a total of £13,810,000 in the year 1891–2, which was the highest point at which the yield of the Income Tax ever stood. There were some people, I know, who were sceptical at that time, who said that prosperity had vanished, that distress had come, that there was great trade disturbance, and that it was impossible that the Income Tax would not fall off to a greater degree. I confess I did not join in those doubts, for I knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had means of information to which no one else had access. The right hon. Gentleman used on that occasion some words which I will take the liberty of repeating, because they are the real key to the enigma. He said—

"If I am to judge simply by the Statistical Returns, by the gossip of the City, by complaints in Lancashire, or by the position of Yorkshire, and if I am to listen and the Committee are to be influenced by the general feeling, they might come to the conclusion that there would be a very large gap in the Income Tax Return of the year."

He then proceeded to show that, whilst public attention was fixed on the great staple industries of the country—the cotton, the coal, the iron industries—I use his own words—

"There is a mighty trade going on, there is wealth being rolled up—wealth of which no published statistics exist, but which is, nevertheless, accumulating and adding to the capital of the country."

He pointed out that the profits of the cotton trade are less than the aggregate profits of the Medical Profession, and the profits of the coal mines than those of the lawyers. He accordingly put the yield of the Income Tax at £13,400,000 for the year that has just concluded, being £410,000 less than the preceding year. It has, in fact, yielded £13,470,000. The falling-off has not been £410,000, but only £340,000, and the tax has yielded £13,470,000, being £220,000 more than in 1890–1. This is, even in these times of depression, a yield of £2,245,000 to the penny. The growth of the produce of the Income Tax is one of the most remarkable features of our finance. In 1889, when it was reduced to 6d., its yield was £12,700,000. In 1892, only three years later, it was £13,810,000, or £1,100,000 more. Even with the decline last year, it is still £700,000 more than it was in the year 1889. I have had some remarkable figures on this subject taken out, which give the yield per 1d. for the last eight years on each several Schedule separately, which is a far better test than taking it on the whole. These are new figures, and are very well deserving of the attention of the House. They give accurately the real yield of the tax, and are not merely the Exchequer Receipts, which vary very much. Now, in 1886—that is, at the commencement of the last Parliament—the Income Tax yielded £1,980,000 to the penny. In 1893, which has just concluded, it yielded £2,261,000 to the penny. Taking the figures for the Schedules separately, it will surprise many people to learn that the produce of Schedule A, which is land and houses, has actually risen from £670,000 per penny in 1886 to £676,000 in 1893. As everybody will anticipate, it has fallen heavily on agricultural land. It has fallen from £217,000 per penny to £191,000, but it has risen upon houses from £452,000 per penny to £484,000, so that, taking the two to-gether, there is an actual rise upon Schedule A. Schedule B, which is the Occupier of Land Schedule, has, as might be expected, heavily fallen. It has fallen from £48,000 to the penny to £36,000. Schedule D, which is equally remarkable—it is the profits of trades, companies, and so forth—yielded in 1886 £958,000 to the penny, and in 1893, in spite of the ruin which is said to have attended all trades and to have destroyed all profits, it is £1,208,000 to the penny—the highest it has ever reached. Schedule E, which is the growth of salaries of public employés and of the employés of companies—this, I think too, is a remarkable figure—produced in 1882, 10 years ago, a yield of £118,000 to the penny, and in 1893 it is £152,000. I think that is an analysis that is useful, and it is new. When Sir Robert Peel imposed the Income Tax in 1842 the yield was about £770,000 per penny. It is now three times as much. It would have required in his time an Income Tax of 1s. 6d. in the £1 to raise a similar amount. I have laid these figures before the House, because I think that even in times of depression, and what are called bad times, it is well that the House of Commons and the country should know what is the actual condition of things. The steady and vast growth in the produce of the Income Tax and the Probate Duty is the most irrefragable evidence, in my opinion, of the solid advance in wealth both in annual income and accumulated capital of the nation. It is the conclusive answer to those pessimists who assure us that we are being ruined by a vicious commercial system and a false monetary standard. If we had for 50 years been going on a wrong system the results which we should have to record would be very different from those I have laid before the House. And when we are asked what is the result of that system upon which we have constantly acted, and to which we have faithfully adhered, and I am asked for a proof of it, I would say, looking at these Returns, Si monumentum, quœris circumspice. It is true that this trade or that trade, this industry or that industry, may have its "ups and downs," its adversity and its prosperity; but, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite truly indicated last year, there is a perpetual compensation in all directions, and the small rivulets of increasing income from every source and the accumulated savings of the country supply the deficiencies of the larger streams. Every year more money is saved, and more capital is invested, and therefore a larger income is earned. I may, perhaps, have detained the House rather long. The Post Office yields no more than the Estimate, a most unsatisfactory lie-turn, considering the great growth of expenditure. The Telegraphs are £80,000 less than the Estimate, 1892–3, a bad revenue. They are £115,000 less than actual working expenses in 1892–3, setting aside the non-payment of interest upon the purchase-money. If you look at the Telegraph Returns since the purchase, including the moderate interest they ought to pay upon the money, the loss on that commercial transaction has been £4,500,000. The whole of this affair was founded on a miscalculation. Six years ago the deficiency was less than £2,000,000. I have told you it is now more than double that amount, and, for anything we can see to the contrary, it is a revenue which is going from bad to worse, and the competition of telephones is not likely to improve it. There remains the Miscellaneous Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman opposite estimated the receipts for 1892–3 at £2,076,000, and the amount paid into the Exchequer was £2,065,000, or a deficit of £11,000. The Committee must bear in mind that though the Revenue of 1892–3 approximated so closely to the Budget Estimate it is greatly below the Revenue of 1891–2. The deficiency of aggregate Revenue is no less than £600,000, comparing the Exchequer receipts for the two years. The taxable Revenue was £540,000 worse, and the non-taxable Revenue was £60,000 worse. Now, having laid before the House as clearly as I can the state of the Expenditure last year and the state of the Revenue, I am now in a position finally to balance the Revenue and Expenditure of 1892–3. The Revenue was £90,395,000, and the Expenditure £90,375,000, leaving a balance of £20,000, a sufficiently close balance-sheet on a Revenue and Expenditure of over 90,000,000. But this I am bound to say in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman—that but for unexpected expenditure on the Supplementary Estimates we should have fully realised the margin he anticipated. But when we talk of a surplus, even such a miserable mouse as £20,000, we must remember that we have borrowed upwards of £2,000,000 in the course of the year to meet the Expenditure of the year. I will not revive an old controversy between myself and the right hon. Gentleman as to what we are to call that £2,000,000. I have been in the habit of calling it a deficiency of Revenue, as compared with actual Expenditure. I call it a deficit. But I care not what you call it—the House must bear in mind that this balance, which leaves an apparent Surplus of £20,000, is accompanied by the fact that during the year you have borrowed upwards of £2,000,000. I do not know whether I may be permitted to correct an error which I am not sure is entertained by Members of this House, but which I see is entertained elsewhere, that the surplus to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to look is the surplus of the year that is past. That is not so. That surplus of the year that is past is devoted to the old Sinking Fund, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no control over it. It has nothing to do with the Budget surplus, which is the estimated surplus—namely, the estimated balance on the Expenditure and Revenue of the coming year, calculated on the basis of existing taxation. I must now make a brief statement as to the balances in the Exchequer. On April 1, 1892, the balance was £6,255,000. That included the old Sinking Fund, £1,067,000, leaving a true working balance of £5,188,000. There have been small variations, but on April 1, 1893, the balance was £5,082,000, or a difference of about £100,000, I would say here, on the subject of the balances, that we are subject now to the comparatively new system established by Mr. Lowe, by which the greater part of the Income Tax is collected at the end of the year; and the small balances with which we begin make it necessary to largely use deficiency advances, for a great part of the income does not come in till the end of the year. Before I leave the year 1892–3 I must make a brief statement with reference to the National Debt. The reduction of the Debt proper in the past year has been £6,623,000. Under heads which are not the Debt proper there has been an increase for barracks of £535,000. But, on the other hand, owing to the rise in the price of Consols, there has been a decrease of savings banks deficiencies of £782,000. So that I am able to say that the net liabilities of the State have been in the year concluded diminished by £7,000,000. I should like to say one word as to the state of the Unfunded Debt. This has been largely increased of late years, both by the operations of conversion and redemption, and also by borrowings for Naval and Military Expenditure. On April 1, 1892, it reached a total of £35,300,000, of which there was in the hands of the public, £17,000,000, in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, £18,300,000. The right hon. Gentleman opposite—and we have often argued this point—feeling that the Unfunded Debt stood at too high a figure, converted £13,000,000 in the hand's of the National Debt Commissioners into a book debt, which now ranks as a Funded Debt. That accounts for the apparent increase in the Funded Debt of £11,000,000. The Unfunded Debt now remains at £22,313,000, and has been increased by borrowing this year on Treasury Bills for Naval and Military purposes by £1,435,000, making a total of £23,748,000. By the use of the old and new Sinking Funds £3,000,000 has been paid off, so that, the total now stands at £20,748,000, of which there is held by the public £14,522,000, and by the National Debt Commissioners £6,226,000. I am glad that it has been found possible in this way to reduce the amount of the Unfunded Debt. It has been reduced, by the resources at the disposal of the Treasury, by £2,468,000. It is the Floating Debt in the hands of the public which alone need concern the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Unfunded Debt in the hands of the public now stands only £679,000 higher than it did in 1886, so that, practically speaking, we have gone back almost to the point at which we were before the conversion operation.

