To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident in Regent Street on Thursday, the 21st instant, occasioned through gas escaping into a telegraph inspection chamber and coming into contact with leakage in an electric wire; and will he state whether any explosions arising through leakage of a similar character have been reported by the police during the last two years. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am informed by the police that, so far as they are aware, there were within the metropolitan police district during the two years ended the 30th June last, twenty-one explosions of a character similar to that mentioned in the Question. The explosions resulted in injury to eleven persons and in the death of two horses. It does not appear to be a matter as to which I have any power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph for each month during the present year; and how the figures compare with the corresponding months of last year.(Answered by Lord Stanley.) The figures asked for are as follows:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the scientific precautions now available in the construction of screened ranges, he will sanction the provision of such rifle ranges, 200 or 300 yards in length, near large centres of population, and without regard to the contour of the land occupied by the range. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster). After exhaustive experiments at the School of Musketry, Hythe, it has been decided that no further protected ranges are to be constructed, either for Regular or Auxiliary Forces, as the scientific precautions now available in the construction of these ranges in the vicinity of habitations do not secure absolute safety which could only be attained by a most expensive system of tunnelling. There is also involved the question of nuisance created by the noise of continual firing, which might become the subject of

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

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

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

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a Memorandum defining the position under international law of non-contraband goods in a ship carrying contraband goods, when the former belong neither to the owners of the ship nor to the owners of the contraband goods. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) It does not seem desirable that any official Memorandum should be issued dealing in the abstract with questions of law which may become the subject of judical decision.

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

The right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to a mysterious Treasury Bill which must be passed this session. I think the House would like to know the nature of the Bill, and if it is likely to give rise to discussion.

said that on Tuesday he proposed to submit a Resolution on which to found a Bill to enable the Government to make provision for raising money for capital expenditure on works which had been passed in recent sessions, and to meet their obligations under the Cunard Agreement, which was sanctioned last session. In moving the Resolution he would explain the exact method by which the money was to be raised. Hitherto it had been done by means of terminable annuities which were taken up on behalf of the Savings Bank, but he was sorry to say that the money available to be invested by the Savings Bank was not sufficient to meet the need. He would therefore have to ask the House to make provision for borrowing in another form.

inquired if one Resolution would suffice both for the £10,000,000 required for capital expenditure on works and for the Cunard Agreement.

replied that this was not new loan expenditure, as it had already been approved by Parliament. The circumstances of the time having prevented his raising the money in the way it had hitherto been done, he had to ask the House for power to raise it in a different form, but not, so far as the Loan Acts were concerned, for authority to borrow more than the House had already sanctioned. If two separate Committees were required he should propose to proceed with the one immediately after the conclusion of the other.

