To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement made in the House on April 18th, 1904, † by his predecessor in reference to national teachers being at the absolute mercy of the managers; whether he has recently been appealed to by Protestant teachers for redress; and, if so, what steps, if any,

† See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 436.

To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he can see his way to communicate with the railway companies concerned with a view to secure a reduction in the through rates charged for the carriage of fish from the North of Scotland to the southern markets. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am sorry that I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question on February 27th. †

To ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that the harbour and breakwater at Port Ness, Island of Lewis, are in such a condition as not to warrant the expenditure requisite to render the harbour of service to the fishermen, will he state whether Messrs. D. and T. Stevenson, by whom the plans for this harbour were prepared, are still employed by the Scottish Office. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) There are no harbour works at present in progress under the superintendence of the Scottish Office which require the employment of a professional firm of civil engineers.

To ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that a number of children of school age, belonging to tinker families in Scotland, receive no education whatever, will he state whether

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 1321.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Waveney School in Ballymena has been in operation in temporary premises since August, 1903, and has been reported upon by the sub-inspector in November, 1904, by a chief inspector in May, 1904, and by another chief inspector in December, 1904; will he state when and by whom the Waveney School temporary premises were reported as unsuitable and insanitary; and when was intimation to that effect first given to the manager of the Waveney School. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Waveney applicant school, Ballymena,has bean in operation in temporary premises since August, 1903. The application for aid was reported on by the local inspector in December, 1903, and by the Board's two chief inspectors in May, 1904, and December, 1904, respectively. In the May report of the chief inspector it was stated that the premises were unsuitable, that there was no playground, and that there was very insufficient out-office accommodation. The chief inspector who visited in December reported, in addition to the foregoing defects, that he found children crowded into a room of cramped dimensions (19 feet 6 inches by 9 feet 8 inches by 10 feet) and that the air in this room was very much vitiated and dangerous to the health of teachers and pupils. The Commissioners are satisfied that this school is not required, and they have so informed the applicant on several occasions. In replying on March 6th last to a letter from the applicant, in which temporary recognition of the school was sought for, the Commissioners, while refusing such recognition on the grounds that the school was not required, stated as an additional reason for not aiding the school, even temporarily, that the premises were unsuitable and insanitary.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when the chief inspector visited the Waveney School, Ballymena, in December, 1904, there were 149 pupils on the roll, of these ninety-eight being infants, and forty-eight of them had never attended any other school in Ballymena; that the remaining fifty infants were withdrawn from the following:—Guy's Infants (35), Model Infants (10), Harryville Girls (5); and if he will

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps have been taken towards the rebuilding of Guy's National Schools, Ballymena; if the Commissioners are satisfied that an

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can furnish information in regard to the reported discovery of smokeless coal in the North-East of British North Borneo. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) We understand that a discovery of smokeless coal has been made at a place called Jambongon, on the north-east coast of the British North Borneo Company's territory. Full details have not yet been received, but investigations are in progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any companies have yet been formed with a view to the cultivation of cotton in British North Borneo; and can he state whether any samples of native cotton have been submitted to British valuers; and, if so, with what result. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) We are informed that a company is in course of formation with a view to the cultivation of rubber with catch crops of cotton in British North Borneo. Samples of native cotton have been examined and have been favourably reported upon.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the need of an improved mail service at Millport and at Kilchattan Bay; and whether he will consider the advisability of an early morning delivery and departure viâ Fairlie, to continue throughout the year. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am having inquiry made into the question of providing the additional postal facilities to which the hon. Member refers, and I will acquaint him with the result in due course.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places, there are assistant postmen with more than three years service for whom there appear no chances of early appointment to full duties; and whether he will take steps to remedy this, in accordance with the promise made by the Postmaster-General in 1903 that assistant postmen should be given full appointments after not more than three years service as assistants, and on reaching the age of twenty. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers. The difficulty results from the scheme whereby half the vacancies on the class of postmen are given to ex-soldiers or ex-sailors, and half to Post Office servants. During the war the operation of the scheme was disturbed, since Reservists could not be obtained, and consequently an undue proportion of Post Office servants entered the class of assistant postmen. The scheme being now once more in full operation, the Post Office servants, not withstanding their excessive numbers, have only half the vacancies as full postman, and consequently their promotion is retarded. I trust that this state of things, though unfortunate, is only temporary, and no effort on my part shall be spared to relieve it. No absolute promise was made in 1903 that full appointments would be given after not more than three years service as assistant postman, or before reaching the age of twenty. My predecessor undertook only that this should be done as far as possible.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Commissioners of Irish Lights has been called to the fact that the lighthouse on Altacarry Head, Rathlin Island, being, on the east side of the island, is entirely invisible from the West, and only comes into view in a north-westerly direction to vessels coming from the westward; and whether, those interested in the coast trade of the North-West of Ireland have requested the Commissioners to erect a new lighthouse with fog syren or gun on the west end of the island, arranged so as to serve the south side of the island; and if the Commissioners purpose erecting such a light. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Representations were made to the Commissioners of Irish Lights by the Advisory Committee of Shipowners, etc., on New Lighthouse Works, urging the erection of a lighthouse and fog signal at the western end of Rathlin Island. The Commissioners estimated the probable cost at between £20,000 and £25,000, and applied for the necessary financial sanction of the Board of Trade, who withheld it in deference to the wish of the Advisory Committee, who expressed the view that, although they had in the first instance asked for this work, the necessity for it was not great enough to warrant so large an expenditure.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what are the French import duties on hams of British origin; and what are the corresponding duties on hams of American or Canadian origin. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The French import duty on ham of English or Irish origin is at the rate of 30 francs per 100 kilogs. (12s. 2d. per cwt.) American or Canadian hams pay 50 francs per 100 kilogs. (£1 0s. 4d. per cwt.), and, in addition, a surtaxe d'entrepôt of 3 francs 60 cents. per 100 kilogs. (1s. 5½d. per cwt.) if imported viâ a European country.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the percentage terms upon which the "Boadicea" is being broken up. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The terms are that the Admiralty will receive the reserve price placed upon the sale of this ship as a minimum, and, in addition, a percentage upon any sum realised above this reserve. It is not desirable to state what this percentage rate is.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury for what period annuities have been issued to pay for electric light and power in naval establishments under the Naval Works Act, 1903. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Act referred to sanctions borrowing for any period up to thirty years. The annuities so far set up run for twenty-nine years. They provide for repayment of sums borrowed for the purposes of the Act generally.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of abatements paid to income-tax payers during the year ending March 31st, 1904. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) If the hon. Member will refer to Table CCXXXIV., on page 229 of the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year 1903–4 [Cd. 2228], he will find an analysis of the repayments of the income-tax made in each of the ten years to March 31st, 1904. It shows that in the year ending March 31st, 1904, the turn repaid in respect of "Abatements" was £931,703 out of a total of £2,868,798 for repayments of all kinds.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what were the proportions contributed by direct taxation and indirect taxation respectively to the actual revenue in the years 1894–5, 1899–1900, and 1904–5, and to the estimated revenue in the year 1905–6. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The proportions of Tax Revenue (excluding Coal Export Duty, but including

To ask the Secretary of State for India what are the French import duties on Indian silk goods and Indian jute goods; and what are the corresponding duties on British silk goods and British jute goods. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The French import duties on silk goods and on jute goods are numerous, owing to the minuteness of classification adopted in the tariff. The various duties on silk goods and jute goods the manufacture of the United Kingdom are set out in detail on pages 80–82 and 100–102 of the Parliamentary Return of Foreign Import Duties for 1904. Similar goods the produce or manufacture of India pay the same duties, except so far as the United Kingdom, in virtue of most-favoured-nation treatment, enjoys certain conventional rates which do not apply to India.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of His Excellency has recently been called to the case of a prisoner named John R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, county Cork, who was sentenced at the Winter Assizes, Nenagh, 1891, to fourteen years and ten years penal servitude, to run consecutively; and whether, in view of the prisoner's conduct, and the circumstances of his wife and family, His Excellency can now see his way to exer

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named John R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, county Cork, was sentenced at the Nenagh Assizes, 1891, to two terms of imprisonment, viz., fourteen years and ten years, to run consecutively, and that this prisoner's conduct has been regarded by the prison authorities as so exemplary that the first term expired in 1902; and whether, in view of the prisoner's conduct and of the circumstances of his wife and family, and also that life sentences and long-term imprisonments for offences committed about the same period have been commuted, he will recommend the Lord-Lieutenant to order the early release of this prisoner, who has already suffered fourteen and a half years imprisonment. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that this case has already been considered by the Lord-Lieutenant, and that it will again come before him in due course. It does not fall within my province to make any recommendation in the matter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will furnish a copy of the report of the inspector appointed by the Estates Commissioners in connection with the proposed sale of the Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) These reports are furnished for the information of the Commissioners, and are confidential documents which cannot be made public.

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the estimated cost of inspection per rifle at Enfield, as compared with that at the Birmingham Small Arms and London Small Arms Factories respectively. (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) It is estimated that the cost of inspection of rifles made at Enfield and by the Birmingham Small Arms and London Small Arms Factories during the past financial year is the same.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why acting chaplains who served with the troops in South Africa during the late campaign have not received the gratuity of £100, to which, by the wording of Article 601 B of the Pay Warrants, they appear to be entitled; and whether these officers are entitled to any allowance for outfit. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Civilian clergy employed with troops were not regarded as appointed to military positions in the Imperial forces during emergency, and wore consequently ineligible for the gratuity specially given on retirement from such an appointment. The regulations do not admit of the grant of outfit allowance to them, but an advance of pay was granted at the commencement of their employment. Further, they received a war gratuity on the cessation of their employment provided that they had been so employed for nine months and had given their whole time to the service of the Army.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the value of the blue serges sold by auction and tender in the months of November, December, January, and February last.

Blue serge, value about £3,000, was sold—all by auction—at Deptford on the 6th December, 1904. This was the only sale of serge during the period named in the hon. Member's Question.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman give the price per yard realised?

And are you not at the present moment buying serges?