£14,522,000 Treasury Bills (and all of them 12 month bills) are now little more than £6,000,000, and no doubt as opportunity serves they may be still further reduced. I have a strong opinion that the less the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the market the better, and that the business of the country ought to be conducted on a large scale, and that to have to deal with bills at intervals of three months is a thing to be avoided if possible. I think I have now stated to the Committee all that is necessary to be said with reference to the finance of the year that is concluded, and I now conic to the far more interesting examination of the finance of the current year. I will begin with a reference to the estimated Expenditure for the year 1893–4. The total estimated Expenditure for the year 1893–4 is £91,464,000. That is a total excess of £1,089,000 over the Expenditure of 1892–3, or, if you compare it with the Budget provision of last year, an excess of £1,211,000 over that, which my Predecessor (Mr. Goschen) found it necessary to provide for. By far the larger part, of that is due to two items. On Education there is an excess of £310,000, and on the Post Office a real excess of £635,000 over the estimated Expenditure of last year. I hope the House will bear that fact in mind. It would appear from the figures which hon. Members have before them that the Post Office excess is only £400,000; but that is because an addition of upwards of £200,000 was made by Supplementary Estimates to the Expenditure provided for in the Budget of last year. I shall have something to say on the details presently. Taking the figure of the estimated Expenditure as I have given it, let me ask attention to this gigantic total of £91,500,000. That does not represent by any means the whole amount, because, besides the £91,500,000, we raise by Imperial taxation an addition of £7,250,000, which goes to the Local Taxation Fund. Therefore the total sum to be raised by Imperial taxation is really £98,750,000, which is dangerously near the £100,000,000 which a few years ago we thought belonged only to times of war and to extraordinary circumstances. Now, Sir, I would ask the careful attention of the Committee to the few figures I am going to give on the subject of Expenditure. I want hon. Members to consider what has been the growth of Expenditure in the last seven years iu this country. I take the net Expenditure given in the valuable Return moved for by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. I am speaking now only of Military, Naval, and Civil Expenditure —expenditure exclusive of the Debt charges— met out of taxes. The increase between the year 1887–8 and the year 1893–4 appears as follows. The Naval and Military Services cost more by £2,600,000, Public Education more by £3,400,000, Grants and Assignments to Local Authorities more by £4,200,000, and other Civil charges more by £400,000, so that the Normal Expenditure of the country under these heads in the course of the last seven years has increased by £10,600,000, or 20 per cent. of Expenditure charged on taxes under these heads. Of course, on the other side must be taken the reduction of the Debt charge by £3,000,000, partly the result of the successful conversion of the Debt by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), and partly the result of other causes. That leaves a balance of addition to the sum that has to be raised by taxes of about £7,000,000. It may, it is true, be said that the subsidy of £4,000,000 to local taxation is taken from one pocket and put into another. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but it is not put into the pocket of the same man, and whether or not it has produced all the advantages which it was intended to secure is a disputed point on which I will not offer an opinion at present. In my opinion, at the commencement of a new Parliament these are figures very well deserving of attention. The question is whether the new Parliament is or is not prepared—and it cannot too soon make up its mind on the subject—to make a similar addition to the Expenditure in the course of its existence. I have called special attention to the Post Office Expenditure. That is not an expenditure which is charged on the taxes, but it results in a loss of net Revenue which has to be supplied by additional taxation. The Estimate for 1893–4 shows an increase over the Budget provision of 1892–3 of £635,000. The increase in 1892–3 was stated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer at £611,000. Of the increase this year, £486,000 is clue to additions to staff and salaries. Now, let me see the result on the Revenue in the last three years. The estimated increase in the Exchequer receipts under the head of Postal and Telegraph Services in 1893–4, as compared with 1890–91, is £774,000, and the estimated increase in the Expenditure met out of Postal Votes is £1,602,000, so that in three years on the Post Office alone you have lost £828,000 of net Revenue which, of course, you have to replace by taxation from other sources. Now, Sir, great as has been the aggregate Expenditure for which provision has to be made in the Budget, that does not represent the whole case, as it is irrespective of the money borrowed. Up to 1892 we borrowed £5,000,000, and last year we borrowed £2,000,000, so that in the seven years we have borrowed £7,000,000 in all. Debts which have to be liquidated out of the income of the future. If this money had been provided by taxation the figure I have given would have been greater still; but on an average £1,000,000 a year has been paid out of borrowed money. I had hoped that we had come to an end of these borrowings, but that is not the case. We have still remnants of these obligations. In the course of the present year we have to borrow £1,500,000—that is to say, for the Naval Defence Act, £150,000; for the Imperial Defence Act, £150,000; for the Barrack Act, £600,000; for Telephones, £250,000; and for Irish Light Railways, £270,000, making a total of £1,420,000. This is not a very satisfactory statement to make. We have just succeeded in making both ends meet during the past year, having merely a nominal balance of about £20,000, and we begin this year with an estimated increased expenditure of £1,100,000, which is almost entirely attributable to increased expenditure on Education and the Post Office. The Estimate of the Revenue of 1893–4 is based upon present taxation. I need not say that it is a difficult—I had almost said a perilous—task to attempt to estimate what may be the condition of a Revenue which was estimated last year to fall and has fallen by an amount of between £500,000 and £600,000. It is a formidable fact that the fall in the Revenue is the largest in the latest quarter; but the figures I am going to place before the House I place before it with the reliance I feel—and which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman oppo- site (Mr. Goschen) will feel—in the foresight, experience, and—I had almost called it—infallibility of the permanent officers of the Revenue Departments. The total Revenue for the coming year we estimate at £89,890,000, or £505,000 less than the Exchequer Receipts of 1892–3. Now, I will give the figures under the different heads. We estimate the Customs at £19,650,000, or £65,000 less than last year; Excise at £25,100,000, or £260,000 less than last year; Stamps at £13,600,000, or £205,000 less than last year; Land Tax and House Duty at £2,460,000, or £10,000 more than last year, and Income Tax at £13,400,000 — that is to say, the same figure as that given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his Budget last year, and £70,000 less than the actual Exchequer Receipts of last year. That makes an estimated falling-off in the produce of taxes of £590,000. I now come to the Tax Revenue, which we estimate to be as follows:—Post Office, £10,600,000, an increase of £200,000; Telegraphs, £2,480,000, the same as last year; Crown Lauds, £430,000, the same as last year; interest on Suez Canal shares, £220,000 and Miscellaneous, £1,950,000; or £115,000 less than last year. The produce of the Non-Tax Revenue is, therefore, estimated at, £15,680,000, or £85,000 more than last year. Now, I will make one or two observations upon the details. In the Customs Estimate there is an allowance for a fall in spirits and wines, and for a slight increase in tea and tobacco; this is not a great amount—£65,000. Upon Excise we estimate that there will be a receipt of £260,000 less than last year. We have calculated upon £30,000 less on beer, and £230,000 less on spirits. That, I need not say, is necessarily a very problematical Estimate, as when you have a falling Revenue it is very difficult to say how fast or how slowly it may fall. It may be less than we estimate or it may be more. As to Stamps, we estimate the Probate and Estate Duty at £135,000 more, thus going back to a normal figure, whilst we estimate Legacy and Succession Duty at £380,000 less, and General Stamps at £40,000 more. I have already mentioned that we have taken the Income Tax at £13,400,000—the same as the Estimate of last year. I must now say a word on the Miscellaneous Revenue. This has been largely affected in recent years by the extension of the principle of Appropriations in Aid. Miscellaneous Revenue—always an uncertain item— sometimes overlaps from one year to another. Last year (1892–3) £341,000 due to the Revenue of the previous year was carried over to the Miscellaneous Receipts. This year, perhaps, half that amount may fall in from last year. This item of the Revenue is the residuary legatee of windfalls to the Exchequer. The Miscellaneous Revenue of 1892–3 has had the advantage of the remanet of a quarter's extra receipts in 1891–2 to the extent of £242,000 due to the change in the system of Appropriations in Aid last year. This year the Miscellaneous Revenue will benefit by an occasional windfall from the Treasury Chest Fund. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite is aware, the Treasury Chest Fund is a banking fund or working capital for effecting Imperial payments abroad. It is an accumulation of ancient supplies fixed by Statute in 1873 at £1,000,000, but it has from time to time been reduced. With the diminished number of Treasury Chests abroad, and with an increased resort to the telegraph, the payments can now be effected with a smaller working balance; and it is proposed by Bill to give power to the Treasury to reduce it from £1,000,000 to £700,000, and, accordingly, a balance will be available for the Exchequer, and will be credited to Miscellaneous Revenue, as was done in 1862 by the present Prime Minister and in 1873 by Mr. Lowe, when similar reductions were effected. A Bill for this purpose will be necessary. In order to complete the account of Revenue I will state briefly the Local Taxation Revenue. In 1892–3 there was a fall of £426,000, as compared with 1891–2. That was due to the great and abnormal receipts from the Probate Duty of the influenza year, half of which receipts were appropriated to the purposes of Local Taxation. It is calculated that there will be this year an additional income of £91,000 as compared with the Revenue of 1892–3, so that there will be a partial recovery from the fall. Now, I come to the last chapter with which I shall have to trouble the Committee. I have stated the estimated Expenditure and the estimated Revenue for the year 1893–4, and I have now to state the balance-sheet as it stands for the present year on the basis of existing taxation. The expenditure, as I have said, is £91,464,000, and the Revenue £89,890,000, leaving a deficit of £1,574,000, which has to be provided for. Well, Sir, I think it will be admitted that this is a very serious state of things, and one for which I think the public mind will hardly be prepared. I have seen some very extraordinary calculations on this subject, none of which come approximately to the truth. Before I sit clown I will ask the Committee to consider, first, the causes which have brought this state of things about, and, secondly, how it is to be dealt with. As to how it has come about, the answer is only too easy and obvious. It is partly due to a deficiency of Revenue, not of a very large amount (not much more than ½ per cent. on the whole), which might be easily dealt with; but it is chiefly due to the vast and progressive growth of Expenditure to which I have already drawn the attention of the Committee. Thus, in the current year we have an estimated falling-off of Revenue of £500,000, but a growth of Expenditure to be provided for of £1,100,000, and that due to engagements entered into over which we have no control. I have already pointed out the great growth of Post Office Expenditure. That has been a growth in wages and salaries to meet the engagements entered into some years ago, which are now gradually increasing. I have mentioned the growth of the Expenditure during the past seven years. I have nothing to say on the subject of that expenditure, and I am not going to enter into any controversy with reference to it; but this, at least, I may say—that those who have authorised, who have encouraged, who have insisted upon this vast growth of Expenditure—and I am speaking now without distinction of Parties, for the growth of that Expenditure has not been due to the action of one Party or the other—are bound to provide the moans of defraying it. It is idle to lay the blame, if blame there be, on one Party or another, on one Government or another. I know there was once in this country an economical Party. There is no economical Party now. I believe the Prime Minister and myself are the last survivors of that vanished creed. The saying has been attributed to me that everyone is a Socialist now. I do not know whether I ever said that, but this I will say—there are no economists now. Financial economy has gone the way of political economy, and a Chancellor of the Exchequer preaching against extravagance is "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." We hear a great deal about the stinginess of the Treasury. I wish the Treasury had a little more power, as it has the will, to be much more stingy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may hold up his hands in despair, like the old steward in the Rake's Progress; but the money is spent, and, as the French say, "The wine is drawn and you must pay for it." After all, the causes of this are not far to seek. Economy was possible, was necessary, and even popular, in former days. Governments were compelled to be economical. The people demanded it, and the House of Commons supported it. Sir Robert Peel was an economical Minister. At that time the nation was poor; capital was deficient, trade was bad, the weight of the Debt was crushing, and taxation relatively to the resources of the people was enormously heavy. People were then obliged to "attend" to the pence because they had no pounds to "look after." But now the condition of things is changed; the nation has grown rich, taxation compared to the resources of all classes is relatively light, and this is probably in proportion to its wealth the most lightly taxed nation in Europe at the present time. Therefore it is, perhaps, not unnatural that anyone who comes forward with a proposal for increased Expenditure is welcomed as if he had discovered a new pleasure. Private Members with large hearts and small responsibilities take up some favourite scheme or some favoured class of the community. They demand higher wages, greater pensions; they desire that the State should undertake now duties, fresh responsibilities, larger expenditure. We are eager to create new empires here and annex fresh territory there, to reduce postal charges all over the world, to relieve more rates, to undertake lifeboats, &c. The country is well agitated, the interests are well organised, the House of Commons is well canvassed, and one afternoon, in the gaiety of our hearts, we pass a Resolution unanimously which is to cost us a few millions when it comes into full operation some years hence.