I beg to move as an Amend- ment that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. The circumstances certainly justify the course we are now adopting. We have a very good precedent in this course in 1894, when Sir J. Lubbock moved the rejection of the Finance Bill of that year and the Unionist Party voted solid in the attempt to destroy a scheme which subsequent experience has proved to be fraught with great benefit to the community. If circumstances then were strongly in favour of that course, I hold that they are ten times stronger now. For instance, in the present case force has been applied to the passing of the Bill. Therefore I say the circumstances are much graver now than they were in 1894, especially in view of the contrast between the situation in which we find ourselves now with regard to national finance and the situation which obtained at the beginning of the decade. But my primary objection to the Bill is that it lays an undue strain on the resources of the taxpayers. It fails in what I consider is the primary duty of statesmanship at this moment—the duty of retrenchment and circumspection in our finance. In the ten years of uninterrupted Unionist domination the finance of the country has reached breaking point. Every lover of his country must view the situation with alarm. We are aware that for a while retrenchment was not a popular idea; it had become a by-word fit only to be used by those who held antiquated notions of our Imperial destinies. Now, however, there has arisen a change for the better. Retrenchment, economy, and circumspection in finance are again viewed with favour as cardinal elements of national and Imperial statesmanship. But it would be as well for one moment to see how our finances stand now as compared to those of 1894–5. In the latter year the total expenditure chargeable against revenue was £93,918,000, a sum which the greatest statesman of that generation declared to almost represent finality in our expenditure. This year it is £142,380,000. The expenditure has been increased by £50,000,000, equal to 24s. per head of the entire population, or an increase upon each family of five persons of no less than £6. Some of the taxation provided for in this Bill was put on while the war was in progress. The war is over, but the taxes still remain. The increase of taxation, too, has gone on all round. The expenditure on the Army ten years ago was £17,900,000, this year it is £29,450,000, an increase of £11,550,000. The net cost of the Navy ten years ago was £17,545,000. It has now reached the stupendous total of £36,889,000, or an increase of £19,344,000 in ten years. The military services of the Crown cost, ten years ago, £35,445,000,; now they have reached the appalling figure out of revenue alone to be provided this year of £66,289,000, or an increase of £30,844,000. It is well that the country should be reminded of these figures. We often hear high-sounding phrases with regard to our Imperial destinies, and we are apt to have great financial issues clouded by what are called Imperial methods. Let us be Imperial on both sides of the account. I have said that the figures I have quoted are sufficiently astounding. But they make no allowance for Supplementary Estimates. The whole truth is not revealed by these figures. There is a system going on, insidious, silent, constant, automatic, of increasing the cost of the armed services of the Crown, and it does not appear in the Estimates. The system can only be found out by examining the various columns of figures affecting the National Debt. There is, for example, the automatic increase under the Naval Works Act, so that instead of the Navy costing £37,000,000 a year, it will in a few years time by the system of automatic increase amount to no less a sum than £54,000,000 a year. The time has clearly come for the House to record its protest in favour of retrenchment. I find also that in respect of the garrison in South Africa and its equipment for huts and other accessories, an expenditure of £5,500,000 is being incurred for a new area which has been acquired amid much waving of flags. It is not a new area for British expansion; it is only an area for British expenditure. How is it all to end? Is this peaceful little island to be turned into, as is apparently the opinion of some Members opposite, an arsenal or an armed camp? If this is part of the Imperial scheme, how does it look in figures? In order to defend the population of these shores and our Colonies, how much does the Empire contribute. Roughly, the outlay is £43,000,000 a year for naval defence; and the Colonies, including India, contributed, according to the Naval Estimates for this year, £431,000. The contribution from the Colonies is equal to 1 per cent. I say, in view of these figures, that you are standing upon an apex from which you are bound to totter and fall. In these circumstances, can any one doubt that there is need for economy, watchfulness, prudence—prudence in our walk and conversation among the nations of the world—an avoidance of bluster, and the maintenance of a quiet demeanour? It is only by practising these humble virtues that the country will be able to tread the road of Imperial safety. I say that the true need of the day is I not for armament, but for a better educational equipment of the citizen. We spend £14,606,000 on education and £66,289,000 on the military forces. When I contrast these figures I cannot help thinking of the saying of Carlyle—

"Alas! so will it be till communities and individuals discover, not without surprise, that fashioning the souls of the generation by knowledge can rank on a level with blowing their bodies to pieces with gunpowder."

What is the proposal of this Bill? Instead of finding a reduction of expenditure, demanded of a prudent Government, I discover in the financial arrangements of the year, set and determined devices to avoid a deficit. I do not desire to deal in detail with these matters, but I would like to call attention to the way in which the unclaimed dividends have been seized by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop a hole in his finance. The right hon. Gentleman has taken money that should have been a credit to capital and turned it into a credit to revenue. He has unquestionably allocated too small a fixed amount for the Debt charge of the year. He has fixed it at £27,000,000. That is not enough. Then there is the question of the Transvaal and the ware contribution. The right hon. Member for Croydon said last year—

"We confidently hope to obtain from the Transvaal this year—and it will be obtained immediately—a sum of £4,000,000 out of the guaranteed loan, and in the course of the three following years a further sum of £30,000,000 by way of contribution towards the expenses of the country."