I must ask for notice of any further Questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the actual number of efficient soldiers of Infantry of the Line of twenty years of age obtained from each 1,000 recruits enlisted at ordinary recruiting age; the actual amount expended directly or indirectly on such 1,000 recruits, including all expenditure on those who do not attain the age of twenty and become efficient soldiers, and can thus ascertain the actual cost of each soldier becoming fit for active service; and whether he has compared such cost with the expense incurred by the Admiralty in enrolling boys for the Navy and training them to become efficient seamen for the Fleet.

The average number of efficient soldiers of Infantry of the Line, of twenty years of age and upward, obtained from 1,000 recruits enlisted at ordinary recruiting age is 827. The expenditure on each batch of 1,000 recruits, including the expenditure on those who do not attain the age of twenty and become efficient soldiers, is about £70,000, giving a cost of about £84 10s. for each soldier fit for active service. Figures relating to seamen have been given by my hon. friend in reply to the hon. Member's Question on the 5th instant.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he would be prepared to give consideration to a proposal for improving the status of Volunteer officers on the lines of granting Army rank or honorary Army rank to those being duly qualified and efficient, who would be willing to undertake the legal obligation of foreign service in the event of war, the minimum period of such obligation being (say) three years; and whether such officers who had served under such conditions should be entitled to Army rank upon retirement in ordinary course.

The whole question of the Reserve of officers is under consideration by a specially appointed Committee, and I will undertake that my hon. friend's suggestion shall be laid before that Committee. I will point out, however, that in many cases officers undertaking such a liability as he suggests would necessarily be withdrawn from their own units in time of war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the feeling expressed in all parts of the House and the country against any reduction in the numbers of the Volunteer force, and against it being financially stinted, he will reconsider his recent proposals and carry out without further delay the unanimous recommendations of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission.

As my hon. friend is aware, considerable addi

† See page 449.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my last Question, whether he will reconsider his recent proposal for the reduction of the Volunteer force?

No, Sir; it cannot be reconsidered.

The right hon. Gentleman has already given an undertaking that there shall be no reduction in the grant to the Volunteers this year. Will he give a similar undertaking with regard to the numbers?

No, Sir; that would be impossible.

How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reduce the numbers?

I have already answered that Question twice. I have said that during the current year we hope to reduce the force by enforcing the medical inspection standard more rigidly, and by reducing those units, if there are any, which are clearly not capable of rendering military service.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the value of the blue serges sold by auction and tender during the months of November, December, January, and February last.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No blue serges have been sold by auction or otherwise.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why, in the Army Return Cd. 2431 just issued, the comparison has been left incomplete in the case of machine guns, the cost of those manufactured at Enfield (Table IX.) being given, but the cost of those ordered from the trade (Table XVII.) being omitted.

It was a condition of the manufacture of machine guns by the trade that, the price would not be published. It was not, therefore, possible to include this information in the Return mentioned.

Would it not be possible to give the average cost so as to disclose no one's secret?

I will consider if that can be done without a breach of the undertaking we have given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the punitive expedition against the Nandi, said to be necessary by the Zionist Commission, will be undertaken at the cost of the Zionists; if his sanction will be necessary for such an expedition; and, if so, before granting it, will he cause the strictest independent inquiry as to the position of this tribe to be made.

I have received no communication from the Zionist Commission on the subject of an expedition against the Nandi. No such expedition would be permitted without my sanction and without cogent proofs furnished by His Majesty's Commissioner for the East Africa Protectorate that it was necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he yet has any information of a strike of 2,000 Chinese coolies on Saturday week last, at the North Randfontein Mine, near Krugersdorp, the alleged grounds of revolt being dissatisfaction with wages; that, on the police being called in, the casualties among the Chinese were considerable, and that fifty-three coolies were eventually arrested; and whether he can state the particular gounds affecting wages which appear to have caused the outbreak.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many Chinese coolies were concerned in the riot which took place at the North Randfontein Mine on 1st April; what was the cause of the disturbance; what were the casualties among the coolies and among the police; how many coolies were arrested; and, if their trial has already taken place, what sentences have been inflicted.

The facts as reported to me by Sir A. Lawley are briefly as follows: The number of coolies at the Randfontein Mine are about 2,000, and a general strike arose out of a dispute between the mine manager and the labourers as to the interpretation of Clause 6 of the contract of service. The labourers claim that each individual labourer was bound to receive, fifty shillings per month irrespective of amount of work which he might perform. The head boys incited all other labourers on the mine to refuse to drill more than twelve inches during a shift of ten hours, a hole of thirty-six inches being accepted ordinary day's work for unskilled labourers. Work in the mine was impeded for three days, when mine management decided to have the ringleaders arrested and charged before magistrate. Ringleaders resisted police, who were also set upon by the coolies. Eventually they arrested fifty-nine ringleaders without firing a shot. No lives were lost, casualties practically nil. As soon as ringleaders had been removed the remaining coolies went quietly to their work. I have not yet received information as to the trial and sentences of the ringleaders.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, after six months, these labourers were not now entitled to at least 1s. 6d. a day.

Yes, Sir; and they are receiving that.

Is it not the fact that they caused this riot because they have not received it?

No, Sir. The dispute arose not as to the right to receive 1s. 6d., but as to the day's work for which the 1s. 6d. was to be received.

asked whether, if the coolies did not perform the amount of work which the mine-owners considered satisfactory, they would not receive the 1s. 6d?

The judges as to whether a day's work is satisfactory or not are not the mineowners but the Courts of law.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered the arrests because the men asked for better pay were legal?

That is not the point. They were not arrested for asking for better wages, but because the ringleaders impeded the work of the mine.

And is the arrest for that legal?

No doubt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the average rate of wages paid to the Chinese labourers employed on the North Randfontein Mine before the recent riot; whether these labourers have been in the Transvaal for the period of six months which would entitle them to be paid a minimum wage of 1s. 6d. a day; whether they were recently asked to sign any supplementary contract of service; and, if so, what were the terms of that contract.

I have received the following statement from Sir Arthur Lawley:—Coolies had been in Transvaal six months. There has not yet been time since expiration of six months employment to compute rate of wages paid, but assessment appears to be under £2 10s. 0d.; coolies on day work Were receiving eighteenpence per ten hours shift for ordinary day's work. Coolies on piece-work or desiring piece-work were offered opportunity of accepting and signing a supplementary agreement in terms of Clause 6 of the contract of service at following rates: halfpenny per inch drilled with a bonus of threepence per shift if thirty-six inches or over were drilled. Acting Superintendent has most carefully explained to coolies this offer, which is more favourable to ordinary worker than day pay of eighteenpence.

Has that contract been sanctioned by the Courts?

No sanction of such a contract is required of the Courts; but I entirely agree with the hon. Member, if that is the suggestion which underlies his Question, that no supplementary contract of this kind should be entered into without the closest investigation in the interests of the men.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Transvaal Government, instead of arresting fifty-nine men, who in this country would be called trade union leaders, but in South Africa are called ringleaders, did not take steps to have this contract examined?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman includes in the term trade union leaders, but I do not agree with him in supposing that trade union leaders are those who constantly oppose the law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount realised by the 10 per cent. Profit Tax in the Transvaal for the year 1904.

:The amount was £357,023.

Has that been paid in?

was understood to reply in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiries which, in August † last year, he promised should be made concerning the number of old and slaughtered horses, or horses unfit for work, that are periodically exported from this country to Belgium, Holland, and Germany; and if he can say for what purpose their carcases are used; and whether their flesh is made into condiments of various kinds, returned to this country, and sold as articles of food.

I regret that, owing to an oversight, some delay occurred before the information was asked for, but we hope to obtain it before very long, and I will then communicate it to the hon. Member.

Will you make the statement publicly? I want the country to know the facts.

Yes, if the hon. Member will put a Question down.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on April 3rd Joseph Wright, an artisan, of West Bridgeford, Nottingham, a man of respectable antecedents, who has never before been charged with anyoffence by the police, was, upon being fined 10s. by the Nottingham bench of magistrates for riding a bicycle without a lamp, refused permission to go out for or telephone for the sum of 2s. 4½d., which he required to make up the fine; that he was driven to the county gaol in the prison van, made to strip and to put on prison clothing,

† See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 977.

I have made inquiry in this case and find that the prisoner made no application to the magistrates for time to pay his fine. He had not sufficient money with him for the purpose, and though the police, who were very busy at the time, did what they could to send a message to his employers, the reply did not come till after Wright had been removed to prison. On his reception there, on a commitment showing him to be a convicted prisoner, the prison authorities had no option but to treat him as such. So far as I can see no blame attaches to either the police or the prison authorities, but at the same time it seems to me very unsatisfactory that a respectable man should have gone to prison in default of paying a fine which at the time he appears to have been both willing and able to pay, and I am in communication with the magistrates with a view of seeing how best such an occurrence can be prevented in future. The case is an unfortunate one.

The man made every effort to be allowed to pay the fine.

Still I do not think the police are to blame.

Other cases of this kind have occurred. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular to all justices' clerks with regard to these cases?

I am in sympathy with the hon. Member, and think that hardship has been inflicted on Wright, but I cannot see that either the police or the prison authorities are to blame. But it does seem—on the facts supplied to me—that the magistrates might have made further inquiries as to Wright's position and ability to pay. I am not prepared to issue any such general circular as suggested, at all events until I have received the answer to my inquiry.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. William Hewlett, of Tibenham, county Norfolk, has received an official intimation that if he is summoned again as a passive resister the post office at Tibenham will be removed from his premises; and if this intimation has been sent to Mr. Howlett with his knowledge and sanction.

The facts of the case areas follows:—Mr. Howlett was informed by my direction that I cannot permit the scandal caused by distress being levied on premises where Post Office business is conducted, and he was warned that if anything of the kind occurs again the office will be taken out of his hands.

; I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the Australian Commonwealth Government and the Orient Pacific Line have yet been able to arrive at an agreement for the resumption of a fortnightly mail service between Australia and the United Kingdom, and, if so, when the new service will commence.

Yes, Sir; I have received a telegram from the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth to say that terms have been agreed upon between that Government and the Orient Company for a fortnightly service, which will be alternate with that which this country has by way of the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The first service will begin from Adelaide on April 13th for the homeward mail, and the outward mail from Naples on April 16th.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how much land for the purpose of allotments has been acquired under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Local Government Act, 1894, which relate to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement.