I am not making a Party question of it at all. Neither am I complaining—I am only making it clear. I pointed out the other night with reference to a Motion of this kind that it meant £25,000,000. But all the House said was—"Oh, only £25,000,000; how cheap! Let us have it by all means." All these things are very excellent in their way. There is a great deal to be said for them; there is very little to be said against them. That is quite true; but the time comes, and it has come, when you must pay for them. This is the true inwardness of the growth of Expenditure at the present time, and I take the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) to witness that the growth of Expenditure is not mainly the work of Governments, but that it is forced on the Government by the House of Commons and the country, who really do not seem to care what they spend. J belong myself, as I have said, to the old school, and I would gladly see less money spent, for I think a good deal of it is wasted. But, if I may reverse an old saying, I would say that those who call the tune must pay the piper. I cannot, however, honestly say to the House of Commons or the country, "If you choose to spend the money, you cannot afford it," for, as I have said, the wealth of the country has increased and is increasing year by year. You may find yourselves in temporary straits, but there is no occasion for apprehension or disquiet. The condition of your affairs is sound, solid, and prosperous. The resources of the country are ample and always accumulating. Let me give the Committee one or two figures on this subject. I will just apply one or two tests of the wealth of the country. The property assessed to Income Tax in 1882 was £601,450,000; in 1892 it was £713,000,000; or a growth of £112,000,000. The property charged to Probate and Succession Duty in 1882 was £147,603,000;in l892 it was £241,453,000, or au increase of £94,000,000. Let me take another class. The deposits and investments in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks were in 1882 £85,036,000, and in 1892 £128,116,000, an increase of £43,000,000. Take the Building Societies, which is one of the investments of the artisan class. The liabilities of Building Societies in 1881 were £43,730,000; in 1891 they were £51,773,000. The total capital of industrial and Provident Societies in 1881 was £7,837,000; in 1891 £16,118,000. In ordinary Life Insurance Companies the premiums in 1881 were £11,898,000; in 1891 they were £14,565,000. In Industrial Life Insurance Companies the premiums in 1881 were £2,245,000; in 1891 they were £5,467,000. These are fair tests of the growth of the accumulated wealth of almost every class of society. I will give you one other test. I have already mentioned the increase in the Income Tax value of houses, but you do not need to go to the Inland Revenue to ascertain that. If you travel by rail you can see the number of houses of every class that are building in every direction, and that is a proof of the large and accumulated wealth of the country. These belong to what may he called the "saving" classes. But if you examine the consumption of articles of necessity and comfort, you will find everywhere signs of the larger resources of the mass of the people who lie below the classes I have referred to. I state these facts in order to say that there is the means to pay, if you choose to pay, and you must choose to pay, if you choose to spend. There may be temporary depression, but there is no permanent decline. On the contrary, there is a gradual growth in the wealth and resources of the country. I venture to lay these considerations before the Committee with reference to the growth of Expenditure and the causes of it. Now, I want to ask—How, then, is this deficit of £1,500,000 to be covered? We cannot shirk it by ingenious contrivances. It has to be met squarely and fairly. We cannot continue to encounter enhanced Expenditure by borrowing. We have already in the piping times borrowed £7,000,000, the liquidation of which its to fall on the years immediately following, when the Revenue will probably be less and the Expenditure more. We cannot recommend the Committee to have recourse to the plan of meeting its. liabilities by encroaching further on the fund set apart for the liquidation of the Debt. In our opinion that is a fund not to be tampered with in ordinary times and normal deficiencies, but reserved for great emergencies. This is the keystone of sound and solid finance, and we are not prepared further to weaken its foundation. These are courses which the Government are not prepared to recommend. They only tend to encourage extravagance by concealing and palliating for the moment its effects, and, therefore, promoting its growth. There is, in our opinion, only one sound and straightforward method of meeting this deficit, and that is by increased taxation. This is the only policy which is worthy of a solvent and a wealthy nation which finds itself over-spending. Where are we to look, then, for increased Revenue? I concur very much in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech in 1889, when he established the now Estate Duty, that one of the most fitting sources for increased taxation was to be found in the large and growing accumulations of wealth which are reached by the Death Duties. The old objections to taxing capital no longer hold good. There were days when the country suffered from a deficiency of capital: that is not so now. If there is any defect, it is in the means of the legitimate and sound employment of superabundant capital which has led to so much dangerous and speculative investment in foreign enterprises. I agree, also, most entirely in the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman in the same speech, when he said—

"On the whole, I think it will be generally recognised that it is the men whose fortunes are considerable who pay least in proportion to their aggregate income and property."

Therefore, when I came to the Treasury and there seemed last winter a more favourable prospect, both in respect of Expenditure and Revenue than has since been realised, I spent much time and labour, with the assistance of the able men in the Department and the lawyers, in examining the question, of the reform of the Death Duties. There were two main objects to be aimed at—first, that all property, whether real or personal, settled or unsettled, should be brought into account and valued and taxed on an equal basis; and, secondly, that pro- perties of large amount should pay at a higher rate than those of less considerable value; and for this purpose the whole of the assets should be aggregated so that a progressive graduation should be applied to the total value of the property of all kinds on an ascending scale according to the whole amount. Upon a careful examination there were found to be no insuperable difficulties, though the subject is a complicated one, in giving effect to these principles, and in ultimately, after a lapse of time, deriving from such a reform of the Death Duties a very considerable increment of Revenue. We should have been prepared to have laid before the Committee proposals to this effect tin's year embodied in a Bill; but, unfortunately, we are precluded from this by two conclusive reasons. The first, which is the least material one, is the question of time. Anyone who has considered this subject, or remembers the Debates on the Succession Duty in 1853, will be aware that the questions relating to settlements and to land are of a highly technical character, requiring, or at least lending themselves to, protracted discussion, and that a Bill of this controversial character would demand an amount of time which the House has not this Session at its disposal. But a more decisive reason was to be found in the fact that the proceeds of a tax of this character cannot be immediately realised; and the estimate of its produce in the first year, even with a high graduation, would not amount to one-third of the sum which I am called upon to find. The House will remember that it has taken 40 years for the Succession Duty to reach one-half the Estimate which the Prime Minister originally formed of it. What I have to do is to find the money to cover this deficit, and to find it at once. We are, therefore, with much reluctance, obliged for this year, and I hope for this year only, to postpone the proposals we were anxious to lay before the Committee. It is, in my opinion, a business which demands a solution at a the earliest practicable time. Now, Sir, I suppose the Committee will have anticipated—the House of Commons is sufficiently experienced in these matters to have discovered my secret—that the only tax by which a deficit of such magnitude can be this year adequately met is an addition of 1d. to the Income Tax. [Cheers.] I am glad the gentlemen who spent the money are so ready and willing to pay it. This Id. on the Income Tax is estimated to yield £1,750,000 in the first year, which will just cover the deficit and leave a slight margin for contingencies. I know not if the objection will be taken that this is to place the whole burden on direct, and to place no share of it on indirect, taxation.

Hear, hear!

The hon. Member for Sheffield cheers. I will give him an answer from a quarter he will respect. From whatever quarter such an objection comes, I am sure it will not be from the Benches opposite. In the great struggle of 1885, in which our Government was overthrown, the point of attack chosen by the Opposition was the proposal in respect of indirect taxation upon beer and spirits made in the Budget of Mr. Childers. Having a great deficit to encounter, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to meet his obligations partly by increased taxes on beer and spirits, partly by increase of Death Duties, and partly by increase of Income Tax. The Opposition defeated the proposal for indirect taxation and for increase of the Death Duties; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach), who succeeded as Chancellor of the Exchequer, relied simply on the increase of the Income Tax, which was raised to 8d. It was pointed out at the time that this proceeding practically rung the knell of indirect taxation in the future. That was, indeed, denied; but the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer substantially admitted it. The right hon. Gentleman said on July 9, 1885—

"In such times as these it is, I fear, too true that, for purposes of Revenue, we have arrived at the limits of increased taxation on the most important taxed articles of consumption, except, perhaps, one article only, that of tea."

It is true he added that such a tax would be so unpopular that a Government could hardly propose it. It is equally impossible now, when the duty has been reduced. He objected to a tax on spirits and beer because it was—

"Financially unsound to raise the rate of duty on articles the Revenue from which was notoriously decreasing."

I have already pointed out to you that the total fall in the last three years in alcoholic duties has been above £1,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman entered into an argument to show that an Income Tax of 8d. was not disproportionately high when the receipts from Customs and Excise stood at £42,000,000, and that when the receipts stood at about the same figure there had been in former years an Income Tax at 9d., and even l0d. If that line of argument be correct an Income Tax at, 7d. cannot be regarded as disproportionate when the yield of Customs and Excise stands at a much higher figure. The objection to placing an additional duty on spirits— in my opinion a very proper source of additional taxation—is that stated by the right hon. Member for West Bristol— namely, that at this moment it is a falling Revenue. The increase of the Tea Duty is out of the question. The addition of a further duty on tobacco by Sir Stafford North cote, some years ago, was a complete failure, and its remission by the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been a signal success. I have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion stated by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, that an increase of indirect taxation in the present circumstances is not possible. We have thought the simple increase of the Income Tax to be the method which secures the requisite amount with the least uncertainty and the smallest disturbance of trade and industry, and preferable to the attempt to raise money by a multitude of small expedients. It may be said that it is unusual to raise the Income Tax, and the Income Tax alone; but I would state that it has been done by almost every Chancellor of the Exchequer who has ever held Office. It was done in 1859, in 1867, in 1868, in 1871, in 1876, in 1880, in 1882, in 1884, and in 1885 it was done. I think that is correct.

It was not done by me.