Where is the £10,000,000? It was underwritten, but there is money from neither the Transvaal nor the underwriters. The Transvaal has its financial Budget, and in that Budget for the year ending June, 1905, no provision is made for paying to this country even the debt of £10,000,000 which was due in January, 1904. My contention is that in these circumstances it is utterly improper finance to treat that contribution as if it were paid. But it is a way the Government have of doing things whenever the Transvaal comes in. You are to treat the opinion of a country which is not self-governing as if it were self-governing, and you are to treat a debt which is not paid as if it were paid, and finance accordingly. The National Debt itself is an illustration of the very argument which I have been using as to the need for a large allowance being annually made for the automatic reduction of the Debt. The war added £159,000,000 to the National Debt, and not a penny of that has yet been covered. According to the last published figures the Debt stands at £794,000,000, and it is a serious consideration that it is necessary to go back thirty years to find a parallel to such a scale of debt. Not since 1870 have we had a Debt of more than £793,000,000. Prior to the war the Debt stood at £638,000,000; it now stands at £794,000,000, and we have lost thirty years of sound finance. What was it that gave us our endurance—and this is the Imperial side of the question—in the wearisome conflict with that little Power in South Africa? It was not our preparedness for the conflict, or our wisdom under arms, but the strength of our finance which had been buttressed by the wisdom of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer for a long period of years. There were two sources to which we owed the strengthening of our hands in that conflict. The first was the splendid line of Chancellors of the Exchequer. beginning with Sir Stafford Northcote, who established the new Sinking Fund, and who loyally adhered to it year after year, thereby reducing the indebtedness of the country and enabling it to undertake the sudden spasm of a necessary increase. The second was my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, who had the resource and skill to tap a new and splendid source of revenue. These were the two strengtheners of Empire, who, without using or appropriating to themselves high-sounding names, silently worked; the first lightening the overwhelming burdens of the country, and the other broadening and deepening the foundations of the great fabric of our national credit. These are the men who ought to be honoured. Sir, my complaint against this Budget is in both directions: first, that it is not adequately loyal to the principles of the reduction of the National Debt in the sense which I have described and, secondly, and more important, that it totally fails to tap any fresh source of revenue. Many such sources of revenue have been referred to. Three have been mentioned in these discussions. The first is a graduated income-tax. What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer done with regard to that? He has appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the questions of evasion and over-payment, but the question of graduation is excluded from the sphere of its operations. I never heard of such a proposal. It is touching the merest fringe of the subject. Everything connected with a graduated income-tax would becognate with the questions of evasion and over-payment, and yet that question is expressly excluded. "It is impossible," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Very well. That was the word which Napoleon called a beast of a word. It was the word used with regard to the death duties. The whole scheme was impossible it would never work. Estimable men in this House predicted that less revenue would be derived from the death duties in consequence of the Bill than before. Consequently, I am not alarmed when a Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with a question by whisking it out of the way and saying "Impossible." It has also been urged in these discussions that there is a constant leakage from the finances of the country through subventions to local authorities. How can it be stopped? You cannot suddenly withdraw these subventions, but you can provide local authorities with a power of tapping, in lieu of Imperial institutions, a new source of revenue within the ambit of their own jurisdiction. The third point which has been mentioned in these discussions is the question of high licence duties. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say to me, "I will not have these things, because I do not believe in them." I put this point to him. We are familiar with the ideas of urgency, Imperial safety, and commercial stability, which have been strongly pressed upon us from important quarters. If the right hon. Gentleman will not tap new sources of revenue in which he does not believe, why in the name of common honesty does he not tap new sources of revenue in which he does believe? I can understand plain men in the ranks of his own Party, or part of that Party, saying, "We are feeling these burdens; we believe in the danger to the Empire; we think that that danger is most urgent; we believe that £15,000,000 could be got by a 10 per cent. duty upon imported manufactured articles, and we agree that we ought to surround and protect the pioneer if he is attacked." Holding those views, they would not, I think, consider that this is an honest Budget. It appears to me not to be a Budget in accordance with profession or with the faith that you have in financial affairs. Why this avoidance of resort? Why the minimum of courage in this Budget? It is because the ship is sailing as a free-trade merchantman in a very narrow strait, but it will emerge soon into the open waters, and hoist the black flag of protection, and provoke the hostility of every nation on earth. In this respect the Budget is unique. It has been the fine tradition of this country that in financial affairs when your opinions or faith change your policy must be altered. The Budget is unique not because it represents the failure of the Government in the matter of retrenchment, or to draw upon new sources of revenue, nor even in the fact that it strains to breaking point the resources of the people, but because it is not in accordance with the faith of those who introduce it. My last word upon the subject, compelled by a sense of duty, is this: I believe there is no national danger greater than that of a Government charged with the revenue and expenditure of the Empire, which fails in the first and highest duty of statesmanship, viz., to be true to its own financial faith. I beg to move.