According to the Parliamentary Returns of February 10th, 1898, and May 28th, 1903, giving particulars on this subject, 269 acres, 3 roods, 31 poles had been acquired compulsorily up to March 31st, 1902, for the purpose referred to. All this land has been acquired under Section 10, which deals with compulsory hiring. Since then, Orders authorising the compulsory acquisition under the same section of 31 acres, 2 roods, 38 poles have been confirmed. I cannot state positively that the land has been acquired.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now in a position to say how far boards of guardians may assist local education authorities in the work of providing food for children in attendance at public elementary schools suffering from want of proper food.

I do not think that I can conveniently make a statement on this subject for the moment, but I hope shortly to be in a position to issue a circular to boards of guardians with regard to their powers and duties in relation to underfed children.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made on behalf of the inhabitants of Millport and of Kilchattan Bay, that their business is hampered by the action of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company in cutting off communication between Fairlie and those places during six months in the year; and whether, in the interests of the trade of Millport and of Kilchattan Bay, the Board of Trade will use their good offices with the railway company to induce it to maintain the connection throughout the year.

I have communicated with the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and the companies have replied that there is not sufficient traffic during the winter months to warrant the continuance of two competing railway steamers, but the Caledonian Railway Company's steamers, which carry the mails, maintain a winter service between Wemyss Bay and Millport.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what day has been fixed for the sitting of the Brussels Sugar Convention to hear the appeal of His Majesty's Government against the condemnation of the countries mentioned in the despatch of 26th November; who will represent this country at the hearing of the case; and whether he can state the grounds on which the appeal is founded.

The Permanent Commission is now sitting. The British Delegation consists of Sir H. Bergne, Mr. Llewellyn Smith, and Mr. Martineau. With regard to the last Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned to him on the 16th February † last by my right hon. friend the Member for Central Leeds.

Has the appeal of this country been admitted?

I do not think I shall do any harm by informing the hon. Member that no prohibition orders will be necessary in the case of any countries in regard to which we appealed, and I believe the Commission ceased its sitting last night.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say why the Annual Account, National Debt (Savings Banks and

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 312.

The Return to which the hon. Member refers was issued on Saturday last.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to issue a circular to public elementary school teachers respecting assistance from the boards of guardians for hungry children; and, if so, whether he will shortly state the main terms of that circular.

This matter is being put forward with all due despatch, but I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether the Royal Warrant of the 11th March, 1905, in any sense abrogates the order of precedence hitherto held by the Lord Provost of Perth, who under the Royal Charter of King James VI. of Scotland, bearing date 1600, has always come immediately after the Lord Provost of Edinburgh in the procession at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, as well as at State or Court Functions, such as the presentation of the Lord Provosts and Provosts of Scotland to Her Majesty the late Queen, on which occasion, viz., the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee in 1897, the Lord Provost of Perth was presented immediately after the Lord Provost of Edinburgh.

; I am informed that the Royal Warrant does not affect the precedence of the Lord Provosts of Perth with, reference to other Lord Provosts or Provosts.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if in the case of a procurator-fiscal calling in outside medical opinion from a distance without reasonable grounds for such action, he will be compelled to pay out of his own pocket the extra expenses thereby entailed on the county.

This is a legal question to which it is impossible to give a sufficient reply except with reference to the precise facts of a particular case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the facts of a case if I send them to him?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases of relief to widows with young children, the Local Government Board will use its influence and see that outdoor relief be given to suitable cases of such an amount as will enable the home to be kept on, instead of offering the poor-house; and whether such influence will be used incase 43,145 brought under the notice of the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Edinburgh, on 14th March and in previous communications.

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the circular issued by the Local Government Board for Scotland on June 5th, 1902, which specially dealt with the relief of widows with young children. The Local Government Board have endeavoured to secure that due effect should be given to the views therein expressed in the case referred to by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board have taken or propose to take any steps to negotiate for the purchase of the estate of Lord Kenmare, in the county of Kerry, or of the congested portion of it, as the landlord has signified his willingness to sell and the tenants to buy, but in connection with which no advance has been made owing to the difficulty as to terms.

No, Sir. The arrangement of terms is obviously a matter for the parties themselves.

Then am I to understand that the Estates Commissioners will do nothing to bring about a settlement in this case?

I think that is the correct interpretation of my Answer. It is not a case for outside interference.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the capitation grant payable to the Cahirciveen hosiery industry is insufficient to develop the industry; and whether, in view of the fact that a sum amounting to about £400 has been provided from private sources, the Department will now sanction the grant of £80 which has been voted every year by the county council out of the funds at its disposal during the past five years, but which the Department has hitherto refused to sanction.

The Department cannot answer the first inquiry. A grant-in aid is not the only circumstance upon which the development of an industry depends. The Department are not prepared to sanction the proposed grant, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of March 22nd†.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

† See (4) Debates, cxliii., 799.

The Board made an offer for purchase which was not accepted. The terms cannot be disclosed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that although schemes of technical instruction, approved of by the Department of Agriculture, can be put into operation in the congested portion of county Kerry, the grants by which alone they can be worked are not forthcoming; and can he state what steps will be taken to put the congested districts of the county on the same footing as the non-congested districts.

The funds available under the scheme of technical instruction adopted by the county committee, and approved by the Department, are applicable to congested and non-congested districts alike. As I have already stated, the Congested Districts Board have no funds to contribute to the county scheme.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to complaints made as to the failure of the Congested Districts Board to use their powers effectively in the county of Kerry and elsewhere in the South of Ireland, he will now consider the advisability of adding a representative from the South of Ireland on the Board with the view of making their work effective in that part of Ireland.

I am not prepared to admit the assumption that the work of the Board has not been effective in the South of Ireland. There is no present vacancy on the Board. When a vacancy occurs, all the existing circumstances will be fully considered.

Is it not the fact that the Board have done nothing in Kerry but purchase two farms? Does the right hon. Gentleman call that effective work?

I do not think that that is correct.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints are made by public bodies all over Ireland as to the action of this Board?

Yes, Sir, since I have been Chief Secretary I have received many complaints.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Dingle District Council protesting against an arrangement alleged to be entered into between the Congested Districts Board and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, whereby the former give an undertaking not to subsidise for the next five years any steamer on the south west coast of Ireland; whether this arrangement has been entered into; and, if so, what is the object.

Yes, Sir. The arrangement has been entered into. Its object was to secure favourable railway rates upon the withdrawal of the subsidised steamship service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have given any, and, if so, what financial assistance to the evicted tenants reinstated in the county of Kerry; whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have taken no steps to reinstate any evicted tenant in the county; and whether they will now initiate proceedings with the various landlords for the reinstatement of those men.

The Commissioners are prepared to consider proposals to reinstate evicted tenants on estates which may come before them for sale; and if they should acquire untenanted laud in the county the claims of evicted tenants will be considered. No financial assistance was given by the Commissioners to the nineteen evicted tenants who have been reinstated by landlords.

What is going to happen to those tenants whose landlords will not sell? How long are they going to remain without being reinstated?

The hon. Member knows that where there is untenanted land steps are taken to reinstate them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable sales of land are taking place in North Kerry—of untenanted lands in the occupation of the landlords? Will he take steps to enter into negotiations in these cases?

If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many and what estates have been purchased since the passing of the Land Act, 1903, in South Cork; how many tenants are affected; what is the total purchase price and net rental of each estate so purchased.

Statistics by Parliamentary Divisions are not available. In the entire county 207 estates, comprising 3,204 holdings, have been purchased. Of these holdings 3,170 were tenanted, the rental being £68,365. The purchase price of the tenanted land was £1,453,507, and of the untenanted land £27,765.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sir Antony MacDonnell holds the position of Undersecretary for Ireland on the lines and under the conditions laid down in the late Chief Secretary's letter when making the appointment; and, if not, will he explain the terms, if any, under which he retains office over and above those of an ordinary Civil servant.

May I at the same time also ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the conditions under which the Under-Secretary was appointed by the late Chief Secretary have been in any way changed.

I had hoped that the reply given by me on the 6th inst.† to the Question of my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast sufficiently explained the relations subsisting between myself and the Under-Secretary. I observe, however, that considerable misconception still appears to exist, and I think it necessary, therefore, to make a fuller statement in order to remove, as far as possible, all misunderstandings in the matter. It has been suggested that a special compact exists, the object of which is to avoid the publication of correspondence. There is not the smallest foundation for this suggestion. It is invidious for me to have to criticise my predecessor, and I have hitherto refrained from doing so; but I conceive that the prevalent misunderstandings have their origin very largely in the declaration made by my right hon. friend in this House on February 20th,‡ when he stated that the letters that had passed between him and Sir Antony MacDonnell made it perfectly plain and clear that the latter was invited by my predecessor rather as a colleague than as a mere Under-Secretary to register his will. I must dissociate myself from this conception of the status of the Under-Secretary in so far as it affects our relations. My predecessor reserved to himself, I believe, full power of supervision and control; whether he exercised

† See page 648.

See (4) Debates, cxli., 650.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions under which Sir Antony Mac-Donnell was invited to accept the appointment have, as a matter of fact, been altered?

That really must be a matter of which the hon. Member is as good a judge as I am. I have stated quite distinctly what are the conditions that exist between the Under-secretary and myself. I have stated also that the observance of those conditions must depend on the administration of the Department. All I have said—and to this I adhere—is that I possess and that I intend to exercise full powers of supervision and control. If that involves a change, then that can only be proved by the system of administration we shall pursue.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet come to a decision with regard to the distribution of the untenanted land on the Caldbeck Estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County; and whether the claims of the thirty-four small occupiers in the locality for portion of this untenanted land will be considered.

No, Sir; the matter is still under consideration. A question of law, regarding the distribution of parcels of the estate, is involved.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether postmasters in Ireland are still permitted to act as emigration agents or to exhibit emigration notices in their post offices.

There is no prohibition against postmasters and sub-post-masters in Ireland acting as emigration agents so long as their official duties are not interfered with; nor are they forbidden to exhibit emigration notices at their offices.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the land, marine, and submarine defences of the shores and ports of the United Kingdom are partly under the War Office and partly under the Admiralty, whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has worked out a complete and united scheme for repelling invasion raids; and whether he can see his way to manæuvres this autumn which will put that scheme into practice by land and sea, over a stretch of exposed coast in the defence of which both Departments are concerned.