That is substantially the proposal we have to make in order to meet the deficit. There is only one minor matter to which I must refer, and that is the change in the Stamp Duty. It is one that will interest the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There have been strong representations made to me, and, therefore, I am pre- pared to make a proposal on that subject. In 1888 the right hon. Gentleman carried a Stamp Duty on a class of securities "which had hitherto escaped taxation on transfer—namely, Foreign and Colonial Share Certificates, and securities transferable by delivery (bonds to hearer) which had not paid the 10s. stamp. There is certainly nothing to be said against the principle of tills impost. On the contrary, there is everything to be said in its favour. They are a class of securities which do not pay, and which ought to pay, Stamp Duty. But, in its operation, this stamp has proved both unpopular and ineffective. It is unpopular because it causes a great deal of vexation and trouble in delivering largo numbers of bonds at short notice, and, being an annual tax, there is difficulty in ascertaining to which, out of a great number of bonds, the adhesive stamp is to be applied. The difficulty is that every single certificate or bond must be examined at each delivery to see if it has already been stamped in a particular year. In the case of a bond, the preliminary question arises whether it requires an adhesive stamp or not. A banker, holding bonds of this description as security for advances, and not knowing when he may have to realise, is embarrassed as to affixing the stamp. Another great objection is in the case of low-priced securities. The stamp being imposed on the face value, the tax may be enormously high as compared with that on high priced securities. It is, therefore, a great hindrance, in dealing with such securities, and loads to such transactions being conducted abroad, where they are not liable to a similar impost. But, in addition to that, the yield of the tax has disappointed expectations. The right hon. Gentleman opposite confidently anticipated £200,000 from it. In the first year it yielded £111,000; in 1890 the amount was £97,000; in 1891 it was £80,000; 1892, £77,000; and 1893, £60,000. It is, therefore, probably not worth while to incur so much inconvenience to gain so little money. But I cannot afford to remit the tax without a substitute. I am given to understand that in the City the dealers would be willing to accept Is. instead of the present 6d. stamp on contract notes in place of the stamp in question. I shall, therefore, include that change in the financial proposals. If, however, the proposal is not readily accepted, it will he withdrawn, and matters will be left as they are. The produce of the proposed change will probably be something less than that of the present stamp, but not a great deal. I have now to state the final balance-sheet. The estimated Expenditure for 1893–4 will be the same as I have already given—that is to say, £91,464,000. The estimated Revenue will be the same as I have already given, only increasing the Estimate for Income Tax to £15,150,000, giving altogether an estimated Revenue of £91,640,000, leaving a margin of £176,000, which is small enough in a falling Revenue. In order to maintain that slight margin, I shall have, I dare say, over and over again to appeal to the House of Commons to aid me to resist Supplementary Estimates. I promise I will do my part in the matter if the House of Commons will do its part. I am happy to say that I am now able to release the Committee from this long history. I have been advised —I may say I have been commanded—to bring in a popular Budget. No doubt, it is a very agreeable thing for any Financial Minister to find himself in a position to introduce a popular Budget, to be able, as often happened to the present Prime Minister, "To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land." But that good fortune does not at all times befall even the greatest financiers. The only sound foundation of a popular Budget is a moderate Expenditure and a buoyant Revenue. Popularity is not, and ought not to be, the main object of the ambition of the Finance Minister of a great country like this. It is not his business to emulate the professors of sleight of hand, who profess to produce something out of nothing, or to make finance depend upon the popular breath of the moment. His first duty is to see that the financial position is clearly ascertained and prudently dealt with. If he has abundant resources, no doubt there is much room for the exercise of a capacity to distribute the gifts at his disposal to the greatest advantage. But in unfavourable times his principal object must be to make the sacrifices he is bound to demand in the manner which will cause the least disturbance to the trade and industries of the country. This is the moderate task which the financial situation has imposed upon me, and which I have endeavoured to discharge. If the Committee are of opinion that the proposals of the Government are adequate and appropriate to the circumstances with which we have to deal, I trust they may receive their sanction.

I do not rise to follow my right hot). Friend in the clear and very able statement which he has put before the Committee, nor do I propose on the present occasion either to criticise the castles in the air which he built for next year, or the very cold, dry facts with which we have to deal in the present financial year. The Prime Minister will remember that he thought it wise last year to recommend the Committee to go back to the old system of discussing the Budget very shortly on the night of its introduction, and then to take the fuller discussion of the Resolutions, when they were proposed on the following day. That seems to me to be a far more convenient course than to deal with the figures, which, although they have been placed before the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with very great clearness, are not so fixed in our minds as to enable us to deal with them. I, therefore, do not propose to make any speech dealing with the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge most frankly that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in a very conciliatory spirit. At one time I thought he was going to pass over all the ashes of controversy without even striking a spark out of any of them; but towards the conclusion of his speech I thought he saw some possibility of discussions ahead. I frankly say, however, that, the manner in which he has discharged his task is such as commends itself to those on this side of the House, as it must to those on his own side. I cer- tainly desire to join in the congratulations which the right hon. Gentleman has offered to the permanent officials of the Customs and Inland Revenue, and also of the Post Office and others, for the remarkable degree of accuracy with which they have been able to arrive at precise Estimates. I remember it was generally thought that these Estimates were too sanguine; but it was with very great confidence I submitted them last year, and I rejoice to think they have been so very nearly realised. I must, condole with the right hon. Gentleman on the difficult task of meeting a rising Expenditure with a falling Revenue. He has not got this year the trying task of having to dispose of a surplus, which, I assure him, is almost as difficult and complicated with as many questions as that of meeting a deficit. In fact, I am quite sure, so far as a Chancellor of the Exchequer's personal convenience is concerned, that the struggle to secure a large portion of the surplus is a much more severe one than the struggle to resist the imposition of taxation. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman put his foot down very strongly with regard to the increase of Expenditure. He has said truly that this is not a Party question. Sometimes the charge of increasing Expenditure has been flung about needlessly from one Party to another. But I entirely agree with him, and, speaking as an ex-chancellor of the Exchequer, I wish to support him in this respect entirely—that the House of Commons itself is mainly responsible for the constantly-increasing Expenditure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to meet. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to take the Resolutions again?

On Thursday.

If that is so, I most certainly do not propose to continue the discussion now.

asked from what, date the additional Income Tax would run? A few years ago very great inconvenience was experienced owing to the additional tax having been ante-dated to the commencement of the financial year, and questions arose in several cases as to who was liable for the tax, for instance, in the case of bonds having changed hands in the interval.

I congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Financial Statement, but he had one regret to express in regard to that Statement. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to show that vast wealth had accumulated throughout the country; but he should like to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman one word in respect of an industry which undoubtedly had no share whatever in that vast and rapid accumulation of wealth upon which he had dwelt with such satisfaction. It was only too clear that the great national industry of farming and everything connected with land was at present suffering under a depression which was not merely of a temporary character, but which had already lasted long enough to be considered as permanent, and in respect to which the most sanguine conceived but a faint hope of any improvement. He thought that while the right hon. Gentleman was giving his views as to the vast prosperity of the nation he might have said something of the one industry which shared none of that prosperity.

I pointed out the great fall in receipts under Schedule B of the Income Tax.

said, it was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that under Schedule B what had been £48,000 had fallen to £36,000, a decrease of 25 per cent.; but he should like to have had that statement somewhat expanded, and it would have been gratifying to those interested in agriculture to receive a word of sympathy in respect of so serious and continuous a loss to an industry which was likely to experience worse times than it had already known. That was not the time to enter into any long discussion with regard to the imposition of an additional 1d. on the Income Tax; but he would say that there was no class upon whom the extra Id. would fall with greater severity than the owners of real property. This increase would be levied upon the gross value, and not upon the net value of the land; and so the owners of land, who wore suffering from a most serious depression, would be burdened to a much greater extent than the wealthy classes, of whose growing riches the right hon. Gentleman had so eloquently spoken. He should also have liked to have heard something from the right hon. Gentleman as to the provision for the superannuation of teachers; for although the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the increased Expenditure was due to education, he did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman had made any suggestion as to providing the fund in future.

That was the suggestion which I said would only cost £25,000,000 to carry out.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had given the figures, but had not mentioned the particular subject in his Statement, and he should like to know to what extent he proposed to make a provision for the improvement of the whole body of school teachers?

said, the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were, in his opinion, as satisfactory as could be expected under existing circumstances. With a Revenue which had been declining for the past year or two, and which showed no signs of immediate revival, and also considering that the Government had their hands full, it was not reasonable to expect great fiscal changes. But he rose for the purpose of expressing how grateful he felt to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for abolishing the Goschen stamp on bonds and shares. That tax produced little cash and much irritation. In fact, the annoyance felt was out of all proportion to the Revenue. Even its creator, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, had latterly little to say in its favour, and would have abandoned it if any equivalent had been offered to him. That was hardly a good reason for continuing a bad tax. in these days of keen competition it was most undesirable to handicap British traders to the advantage of foreign rivals. He protested against that Stamp Duty when it was first proposed, and ventured to prophecy that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate that it would produce £200,000 was far beyond the probable revenue. It now barely realised a third of that sum, and would, no doubt, decline still further. He wished his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would also revise the other Stamp Duties on International Securities such as bonds and bills of exchange. The stamps on bonds (10s. per £100) were more than double those which Germany imposed—namely, 4s. per £100; over three times the French stamps, and five times the Dutch and Belgian stamps. They looked well after their traders' interests, whenever possible, when affected by foreign tariffs, and they would protest loudly against differential duties in foreign ports. Why, then, should they handicap their traders with Stamp Duties far greater than their rivals abroad had to pay? The Revenue from stamps on bills of exchange, instead of increasing, had considerably declined during the last 10 years. He believed that was also the case with stamps on bonds. He did not see why they should not have an International agreement or arrangement for identical laws with regard to bills of exchange and bonds. He believed that if these stamps were revised more Revenue would be obtained and trade would be benefited. He noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said nothing about the issue of £1 notes against gold, which he had often advocated in the House. He thought they might learn something in that respect from the Irish and Scotch and from their American kinsmen in the United States and Canada. In those countries the £1 note, or its equivalent, five dollars, was preferred to gold. Why should they not obtain the same facility? —why should they be forced to use gold, which many of them did not care to do? The Bank of England should be requested to issue £ I notes in the same way as £5 or £10 notes. He had often advocated in the House that a Municipal Death Duty in reduction of rates should be levied on freehold property in large towns. He was glad to know that his right hon. Friend was in full sympathy with that reform, and he hoped that in the next Budget freehold property in large towns would be compelled to bear its fair share of local taxation from which it had so long escaped.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a state of anxiety as to the public mind not being prepared for a deficit of £1,500,000. He would undeceive the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, for past experience had taught the country what to expect from the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. He only regretted that it had fallen to the lot of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a Budget the popularity of which he thought was so doubtful. The Budgets of the Liberal Government had always shown decreased Revenue, increased Expenditure, and increased Taxation, and the present one was no exception to the rule. What a contrast this Budget presented to those which had been introduced since 1886 by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen)! The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the rising Revenue from 1886 to 1890. As the period of Office of the Unionist Government approached its term, the Revenue declined, public confidence diminished, and now, after eight months' tenure of Office by the present Government, the people found Taxation increased, Expenditure increased, no reduction of Income Tax proposed, no Tea Duty diminished, no Currant Duty, Carriage Tax, or other impost reduced. Eight months had been quite sufficient to upset nearly every trade and calling in the country, to destroy all commercial confidence, and to sow suspicion and enmity between all classes of the community. The President of the Board of Trade was not ashamed to declare the other day that the foreign trade had fallen in the six months—September to February last—by over £30,000,000, compared with the same period in 1889–90; that the average number of unemployed in Trades Unions in correspondence with his Department was 23,364, compared with 3,795 under Lord Salisbury; that the exports of British iron and steel were 1,440,000 tons less in 1892 than in 1889; that 41 tinplate mills were closed at the end of February, and 410 cotton mills and sheds, affecting 50,000 operatives, had recently suspended work. In addition to the deplorable state of affairs in the shipping trade, a reduction of wages had just been decided upon by the arbitrator to the Midland Iron and Steel Wages Board; and that would affect workmen in Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, North and South Staffordshire, and East Worcestershire. In addition to that, the Home Rule proposals of the Government had made all investments in Ireland absolutely impossible, while refusal to take any steps to blend the Mother Country and the Colonies in a Commercial Union had made Colonial investments also difficult. What a moment to choose to increase taxation! Where were all the promises of a free breakfast table? Where was the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire, with their anti-Unionist zeal for the abolition of the Tea Duty? Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself declared, on April 22, 1890, from that (the Opposition) side of the House—

"I am sure we must all feel that this Tea Duty cannot remain upon its present footing."