, in seconding the Motion, said that all who took an interest in the financial affairs of the country were entitled in the present condition of affairs carefully to examine the Bill to which the House were asked to give a Third Reading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not complain if his attitude was closely scrutinised. It was at any rate to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman that he had had the courage to avow his principles; he had sailed under no false flag, and knowing what his principles were the House were bound to ask what manner of Budget he had produced as his first attempt. The hon. and learned Member for Hawick Burghs had called attention to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had met his deficit by drawing upon funds which properly belonged to capital account. To meet a deficit of £10 000,000 the right hon. Gentleman had only found £4,500,000 from revenue sources, and he had covered the balance by abstracting money which properly belonged to the capital side of the account. They could not look upon that as satisfactory finance. The country should be taught that it would have to find this money, and to meet a deficit by taking money which ought to go to the reduction of debt was not straightforward. He could not congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the soundness of his balance-sheet. They were forced to look at the nature of the taxes proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was raising rather less than half his revenue by new taxes, and upon this question he thought he was justified in taking for comparison two years, the current year and the preceding year. Taking the two years which had elapsed since the war, what did they find? That when taxes were put on they were imposed upon direct and indirect taxation in equal proportions; but when they had to be taken off, the proportion taken off was four to one in favour of the rich. Last year it was the income tax-payer who was first relieved, and the amount taken off direct taxation was four times the amount taken off the shoulders of the indirect taxpayer. That was one of the reasons why they had so stoutly fought the proposals of this Bill. They should leave money when they could in the pockets of those who most needed it, where it would fructify in the trade of the country and lead to increased employment in factories and workshops and greater comfort in the homes of the people. There was one new tax upon which the Chancellor prided himself to no small extent in the early stages of his Budget — he alluded to the tax upon stripped tobacco. That was not now so I great a matter of pride, because there never was a tax which had been so hopelessly riddled by argument and left without a leg to stand upon as that unfortunate tax. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, by withdrawing one-half of the tax, the unsoundness of his proposal, and he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not had the courage to "go the whole hog" and remove the other half as well after he had found out his mistake. He had no personal interest in the tobacco trade, and his constituency was not interested, but he thought this tax illustrated the fallacy which existed in the protectionist mind. He was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had made this mistake, because it was an error which was common in countries with high tariffs and drawbacks. In the tin-plate trade there was more money paid in drawbacks than for tin-plate goods, and that, would happen in any country that adopted the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. By this tax on tobacco they were enabling certain persons to make profits at the public expense, and they introduced all the attendant evils to such a system. The next point he wished to refer to was how this Budget had affected what he might call our heritage in South Africa. They had had many promises and prophecies. It was scarcely more than twelve months ago since the distinguished relative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the House a glowing account of how much money they were going to receive from that land of promise in South Africa. He confessed that he had read with no little indignation a recent speech made by Lord Milner in which he spoke of the crocodile tears which some persons had shed over the finances of the Transvaal. In introducing the Estimates for the current year in the Transvaal Legislative Council, Lord Milner pointed the finger of scorn at the Budget of this country, and asked, "What right have you in the mother country, when you have an assured deficit yourselves of £5,500,000, to shed crocodile tears over our finances when we have no deficit at all?" But how was it that there was no deficit in the Transvaal? Because of the laxness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, who had permitted Lord Milner to place burden after burden on this country which ought properly to be paid by the taxpayers of the Transvaal. He had endeavoured to make out a little account upon this subject. In the first place there was this £30,000,000, the first instalment of which was due last January. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had just stated that not only had he not received that instalment, but no provision had been made for the next twelve months, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had made no protest whatever to Lord Milner. He did not know how long he proposed to remain quiescent in this matter. Then there was £1,250,000 on account of railways which remained unpaid, and, as far as he could ascertain by Questions, no attempt had been made to get that claim settled. There was also spent on capital account £3,500,000 on barracks in South Africa. That was spent out of money borrowed for a term of thirty years under the Military Works Act. How were they going to stand with relation to the Transvaal when it got self-government, in respect to the millions we had sunk there? We were piling up debt while they were I using the property. It was a curious thing to spend out of capital account, on a thirty years term, money of this kind, in a country to which we had the avowed intention of speedily giving self-government. Under capital account, we had I placed on the shoulders of the people of this country £35,600,000, which ought, according not only to prophecies but promises, to fall on the Colony. In addition to that we were paying £3,100,000 for the military force in that country. The only plea put forward in defence of this kind of finance was that it was no good pressing for these payments, because they could not be paid. Was that really the case? He did not believe that the Chancellor could even attempt to prove it was the case. The so-called 10 per cent. profit tax on the Transvaal mines was one of the promises of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It was really working out at something less than 3½ per cent. on the profit—something less than half the amount the gold mines had gained from the reduction in the cost of dynamite through the change of Government after the war. The owners of the gold mines were actually saving money on the taxation paid under Mr. Kruger's Government, and at the same time they were pleading that they could not pay their debts. If this 10 per cent. had been fully paid last year the amount obtained would have been £350,000, but the Treasury only received £117,000. He found the gold mines had been permitted—and he supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have given his approval—to value their lives at only fourteen and a half years. He noticed that when the chairmen of the companies were speaking to the shareholders they talked about thirty years as the life of the gold mines; but when it came to paying taxes to the Treasury, fourteen and a half years had been permitted on the part of the Government to be the calculated term. Presumably the mining companies in their own accounts made proper provision for depreciation, yet they were not taxed on the profits appearing in the balance-sheets, but on considerably less than half those sums, so that the plea of the poverty of the Transvaal was one which was no answer. It was, after all, a comparative question. Were they less able than the taxpayers of this country to meet the payment of these large sums of money? Those who knew the condition of trade in this country during the last few years would agree that a burden of £35,000,000 of capital and £3,000,000 of annual expenditure was one which the people of this country could not bear without great distress. He sincerely hoped that we should not see another Budget like the present in this generation. The last ten years had seen some strange finance in financial circles, but he did not think there had been anything more strange or more unsound than the present Budget. It was a kind of warning flag to the people of this country as to what they might expect if they gave credence to what were called the new theories of finance.