In answer to my hon. and gallant friend, I have to say that the submarine defences referred to in the first sentence of his Question are already under the sole charge of the Admiralty, a change which has been brought about very largely in consequence of discussions in the Defence Committee. As regards the latter part of his Question, I would venture to suggest to my hon. and gallant friend and the House that, though, of course, I have no objection to these Questions being asked, I think they would be asked more usefully when I have had the opportunity of explaining to the House at length, and possibly in some detail, the views to which the Defence Committee have come and which I promised to lay before the Committee of the House at an early date after Easter. It is difficult to deal with these complicated problems by way of Question and Answer; and, if they are to be so dealt with, they can be dealt with with much more advantage when the House have the general views of the Government before them and have had time to consider them.

Can my right hon. friend say whether the submarine defences of the non-naval as well as the naval ports have been taken over by the Admiralty?

I do not know that the change has already been effected, but it is certainly in process of being effected, and will be completed, I hope, shortly.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will now consider the advisability of abolishing the office of the Viceroy of Ireland, and of substituting for it a Secretaryship of State.

There are undoubted anomalies in the office of Viceroy of Ireland; but the change which my hon. friend suggests, which has been often under the consideration of the House, involves questions of policy too large to be dealt with at the present moment. Certainly the Government are not going to bring in a Bill in the course of the present session.

Have we not had quite enough, by this time of government of Ireland by Dublin Castle?

I do not know where the new Secretary of State would carry on his work, except in Dublin Castle, and, that being the case, I do not see that my hon. friend's suggestion contains any remedy.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the position given to the question of the Redistribution of Seals in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, he will introduce the Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded before the House separates for the Easter recess.

I think I answered this Question yesterday.† It would be impossible for us to find time before Easter to introduce any proposals on this subject.

Has the Government really serious intentions of dealing with this subject this session, or is the Bill to be introduced for the purpose of what is called shop-window dressing?

I do not quite understand the contrast between serious and shop-window which appears to govern the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The proposals we mean to make to the House are serious proposals.

How soon after Easter will they be made?

It is much too early to name a day for any business after Easter.

said that all agreed that if there were a subject of indirect taxation that ought to be relieved it was, beyond all question, tea. But the taking off of 2d. a 1b. from the duty was open to one serious objection, and that was that the very poor would not derive any benefit from the relief of taxation. The reduction of 2d. would no doubt benefit those who bought their tea in large quantities, but those who had to purchase it in very small quantities could not possibly get any advantage from the change. They had always been told that the income-tax payers had the first claim to consideration when an opportunity was afforded for the remission of taxation, and it certainly seemed hard that their interests should have been neglected in this instance, and that the consumers of tea alone should have received the benefit. Of course they all wished to see a reduction of taxation of every description. He desired to emphasise one statement, and it was that in his judgment the poor income-tax payers formed the class of persons who paid the largest amount of taxation in the whole country. He regretted that it had so often been held that these people were not worthy of much consideration because they were supposed to be rich men, but those who had studied income-tax statistics well knew that the smaller persons were those who paid the largest proportion of the tax, and therefore, he thought it was a pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken the more heroic line of saying that, inasmuch as he could not possibly fulfil his pledges to income-tax payers to relieve them of a portion of their burden, he would devote the whole of his surplus to the payment of debt instead of relieving indirect taxation by reducing the duty on tea. No doubt it was a very pleasant thing to reduce the cost of tea, but it should be remembered that the expenditure of this country was growing to an enormous extent, and the people were continually demanding further assistance from the State. The time had come, therefore, when it was desirable to pay an increased amount off the Debt, and he, for one, would have looked with satisfaction at any arrangement by which even more than a million would have been set apart for that purpose. He knew that the payment of debt was not always popular, but it was a question which struck at the root of our whole financial system. In spite of our enormous prosperity, and in spite of the tremendous increase of wealth in this country during the Last thirty or forty years, we were not now paying off more of our debt per year than when Sir Stafford Northcote first introduced his system. Sir Stafford fixed the annual repayment at that time at £28,000,000 a year and under the present system the figure was the same, if only we had adopted the policy of our forefathers in this matter the financial position of this country would have been far better. After all, the strength of the country lay in its ability to cope with any emergency, and its financial strength was one of the most important factors in connection with its defence. He did not wish to say a word against the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, but he must repeat that, he thought the time had come when the question of the repayment of debt must be gone into more carefully, and that their efforts should be directed towards that rather than to the remission of taxation. It might he suggested that the public, in view of the national expenditure on alcohol, were not overburdened, and undoubtedly a nation in which each family could voluntarily set aside as much as £20 per annum for alcohol for legitimate use, and which at the same time owed nearly £700,000,000, ought to set apart a larger sum than it now did for the repayment of debt. He had long held that opinion, and he was again crying in the wilderness. He believed, however, that there were other Members who agreed with him that they should do more towards the repayment of debt than they now did. He certainly did not think that £30,000,000 would be an excessive sum to set apart for that purpose annually. The increasing expenditure of the country was largely due to the spirit which had recently been manifested of demanding that the Government should do much for individuals and communities. He thought that that spirit was a mistake and that it undermined the self-reliance of the people. The more they could get the public to look after themselves the better it would be, instead of calling upon the State and municipalities to do so much at the public cost. They still owed money that was raised, practically speaking, at the beginning of the last century for the great French War, and in his opinion that ought to have been cleared off years ago, and it would have been if they had followed the policy adopted by their ancestors at the beginning of the last century. But, instead of that, they had added to their debt. He was well aware that the reduction of the tea duty commended itself to many people, not only because tea was a necessity, but also because the reduction would benefit our Indian Empire and would encourage the trade of India. So far as that went, the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had his complete sympathy, but he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would take into his consideration the question of the reduction of the Debt, and would set himself resolutely to the task of diminishing the permanent burden.

said he would like to add to the expressions of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the interest and lucidity of the speech in which he introduced his Budget on the preceding night. He was sure the whole House listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction, and that it was with especial satisfaction that they heard what he had to say as to the trade of the country and the improvement which had occurred in connection with it. He thought also that the Members on the Opposition side of the House were, on the whole, I satisfied with the actual proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, because those proposals were in the direction which they had always advocated, namely, greater reduction of the National Debt and the diminution of indirect taxation, and especially of the tea duty. Undoubtedly, the great question of the present moment was how the national expenditure was to be reduced, for, so long as that expenditure remained on its present scale, they could not hope for any substantial reduction of debt or of taxation. The general financial position last year was rather curious. It appeared from the right hon. Gentleman's figures that there had been a considerable increase of elasticity in the income-tax apart from what he might call his "hustling" policy, for the tax had produced nearly half a million beyond what had been estimated, and in addition to that the arrears had been brought in more rapidly. But indirect taxation—Customs and Excise—had, on the other hand, shown a great want of elasticity.

here interrupted the hon. Member, and said that the increased product from the income-tax had been due not so much to the elasticity of the tax as to the fact that he, last year, had rather underestimated the product.