What did he feel now? The Unionists reduced the Tea Duty by one-third. The Gladstonians left it alone, and this, although it was not a tax upon a competing import, and therefore paid every farthing of it by the consumers, although it was a tax most unequal in its incidence—200 per cent. ad valorem, on cheap two penny tea-siftings, but only 20 per cent. on the rich man's tea. Again, it was a tax mainly levied on the produce of our own Empire, for the importation of Indian and Ceylon tea was rapidly increasing, while that of China tea was as fast declining. The United Kingdom pretended to be a Free Trade country, because it admitted competing goods free, taxed non-competing goods essential to the people, and not produced in this country, and had duties heaped against it in every part of the world. Never was there such hypocrisy. The £20,000,000 we raised by Import Duties was the largest sum raised by any Custom House in Europe, and in nearly every case the duties were levied on the wrong articles. Why should £3,500,000 be raised from the poor tea-drinkers? Why should raw coffee be taxed 14s. a cwt., chicory 13s. 3d. a cwt., chocolate 2d. a lb., cocoa 1d. a 1b., currants 2s. a cwt., figs, prunes, and raisins for plum puddings and cakes 7s. a cwt., and the Cavendish and negrohead tobacco of the working man 4s. 6d. a lb? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite professed to be great friends of the working man. But the working man had nothing to thank them for, especially in respect of the Budget which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had presented that night. All these taxes on articles essential to the people should be taken off or reduced to a minimum—and the revenue raised there from be derived instead by levying a toll on those productions of foreign labour, which, admitted free on advantageous and unfair terms, caused British factories and mills to be shut up, British wages to be reduced, and British working men, having wives and children to maintain, to be thrown out of employment. He dared say some hon. Gentlemen opposite thought this meant a tax upon corn. Nothing of the kind, at any rate at first, and until the people saw what every other nation understood, that a moderate tax upon foreign corn enabled derelict laud to be cultivated by home labour to feed the people on it. He thought he had exploded the recent fables of the President of the Board of Trade, who declared that last August he saw Frenchmen paying 80 centimes for a bit of bread no English workhouse pauper would touch, by showing that at that very moment the finest French white bread only cost 7d. for nearly 4½1bs., while there many cheaper sorts in the market. He commended to hon. Gentlemen opposite a study of the Reports just laid upon the Table from the Consuls at Bordeaux and Nantes. The former said—

"The increased Import Duty had no effect whatever upon the price of wheat, for when on June 1st the new rate of Duty (5 francs per 100 kilo) was put into force, values remained the same as before that date."

The Consul at Nantes wrote—

"Household bread sells now at an average of 5d. per 41b. loaf, which is a little lower than the average of the three years immediately preceding the imposition of the Duty."

Why, even the rabid Free Trader at the Consulate at Calais could not contradict this, although, having apparently little to do, he spent much time in writing essays for the Cobden Club. The importation of wheat in grain only amounted last year to £17,000,000 out of a total foreign competing import of about £220,000,000, so it was hardly worth considering. But he submitted, if Her Majesty's Government had the smallest regard for the prosperity of the people and the welfare of British commerce, they would take off the £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 of taxation proposed in this Budget on non-competing products and raise that amount, or even more—so as to reduce the rates and taxes—on the £20,000,000 of foreign dairy produce, on the £12,000,000 of foreign flour, on the £28,000,000 worth of foreign meat, and, most of all, as a start on the £65,000,000 worth of foreign fully manufactured goods, and the £15,000,000 of partly manufactured goods, which came duty free into Sheffield, Birmingham, London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, and Bradford, and which, aided by false marks frauds, reduced the wages of his constituents, and British artizans, put them on short time, and drove them out of employment into the workhouse and across the seas.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reduction of liabilities which he stated at £6,600,000 was after allowing for the £2,056,000 borrowed; was it, in fact, a net reduction? He would, under other circumstances, have welcomed a reduction of the Tea Duties; but if the Government of Ireland Bill were to become law the only contribution which Ireland would pay would be the Customs, and if, therefore, they were reduced, Great Britain would have to make up the difference. The Expenditure of the country was increasing, and the whole contribution from Ireland was their share of the Customs Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, now told them that it-was impossible to increase the Customs Duties. That was also a serious objection to the present proposal. We had permanent and, as the Chancellor foresaw, increasing additions to Imperial Expenditure, and yet it was proposed to meet them by increasing a tax, the Irish contribution to which would, so far as Ireland was concerned, go entirely' to Irish Expenditure. The result was that if the [proposals of the Government were accepted, Ireland would, if the Homo Rule Bill became law, be relieved from any of the burden of this increased Expenditure, and the whole weight would fall on the people of Great Britain. Here in the very first Budget they had an illustration how their freedom in dealing with their finances was destroyed by the Home Rule Bill, in the effect it would have in throwing additional burdens on the people of England and Scotland.

said, the first thing that struck him was the matter of the Alcohol Duties. As he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman con- sidered that there would be a very small reduction in the Revenue from alcohol during the past year. Were they to understand, then, that the Local Veto Bill, which was to do so much to reduce the consumption of alcohol in the coutry, which was to shut up so many public-houses, and which was to have such a salutary effect upon the drinking habits of the people—were they to understand that the practical result of the Budget was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not believe that the Local Veto Bill would ever pass, or that, if it passed, it would be of any possible use in reducing the amount of alcohol consumed?

said, he had not calculated that the Local Veto Bill would come into operation this year.

said, if (he Government believed that the Bill would have any effect they would have taken it into consideration, and therefore they had a sidelight hon. the policy of the Government on this subject—namely, that the Local Veto Bill would never see daylight during the present Session. On the subject of the Death Duties, he wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had the boldness of his own convictions and had proposed that form of taxation. He was convinced that large properties did not pay so much in the £1 as small ones, and he was going to move an Amendment on that subject on the Second Reading of the Budget. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the assistance to Local Taxation. A great mistake was made by the aid given to Local Taxation from Imperial Taxation. He was quite sure it led to a large amount of extravagance. Large subventions to Local Taxation were not a benefit to the country, but really injured and retarded it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that there was a very slight decrease in the Revenue—which was a hopeful and healthy sign—but that there was a great increase in the Expenditure, particularly in the Post Office, on Education, and other things. It seemed to him that this House was really the culprit in the matter of the increased Expenditure. They were always in the abstract, being economical; but when it came to absolute practice, few had the courage to do the thing which they knew to be economically right. They ought to pay their public servants of all grades liberally, but he asserted that this House ought not to be made an agency for continually considering the salaries and allowances of the Civil Service. He had been much struck by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the latest decrease in the Revenue was in the last quarter of the year. That told a most serious tale of a Budget affected by political considerations. Could anyone doubt that they would continue to affect the Budget in coming years? The fact that the last quarter was so much worse than others showed that the country was waking up to the fact that the change in the Government was not a change for the better. He was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he was not going to reduce the National Debt Sinking Fund, as he had always concurred with those who said that it ought not to have been reduced below £28,000,000. Heavy as our taxation was it was less, perhaps, than that of any other European country; but it was an erroneous notion that an increase in the Income Tax would fall only on the well-to-do classes. It really fell with greatest weight on the people at the bottom of the scale, partly because the development of our prosperity was seen in the increasing number of small incomes and partly because the activity of the Revenue Officers drew in more and more at the bottom of the Income Tax scale. It was here that the Income Tax produced a higher amount every year, and therefore it was that; the increase in the tax would really fall on those with the lowest taxable incomes— those going from £150 to £400. For this reason he had hoped that in proposing an addition to the Income Tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have adopted differential rates as between incomes derived from industry and incomes derived from property. Nothing could be more equitable than to recognise the difference between the two classes of income. That recognition was advocated by Lord Brougham when the Income Tax was first imposed; and in Franco the tax was levied not upon industrial incomes, but only upon incomes derived from capital. In proposing an increase the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take the opportunity of making the differential rates he had referred to. That was his idea, and he would like to see it adopted.

said that the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield would have to do a great deal of work on his own side of the House before he made much progress with his extraordinary and reactionary doctrines. The answer to the question what would the advocates of a free breakfast table say to this Resolution was simply that they would vote for it. They might regard it as a melancholy duty; but it was a duty, nevertheless. He certainly looked for much from the present Government, but he did not expect impossibilities. It was clear that, owing to a series of unsound Budgets in the last few years, there was now an accumulation of difficulties which a very Hercules in finance could not sweep away. They all understood why it was impossible now to find the time that would be required for dealing with the Death Duties; but he looked forward confidently to the Government continuing its good work and making more Radical proposals. For that reason be could "possess his soul in patience." Imperfect as the Income Tax was in its incidence, an additional 1d. would cause less privation and inconvenience than any other increase of taxation. One of the causes of the deficit was the increase in the amount of the grants in aid of local taxation, in themselves an evidence of the unsoundness of our finance. He looked confidently to the time when, by a drastic reform in the Death Duties, nearly enough would be provided to carry out the idea suggested by the late Mr. Bright of a "free breakfast table."

said, he was sorry any hon. Members should think it their duty to deal with the Budget on Party lines, as he thought the subject was of far too great importance to be dealt with in that way. It was a subject, he would say, that ought to be dealt with on lines of pure finance. He wished to say, with regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the amount he would derive from the Death Duties would not help him to any considerable extent to meet the deficit. The right hon. Gentleman could not revise the Death Duties, he supposed, unless he wanted more money; and if he did want more money, it was no reason for not taking the money, because it would not be sufficient, or because he would not get it as early as he wanted it. The fact that he would not get much help from the Death Duties might be a reason for postponing the revision for ever. If this rule was to be applied to the Death Duties, the payers of those duties might look to a prolonged period of protection. He would pay his tribute to the manner in which the proposals had been laid before the House, which enabled the House to grasp with precision the proposals submitted. He would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider the necessity of making the Stamps applicable to Stock Exchange contracts applicable to all contracts. He did not know how such a proposal would be received, but he would be glad if they could hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say on the subject. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the conciliatory character, as he regarded it, of the statement which he had submitted.

said, the Budget could scarcely be called a sensational one. What he had to complain of was the Naval and Military Expenditure which, however, had been forced upon successive Governments by hon. Members on both sides of the House by the state of Europe and the enormous armaments of other Powers, and, of course, to some extent by popular panic. He agreed that it was a great mistake to discuss the Budget on Party lines; it should be dealt with on grounds of economics. He would remind the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield and the Committee generally that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just stated that the Expenditure had been increased during the last seven years by £10,600,000—Army and Navy, £2,600,000; Education, £3,400,000; Local Grants, £4,200,000; Civil Service, £400,000; total, £10,600,000 —that this had been aided by reduction in Debt charges of £3,000,000, leaving £7,000,000 to be raised, and that the country had been passing through one of the greatest financial periods of stress seen for many years. Firms of European reputation, such as the Barings, had been shaken, and the feeling of insecurity had influenced very materially the quantity of foreign orders usually received. A lack of confidence had been produced in the City; it had been passed on to the manufacturers, and it had in turn reacted on the working men. That was the state of things which had to be encountered by his right hon. Friend. Looking at all these difficulties, he thought there were special reasons why the Committee should regard the Budget as a matter distinct from and outside Party politics.

said, the wealth accruing from the land had been decreasing since the year 1886, and he would like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the great hardship which would be caused to agriculturists by the imposition of the extra 1d. on the Income Tax on land? The Income Tax on land was collected on the gross amount and not on the net, and he was anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would give instructions that the Income Tax should be collected on the net instead of the gross? The Land Tax should be taken away from the Imperial Exchequer and given to the local revenues of counties to be applied towards local expenses. They should be allowed to pay and control in the same spirit of fairness that other industries enjoyed.

said, that among Radicals generally, and more particularly in the Metropolis, great regret would be felt that the Death Duties could not be dealt with in the present Budget. Time and money, however, were the great limitations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he and many of his hon. Friends viewed with satisfaction the strong and firm way in which the right hon. Gentleman had signified his approval of a drastic reform on the Death Duties. There was another important matter, and that was as to rates on land. He would direct the attention of hon. Members to a Report which had been recently presented by the head of the Local Government Board, and which showed that the rates on land had diminished to a half of what they were in the earlier part of the century. The assistance rendered to the rates in London was 8¾d., while to agricultural districts it was over 10d. He hoped the Government would pass the measure for the equalisation of rates in the Metropolis, and thus relieve the pressure of taxation in London, where it was most felt. He expected they would obtain an assurance that that important reform would be pushed forward as a contribution, pending a more thorough-going reform of London Local Taxation.