said although he should certainly vote against the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, he readily admitted that the greatly increased expenditure of this country must give rise to anxiety in the minds of men, or, at any rate, of business men. Therefore he thought it very desirable that the discussion should arise. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs emphasised the necessity for economy, but he himself could not help remembering that if the many projects which had been brought forward on the Opposition side, including payment of Members, had been carried into effect, they would have entailed upon the taxpayers a very considerable additional burden. Believing that the maintenance of the Army and Navy in a state of efficiency would contribute to peace, he strongly felt that money spent wisely and well on those forces was a necessary and desirable national insurance. Much of the increased expenditure had arisen in providing better pay, clothing, and food for the soldiers, and with that expenditure he was in hearty accord. As an opponent of conscription, he had always said that unless this country treated soldiers better in the future than in the past, it could not expect to maintain the Army in a state of efficiency. He believed the increased cost of the Navy had Leen money wisely spent, because it was absolutely necessary that the Navy should be sufficiently strong to protect our food supply in time of war. In connection with the unpleasant incidents that had just occurred between this country and Russia, and hoping as he did that not a stone would be left unturned in aiming at a just and peaceable settlement, he recognised in what an unfortunate position this country would be if it had not an Army and Navy sufficiently strong to protect the dignity and just rights of the country. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Border Burghs that there had been considerable dislocation of expenditure consequent on the South African War, and that that had been one of the chief causes of the increase in expenditure; but he ventured to say that the war was rendered inevitable by the Majuba settlement, which though made in the best interests, proved disastrous. It could not be urged that all the responsibility for that expenditure rested upon the Ministerial side of the House. Turning to the Navy, he said it was perfectly monstrous that the Colonies, which depended upon the throughly efficient Navy of this country, should not contribute towards it more than £431,000 per annum. He could not help thinking that if the matter were represented to the Colonies they would readily see the reasonableness of making a larger contribution. He admitted all the arguments that had been brought forward in favour of economy, and he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Exeter that there should be a Committee to review the expenditure a capital one. He hoped the Government would take good care that the expenditure on large salaries did not increase. He thought it was wrong that the Law Officers of the Crown, notwithstanding their great ability, should be paid partly by salary and partly by fees. It was not a businesslike way of proceeding.