said that, at all events, they had had a very satisfactory receipt from the tax, while, on the other hand, the receipts from the Excise and Customs had not been so satisfactory. It seemed to him to prove that the general trade and commerce of the country were in a satisfactory condition, but that the burdens on the consumers at the present moment were so heavy that they had been unable to extract any elasticity from the Customs and Excise. After the right hon. Gentleman had delivered his speech introducing the Budget on the preceding evening, he (the speaker) spoke to a tariff reformer and asked him if he did not regret that nothing had been taken off the income-tax, and the reply very promptly came that it was a matter of perfect indifference because nobody now had any income. The produce from the taxation of other articles consumed by the poorest members of the community had also shown, unfortunately, a want of elasticity, and in the matter of sugar there had not only been the burden of taxation, but the price of the article to the consumer had also been increased by the operation of the Sugar Convention. The right hon. Gentleman had avoided any mention of the results of certain taxation he introduced last year. For instance, there was the stripped tobacco duty. He certainly did say he rather congratulated himself that, in spite of the alleged disorganisation of the tobacco trade, the revenue from the tobacco duty had been satisfactory. But he (the speaker) wanted to know what had been the actual result of the duty upon stripped tobacco. Had not that very thing happened which they on that side had declared in the course of the debates of the previous year would occur, namely, that there had been practically no stripped tobacco imported into this country, and that there consequently was no revenue arising from it. He thought that the country might well be congratulated on the fact that the last few months had shown a real turn in the tide of prosperity. A few months ago there appeared to be a falling off, but there had now been a most remarkable change—a change all the more remarkable when they bore in mind the effect of the disturbance of trade through the uncertainty which at the present moment existed in most trades in consequence of the fiscal agitation, and the public ignorance as to what was likely to be the future fiscal policy of this country. No doubt this prosperity was somewhat disheartening to those who had been telling them that their trade was disappearing, and who had been attributing that disappearance to the operation of the principle of free trade. But the great blot on the Budget was the item of expenditure. He was glad to think that the plague of expenditure had to a certain extent been stayed this year. He, however, did not think it was altogether satisfactory that the reduction of expenditure this year as compared with last amounted to less than one million sterling. The whole of that was due to the reduction of the Navy Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol twelve months ago declared were far in excess of the needs of the country. It was, undoubtedly, essential that there should be a reduction in those Navy Estimates this year, but he thought there was considerable disappointment that that reduction had not been larger than it appeared to be. There had also been extreme disappointment because they were not to have any reduction on the Army Estimates at all in the present year. They had been told by the Secretary of State for War that if he were allowed to carry out his scheme of Army reform it would involve a large reduction of expenditure, but unfortunately the various schemes of reform which had been produced had, in turn, been placed on the scrap heap, and instead of expenditure on the Army having diminished it was continuing at its old figure. The result of all this was that at the present moment they were asking for a sum of £141,000,000 to cover the national expenditure for the year as against a demand for £96,000,000 in the year 1895–6 when the present Administration came into office. And this, it must be borne in mind, was peace expenditure with the exception of about £4,000,000 which represented the contribution towards war expenses—the amount by which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon raised the Sinking Fund two years ago. The right hon. Gentleman had made three proposals. One was the redaction of the tea duty, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman chose that in preference to the income-tax, because he felt that the indirect taxpayer had the greater claim to relief. Then there was the second proposal, that dealing with debt, and again he was able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having taken a step in the right direction. And finally, by the abolition of a certain number of small charges which fettered particular trades, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had had it in his power to proceed in the direction of the simplification of our fiscal and financial system, and had at the same time exemplified some of the advantages of free trade. He thought, however, something more might have been done to reduce the Debt charge. He did not know if people generally were aware how very little of the South African War debt had yet been paid off. The war cost £220,000,000, and out of the actual proceeds of additional taxation the amount paid in reduction of that cost was £55,000,000; so that there were still £165,000,000 of war charges which had not been met, and were not likely to be met unless the Debt charge was considerably increased. When the matter was under discussion two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anticipating the receipt of £6,000,000 from the Chinese indemnity and of £30,000,000 as a war contribution from the Transvaal, but neither anticipation had been realised, and personally he was not very much impressed with their chances of getting the latter sum. But still these were the facts on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon justified his contention that there was no necessity to raise the Sinking Fund above £27,000,000, as he calculated if these moneys came in they would produce such an increase of the Sinking Fund as would enable the Debt to be reduced to £694,000,000 by March, 1908. At the present moment the whole Debt amounted to £796,000,000, and last year the whole operation on the Debt was this, that while £7,500,000 were paid off, £9,500,000 were added. The fact was that at the end of five years the country, so far as debt was concerned, was exactly in the same position as before. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction between the dead-weight debt and the debt as against which he said there were specific assets, but with the exception of the Suez Canal shares, which had proved a very good investment, the telegraphs, and perhaps the Uganda Railway, there were no realisable assets, as money spent on naval and military works could not be realised in any sense of the term. The only asset remaining for the capital expenditure on guns and forts and powder and barracks might be said to be the Transvaal itself, and so far that had not proved very profitable. All were glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express a hope that the capital expenditure would this year be reduced. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was rather over sanguine in regard to this matter, because as soon as one programme was finished another more expensive one was started either for the Army or the Navy. With regard to the credit of the country one of the objects of the Sinking Fund was not only to reduce the Debt, but also to maintain the credit of the country by annually purchasing funded or unfunded debt. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer bought Consols with the Sinking Fund somewhere about £89; that was to say, he was buying annuities and paying £2 16s. per cent. for them, and in the same year he issued £6,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds upon which he had to pay 3¼ per cent. So that with one hand he was selling stock at £2 16s. per cent. and then buying stock for which he had to pay 3¼ per cent. Of course that was not a profitable transaction for the National Exchequer, and the security which the Sinking Fund ought to give was neutralised. With regard to the £1,000,000 of unclaimed dividends in his balance-sheet, he noticed that he credited himself with £1,000,000 on that account. He would like to know how much Consols had he to sell for that sum and at what price he sold them. He thought that would show the absurdity of the position of the Government having to buy things dear and sell them cheap. He had some doubt whether the particular proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to take £10,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds and apply £1,000,000 each year would be a more satisfactory proposal than merely adding £1,000,000 a year to the fixed debt fund. He should have thought that this course would tie the hands of those who had to deal with these matters each year and force them to extinguish these particular Exchequer Bonds when the Sinking Fund as a whole might be more profitably employed elsewhere. He thought it would have been better simply to have raised the Sinking Fund by £1,000,000 instead of earmarking this money for this particular purpose. He was entirely in accord with the proposal to reduce the tea duty, and he regretted that the expenditure of the country did not allow the right hon. Gentleman to reduce, other duties also. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that because this proposal would benefit the Colonies the members of the Opposition ought to oppose it. He would remind the hon. Member that those sitting on the Opposition side of the House were just as anxious to benefit the Colonies as any hon. Members, when they could do it with advantage to the Empire as a whole. One reason why the tea duty was selected was that it would benefit the British consumer as well as the colonial producer. He thought the figures in regard to direct taxation which had already been quoted conclusively showed that in this year the right hon. Gentleman, having only a limited amount of money, decided that indirect taxation had a greater claim upon him than the income-tax payer. While the direct taxpayer was paying £10,000,000 a year more in consequence of extra taxation, the indirect taxpayer was paying £13,000,000 more. Within the last two years the direct taxpayer had had a remission of £18,000,000, whilst the indirect taxpayer had only been remitted £2,000,000. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was dealing in a fair way as between the direct and indirect taxpayer, and he trusted that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able by a reduction in expenditure and increased elasticity in the revenue to take the remaining 2d. off tea and give the direct taxpayer some relief as well.

said that he joined in the congratulation which had been showered upon the Chan cellor of the Exchequer in regard to all his Budget proposals with the exception of that referring to a reduction of the tea duty. He desired to repeat what he had told the Committee upon a former occasion, namely, that tea had no nutritive properties whatever, that it was merely a stimulant like alcohol and tobacco, and that in the excessive quantities in which it was used by very many in this country it was a very deleterious luxury. It was, therefore, perfectly absurd to endeavour, as many hon. Members had done, to put this stimulant in the position of a prime necessary of life. Sugar was very much wanting in many of the essential qualities of a nourishing food and it ought to be used very sparingly. The consumption of tea in this country had increased by leaps and bounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when proposing to put 2d. on the tea duty last year, stated that the community was "saturated with tea." The consumption increased from 2½ 1bs. per head in 1864 to 6½ 1bs. at the present time. The consumption of sugar had also increased to an enormous extent. A very large amount was used in connection with tea, and it was also used in large quantities as confectionery. This combination of tea and sugar with its concomitants of a little milk, a little butter, and a very large amount of bread, principally white bread, had become to millions of people in this country the staple diet. It was used morning, noon, and night, and according to the Report of the Commission on Physical Training in 1903, and that on Physical Deterioration in 1904, this diet was the cause of an enormous amount of physical deterioration. It was so destitute of nutritive properties that the families living upon it were in a state of semistarvation. The deterioration was specially marked among infants and young children, and the effect remained all through life. Infantile mortality was enormous, and one of the great causes of this was the diet to which he was referring. The teeth of the present generation were inferior to those of their ancestors, and the Report of one of these Commissions stated that there was no doubt whatever that this was due to the absence of proper diet. It had also been clearly shown that ænemia dyspepsia, and many other forms of disease wore brought about by tea and sugar diet. The supporters of the tea and sugar diet stated that if it was bad it was the best the poor could afford. He would have no difficulty in disposing of that argument. It was quite true that the poor could not afford flesh, fish, fowl, and eggs, which were necessary to supply the deficiencies of the other diet, and which the better classes could afford. But in oats, peas, beans, barley, etc., well cooked as porridge and used along with, milk, they had splendid substitutes containing an enormously greater amount of nutriment which could be obtained at a cheaper price. Soups made with beef or mutton, with a large proportion of bone, and containing vegetables, cereals, and pulses, afforded a far better and more nutritious diet, and they could be got for about the same price as the porridge and milk diet to which he was referring. He had a large amount of statistical and other information on this subject, but he would not trouble the Committee with it. He would put it in the form of a concrete example. A labouring man with a wife and six children, ranging from two to sixteen years of age, required, when using the tea and sugar diet, to spend 15s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. to maintain them even in a condition of semi-starvation. With the other far more wholesome and nutritious diet that man could maintain his family on from 10s. to 11s. per week. If the income was only £1 per week, what an enormous benefit the saving on food of 5s. per week gave to the family for the purpose of providing better clothing and better housing! The objection to this more wholesome diet was that it required a great deal of skill and patience in the cooking. One advantage of tea was that it could be easily cooked. He had great sympathy for the poorer classes, the exigencies of whose employment compelled them to use the more readily cooked article of diet, but tea and sugar formed the diet of an enormous number of the lazy and thriftless in the community. The education authorities had come to recognise the importance of this subject, and to see that it might be of more practical value to a boy or girl to possess information about the elementary principles of health than to have a smattering knowledge of subjects which would be in after life of little use. There was an anti-tea duty society. He thought an anti-tea diet association would be of more practical benefit, and better still a rational food society, and one of its first duties would be to assign to every article of diet used by the working classes its proper place in dietetics, and to instruct the people as to the best method of using it. By this means hundreds of thousands of families who were in a position of penury would be elevated into a position of comparative affluence. He had endeavoured to show that tea and sugar, instead of being necessaries for the poor, were really luxuries they could not afford except in small quantities, so small that any duties upon them would be to the consumers almost infinitesimal—while those who could afford to use them in larger quantities would also be able to pay the taxes. Under these circumstances the question the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider was not how he could reduce the tea duty, but how he could increase it to the same proportion is that of the kindred luxuries of alcohol and tobacco. In that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to increase the tea duty to 1s. 4d. per 1b., the figure at which it was in 1874. This would open up to future Chancellors of the Exchequer the fine prospect of being able to raise £20,000,000 extra, while at the same time greatly benefiting the health of the community. But, Chancellors of the Exchequer, like ordinary human beings, made their plans in accordance with popular sentiment and the opinion of the time. There had been a great deal of nonsense talked about "the free breakfast table." They might as well talk about "the free dinner table," including beer, which was regularly a part of the diet of some people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had sympathised with the false sentiment and remitted the tax on tea to the extent of 25 per cent. Scotch Members would be much better employed in endeavouring to restore their national diet, than in inveighing against the tea and sugar duties. English Members, some of whom had shown great aptitude in adopting Scotch customs such as playing golf and drinking whiskey, in which pastimes they sometimes excelled the Scotch, would do better if they assisted to introduce in their country a solid system of diet among the working classes, similar to that which still obtained among hundreds of thousands of the working people in the North. And Irish Members, if they reformed the diet of their fellow-countrymen, would have the double satisfaction of being dietetic reformers and of bringing the taxation of their country into a more proper proportion, according to their ideas, with that of the adjacent island. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown great financial ability in regard to other items in his Budget, but he would have shown statesmanship of a higher order if he had retained the duty on tea at 8d.

said he would not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman in his very interesting and valuable discourse on food and food taxation. He would confine himself to a more superficial criticism of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In listening to the not altogether unsatisfactory exposition of his Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he felt animated by sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman because of the extreme disappointment which the right hon. Gentleman must have felt in having to open such a Budget to the House of Commons. He remembered that last year the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech said that he looked for relief this year to the reforms which his right hon. friend the Secretary for War was preparing in the Army system of this country. Well, they would have been glad for relief from such reforms, but the real objection to his Budget was not to the Budget itself but to the necessity for the Budget. In the situation in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself from the Estimates already accepted by the House, they could not object very much to his proposals. In his estimate of revenue for the year the right hon. Gentleman had made an extraordinary good shot—almost a bull's eye; but his hit was compounded of misses. The errors he made in regard to Customs and Excise were excusable; but the right hon. Gentleman had not made allowances for the extraordinary social phenomena manifested in the reduction of the consumption of beer and spirits by the inhabitants of this country. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Devon-port that this was to be explained simply by the poverty of the people. On the contrary, he believed that that poverty had been exaggerated on both sides of the House for fiscal purposes. In spite of the statistics of pauperism, unemployment, and consumption of beer and spirits, he did not believe the working classes, as a whole, were suffering from any unprecedented destitution. He noted that the consumption of tobacco had increased enormously. The tobacco duty had increased by £600,000—more than £250,000 above the estimate. He should like to repeat the question already put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—"How much of that increase was due to stripped tobacco?" The hon. Member for Liverpool had assured the Committee that the import of stripped tobacco had entirely ceased, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was therefore wrong in denying last year that the revenue from tobacco was no longer elastic.