The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke for the ratepayers of London. I want to say just a word or two for ratepayers in other parts of the country—in the seaport towns. I want to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered the desirability of making some provision towards meeting the cost incurred by the Local Authorities of these towns in taking precautions with regard to the prevention of cholera? The Local Authorities had hoped that something would be done to assist them in the anti-cholera expenditure for 1892; but there is no mention of any provision for this year in case there should be recurrent expenditure in these towns. The prevention of cholera is a national concern, and it cannot be effectually undertaken unless through these Local Authorities—the Sanitary Bodies of the seaports. I find, Sir, that the Hull Sanitary Authority spent over £1,150 in the prevention of cholera last year; and the Hull and Goole ports, through their Sanitary Authority, spent over £300 in addition. The total cost of the Humber ports was £2,500. In my own constituency the Sanitary Authorities were put to a great trouble and expense. Now, it is the inland towns that benefit chiefly by this expenditure, and the appeal that I make for some provision to make good the expenditure from the local funds must have the support of hon. Members from Sheffield, Bradford, Lincoln, Nottingham, and even of Derby, Manchester, and Liverpool. Is it fair that the seaports should bear all the expense? In Grimsby we fitted up a steamship as a Cholera Hospital Ship in the Humber, the patients being taken direct, and a medical assistant being on board. The medical officer boarded all ships, and we had the use of several steam-tugs; we supplied all medical wants, and had to pay the cost of the ship, and we are still paying for her. The expense has been exactly £893 11s. 7d. over and above that of the Infectious Diseases Hospital, which has been costly also. I think the House will acknowledge that it would be a fatal mistake to put the Local Authorities in such a position as to discourage them from taking immediate and effectual steps for the prevention of cholera. I do not wish to say anything just now on the Budget proposals, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance that these Authorities will be relieved from the position in which they are, so that they may not be deterred from the work in which they are engaged by the fear of what, the ratepayers may say afterwards. These Bodies may reasonably look to the Treasury for a subsidy which will enable them to act even more effectually than they have hitherto done in this important matter.

said, speaking as a member of a banking firm in the Levant, he would draw attention to the fact that a large amount of Stock Exchange business which formerly came from the Levant to London now went to Paris, in consequence of the tax placed on transactions on the London Stock Exchange. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way to adopt some plan by which foreigners might give orders in London without having to stamp the contract.

said, that according to a Petition which had been circulated among members from the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs of Scotland, a sum of £50,000,000 of unclaimed money was held by the banks in Scotland, though the total amount deposited with these banks was only £93,825,000. A cypher seemed to have been inadvertently added to the first amount. He would suggest that, by appropriating a portion of this money, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have found an easy means of meeting the deficiency. Unclaimed deposits in banks should not be appropriated by the bankers, but should, after the lapse of a limited period, go into the State Exchequer. It was the custom for the bankers to appropriate such sums; but that was so much taken from the country, and they ought not to allow it to be done. Then there was the drawback on British spirits exported, amounting to £1,000 a day, or £365,000 a year. It was allowed in distilleries and other establishments where spirits were prepared for export, but it had been demonstrated that, for the expenditure incurred, the distillers and others received a full equivalent in the service of the Excise officers. They would really lose, as they did in some instances, when the Malt Duty was repealed, if the present system were discontinued. He had risen to point this out as a subject worthy of consideration for dealing with on a future occasion; but, in view of all the circumstances, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have dealt with the present crisis in a more simple manner than lie had done.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that no economical Party now existed. He (Mr. Willox) was afraid that, that was so, judging by the amount of the Budget, and he was also afraid that it was a matter for which all Parties were equally responsible. The right hon. Gentleman also said that financial economy had gone the way of political economy. Now, political economy in this particular instance had to be somewhat discarded, because he took it that as a Customs Duty increased in amount it was desirable that its incidence should be adjusted equitably among those who bore it. That was not the case in reference to the one duty to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee. He spoke of the Tobacco Duty, where the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those who were well-to-do did not contribute their fair share to the Treasury were especially applicable. They had had it explained that the amount of the increase in the yield of the Tobacco Duty during the past year had been £182,000, and for the coming year a further augmentation had been calculated. The total amount of that duty would considerably exceed £10,000,000 for the year, and that sum was more than one-half of the total receipts from the Customs. They had it in the last Report of the Commissioners of Customs that the quantity of tobacco consumed per head of the population last year was 1½61 lb., equal to a duty of 5s. 3d. per head. It was certainly desirable that the incidence of such a tax should be equitably adjusted. He did not think it was so at present. The great bulk of the tobacco consumed in this country was consumed by the working classes, who usually paid 3d. per ounce for it, and of every 6d. so paid id. went to the Exchequer. How did that compare with the amount paid to the Exchequer by those whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described as having considerable means and not paving adequately? A rich man spent 6d. on a Havana cigar, and of that sum less than Id. went to the Exchequer, so that there was a differential rate very much in favour of the well-to-do. To take a familiar case, the duty on spirits raised the price of a nominal shilling's worth to 5s., whereas the duty on tobacco raised the price of that article from 1s. to 6s. 8d. per lb. According to an authority, which would not be treated with disrespect by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Financial Reform Association, smokers should know that of the 3d. per ounce paid for the common sorts of tobacco, 2½d. went to the Exchequer and ½d. for the tobacco. That was not the proportion in which the tax was borne by the rich, who could well afford to pay, because just as the expense advanced with the high grade article the ratio of contribution to the Exchequer diminished in the same proportion. The commoner the tobacco, the poorer the consumer, the larger the levy that was made on his funds; the richer the man, the higher the price that was paid for the article, the less he paid in proportion to the National Exchequer. The present standard of tobacco taxation was fixed in 1863, but he would take the Committee back a stage further. In was in 1842 that Sir Robert Peel fixed the duty upon tobacco. His standard for foreign cigars was 9s. per lb., so that at that time, under that wise financial administrator, there was some close approximation between the duty and the value. But in 1863 the present Prime Minister, being Chancellor of the Exchequer, an alteration was made in the incidence of the duty, and it was altered very invidiously in both directions. The amount of duty levied on foreign cigars was reduced from 9s. to 5s. per 1b., and the duty on the tobacco which the people consumed was advanced from 3s. to 3s. 2d. It was from that point that the present anomaly began; and it still continued. The immediate effect of that change was to increase in a very rapid ratio the import of foreign-manufactured tobacco, and that state of things had gone on from then till now. The total duty paid on un manufactured tobacco in 1884 was £8,700,000; in 1890 it was £8,470,000, while in 1892 it was, according to the last Report of the Commissioners of Customs, £9,530,000. That showed progress, but not nearly the same relative progress as was manifested in the value of foreign cigars and imported manufactured tobaccos. in 1884 the amount of duty paid upon foreign cigars, which were consumed entirely by the rich and well-to-do, was £344,283; in 1891 it was £473,000; in 1892 it was £503,000. The importation of foreign-manufactured tobacco had been increasing in a still greater ratio, because in 1884 the duty paid on it was £46,000; in 1890 it was £69,000, in 1892 £82,250, so that at the present time there was paid on foreign cigars and foreign manufactured tobacco the sum of £585,000 per annum. He found that the percentage of increase showed far greater relative progress in the import of manufactured tobacco than in raw leaf. He called attention to these facts, not for the purpose of urging an immediate change of duty, because he knew that that would be impossible; but he wished to point out that, just as the duty on foreign cigars and imported manufactured tobacco increased, the proportion paid by the well-to-do people in this country diminished, and the amount of duty levied on the poorer classes increased. It would be found that, while there had been a great limitation of adulteration in this country, there had also been a very great disproportion of taxation. He called attention to this matter rather in view of the prospective time shadowed forth by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). When, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have an opportunity of framing a new and more suitable Budget, the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that the incidence of the Customs Duties on tobacco was exceedingly inequitable, unfavourable to the working classes, and in favour of the well-to-do, and would put on a more just and equitable basis of taxation this important article of commerce.

I have every reason to thank the Committee for the extreme kindness with which it has dealt with the matters that it has been my duty to bring before it. Some of the subjects I have dealt with hon. Members have not dealt with, very properly reserving their observations until such time as the items can be more specifically dealt with under the several Resolutions. For the present I will confine myself to a few of the questions and suggestions which have been raised. The right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) made an appeal on behalf of the seaport towns. I wish the Committee to observe that it is always the case, when a Budget is proposed, that now demands of an extensive character are immediately made, demands founded on principles which might carry one very far. What is the right hon. Gentleman's demand? It is that Imperial funds shall bear the charge of the Sanitary Duties, which are, I will admit, of an extraordinary character, now falling upon the seaport towns. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to form a very adequate idea of how many more pennies such a demand, if conceded, would add to the Income Tax. That is a calculation into which I think he ought to enter. He will allow me to say that I myself have yet to be convinced of the soundness and justice of the principle on which his demand is founded. After all, seaport towns depend largely for their prosperity on the fact that they are seaport towns; and when these demands are made, the old legal maxim may fittingly be stated "That he who receives the advantage ought to bear the burden." Having in view the position of inland towns, it is not too much to say that the seaport towns should make provision for the security of their own population. If they wore to abandon the precautions which it is necessary for them to take, what would become of Southampton and Liverpool and Grimsby and Hull? Why, of course, the whole of their populations might be infected with cholera at once. Therefore, it seems to me that before the right hon. Gentleman makes this demand he should establish a principle on which alone it can properly be founded. I have to thank the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart) for the way in which he spoke of the proposals I have made. He expressed some disappointment at my not dealing with the Death Duties this year. He' referred to a matter on which I am able to give him, I hope, satisfactory assurances—a matter which demands the sympathy and support of the Government—namely, the promotion of the principle of the equalisation of rates in the Metropolis. That seems to me to be an extremely just principle. That was introduced as regards the poor rate, by my right lion, and venerable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers). He has now asked me that the principle should be extended to other rates that now fall so unequally in different districts in London—namely, the improvement rates; and certainly it is the desire of the Government to give every support to the promotion of a reform of that character. The hon. Members for Hampshire and Somersetshire seem to think that I have not expressed the sympathy I ought to have expressed with the distress in the agricultural industry. I certainly did not go fully into that subject—and sympathy is a quality which does not naturally belong to the Budget Statement. I cannot but express the fullest sympathy of Her Majesty's Government with the losses and sufferings that have been sustained by that portion of the community during recent years. Hon. Members are wrong in assuming that we do not entertain that sympathy for agriculture in its distress that it has a right to demand from all sections of the community. The hon. Member for Hampshire has complained of the distinction between the rating of land and other properties. I, personally, am hostile in principle to any such distinction, and hold that both forms of taxation should be dealt with in the same way; but it is absolutely impossible to deal with the one without the other. I hope it will be possible to deal with the question, and put both duties on the same footing when the Death Duties are considered. That, I am afraid, is all that at this moment I can say. On another point, in reference to the Stamp Duties, an hon. Member opposite suggested a change which actually made my mouth water—namely, that a stamp should be put on all contracts, even in Mincing Lane; but I am afraid it would be almost as much as the life of any Chancellor of the Exchequer is worth to bring forward such a proposal. The hon. Member for North Islington advocated a distinction being drawn in the Income Tax Assessment between industrial and funded incomes. That is the battle that was fought by the Prime Minister in his great speech in 1853. As often as that question has been brought forward, so often the answer has been given that it is impossible to make the distinction. I should prefer to deal with the Death Duties, because those duties secure the additional taxation on the higher and accumulated wealth which cannot be secured by the Income Tax. As to the question I have been asked in reference to the date when the increased Income Tax will come into operation, whether the tax is increased or decreased, it always commences on the 6th of April. That is the date at which the existing tax expires. On the occasion of the Abyssinian War the tax was imposed in November, still, it harked back, commencing as from the 6th of April. It is calculated from the day on which the previous tax expires. For the convenience of their clients bankers deduct Income Tax according to the rate of the previous year. If the rate is lowered, and they deduct too much, then they make the necessary return afterwards; and if they do not deduct enough, as is the case when the rate is increased, then additional deductions are made. I have endeavoured to reply to the questions which have been asked. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Long) offered me £1,000 a day—I think that is what his drawback would come to—but I inquired into the matter the moment I heard of it and found, I am sorry to say, that there is nothing in it. You cannot refuse the drawback on spirits in bond, for if you did you would suffer considerable loss of duty. I will not ask the Committee to pass the Resolution relating to the Income Tax to-night; hut if there is no objection, according to the usual practice, I will ask leave to take the Tea Duty and Resolution with reference to Stamps.