This would be more material on the Votes for the salaries of these hon. Gentlemen when it comes before the House.

said he had no desire to go further into that matter. Connected as he was with many public bodies, he must say that he never heard more unbusiness like discussions in his life. First, there was the discussion on the coal tax, and even though the Board of Trade Returns showed that that industry had derived more benefit from the war than any other, the proposals of the Government received the strongest opposition from all the Members on the other side of the House. Again, hon. Members opposite were opposed to the imposition of additional taxes on spirits and cigarettes, and a considerable amount of time was wasted over the income-tax. He did not want to increase the income-tax or any other tax, but he held that when national responsibilities had to be met, all classes of the people should bear their fair share. Hon. Members opposite were very anxious to save the rich coal-owners from their legitimate contributions to the revenue of the country, to save cigarette smokers and spirit drinkers, and at the same time proposed to increase taxation on the industrial industry by moving an Amendment to the Bill under discussion discontinuing the Agricultural Rating Act. Hon. Members opposite had not shown a discriminating sense of justice in appropriating the taxation of the country on different classes of the people. It had been said that the contributions to the national burdens should be made according to the paying powers of different classes of the people. With that he agreed; but when hon. Members opposite proposed to increase the burdens on the agricultural community, he confessed he was very much surprised. Recent Returns showed that the income of agriculturists had, during the last thirty years, declined £70,000,000, and that the agriculturists of the country had not received a penny of interest on their capital during the last twenty years. [OPPOSITION ironical laughter.] Oh, yes. He had had experience as an agriculturist, both as a landlord and tenant, and he did not hesitate to say that the average British agriculturists had not received a penny of interest on their capital. They had, perhaps, been able to make bread and cheese for themselves from their labour, but no more. He wished to protest against the efforts of hon. Members opposite to impose fresh taxation on the agricultural community through the Budget. He insisted that the repeal of the Agricultural Rating Act would be to place additional taxation on the agricultural community, because so considerable had been the natural increase of the rates that the farmers were paying to-day as much in rates as they were paying before the Agricultural Rating Act was passed.

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

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

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