No. I never said that.

I beg pardon. It may have been the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor the year before who stated that the taxation of tobacco had reached its limit.

What I said last year was that I was advised that to increase the rate of the tax on tobacco would probably reduce the consumption, which might largely affect the revenue. That is not the same thing as saying that the revenue was not elastic.

said he wondered that the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this tax, did not accept the suggestion which the whole tobacco trade made to him last year. The right hon. Gentleman was told that the trade would prefer to have the duty raised all round to 3s. 3d. per 1b. on all tobacco. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted that suggestion, he might have found a new source of revenue which would have relieved him at present. But the chief criticism he had to make on the right hon. Gentleman's proposals was his dealing with the fixed debt charge. That proposal had been met with a chorus of approval and congratulation; but he could only give his congratulation in a very modest degree and to a qualified extent. He asked the right hon. Gentleman why he had not taken the opportunity of dealing with the terminable annuities which fell in next year, and of bringing in a scheme which would have associated his name in a prominent degree with a reform of the finances of the country, and would have conduced very much to the stability of trade? The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it right to leave that matter to the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that was too great a temptation to leave in the hands of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. A bird in the hand was a very tempting thing; and next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have in hand £3,000,000 for which the spending Departments and the tax-payer would compete, but which should be applied in reduction of the permanent Debt. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would so apply it if he held then his present position. He could promise the right hon. Gentleman that they on that side of the House would remind him of his pledge and hold him to it. But human nature was weak; and the weakest form of human nature had lately been incarnated in the shape of recent Chancellors of the Exchequer. What was to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year, when he had this windfall in his hand, using it for another purpose?

said he associated himself with the congratulations which, without exception, had been showered on the head of his right hon. friend. He could not help thinking—while sitting listening attentively to his right hon. friend—that there was one whose voice, alas, they would never hear any more, who would have associated himself with those congratulations; because if there was one principle more than another which the late Sir William Harcourt pressed on the House of Commons it was the urgent and constant necessity of increasing the resources of this country by the diminution of debt. If he might be pardoned preferring his own opinion he would say that the one feature which more than anything else stood out as deserving of commendation in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, was his resolution and firm determination to ensure the continuance of the diminution of the Debt which had grown up with enormous, though unavoidable, leaps and bounds. Having said that, he would like to add his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had laid down as to the financial principles which should guide him. Of course they could not expect a Chancellor of the Exchequer— and he did not think the right hon. I Gentleman could, if he would—who had spent many valuable years of his public life at the Admiralty—when he got to the Treasury, which was a purifying atmosphere, to propose to sweep away if not the mischievous, certainly the unhappy, arrangements for increasing the Debt by the system of expenditure for naval works. He was surprised to find, such an authority on finance as his hon. friend the Member for Poplar make the error of very vehemently reproaching former Chancellors of the Exchequer for the additional expenditure in connection with the naval and military works. Then the hon. Member for Poplar had said that while we were reducing the Debt by £7,500,000 we were increasing it by £9,000,000. His (Mr. Cohen's) reason for viewing that expenditure with indulgence was because they had not to depend on a courageous, but an orthodox. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether the right hon. Gentleman liked it or not that expenditure must be extinguished by Votes in Supply and was beyond the control of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, therefore, regretted those additions to the liabilities of the country, because they were created, to a certain extent, clandestinely, or, in other words, not in the straightforward and above-board way of adding to the expenditure of the country by Votes of Supply. They had heard a good deal of the way in which the expenditure of the country was mounting up, but personally ho did not look for any great reduction of expenditure. He believed the most powerful influence for reduction was to be found in the propagation of such principles as those laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, as, for example, that of reducing debt by a manner which would not be dependent upon any particular Budget Estimate of any year but would work automatically, and would ensure that when these repealed claims for expenditure were put forward the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "You can have them all, provided that you pay for them by additional taxation." He rejoiced in the restoration of the £28,000,000 to the service of the Debt. They knew it was only reverting to the figures of Sir Stafford Northcote, when the Debt was much smaller and the expenditure very much less lavish than it was now. He thought those two alterations in the consideration of the case might render more, and not less, obligatory the rigid appropriation of a minimum of £28,000,000 at a time of peace, and he believed and hoped, of prosperity. The hon. Member for Poplar had called attention to the fact that we were buying Consols and at the same time were selling £1,000,000 worth from the unclaimed dividends. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee he knew that the Government, when it sold and bought the same article at the same time, generally did so at a loss to the Exchequer. He would be glad to hear how the Chancellor of the Exchequer arranged the selling and buying of Consols. If the right hon. Gentleman could do these things for himself, it would be a great advantage to the Exchequer, because he knew that Stock Exchange members gained an advantage when a Minister appeared there both as buyer and seller. The right hon. Gentleman merited congratulations in having framed his Budget not to court popularity, but in such a way as to protect him, not only from himself, but from any future Chancellor of the Exchequer who would be obliged to redeem £1,000,000 of Exchequer bonds a year—thereby strengthening the credit of the country, and rendering it more sound, more stable, because more free from incursion.

ventured to say that the national balance-sheet was presented to the House, and through the House to the country, on a system which would not be tolerated by any business firm in the country. On a previous occasion he had been told that Mr. Gladstone had sanctioned the system. If that, were so he was still sorry to say that he differed from it because a great deal of misunderstanding and foolish talk arose from employing a wrong method of rendering a balance-sheet. The national expenditure consisted of two things—they had to keep the nation going and had to pay for its Army and Navy; but the nation ran other businesses, such as the Post Office and the Telegraphs. That expenditure ought not to be included in the national expenditure, but should be kept absolutely distinct. A business man would keep a separate account and only bring the profit or loss into the general account, but in this national balance-sheet they had on one side the Post Office receipts and on the other side they had the expenditure. If the State took over the railways, the expenditure would be jumped up by £100,000,000 and it would be perfectly absurd to call that national expenditure. They were told that the national expenditure was £141,000,000, but £14,000,000 was required for the Post Office and Telegraphs, out of which a profit of £5,000,000 was made, and the expenditure was consequently £127,000,000. They ought to know exactly from year to year the proper amount of the expenditure of the nation. He asserted that there ought to be a separate account for each separate business of the State, a Post Office account, a telegraph account, and so forth. He remembered when the Telegraphs were taken over by the nation, when according to the form of book-keeping the expenditure jumped up nearly £5,000,000, although it had not really done anything of the sort. The nation was now going to take over the telephone system, and he supposed under the present form of book-keeping the expenditure would go up another £5,000,000. It was not generally known that out of the Post Office the nation made £6,000,000, whilst the Telegraphs was a losing business. What was wanted was a separate account for each business so that we could put our finger on the losing businesses and see whether we could not stop or reduce those losses. When we took over the telephones we ought to have a separate account for them so that we could see whether we were losing or gaining. What the nation really wanted in these Estimates was to know what it was spending for national purposes, what were the national purposes on which it was making the expenditure, and whether that expenditure was going up or down in future years. The figures now were quite useless. They wanted to know what the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service—what all those things which were necessary for running a nation—amounted to altogether; and, secondly, they wanted to know how each separate business was going on. He, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give those reasonable facilities which were necessary for this purpose in order that a great deal of the confusion and misunderstanding that now existed might be cleared away.

associated himself with the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the manner in which these Estimates had been presented to the House. He heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his most able but unsensational Budget, especially on the part in which he had allocated so much money to the reduction of the National Debt. He did not altogether agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire in regard to the taxation of food. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to taking something off tea, although he himself had a kindly feeling in favour of a remission of the taxation on sugar. He thought, however, the benefits which were derived from a reduction on tea very nearly counterbalanced those which would be obtained from a reduction on sugar. No doubt there would be some heartburning because nothing had been taken off the income-tax. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the income-tax only hit the rich; those whom it hit hardest were that large body of the community, the clerks. Another bad effect of that income-tax was the large amount of capital it drew from new businesses, but under the present conditions he thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite unable to reduce this tax. He hoped, however, that later on in the debate a Motion would be moved in favour of a graduated income-tax. There were a great many arguments in favour of such a departure, and he for one would rejoice to see a difference made in favour of incomes earned as against those derived from investments. Another point to which he wished to call attention was the flotation of Consols. When Lord Goschen, in 1888, passed his scheme for the conversion of the National Debt, it was received with great acclaim, but he had never been able himself to see the benefit derived from that transaction. True, the nation derived £1,500,000 taxation from it, but the ultimate result had been that the taxpayer paid less taxation because he received less on his Consols, while the scheme at the same time had had the effect of reducing the stability of the National Debt. The effect of that reduction of the interest payable on the National Debt gave rise to the wildest speculation. The flotations in 1886 amounted to £90,000,000 odd, and two years later to £150,000,000. There was the Argentine boom, followed by the Baring crisis, the South African boom, the cycle boom, and the most fruitful result of the conversion was a plenteous crop of Jabez Balfours, Hooleys, and Whitaker Wrights. He thought that it would be better for the country if Consols were still 2¾ instead of 2½ and he hoped eventually to see the interest raised to the original 3 per cent. They had now Consols, the war loan, and the Irish loan all carrying different rates of interest, and he hoped that some future Chancellor of the Exchequer would at some time come to the House and say that it would be better for the nation and better for the people to revise these matters and put all these loans on the same basis.