I understand that it has generally been the custom to allow the Tea Resolution to be taken, and for my part I shall offer no objection, on the understanding that we are absolutely free to discuss the whole of the financial policy of the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday night. As to the Stamp Duty, I see no particular objection to its being passed this evening. Of course, if there are any hon. Members who wish to discuss it, doubtless the right hon. Gentleman will not press it. After all, it will not affect the progress of Business one way or the other.

said, he wanted to mention one or two grievances that affected his constituents. The Government should take a great interest in the British fanner, and that being so, he thought they might do something to relieve him of some of his burdens of taxation. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a duty upon British wines? Foreign wines were very heavily pressed in that respect, and he thought by putting a duty on home wines the Chancellor would have an easy means of raising the money he required. There was another method by which the right hon. Gentleman might win some popularity in the country districts; and that was by taking steps to prevent transfers of shares for a merely nominal consideration. Such transfers were made too often for the purpose of cheating the Revenue. The money raised in the ways he suggested could be applied to the relief of local taxation, which would be a great relief to the agriculturists, and the right hon. Gentleman would be able to come down next year with a more satisfactory outlook than that which he had to face at present.

said, he had to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his bold and plain speech with regard to economy. He could not, however, agree that the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister were the only two Members of that House who had economical views, for he had not forgotten that when a proposal was made to reduce expenditure in connection with the Expedition to Uganda the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman voted against that proposal. He wished to protest against the mode of assessing property for the collection of the Property Tax and House Duty. These taxes were paid on the gross value, and not on the net, or rateable, value. That was unfair, and had been acknowledged to be unfair by Parliament. He could hardly expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything in the matter during the present Session; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a promise that it should be considered. There was another matter to which he would like to call attention, and that was the question of Grants in Aid. A sum of over £7,000,000 was collected as Imperial Taxes and given to Local Authorities; but it did not appear in the Budget. The Expenditure for the present year, including that £7,000,000, and a loan of about £1,500,000, would be nearly £100,000,000. He did not believe in Grants in Aid. It was a very bad system, and led to a waste of money. This expenditure of £100,000,000 was a great deal more than the people of the country ought to be asked to meet. Ten millions at least ought to be knocked off. In the first place, he thought the Royal Family cost a great deal too much. This country could not afford nearly £1,000,000 for the expenses of one family, and that sum ought to be reduced by at least £500,000. Of course, it would be no good for him to propose such a reduction. It ought to be proposed by a strong Member of the Government; but it was unfortunate that these matters of expenditure always involved a question of confidence in the Government. In his opinion, the House ought to be allowed to consider them on their merits, and no Government ought to be turned out on a question of reduction of Expenditure. The next question to which he would call attention was the Expenditure on the Army and Navy. Under the present Government the cost this year of the Army was £250,000 more than last year. If this extra money were going to the private soldiers he would not object to it; but, so far as he knew, hardly one penny of it was going in that direction. He had been told that there was a waste of nearly £2,000,000 in the Army Expenditure. He had not been able exactly to discover whore that waste took place. It took a deal of trouble for any hon. Member of the House to find out the way money was spent in this country, and where it went to; and it therefore was not surprising that an humble Member like himself was unable to discover this waste of £2,000,000 in the Army Ex88penditure. He should like, however, to compel the Army Authorities to carry out the work for a sum less by £2,000,000 than the present Expenditure. He believed they could easily do it, and as efficiently as at present. There were a great many officers who did nothing, and a great many persons who got pensions to which they were not entitled. Those, for instance, might he got rid of. He did not think there was so much waste in the Navy as in the Army, because the Navy was not so much run after as the Army, and its officers were not so well paid. But still there was a great waste in the Navy. He also thought that Civil Servants were paid too much, and that their pensions should he done away with altogether. The working men had now got votes; but they had nor got pensions, and it would probably come to this— that everybody or nobody should be pensioned, because the man with £1 a week had as good a claim to a pension, and should get it on the same ground, as a man with.£1,000 a year. He did not wish to say anything offensive to the Officers of the House; but there were Officers of the House who were paid £1,000 or £1,500 a year and got pensions, whilst the labourers employed about the House got only £1 or £1 10s. a week, and no pensions, so that when they were old they were driven into the workhouse, or had to depend upon their relatives when they were half-starved. The better way would be to abolish pensions altogether, and let people provide for themselves. When people were certain of pensions, it destroyed their best qualities of self-reliance and thrift, and made them extravagant. He would give pensions to soldiers and sailors and policemen, on account of the danger and nature of their services, but would abolish it in the case of all other servants of the State. Then there were what he would call political pensions. Ex-Ministers got £1,200 or £2,000 a year, to which they were no more entitled than he was. He believed that these ex-Ministers had to make a declaration, that they could not live without this pension. How they made such a declaration he did not know, but there were numbers of Members of the House who could with equal honesty make such a declaration. He hoped the present Government would do away with these pensions, and so save a little for the country. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer had told them that the Telegraph Service had never paid its expenses, not to speak of the interest of the money paid for the undertakings. It was an undoubted fact that too much money had been given for the Telegraphs. He would, therefore, impress on hon. Members that they should take care, when purchasing such undertakings, that they did not give too much money for them. The London County Council should take that piece of advice. There was a proposal to buy up the London Water Companies, and the County Council were asked to pay a fabulous sum for the works; but if the County Council did not take care they would be bit as the Government had been bit over the Telegraphs. The late Government had tried to make political capital out of the fact that they had passed what they called the Free Education Act. But it seemed the present Government had to pay for it. The present Government had to provide a large sum of money for Education. He did not complain of that, because the money was being put to a good purpose, and would before long yield good fruit. There was also an increase of £600,000 in the Post Office Expenditure. That Department was well conducted, and he did not object to the expenditure so long as the officials who really did the work got the money. He was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deal with the Death Duties this year. The matter was most important, for the Death Duties were unfairly imposed, real property only having to pay one-third the amount paid on personal property. He had never had any explanation of this difference of treatment, except the fact that it had always been the general policy of the Government of the country, so long as it was in the hands of the aristocracy, to take the taxes off themselves and place the burden on the middle and working classes. He did not see why the question of the re-adjustment of these Death Duties should not be dealt with in this Session. He would probably be told that Ireland blocked the way, as it had blocked the way for the last 30 or 40 years, or for 700 years if they liked. When they asked anything for Great Britain they were told there was an Irish Bill before the House, and that, therefore, there was no time to do anything for England or Scotland and Wales. He did not think there was a stronger argument in favour of Home Rule than the fact that until Home Rule was out of the way there would be no time whatever to deal with The affairs of Great Britain. There was one subject of importance to which he had heard no allusion in the course of the discussion—that was the subject of a graduated Income Tax. The Liberal Party was pledged to a graduated Income Tax. Everyone would agree that it was not right to charge the same tax on precarious incomes as was charged on incomes derived from well-secured investments, or to tax small incomes to the same extent as large incomes. He therefore hoped the Government would do something this Session to carry out their pledges to establish a graduated Income Tax. He knew the difficulties in the way of the Government in trying to cut down the expenses of some of the Departments; but the Government should not complain when those reforms were pressed on their attention by private Members in the interest of the country. So far as he was personally concerned, he was quite prepared to go any length in the way of economy. Instead of a £100,000,000 Budget he should like at least £10,000,000 knocked off. He was quite certain that they could get the work of the country as well done by getting rid of a number of useless persons. He knew it required a good deal of courage to advocate economy in the expenditure of public money in this House or elsewhere. Representatives knew well how to economise with their own private funds, but when they came to deal with other people's money they found it so much easier to spend; but he was sure that when the democracy was more in power than it was at present the expenditure of public money would be better looked after.