regretted that the Estimates did not show as large a reduction as the Committee had a right to expect. The House during the war willingly provided the necessary sums for its prosecution, and naturally when it was over they looked for a reduction in the charges for the maintenance of the services. The Prime Minister ought to have insisted upon a more moderate expenditure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have curbed the extravagance of the various Departments. The Secretary of State for War had held out hopes of far greater economies than had yet been effected. It had been shown to be possible to make a reduction in the charges for the Navy, and why was it not possible in the Army? It was absolutely necessary to adopt the homely idea of cutting one's coat according to the cloth at one's disposal, and the people were not willing to bear as heavy burdens in time of peace as they were in time of war. The process of balancing income and expenditure was an interesting one, but one of the first concerns of the Government should be to consider the extent of that expenditure, and the country had a right to complain that, although there was a slight remission of taxation, the relief was not considerably larger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had evidently learnt the lesson of his last Budget. The £1,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman took from unclaimed dividends, instead of being applied to the ordinary expenditure of the year, ought to have gone to the reduction of debt. He would be glad to hear at what price the Consols connected with that operation were sold. With the Sinking Fund proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition would cordially agree. They were anxious to see the national credit stand high, and the Chancellor's proposals tended in that direction. He was glad that the tea duties had been reduced, though he regretted that the amount available did not allow of a larger reduction. He was glad to hear that the drink bill had been diminished, and, although it meant less revenue to the Exchequer, the spending of the money in other directions would doubtless mean greater prosperity and happiness in the country. The everyday life and comfort of the people would be improved by still further reduction of taxation, and to that object he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention.

The debate may presently be directed more particularly to the tax which is the subject of the Resolution before the Committee, and before the discussion is narrowed down in that way it may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should reply on the general discussion which by consent has taken place on this Resolution. In reference to the tea tax, I would only say that I do not share the fear of my hon. friend below the gangway that the relief now given will not reach even the smallest consumer. I think it will reach him, if not in money, in improved quality of tea; I am hopeful that the competition which exists will be sufficient to secure that the relief should go, either in better quality or in lower price, to the consumers in the country. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire made some interesting observations. No doubt the advantage of tea can be exaggerated, but I do not go so far as my hon. friend in regarding tea as an insidious and deleterious article of food. At any rate, I hope the course apparently recommended upon certain posters now decorating the hoardings will not be followed, and that now the duty is lowered tea will not be made an ordinary article of infants' food. I share the regret—no one more than I—expressed by my hon. friend for North Islington that there is no relief for the income-tax payer in this Budget. Unlike the hon. Member for Poplar, I do not consider that the balance in recent years has bean to the disadvantage of the indirect taxpayer. On the contrary, it has been greatly to his advantage, and at the present time the scale is in his favour and presses unfairly against the direct taxpayer. The hon. Member added up the amounts estimated to be received from each addition of taxation, direct or indirect; subtracted one total from the other, and arrived at the result that the indirect taxpayer is contributing a greater proportion than he used to. That is a very misleading method. The hon. Member misleads himself when he makes a calculation on that basis. The only way in which you can make the comparison fairly is to take the respective proportions of the total taxation borne by the two classes of taxpayer. Yesterday in my Budget statement I compared the respective estimated yields of direct and indirect taxes with the actual results, and showed how that, owing to the falling off in the receipts from various sources of indirect taxation, the indirect taxpayer had contributed a smaller, and, consequently, the direct taxpayer a larger, proportion than I had expected. The proportions last year, according to my Budget Estimates, were 51·8 per cent. from in direct taxation, excluding the coal duty and stamps, and 48·2 per cent. from direct taxation. The actual yield was approximately only 50·9 per cent. from indirect and 49·1 per cent. from direct taxation.

Does that include the amount raised from local taxation?

Yes, and on my Budget Estimate for the present year indirect taxes fall to 49·8 per cent. while direct taxes rise to 50·2 per cent. Although it was not framed to produce that result, my Budget scheme of last year assigned exactly the same proportions to direct and indirect taxation as were estimated for in the year before the war. It will be seen, therefore, that the position of the indirect taxpayer is not less, but more, favourable than before the war, and, in my opinion, it is the direct taxpayer who has the greater right to complain of the present distribution of the burden. If it had been a question this year between the relief of the indirect taxpayer and the relief of the direct taxpayer, I think still, as I thought and said last year, that the latter would have had the first claim to consideration. But I regarded it as my first duty to make a greater provision for the reduction of debt, and when I had taken the sum which I thought sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for that purpose, the money remaining available for the remission of taxation was insufficient to give the income-tax payer relief even to the extent of 1d. I commend that comparison to the attention of the Committee; I think it is a much more accurate one than the method of comparison adopted by the hon. Member for Poplar, and I only need to add, in order to make my views complete upon this subject, that I think, although we have been accustomed to make these comparisons from year to year, and they may serve some useful purpose, that it should always be remembered that the distinction between direct and indirect taxpayers is wholly artificial. Whilst there are indirect taxpayers who do not pay direct taxes, there are no direct taxpayers who do not pay indirect, taxes. My hon. friend the Member for Islington said that amongst those most worthy of consideration when we are recasting our financial arrangements are the small payers of income-tax, upon whom probably, in spite of the abatements, the income-tax falls with sensible force, and who also have to make very great contributions to indirect taxation. Hon. Members on the other side of the House have not subjected my Budget proposals to any severe criticisms. They have, in fact, rather directed their remarks over my head or through me to those whom I may call my spending colleagues. They have claimed that I do not exercise a sufficient restraining influence upon them, and when I appear at this Table they say that I do not speak with sufficiently bated breath about the enormous amount of our expenditure, or dwell upon the urgent need for a reduction with the force and with the frequency which have been common with some of my predecessors. I said last year, and I repeated it yesterday, that I see no advantages in taking this course whilst the expenditure is on the increase. I think it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for the expenditure which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, is requisite for the service and safety of the country. I often find it my duty inside this House and outside the House to criticise proposals for expenditure. Sometimes the House listens to me and sometimes it does not. What passes between myself and my colleagues is our affair alone, and I do not pretend to reveal the secrets of our discussions here. I only say that if I did not believe that the expenditure embodied in our Estimates was necessary it would not be possible for me to continue to hold the position that I do. It must be my duty to scan that expenditure closely and to secure for the taxpayer, as far as it is in my power to do so, good value for the money expended, and to see that I do not provide more money than is necessary. I do not, however, regard it as any part of my duty, as the guardian of the national finances, to reject proposals for expenditure, merely because they involve expenditure, without regard to their merits or necessity for the defence or improvement of the country. The main point of this Budget is the proposed addition to the fixed debt charge and the measures which I have brought forward for reducing the Unfunded Debt. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not seriously criticised these proposals except from the point of view that good as they are, they would have been better if they had been larger, and the hon. Member for Poplar, speaking from the front Opposition bench with all the authority that that position gives him, came very near to pledging those of his colleagues who act with him that when they came into power they would still further raise the fixed debt charge. I shall be interested in the future to see whether they carry out that pledge should circumstances happen to transfer them to this side of the House, and when the future Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider all the questions that are now brought before me. All I can say is that if I find that they are inclined to go further than the course which I have now taken, I do not think they will find a very hostile critic in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, Sir, I think the Committee should know what we are proposing for the reduction of debt. The hon. Member for Poplar in the statement which he made to the Committee fell into an error which has been noticeable in more than one speech made in our debates, namely, that he took no account whatever of the Sinking Fund which is specially attached to the debt created for the works charged to capital account. Sir, that Sinking Fund is on a scale out of all proportion to the Sinking Fund attached to the ordinary debt. Hardly any of that Debt extends over a period of more than thirty years, and the Sinking Fund is such as to reduce the whole of it within that time. I estimate that the Sinking Fund which is provided outside the fixed debt charge and in the Votes of the various Departments was in 1904–5, £1,204,000. I estimate that in the present year it will be £1,683,000, and that sum has to be added to the amount of the Sinking Fund included in the fixed debt charge amounting to £8,428,000. Therefore the total amount available for the extinction of debt in the present year should be no less than £10,111,000. I think that is an adequate provision to make for the redemption of our debt, large as that debt is, and I think I should have been unduly tempting my successors if I had adopted the suggestions which have been pressed upon me from some quarters as to "applying the whole surplus to increasing the fixed debt charge without giving any relief of any kind to the taxpayer. I am all for a high Sinking Fund, and all for a big fixed debt charge, but I think there is some danger in pressing that principle too far, for by so doing you may make the Sinking Fund a burden so great that you may produce a reaction in the minds of the taxpayers which would undo the work you had done, and thus fail to achieve the very result which you wish to accomplish. Sir, I will say one word in reply to the hon. Member opposite. All I need to say is that if he would do me the honour to read the second speech I made yesterday in answer to some observations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, he would see that I dealt with the criticisms he made upon me to-day for not dealing this year with the terminable annuities which fall in next year, and that I have shown that, whatever be the merits of establishing new terminable annuities in preference to reducing debt in other ways, the particular course which he invited me to pursue as being one that would connect my name favourably with the finances of the country would not in my opinion reduce a penny more debt than the other ways which I have adopted. There are some hon. Members to whom the system of terminable annuities has a great charm and mystery, but if they understood more exactly their working they would attach less reverence to that particular method, and they would see that it is only one way which may or may not be the best one of obtaining the result which they desire. There are a couple of Questions put by the hon. Member for Poplar as to the sale of Consols held on the unclaimed dividend account. I cannot give the figures because I have not got them with me, but if the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper I shall no doubt be able to supply the information. No part of those Consols as sold in the market, but they were bought on account of another account by the National Debt Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman also asked for some information as to the yield of the increased duty on stripped tobacco last year. I estimate that I received from that source, after the Budget concession which reduced my proposed duty to one-half, on account of all stocks about £400,000 in the course of the year. The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether it was not the case that the importation of strips had very largely fallen off since the imposition of the duty. Certainly it has. It was part of my contention that the old scale of duties favoured strips unfairly to the disadvantage of whole leaf, and of course, if there was anything in that contention, as I still hold there was, the readjustment of the duty would naturally result in a larger importation of whole leaf and a smaller importation of strips. But apart altogether from that, I should add that the importation of strips is one thing and the consumption of strips in the course of a year is another thing; and the falling off in the consumption of strips in this country was very much less than the falling off in their importation. That is natural, and was the necessary result of the concession which I made for strips already in bond at the date of the introduction of the Budget, because any strips which are now imported are not coming in at 3s. 3d. merely in competition with whole leaf at 3s., but they are strips coming in at 3s. 3d. in competition with other strips at 3s. 1½d.; and, as the House knows, there was a very large stock of strips on hand at the time the new duty was imposed, of which rather more than one-third passed into consumption in the course of the past year, still leaving a very large number in this favoured position. It will not be until they have been very much more largely worked off that we shall be able to say what the result of the duty will be on the future course of the trade.

asked at what figure the right hon. Gentleman estimated the receipts from the taxation of last year, and whether it was not a fact that the imported strips had fallen off.

I can get for the hon. Gentleman the whole of the figures. If he tells me that he has refreshed his memory lately as to the fact I will take it from him. There has been an enormous falling off in the importation of strips. This is natural. Why should anyone import strips at 3s. 3d. when there are large stocks in the country ready to come into consumption with a duty of 3s. 1½d.? All the strips at present on hand have a preference of 1½d., and it cannot be expected that strips will be imported as long as the stock of them is sufficient. The hon. Member for Bolton raised a question which he has raised before in regard to the form of our national accounts. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great independence, disregarding every authority. He does not mind what Mr. Gladstone said; he holds his own view. He does not mind what the hon. Member for King's Lynn says, although he holds to Mr. Gladstone's idea. There are really two schools of thought on this subject. The hon. Member for Bolton, and those who think with him, would like to assimilate our form of national accounts to those of any business concern. There is a great deal to be said for that, and I have very great sympathy with the desire. I think it does mislead the House, and certainly the country, that the total expenditure is put on one side, and the revenue from the Post Office on the other side, of the accounts, and although profits grow year by year, not perhaps so much as we should like to see them, yet our expenditure is shown in a way which represents it to the taxpayer as if he were paying more taxes. The expenditure due to this cause is lumped in with the total and represented as being due to increased provision for naval and military purposes. I think that is a misconception fostered by the present form of accounts, and if I had to frame the accounts for the first time I do not think I should be inclined myself to frame them in the way they are now. But the present form has high authority behind it. It is the form which our accounts have taken for many years, and there is always a certain disadvantage in altering the form of accounts because it is apt to confuse the comparisons with previous years. Against the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and those who think with him, I have to balance the opinion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and those who agree with him, that the present form is the right one, and that we ought actually to go further in the same direction. The hon. Member for King's Lynn makes it a complaint that every appropriation-in-aid does not in the same way appear on both sides of the account. We carry out, let me say, the service for some petty loan. We advance £1,000 and receive it back. According to some hon. Gentlemen that ought to be shown in a separate suspense account, and ought not to enter into our balance-sheet at all. According to the hon. Member for King's Lynn the tax-payers will not know the true state of affairs until it is first added to the expenditure and then the revenue, and appears on both sides of the account. Who shall decide when doctors disagree? I am not by any means wedded to the present way of presenting the accounts. I have shown that by adopting the form of circular which was this year placed in the hands of Members when the Budget was introduced, and which I owe to the hon. Member for Exeter, to whom I think the Committee are indebted in this matter. I know that if I attempt to introduce changes without the general consensus of opinion behind them, however desirable in my opinion or that of hon. Gentlemen, there would arise great opposition, and a great expenditure of time would be caused. I think the Public Accounts Committee have some right to be consulted in these matters. Any expression of opinion from them would, of course, always receive my serious attention, and if they thought it well to recommend a change such as the hon. Gentleman proposes I should at any rate feel that that was some further inducement to incur the risk of criticism and of condemnation by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I hope if we are to have a discussion with special reference, to this tea tax the general discussion may now be allowed to close, so that we may take that special discussion before half-past seven.

They pay income-tax already.

said they paid income-tax on their gross income, but here would be an additional source to tax. Other sources of revenue could be obtained from pure luxuries and extravagance of living. The whole object of taxation should be to make all classes bear an equal sacrifice according to their position and the means at their disposal.

said that the hon. Member for Leicester had stated that the duty on certain kinds of tea was 100 per cent. of its value; but the hon. Gentleman had understated the case. It was considerably over 100 per cent. The tea most used by the working people was sold wholesale at from 4½d. to 5d. per 1b, and on that a duty of 8d. per 1b. had been paid last year. But that was not the only pressure put on the working classes, for they had to pay duty on the tea, and then also the percentage of profits on the whole price of the goods which had been increased in price by the duty. That was one of the evils of all indirect taxation; and a man who bought a tea originally sold at 4½d. per pound had to pay for it 15d. or 16d. per pound, whereas the man who bought a high-class tea at 4s. per pound paid a much smaller proportion of the duty compared with the working man. If some hon. Members would only visit the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire they would see hundreds and thousands of tins containing tea being carried to the workpeople two and three times daily, which showed the extent to which the beverage was consumed, and they would realise that a duty of even 6d. per pound was exceedingly heavy upon them. To impose the same duty on every quality of tea might be paralleled by levelling the same tax on every house in a town of, say, 20,000 inhabitants—whether it was a poor man's house or a rich man's house with three or four times the accommodation. He did not believe in what was called the relative proportion of direct and indirect taxation, for indirect taxation always carried with it a double burden, as it involved a taxation on profits as well as on original cost.

said it had been suggested that the tax on tea should be graduated according to the price paid for it. To a large number of people tea had now become an article of luxury, and many paid as much as four or five shillings a pound for it. A graduated tax should be put upon tea, and the burden of the tax would then fall on the shoulders of those who were well able to bear it.

thought the Amendment could not possibly be agreed to because the finances of the country would not bear it. It seemed to him that the right state of things in regard to indirect taxation would be reached when they got back to the condition prevailing before the war, and when there was no taxation on articles of universal consumption except such as were regarded as a luxury. He was afraid that he must class tea as a luxury, and he was of opinion that the quantity of tea and bread now given to children contributed very largely to the physical deterioration of the rising generation. The habit of drinking tea and eating bread and butter had lately been condemned by every hygienic authority. One of the causes of the great increase of insanity in Ireland was the practice of feeding children with tea and bread and butter in that part of the country. Tea and bread and butter did not furnish the materials required for the building up of bone in children. He did not put sugar in the same category. It was true that they could not feed a child on sugar alone, but in conjunction with other articles it was an extremely wholesome food, and he hoped to see the day when it would be untaxed, as it was in former days. No doubt it was an article of general consumption which in times of emergency, such as war and when the whole population of the country was called upon to make a sacrifice, might be taxed, but in times of peace it ought to be the object of every Government to free sugar from taxation as early as it could possibly be done, having regard to the due maintenance of finance. It was no part of the duty of a Government to say to the country what luxuries should be indulged in. That decision must be left to the people and whether the Government approved or not of the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, or tea, their feelings should not influence their minds on the subject of taxation. They might look to the taxation of those articles as reasonable incidents in the raising of the Revenue. He hoped the tax on tea might be further reduced as soon as the financies of the country would permit.

said even a small amount of duty fell upon the consumer. He did not agree with the view of reducing the tea duty instead of the sugar duty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had granted a reduction in the sugar tax he would have conferred an enormous advantage upon the country. He believed that, owing to the Sugar Convention, sugar held a totally different position to that which it held before. The Continental countries willingly contracted themselves out—

Order, order! The question of sugar does not arise on this Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to tea

understood that by the arrangement of the previous night a general discussion was to be allowed.

pointed out that this Amendment must be disposed of before a general discussion could take place.

said he desired to argue that sugar had a much greater claim to reduction than tea but in deference to the Chairman's ruling he would not continue his argument. He would at another time point out to the Chancellor the Exchequer the grave danger to the country likely to accrue if the sugar tax were not reduced.

said that owing to the exigencies of the case the Government was unable to accept the Amendment.

said the question of an ad valorem duty on tea had been raised by the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion. He did not think the hon. Gentleman was aware how great would be the difficulty in imposing an ad valorem duty. They heard a great deal of comment regarding the high ad valorem rate which the tax bore to the value of the article. He did not think the way in which that argument was used was always honest or frank because he did not know among those using it any one who was in favour of an ad valorem duty. He recently received a very influential deputation of the trade which touched lightly on the proportion of the duty to the value, and he put the question to them direct—would they like him to impose an ad valorem duty? They did not give him a definite answer at first but told him it would be impossible to collect such a duty, and subsequently they begged of him with all the emphasis at their command not to do it. They pointed out that it tended to penalise the higher class article; to force the consumption of the lower grade and to restrict the consumption of the higher grade teas. He did not know whether much tea was sold at the prices I named by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he could assure him that it was by no means a universal fact that poor people or the working classes drank the worst tea. Some time ago he had occasion to examine some Irish budgets which were familiar to members of the Congested Districts Board, and he wanted the amounts respectively spent on tea and tobacco. There was no estimate set out of the quantities, and he consulted an hon. Member from Ireland as to what he thought would be a fair price to charge upon the tea which was consumed in that country. The hon. Member replied that he could not answer the question off-hand, but it might be taken for certain that the poor Irish peasant generally drank a good tea and would not be put off with poor rubbish. Accordingly an ad valorem duty might not result in bringing relief to that particular class to which the hon. Gentleman was anxious to give it. But even if it were not open to that objection there would be an enormous difficulty in imposing a duty in that form. Sales of tea no longer took place as formerly in the sale rooms. Some of the great distributors now had their own tea gardens and imported their own tea. In 1834–35 there was an attempt to graduate the duty and there were three rates, 1s. 6d., 2s. 2d., and 3s. respectively, but the discrimination then in force would not be applicable in the circumstances of to-day. That attempt to graduate the tea duty really broke down because the Customs authorities of that time found it impossible properly to distinguish between the different teas, and whatever theoretical attractions it might have to the hon. Gentleman it would prove to be harassing and annoying to the trade. It would require them to intrust an enormous discretion to the Customs authorities which could not be exercised without criticism, and might in the end result in the poor people having to pay a far higher price for their tea than they did now.