said, the Budget was a great disappointment to many Members. It was a very great disappointment to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer proving to demonstration that he must impose a graduated Death Duty, and then entirely declining to do so, for he could not help thinking that had it been done the Government would not be in Office another fortnight. But the utter disappointment of the Budget to him lay in the fact of the increased Expenditure under the present Government. During the General Election they were told that the Tory Party was the extravagant Party, and that if the Liberal Party ever came into Office they would carry on the Government of the country much cheaper than any other Party. But instead of that they found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to avow that the Expenditure that year exceeded the Expenditure of last year by £505,000. That was a great disappointment to him. When the result of the General Election was announced to be a majority for the Liberal Party, he felt it was extremely disappointing; hut that, fortunately, there was one comfort in the situation—government would be cheaper. But he found that, instead of being cheaper, government was £500,000 dearer. He was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not show greater firmness in resisting the demands his various Colleagues had made on him. He thought the First Lord of the Admiralty was entitled to the £14,000,000 he was going to get. He believed they could not curtail the Naval Expenditure, and they might increase it with advantage. But when the First Lord proposed to build these two monster cruisers, which were to roam about the ocean, without making any use of the coaling stations, simply because Russia had some cruisers of the kind, he wondered the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not object. He was also surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not curb the Secretary for War. That right right hon. Gentleman had said that the time was passed when an English Army would be sent to the Continent or would be used on the Continent for purposes for which Armies were occasionally employed. If that were so, a great deal of money which was now spent on the Army might be saved, and he wondered the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not try to save it. Then, again, the President of the Local Government Board was an expensive Member of the Government, though his Department was one that might with advantage be abolished altogether. The prodigal son of the Government was the President of the Board of Trade, who was going about the country establishing labour shops and setting up armies of Inspectors. He was surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not curb that right hon. Gentleman also. The simplicity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with the large Expenditure this year over last year was so great that it amounted to brutality. There was no novelty about it. The right hon. Gentleman proposed no new tax which nobody would feel and which nobody would object to pay. He simply proposed to put an additional 1d. on the Income Tax, which was the last resort of feeble minds, and which anybody could do. The Income Tax was unjust to owners of leasehold property, in which numbers of persons had their money invested. These people had to pay the tax not on the net value of the house, but on the gross value, the effect of which was that they had to pay more than they ought to be called upon to pay. He had another grievance against the Income Tax. In the year 1853 the present Prime Minister explained that the tax was only to last for six years, and in 1874, also, the right hon. Gentleman gave the country to understand that, if he were returned to power, there was no reason why arrangements should not be made for the absolute and unconditional abolition of that tax. Yet now, 20 years after that statement had been made, the tax was not only still in existence, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to add 1d. more to it, and rise it to the highest figure it had readied for several years past. The attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been called by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) to the fact that an invasion of cholera was feared this year, and that the Authorities of the ports were called upon to bear the whole cost of the measures they had taken to prevent that invasion. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the matter concerned the ports, and was not an Imperial matter at all. He said it was an Imperial affair. In the Government of Ireland Bill quarantine was reserved to the Imperial Parliament. That showed that precautions taken against the importation of disease was an Imperial affair, and that the cost of it was properly charged to Imperial funds. It was not solely for their own protection that the ports were called upon to take these measures against cholera—it was for the protection of the whole country; and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should dole out the money necessary for these measures, for cholera would probably arrive in this country owing to the continuance of the easterly winds. For all these reasons he was disappointed with the Budget. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have another 1d. on the Income Tax, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he should have the extraordinary good fortune of being in Office next year, would try to do his duty to the country by curbing the extravagance of his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench.

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

This is a matter upon which, at the present moment, I cannot accept the Closure.

said, the hon. Member for Durham (Sir J. Pease) spoke of the want of confidence existing in financial circles, and of the depression there was in all enterprises, attributing this depression mainly to the transactions connected with the Baring failure; but he (Mr. Tomlinson) thought there was even a more potent cause for the depression. If the hon. Member made inquiries in the City into the cause of the depression, he would find that the first cause was the Home Rule Bill that the Government were trying to push forward; that was the most important factor in the continued depression of our industries. It was not in times of depression of this kind that those who had to do with industrial pursuits looked with equanimity upon an increase of 1d. on the Income Tax, but, unfortunately, it was the tax to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to depend to meet a deficiency. It was, however, all the more intolerable in consequence of the inequalities that remained unredressed or unattempted to be redressed. Several of these inequalities had been referred to, and one which was very deeply felt had come under his own notice. This was, that in estimating the value of property of a perishable kind no allowance was made for depreciation, with the single exception of machinery in factories, and industries which existed by working out material which became exhausted in the process of working were not permitted to make any deductions for depreciation. Mining property was most unfairly treated. Every owner of a mine or property of that kind, if he wished to carry on his business properly, set apart each year a sum representing the depreciation of the capital laid out in the concern; otherwise, when the mine was exhausted, he would find himself without any means of recouping his capital; but no allowance was made by the Income Tax authorities for that depreciation; the Income Tax was assessed upon the full property without any allowance whatever for depreciation. A year or two ago he was present with an influential deputation which brought this matter before the notice of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman admitted it was a serious grievance, and one that ought to be redressed; but he pointed out this was not the only grievance connected with the Income Tax, and that professional men had also grievances to be redressed. He (Mr. Tomlinson) did not dispute for a moment that, if possible, all grievances should be redressed; but his point was that it was the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who treated Income Tax as a permanent source of revenue, to endeavour to bring the tax into harmony with fairness and justice, and he hoped to see the time when they would find Chancellors of the Exchequer more ready to consider grievances of this kind. He thought it should be pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever Party was in Office, that a tax like the Income Tax should be levied upon fair and equitable principles.

said, the hon. Member who had spoken strongly in regard to the Income Tax seemed to have forgotten that when the Prime Minister formerly suggested that the tax might be dispensed with, the country would not accept the suggestion; the Conservatives then came into power, and though they had a large surplus, they did not repeal that Tax. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), amongst other interesting topics, spoke of the subject of pensions, and expressed an opinion, that was growing in the country, that we should have to come either to pensioning all or none; and he believed that the country would, before long, come to the opinion that all should be pensioned—that was to say, all who had attained old age. The Chancellor of the Exchequer favoured them with a half-promise in regard to Schedule A, which would be very acceptable to many in this country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would continue a long time in Office, and that amongst the reforms he introduced would be the charging of Schedule A upon the real income arising from real property, instead of on a sum which as at the present moment was very much larger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew a picture of the enormous wealth and continued prosperity of this country, a picture pleasant to look at, but in strange contrast with the state of things that presented itself to the unfortunate people who lived and were interested in the agricultural districts. He spoke only the sober truth when he said the agriculturists were not very far from general bankruptcy. In the Eastern Counties the farmers were almost at their last gasp, the landlords were in the last extremity, the country clergy, who depended on their glebes and on tithes which were yearly falling, were almost beggared, bankers were complaining of the state of things, and did not know how to turn, looking at the dreadful condition of the agricultural world, and mortgagees were now finding that the securities upon which they had lent money had had the very bottom taken out of them, and that the wealth they thought themselves possessed of had largely vanished. In the county from which he came the value of property had decreased nearly £30,000,000 during the past 20 years. If all industries were like that of the agricultural industry, very bad would be the outlook. Notwithstanding the roseate picture of England's prosperity, he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have had to come down to ask them for an increased tax. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman could not get more out of the agricultural districts, and it would have to come from those parts of the country that were more favoured than they had been in the agricultural districts in prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman said rightly that larger Expenditure had been the cause of his having to ask for these taxes, and he, for one, most entirely sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman. During the last Parliament the country was subjected to an increase of Expenditure of tens of millions on our Navy and Army. It was a curious thing, but the Conservatives when they came; into Office generally got up these scares, persuaded the country that we were in danger, and the result was that the country allowed them to increase the Military and Naval Expenditure. When the Liberals came into power the bill had to be paid, and then the Liberals were rounded upon, and it was said that directly they came into Office taxation had to be increased, though it, was undoubtedly duo to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But not only were the taxes to be raised, but the value of the money the Chancellor of the Exchequer took out, of the pockets of the people was very much greater than it was 10 or 15 years ago. A sovereign now represented a larger amount of the produce of the soil, or of the mine, or of the loom, or of the factory than it did 15 years ago. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a very interesting speech in this House in 1883, called attention to the fact that money was steadily increasing in value. Mr. Giffen, the eminent statistician, read a most interesting paper at. the Society of Arts in 1888 in which he confirmed the fact and illustrated it, and by many clear proofs showed that the value of money had risen 30 per cent. as compared with the 15 previous years, and that this rise continued to go on. At the present time the rise in the value of money, measured by commodities, was no less than 50 per cent.: so that when the nation was called upon to pay a tax of something like £100,000,000, it was equal to a tax of £150,000,000 of the money of 15 or 20 years ago. In an interesting article contributed to The Nineteenth Century of the present month by the late Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) it was pointed out that owing to the rise in the value of money the real weight of our National Debt was increasing by hundreds of millions against the tens of millions that; we wore paving off, so that the Debt got heavier instead of lighter. There was a time when the present Prime Minister was able to refer to the Revenue of the country as increasing by leaps and bounds, and when, although the Expenditure was annually increasing, the Revenue was increasing still faster. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to see those halcyon days back again he could have them by allowing the free use of that precious metal which had always in the past been allied with gold. The blindness and infatuation of the present generation had led them to exclude the free use of this metal.

I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman is going a long way from the subject.

said, he was only going to urge, in conclusion, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his future treatment of this question, should show a somewhat kinder spirit towards increasing the supply of money by reverting to the old full free use of silver than he had hitherto done.

wished to support the views of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) and to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the home ports. His constituents objected in the strongest way to having the intolerable burden of preventing cholera going inland thrown exclusively upon them. Last year his constituents paid a debt of £150 to preserve the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his constituents from cholera. He, and he believed every Member for a home port, agreed with the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) in considering that the prevention of the spread of cholera was of national importance, and he would strongly urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-consider the question.

feared that this proposal to increase the Income Tax would be received by his constituents with great regret, disappointment, and dissatisfaction. In his constituency there resided a very large number of clerks upon very modest salaries and scanty incomes, and they felt, indeed they had always felt, the Income Tax acutely. During the years recently passed they were very grateful for two successive reductions in this tax conceded to them by his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), and now this augmentation would press upon them with unexpected severity. Then he wished, once in a way, to express his concurrence with the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk—he did not often have the pleasure of agreeing with him —and therefore, he had the greater satisfaction of expressing his agreement. He, and all those who represented agricultural constituencies, would heartily concur with what the hon. Member said with regard to the depressed condition of agriculture. These Imperial burdens were growing and pressing more hardly upon the agricultural classes, and he considered this was about the worst time for imposing upon them any increase of the Income Tax; in fact, the agricultural interest was the very last interest that ought to be subjected to any additional financial burden.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not proposed to impose a tax upon a certain article much used. The article he should like to see taxed was the revolver. They all knew there was a tax on carrying firearms, and considering the great harm that was done by the indiscriminate carrying of firearms and revolvers, he thought it was a matter that should receive the most careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would confer with the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith), he would find that an enormous number of people were killed annually through carrying these arms. He had taken considerable interest in this matter, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that, from the reports that reached him from different parts of the country, the number of deaths occurring through carrying revolvers was something hardly credible. If the right hon. Gentleman would not only place a tax upon revolvers, but would introduce a Bill to compel dealers not to sell revolvers to any person who could not produce a licence for carrying arms, he would do a great deal to put a stop to what is becoming a serious evil as well as something that would redound to his credit.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

asked from what date the contract note would take effect?

From the passing of the Act. There is one thing that I should mention, and which I forgot in the Budget Statement, and that is to do away with the exemption which enables dealers in foreign game not to pay the same licence as dealers in English game are required to pay. I was asked a question about it, and I answered I would remedy it, and I propose to submit a Resolution to correct the anomaly. There is also one other small matter I may as well mention. It appears there is growing up a practice in reference to payment by cheques, to have the receipt upon the cheque, and then the man does not pay the 1d. receipt duty because he manages to get it covered by the 1d. duty on the cheque. That is a clear evasion of the law, and we propose in the Bill to do away with that and to make the 1d. duty payable on the receipt however it is paid, whether by cheque or not.

said, it was a very small matter, but at the same time he should like to have it cleared up. It was a very ordinary custom in business to send a letter, "Dear sir, I have received your cheque," and not to put a stamp upon the letter; he therefore wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to include letters acknowledging the receipt of cheques under the 1d. duty?

The hon. Member may be quite sure I will get it if I can.